Sitting of 4 July 1916

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—
Great Central and Sheffield District Railways Bill [Lords].
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
Provisional Order Bills [Lords] (No Standing Orders applicable),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, brought from the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:—
Municipal Corporations (Buxton Scheme Confirmation) Bill [Lords],
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time To-morrow.
Metropolitan Electric Tramways Bill,
Plymouth and Stonehouse Gas Bill,
Uxbridge Gas Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Irvine's Divorce Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
Lecky's Divorce Bill [Lords],
Read a second time, and committed.

ORDINANCE OF THE UNIVERSITY COURTS OF THE UNIVERSITIES OF ST. ANDREW'S, GLASGOW, ABERDEEN, AND EDINBURGH, GENERAL No. 4 (REGULATIONS AS TO PRELIMINARY EXAMINATIONS).
Petition of the General Council of the University of Glasgow, against enforcement; to lie upon the Table
COAL SHIPMENTS.
Copy presented of Tables giving details as to Shipments of Coal Abroad, Coastwise, and as Bunkers, from each port of the United Kingdom for each of the years 1914 and 1915 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
NAVAL AND MARINE TAY AND PENSIONS ACT, 1865.
Copies presented of Four Orders in Council, dated 27th June, 1916, made under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
GREENWICH HOSPITAL ACT. 1865.
Copy presented of Order in Council, dated 27th June, 1916, approving a Memorial to the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty praying sanction to increased salary to the Superintendent of the Royal Hospital School, Greenwich [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
FOREIGN JURISDICTION ACT, 1890.
Copy presented of Two Orders in Council, dated 27th June, 1916, made under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
HOUSING, TOWN PANNING, ETC., ACT, 1909.
Copy presented of Draft Order of the Local Government Board approving, with modifications, the Chesterfield (Chester Street Area) Town Planning Scheme [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copy presented of Order made by the Council of the undermentioned local

1341
authority, and confirmed, with Amendment, by the Secretary of State for the Home Department:—

Urban district council of Bedlington-shire

[by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

MAGISTRATES (IRELAND).
Return ordered "showing the names, addresses, occupations, or descriptions of the persons appointed to the Commission of the Peace in Ireland since the 31st day of December, 1913, including all appointments to the end of 1915 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 461, of Session 1914–16)".—[Mr. Rupert Gwynne.]
ANGLO-PERSIAN OIL COMPANY.
Copy ordered "of the Directors' Report and Balance Sheet for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1915."—[Mr Montagu.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    GERMANY (TERRITORIAL ACQUISITION)
    Mr. PONSONBYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has had any official information to the effect that the German Chancellor has authorised a statement in the semi-official "North German Gazette" to the effect that he endorses the speech delivered by Herr Scheidemann at Breslau, when the latter opposed all territorial acquisition by Germany; and whether he has any other information confirming this view of the Chancellor's attitude?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. Grey):I have no other information on the subject except what has appeared in the Press.

    BRITISH PRISONERS IN BULGARIA AND TURKEY.
    Mr. MALCOLMasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he
    1342
    will now publish such Reports as have a reached him upon the conditions of British prisoners and prisoner camps in Bulgaria and Turkey?
    Sir E. GREY: No recent Reports have been received from the United States representative at Constantinople as to the condition of our prisoners in Turkey, and we are inquiring when Reports that may be published may be expected. With regard to Bulgaria, we are informed that all f the British prisoners have been assembled at Philippopolis, with the exception of a small number who are employed in construction work in the interior. As soon as f this work is finished they will be sent to Philippopolis. The prisoners are treated on an equal footing with Bulgarian soldiers. Parcels are being distributed to them. Their health is good.
    Mr. MALCOLM: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the Report, so far as Bulgaria is concerned?
    Sir E. GREY: No, Sir; it would be too much to say whether we are satisfied with the Bulgarian Report, but we have not got anything we can publish.

    GERMAN PRISONERS OF WAR.
    Mr. MALCOLMasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will publish the Reports made by the United States Embassy, in Paris, upon the condition of the prisoner camps in France, to which German prisoners have been sent to work from England?
    Sir E. GREY: We hope to publish the Reports in question, and are in communication with the United States Embassy on the subject.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Is it proposed to continue sending prisoners to France in view of the fact that British prisoners are now being sent to Poland by the German Government in retaliation?
    Sir E. GREY: I must ask for notice of that question. I think it ought to be addressed to the War Office, who are responsible. Perhaps the hon. Member will put it down.
    Mr. MALCOLMasked the Under-Secretary for War whether he will consent to publish any official or semi-official Reports that may have reached him from neutral sources on the subject of the treatment of German prisoners of war, military and civilian, in Great Britain?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY or STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): The only official reports on the treatment of combatant and civilian prisoners of war in this country emanate from the American Embassy and from the International Committee of the Ked Cross, Geneva. The latter have been published and the advisability of publishing certain of those made by members of the American Embassy is under consideration. The publication of semi-official reports is not thought to be advisable.
    Mr. MALCOLMasked the Under-Secretary for War whether British prisoners of war interned in detention camps in Germany are still forbidden to receive parcels of food from home; whether a similar prohibition exists for German prisoners in England; and, if so, will he consent to relax this regulation and ask for reciprocity of treatment for British misdemeanants in Germany?
    Mr. TENNANT: It appears by the latest reports from the American Ambassador in Berlin that some latitude is allowed in regard to what a prisoner of war in detention in Germany may receive, but it is evident that bread is not allowed. German prisoners in this country who are similarly situated are not permitted to receive parcels of food, but a suggestion will be put forward to withdraw this restriction on the promise of reciprocity by the German Government in regard to British prisoners.
    Sir J. D. REES: Does the right hon. Gentleman say German prisoners in camp are not allowed to receive parcels of food?
    Mr. TENNANT: I said those in detention camps were not.

  BRITISH PRISONERS IN GERMANY.

    INADEQUATE FOOD SUPPLY.
    Mr. MALCOLMasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply, if any, has been received from the German Government regarding the starvation of British prisoners at Ruhleben; and what course His Majesty's Government intends to adopt towards German civilians interned in Great Britain?
    Sir E. GREY: No reply has been received from the German Government to our Note, a telegraphic summary of which was communicated to them on the 26th ultimo. I cannot say more till His
    1344
    Majesty's Government have been able to consider the question of German prisoners in this country.

    BARLEY (SCANDINAVIAN IMPORTS).
    Colonel GRETTONasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that large quantities of barley were shipped from America to the Scandinavian Peninsula and thence forwarded to Germany last season; and if he will take steps to prevent renewal of these supplies of barley to Germany?
    Sir E. GREY: The information in the possession of the Foreign Office does not confirm that of my hon. and gallant Friend. The importation of barley and meal into the Scandinavian Peninsula as a whole since January, 1915, has been below the normal. The matter will, however, be carefully watched and any information which my hon. and gallant Friend can give us on the subject will be welcomed.

    DETENTION BARRACKS AND MILITARY PRISONS.
    Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, both in the case of conscientious objectors and of Irish prisoners imprisoned without trial, so much sympathy is often evoked in the soldiers and warders guarding them in confinement that these soldiers and warders smuggle out letters to friends, and bring in letters or food to those suffering imprisonment; whether such smuggling of letters or food is against regulations; whether any soldiers have been punished in connection with such practices; if so, how many; and whether, in view of the wide sympathy shown to so many thousands of British subjects in prison who might be doing useful service, he will mitigate the Regulations now in force?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am not aware whether conscientious objectors or Irish prisoners evoke sympathy in the soldiers and warders guarding them. My hon. Friend will find complete information on the subject of the smuggling of letters in paragraph 151 of the "Rules for Detention Barracks and Military Prisons," which are published by Messrs. Harrison and Sons, St. Martin's Lane, W.C.; and I take this opportunity of pointing out to my hon.

    1345
    Friend in regard to his request that I will mitigate the Regulations now in force, that the "Rules for Detention Barracks and Military Prisons" are statutory and made by the Secretary of State for War under Section 133 of the Army Act.

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    LOCAL TRIBUNALS.
    Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he has inquired into the case of E. F. Lawley, who was granted by' the Croydon Local Tribunal absolute exemption, but who has been nine times subsequently before the tribunals, local and Appeal; whether he is aware that this case is, after months of delays and adjournments, not yet settled and that Lawley, who is a capable clerk, has been thus thrown out of all employment; and whether, in view of Lawley being a man of slight physique and declared by medical authority to be quite unfit for any military service, he will now instruct the military authorities to close their persecution of a man who can in no case become an efficient soldier?
    Mr. TENNANT: I have inquired into this case and I am sorry that my hon. Friend should have been misled into using the word "persecution" in connection with it. Mr. Lawley was granted exemption from cambatant service only by the Surrey Appeal Tribunal and applied to the local tribunal for a review of his certificate and declared willingness to undertake work of national importance. It is true that his case came before the tribunal on the 13th April, 16th, 22nd and 25th May, and 2nd, 8th and 16th June, and on every occasion was adjourned either at his direct request (I would ask my hon. Friend to note this) or solely with a view of giving him time to find suitable employment. At last, on the 22nd June, Mr. Lawley stated that he had an offer of educational work. The necessary inquiries were made and on the 30th June the tribunal granted Mr. Lawley a certificate of exemption conditional on his remaining in scholastic employment. I suggest that it would have been fairer if my hon. Friend had carried his researches into this case somewhat deeper. If he had done so, I venture to think he would have abstained from presenting it in a false light.
    Colonel YATE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if it is safe to entrust the education of our youth to men of this sort?
    Mr. TENNANT: I do not think he will have much opportunity of inculcating our youth with these principles.
    Mr. HANCOCKasked the Under-Secretary for War how far tribunals have been supplied with Instructions R86; and is he aware that many members of the tribunals have no knowledge of any such Instructions being issued, and that, consequently, sole proprietors of businesses are not receiving any of the considerations they are entitled to under those Instructions?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): Copies of the Instructions were sent on the 8th ultimo to all tribunals. Additional copies may be obtained, if requested. There is, therefore, no reason why members of tribunals should not be acquainted with the Instructions.
    Sir GEORGE TOULM1Nasked the Under-Secretary for War whether his attention has been called to the reversal of the exemption granted by the Widnes Tribunal to Mr. James A. Hill, manager of Messrs. Bibby and Baron, Limited, by the Liverpool Appeal Tribunal; whether he is aware that the firm transferred their machinery from Bury to Widnes because of the difficulty of securing sufficient female labour; that this transfer took place after consultation with the superintendent of the Labour Exchange of Warrington and district, and after several appeals from the Widnes Exchange on account of the amount of unemployed female labour there; whether he is aware that Mr. Hill is the only eligible man employed by the firm who has not enlisted and the only man capable of managing the concern and adjusting the machinery, the only other man employed at Widnes being a disabled and discharged soldier; whether he, is aware that the military representative appealed from the decision of the Widnes Tribunal and gave the Appeal Tribunal to understand that the undertaking was a new one only open two months; whether he is aware that this statement led the Appeal Tribunal to refuse to listen to any explanation and to decline to allow any appeal, although the statement was entirely correct, no new

    1347
    machinery being employed; and whether, in view of the fact that Mr. Hill is indispensable if the women and girls are not to be thrown out of employment, the military representative can be instructed to assent to the rehearing of the appeal, or some other method be found of securing a hearing on appeal of the full facts of the case?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am obtaining information about this matter, but it has not reached me yet.

    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
    Mr. MORRELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he has yet obtained a report as to the allegations of brutal ill-treatment and cruelty perpetrated on 17th June and other days by Lance-Corporal Barker and others upon a number of conscientious objectors at Prees Hill Camp, near Whitchurch, Salop; if he will say what was the nature and conditions of the inquiry that was held; whether the men themselves were questioned and examined; and whether any independent person from outside the Army took part in the investigation?
    Mr. TENNANT: I will read to the House a report which has been made by the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Western Command:
    "Chester,
    28th June, 1916.
    1. On 19th.June, 1916, a telegram was received from Mr. Bland, 203, Barkerbouse Road, Nelson, to the effect that certain conscientious objectors in 17th Battalion Cheshire Regiment at Frees Heath Camp were being ill-treated by a Lance-Corporal Barker.
    2. A copy of the telegram was at once sent to the General Officer Commanding Frees Heath Camp, for full inquiry and report.
    3. The report has now been received, and is as follows:
    'Private Carradice arrived in camp under escort, and was placed in the guard-room. He stated that, as a conscientious objector, be could obey no orders. The next day be was sent to his own tent, and when ordered to turn out on parade would not do so. Lance-Corporal Barker then seized him by the back of the neck and ejected him. As he would not march anywhere, Lance-Corporal Barker cuffed him along. Private Carradice was next taken to the bath cubicle, and, refusing to wash, was bandied somewhat roughly by Lance-Corporal Barker—having his ear pulled.
    The case of Private Ingham is practically similar.
    The Commanding Officer states that these men (with five others) were seen by him on arrival. They refused to answer any questions, were most disrespectful in manner, and stated they were conscientious objectors. He consequently directed that they should be handed over to a N.C.O. who was a good disciplinarian. On visiting the tent where these men were first placed he found it in a dirty and disgraceful state. The men absolutely refused to clean up. He then directed Lance-Corporal Barker to have the tent cleaned, and as is done with all recruits) to see that they had a bath. He
    1348
    (the C.O.) states he has never seen any violence offered to these men, nor have they ever made any complaint to him.
    It is undeniable that undue force was used by Lance-Corporal Barker, who was carried away by excess of zeal in his efforts to carry out the instructions of his superior officers. No permanent injury was inflicted, however, and what roughness he used was under very great provocation, as the men appear to have been in league to disobey all orders given to them. As Lance-Corporal Barker has crippled fingers, it would appear to be physically impossible for him to have struck severe blows.
    It may be added (a) that disciplinary action has been ordered to be taken against Lance-Corporal Barker for his treatment against these men, and that he is not in future to be placed in charge of conscientious objectors.
    (b) Mr. Bland has been written to informing him that disciplinary action has been taken in this case.
    (c)Orders have been given that in future no attempt is to be made to compel soldiers physically to obey orders, but that, if insubordinate, they are to be forthwith remanded for trial by District Court-Martial.'"
    Sir STEPHEN COLLINSasked the Under-Secretary for War (1) whether his attention has been called to the case of a conscientious objector named Sydney Cooper, of Leeds, who, on or about Monday, 29th May, at Richmond, was roughly handled, then frog-marched until blood rushed from his mouth; whether he will use his best endeavours to put a stop to such treatment; what steps he proposes to take; and (2) whether he will inquire into the allegations that have been made with regard to the treatment with certain conscientious objectors, including Fred, Charles, and Harry Walker, are believed to have undergone at the lower barracks, Chatham, on or about 18th May, and in particular if he will ascertain whether these men were-knocked about in such a manner that one of them fainted twice; and whether he proposes to take any steps in the matter?
    Mr. TENNANT: If the hon. Member will forward me definite statements upon which inquiry can be based, I shall be happy to have the same instituted.
    Mr. E. HARVEY: Was not the first case brought before the House a month ago by the hon. Member for York, and full details then given?
    Mr. TENNANT: I do not know. I could' not be expected to put the two things together.
    Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the investigator whom he sent down to inquire into the alleged complaints of Private Ithel Davies as to his treatment in the Mold Detention Barracks for refusing to obey military orders on conscientious grounds saw and examined Private-Davies; whether the staff-sergeant and

    1349
    the corporal who are accused of having ill-treated Private Davies have now been removed from Mold Detention Barracks; whether the investigator saw and examined these two non-commissioned officers; and whether, in order that he may not be imposed upon or placed in a false position before coming to a final decision as to the facts alleged by Private Davies, he will cause the investigator to obtain from Private Davies himself an account of the treatment which he received from the staff-sergeant and the corporal during the first three days which he spent in the Mold Detention Barracks?
    Mr. TENNANT: In the supplementary answer I gave on the 27th June, where I spoke on an independent investigator, I was referring to the detention barrack visitor mentioned in paragraph 45 of the Rules for Military Detention Barracks and Military Prisons. My hon. Friend will realise from my former answer that an exhaustive inquiry has been made into this case. The main facts elicited are: That Davies, though given ample opportunity for making a complaint to the visiting officer, made none; that four non-commissioned officers state that, so far as they are aware, Davies was never struck or ill-treated in any way; that there were no marks of ill-usage to be seen upon Davies; that the sergeant-major took him aside, talked to him, endeavoured to give him good advice, but could exert no influence over him; and, finally, that Davies told the medical officer that he had no complaint to make. I trust the House will agree that this is a complete answer to this question.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the questions I have put down, namely, whether the staff-sergeant and the corporal who are accused of having ill-treated Private Davies have now been removed from Mold Detention Barracks—
    Mr. TENNANT: The answer to that is in the negative.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: And whether the investigator asked a single question of Private Davies?
    Mr. TENNANT: I gave my hon. Friend a very complete answer to his question.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: No!
    Mr. TENNANT: Whether the visitor actually cross-examined Davies or not I cannot say—
    Mr. WILLIAMS: He did not.
    Mr. TENNANT: There was no necessity for him to do so, absolutely none. Under the Rules of Detention Barracks if a visitor goes along and asks if there are any complaints, and no one makes a complaint, it is not the business of the visitor to go round to each individual and ask, "Have you any complaint?"
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman cause inquiries to be made of the colour-sergeant who rescued Davies from the brutality?
    Mr. MORRELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he can give any information with regard to Llewellyn Hughes, a conscientious objector, who was tried by court-martial at Chatham on 1st June and transferred to Wandsworth on 9th June; whether he has been kept for some weeks in solitary confinement; whether he has suffered severely in health; and whether he will soon be transferred to civil custody under the Army Order of 25th May?
    Mr. TENNANT: This man was admitted to Wandsworth on the 9th June and on 10th June was awarded punishment for refusing to obey orders. He was in hospital from the 13th June to the 26th June and was visited in hospital by his mother as a special case. On the 27th June he refused to parade and there is reason to believe he is a malingerer. I understand the man has been remanded for trial by court-martial, in which case he will doubtless come under the conditions of Army Order No. 10 of the 26th May. My hon. Friend's suggestion that he has been kept some weeks in solitary confinement, unless he regards hospital treatment as solitary confinement, appears to be without foundation.
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the thirty-four conscientious objectors sentenced to death in France have now been brought to England; if not, when are they expected; whether it is his intention to recommend the exercise of the Royal prerogative so that the commuted sentences of penal servitude shall not be carried out; or whether they will be treated under the scheme announced on 29th June?
    Mr. TENNANT: The hon. Member may rest assured that all prisoners sentenced to penal servitude are sent to England as soon as the necessary arrangements for their movement have been made. The

    1351
    hon. Member is doubtless aware that sentences of penal servitude cannot be carried out in France. It is not the intention to recommend the exercise of the Royal prerogative, and the conscientious objectors under discussion will be treated under the scheme announced on the 29th June.

    RIPLEY CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY.
    Mr. HANCOCKasked the Under-Secretary for War whether he is aware that on 10th May, when the Ripley (Derby) Co-operative Society appealed for four men to be exempted, the military adviser told the society's secretary that it was not in the national interests that co-operative societies should exist, because they do not pay Income Tax; that a special meeting of the members has expressed the opinion that this statement prejudiced these four cases, that this adviser does not deal impartially with such cases, and that another person should be appointed to deal with their cases; and will he give instructions for some other person to attend when this society's cases are to be considered?
    Mr. TENNANT: My attention has been called to a statement made to the local tribunal in connection with an application by the Ripley Co-operative Society. Instructions have been sent to all military representatives informing them that the question of the special arrangements as to Income Tax in connection with co-operative societies are not relevant to an application for the exemption of employés of such societies. I am not aware of the circumstances mentioned in the latter part of the question, but I think that the instructions to which I have referred will meet the case.

    BRAMSHOTT CAMP, HAMPSHIRE.
    Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary for War whether he can state the terms on which the common land used for the formation of Bramshott Camp, Hants, has been taken over by the War Office; to whom, and for how much, has any payment been made; for how many years is it arranged that this camp, if desired by the War Office, can be maintained; whether any compensation has been or will be offered to the commoners for the loss of their rights; and whether pending legislation is intended to give to the War Office or other Government Department greater powers over the land of Bramshott Camp?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): The common was taken over at an early stage of the War under emergency powers. The commoners at a meeting held in December, 1915, passed a public-spirited resolution promising to assist the War Office as far as possible on the understanding that the camp was for war purposes only, and that when it was given up the buildings would be removed and the ground restored as far as possible to its former condition, compensation being paid for actual damage. The Lord of the Manor's claim to compensation in respect of his common rights and military occupation of his freehold land has been dealt with by the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission who awarded him payment at the rate of £165 per annum, the bulk of this being in respect of his freehold land. The question of reinstatement on termination of the occupation was reserved. The Defence of the Realm (Acquisition of Land) Bill is not intended to give the War Office or other Government Departments any increased powers over Bramshott Common beyond specifying the maximum period during which this camp can be used after the War.
    Mr. KING: In view of that reply, will the Government agree to the insertion of some provision which will absolutely safeguard the common and the commoners?
    Mr. FORSTER: I think my hon. Friend will have an opportunity of raising this question in Debate to-morrow, and I hope a satisfactory explanation will be forth-coming.

    WITLEY CAMP, SURREY.
    Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary for War whether he can state the terms on which the common lands on which the Witley Camps, in Surrey, have been established have been taken over; what sums, if any, have been paid to holders of manorial rights, or what sums are so due or payable, and to whom are such sums paid; for how many years have the lands been acquired; and whether any recompense has been made, or will be made, to those who have common rights in the commons on which Witley Camps have been established?
    Mr. FORSTER: These commons were taken over at an early stage of the War under emergency powers. No compensation has been paid to the Lords of the Manor who generously agreed that the Department should have the use of the

    1353
    commons during the present national emergency without payment. The War Department, on the other hand, agreed that, on the cessation of military user, the grounds should be reinstated as nearly as possible to its former condition, and that compensation should be paid to commoners who suffered substantial monetary loss.
    Mr. KING: Will the same remarks apply in this case as in connection with the preceding question.
    Mr. FORSTER: I think so.

    EXEMPTION OF CLERGY.
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that whilst there are a number of men who refuse to undertake military service on conscientious grounds but who are subject to the Military Service Act, there are at the same time a number of men excepted as clergy who have no such objection; and will he consider the advisability of inviting or compelling these clergymen to take the places of the conscientious objectors in the ranks?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): No, Sir, I do not propose to adopt the suggestion.

    ATTESTED YOUTHS UNDER NINETEEN YEARS.
    Mr. MORRELL(by Private Notice): I beg to ask the Under-Secretary for War a question of which my hon. Friend (Mr. Snowden) has given notice, whether he can say what are the probabilities of attested youths being called to the Colours before they reach the age of nineteen?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am glad to take this opportunity of correcting what I said on 26th June. I should have said it is not improbable that these youths will be called to the Colours, whereas I fear I did say it is not probable. An error had crept into the typewritten reply from which I was reading.

  DISTURBANCES IN IRELAND.

    WOUNDED CIVILIANS.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War why the military authorities under martial law in Dublin refused to take the evidence of
    1354
    wounded civilians in the Dublin hospitals, seeing that all those wounded persons declared it was the soldiers who had fired on them, and were willing to give evidence to that effect?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am informed that there is no truth in this insinuation.

    MRS. NAYLOR.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he has yet received a report in the case of Mrs. Naylor, shot on the bridge at Great Brunswick Street, Dublin, by soldiers firing from the belfry of Haddington Road Church; under whose orders those soldiers continued for five hours firing on that bridge, where there were no Irish combatants, thus preventing the removal of the dying woman, who eventually died while being carried to hospital; and why the military did not allow an inquest in this case?
    Mr. TENNANT: No information has been received in the Irish Command of the alleged shooting of Mrs. Naylor, but I am taking steps to ascertain the facts.

    DEATH OF REV. FATHER WAITERS.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Under-Secretary for War at what date martial law was relaxed in Dublin to the extent of allowing priests to visit the sick and dying; whether from the Proclamation of martial law until that date priests could discharge their functions only at the risk of their lives; whether it was within that period that the Rev. Father Watters, while on his way to administer the last sacraments to the dying, was shot dead by the military in the sight of several witnesses; and why no inquest or inquiry of any sort has been held?
    Mr. TENNANT: While the fighting was in progress and an area was enclosed by a cordon permits were sent to the Most Rev. Dr. Donnelly, P.P., to hand to priests who wished to attend to the dead, dying, or wounded inside the cordon. Priests inside the cordon could move freely there. The moment the cordon was withdrawn all priests could move freely. No complaint as to this arrangement was received. No priest was known to have been injured except Father Watters, who was reported to have been wounded by a stray bullet while entering his house. He died of his wounds on 8th May and was buried on 10th May. No suggestion has ever been

    1355
    made as to his wound having been inflicted in any but an accidental manner, nor was any request for an inquest sent in.

    PATRICK PEARSE'S PAPERS.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the UnderSecretary for War, seeing that the only formal surrender of the Irish republican army allowed to reach the public is that purporting to have been signed by Patrick H.Pearse when in custody, whether he is now in a position to describe the surrender fully; whether all who knew the terms of surrender first offered by Mr. Pearse before surrender have since been executed; whether it was to prevent his making those terms known that, differing from the other men sentenced to execution, no one was allowed to see Mr. Pearse; whether his mother was prevented from seeing him; whether his brother William, subsequently executed, was prevented from seeing him lest he should learn and convey the terms of surrender; if there was any other motive for the exceptional seclusion, what was it; and whether, now that the exigencies of the time are past, he will, in justice to a brave man, state the terms first offered by Mr. Pearse before surrender?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am unable to give the hon. Member any information at present as regards the publication of official Reports describing the events connected with the recent rebellion in Ireland. There is no truth in the allegations contained in the latter part of the hon. Member's question.
    Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform us when that Report will appear? Is he aware that in denying the statement in the latter part of my question he is grossly misinformed?
    Mr TENNANT: No, Sir, I cannot fix the date. Perhaps the hon. Member will put a question to the Prime Minister on that subject?
    Mr. MORRELL: Is it true Pearse's mother was not allowed to see him before his execution?
    Mr. GINNELL: Yes.
    Mr. TENNANT: I have no reason to believe it.
    Mr. GINNELL: Has not the right hon. Gentleman acknowledged it in this House?

    PRISONERS UNDERGOING PENAL SERVITUDE.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Prime Minister how many prisoners are now in penal servitude in connection with the recent insurrection in Ireland; whether any but those are undergoing penal servitude in pursuance of sentences of courtsmartial; and whether, having regard to the character of the Courts and to the circumstances, the Government have considered the advisability of treating them all as prisoners of war, subject to effective security of detention?
    Mr. TENNANT: According to the latest returns 125 are in penal servitude. The answer to the rest of the question is in the negative.
    Mr. GINNELL: Were all these cases tried in camera?
    Mr. TENNANT: I dare say that is so.

    UNTRIED PRISONERS.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether Messrs. O'Flaherty, Troy, and Sweeney are still detained untried prisoners in this country though known to the medical officers to be in a state of health unfit for imprisonment, the first from age and heart disease, the second from acute rheumatism, and the third from a mental disease; whether Mr. Troy, while unfit to be out of bed, has been forced to walk in great pain several miles to the camp at Frongoch; whether he has yet recovered from the effects of that treatment; and, if these three men are not to be released immediately, whether an independent doctor will be allowed to examine them?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. H Samuel): There are four prisoners at Frongoch bearing the surname of O'Flaherty, and two bearing that of Troy. If the hon. Member will furnish the full names of the two prisoners in whom he is interested I will make inquiry with regard to them. Peter Sweeney is receiving all necessary medical attention. The medical staff of the places of detention is adequate to deal with cases of illness.
    Mr. GINNELL: Will Mr. Sweeney be released, as the prison officials wish him to be off their hands?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I cannot give any assurance that he will be released.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Is he still in solitary confinement?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I do not think he has been in solitary confinement.
    Mr. HEALY: He has been, and you denied it in this House.

    INTERNED PRISONERS.
    Mr. DILLONasked the Home Secretary what steps he took to satisfy himself in each case before he signed internment orders for hundreds of Irish prisoners who have been interned under the Defence of the Realm Act?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I had in each case before me a recommendation from the competent military authority showing definite grounds for internment under Regulation 14 B of the Defence of the Realm Regulations. The order is not final; it is subject to revocation if the prisoner makes representations and if the Advisory Committee, after full consideration of the case, recommends that the internment should mot be maintained.
    Mr. SCANLAN: Has the right hon. Gentleman satisfied himself in each case, before he signed the internment order, that there was competent evidence on which such order might be signed?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I accept the recommendations of the competent military authority. It is not possible for me on the evidence at my disposal to examine the cases individually of all the 1,800 prisoners. They have all been referred to the Advisory Committee for further examination.
    Mr. HEALY: Did the right hon. Gentleman take any steps specially as regards any prisoners to prescribe that certain of them should be kept in solitary confinement?
    Mr. SAMUEL: No, Sir.
    Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR: To whom is the reference made? Is it to the police, or a recommendation which is not final, as the right hon. Gentleman has now said, or to the military authority of Ireland; and from whom does the right hon. Gentleman expect the report upon which he can act before releasing the person recommended?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I do not quite follow the question. I do not know what recommendation the hon. Member means. The report which I am awaiting in this case
    1358
    is the report of the Advisory Committee, the constitution of which I have repeatedly mentioned in the House.
    Mr. SCANLAN: Is it the position of the right hon. Gentleman that he has made orders for internment without himself investigating the cases?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The orders have been made by me on the recommendation of the competent military authority which has investigated each case, and I have referred all the cases for further inquiry to the Advisory Committee which advises me.
    Mr. HEALY: At whose instance were special prisoners marked out for solitary confinement?
    Mr. SAMUEL: No prisoner has been sentenced to solitary confinement.
    Mr. HEALY: It is so.
    Mr. LYNCH: Has the right hon. Gentleman any reason to believe that the competent military authority exercises any care or discrimination whatever in the examination on which he acts?
    Mr. SAMUEL: Yes, I know that he has made very careful inquiries and received legal advice with regard to the various cases.
    Mr. GINNELL: Have these persons been furnished with any charge but the vague one of hostile association, and what is the hostile association referred to?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is getting rather far from the question on the Paper.
    Mr. DILLONasked the Home Secretary whether he will publish immediately a full statement of the procedure of the Advisory Committee now inquiring into the cases of the interned Irish political prisoners; and whether he can state what steps have been taken to convey to the prisoners full and detailed knowledge of their rights in regard to an appeal to this Committee?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The procedure is simple and informal. All written representations made by the prisoners are referred to the Committee, and the Committee give full individual consideration to each case. They are now engaged in seeing the prisoners personally and hearing any statements they may wish to make, and, after they have seen the prisoners, they will, if they consider it necessary, call witnesses. They propose to go to Dublin

    1359
    in order to hear witnesses there. In each case the prisoner has been served with a written notice informing him of the grounds on which the order was made, that he is entitled to make representations against the order which will be submitted to the Committee, and that, if I am Ratified by the Report of the Committee that he can be released without injury to the public safety, the order will be revoked.
    Mr. SCANLAN: In each individual case is the prisoner, before he is called upon to appear before this Committee, supplied with a definite statement of the charge against him?
    Mr. SAMUEL: He is supplied with a statement which is in general terms, though not so indefinite as suggested by the hon. Member.
    Mr. SCANLAN: Is it the case that no particulars are given to a prisoner before he appears before Mr. Justice Sankey's Committee except the facts to which he has to answer?
    Mr. SAMUEL: There is nothing in the nature of a legal indictment. The proceedings are more or less informal, and the man makes his own statement as to his share or lack of share of complicity in the rebellion.
    Mr. HEALY: Is the statement in the Press correct that the hon. Member for Newry is a member of Mr. Justice Sankey's Committee?
    Mr. SAMUEL: Yes.
    Mr. HEALY: Why do you not put on the hon. Member for Waterford?
    Mr. LYNCH: Will the Government even now consider, in regard to the public advantage, the advisability of giving a general amnesty to close up the whole business?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of this.

    VISITS TO PRISONERS.
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Under-Secretary for War whether he will arrange with the Home Office to allow visiting at Frongoch camp on Sundays; and if he will extend the time allowed to visitors to one hour?
    Mr. SAMUEL: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. I
    1360
    regret that, owing to exigencies of staff, it is impossible to give such facilities for visits as the hon. Member suggests.
    Mr. GRAHAM: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the train journey to Frongoch from London is about six hours, and Irish Members visiting the prisoners are only allowed a quarter of an hour to interview the prisoners at the prisons?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I am aware of that.

    DR. KATHLEEN LYNN.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Home Secretary whether permission, will be given to Dr. Kathleen Lynn to visit her sister, who is medically certified to be lying dangerously ill of fever at Cong, Ireland, and to nurse her until she is convalescent, Dr. Lynn being willing to sign any reasonable undertaking required by the Home Office or the military authorities; and whether the permission will be wired to her to-day?
    Mr. H. SAMUEL: I have only just received notice of my hon. Friend's question. Dr. Lynn is not interned, but is required to reside in this country, at Bath. After verifying the facts, and on receiving the assurance of which the hon. Member speaks, I hope to be able to arrange for Dr. Lynn to go to nurse her sister.

  MUNITIONS.

    BARNBOW MUNITION WORKS, LEEDS.
    Mr. C. DUNCANasked the Under-Secretary for War whether he is aware that two trade union organisers were arrested and detained on the instructions of the manager of the Barnbow Munition Works, Crossgates, near Leeds, on 21st June; whether he can state the reason for this action; and will he give instructions to the manager that such conduct is improper?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MUNITIONS DEPARTMENT (Dr. Addison): I am informed that these two men were found within the boundaries of a national munitions factory without the passes which are required for admission to such factories. In the circumstances they were very properly detained by the management and transferred to the custody of the police for inquiries to be made. They were liberated within a very short time.
    Mr. DUNCAN: Was there any notice up on the road on which these people were walking?
    Dr. ADDISON: I cannot answer that without further inquiry. But it is well known people cannot enter munition works without passes.

    CENTRAL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).
    Colonel GRETTONasked the Minister of Munitions if the sanction of Parliament will be asked for the purchase of the breweries and licensed trade in the Carlisle area; and if the price to be paid will be submitted to the approval of Parliament?
    Dr. ADDISON: The purchase referred to and the question of the price to be paid are fully covered by the Defence of the Realm (Amendment—No. 3) Act, the Defence of the Realm (Liquor Control) Regulations, and the terms of reference to the Defence of the Realm (Losses) Royal Commission. Parliament can, of course, express its opinion when the Vote for the Ministry of Munitions is under its consideration.

    WOMEN WORKERS (WAGES).
    Colonel Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Minister of Munitions when he will take steps to redeem his promise, in July last, that women in controlled firms should have a fair wage; and whether he will exercise the powers conferred on him by the Munitions (Amendment) Act to secure that all women workers in munition factories shall have a minimum wage of 5d. an hour, seeing that the cost of living has risen 40 per cent, since the outbreak of the War?
    Dr. ADDISON: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for Attercliffe.

    RAILWAY SUPPLY DEPARTMENT.
    Mr. HANCOCKasked the Under-Secretary for War whether he has concluded the inquiry which he has been making into the payments made to miners employed in the Railway Supply Department; and, if so, will he state the result of his inquiry?
    Mr. FORSTER: The inquiry is not yet completed.
    Mr. HANCOCK: Has the hon. Gentleman any idea when the Report will be ready?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am not losing any time unnecessarily, but I cannot give the exact date.

    WAR OFFICE (TEMPORARY WOMEN CLERKS).
    Colonel Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Under-Secretary for War why the temporary women clerks in the War Office are paid 25s. for a week of 48 hours whereas in all other Government offices they receive 25s. for a week of 42 hours; whether the temporary male clerk in the War Office receives a minimum of 31s. 6d. for a week of 42 hours;: and whether the temporary male clerk receives overtime pay after working 42 hours a week and the temporary women clerks do not receive overtime pay till they have worked 48 hours?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am not aware of the pay issued in other Government offices to women clerks, but I would point out to the Noble Lord that women clerks in the War Office, after passing a satisfactory probation, receive 30s. a week. The answer to the last two parts of the question, is in the affirmative.

    GERMAN CASUALTIES (KILLED).
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he can give an estimate of the number of Germans killed since the outbreak of war; and how many male Germans reach the age of eighteen each year?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am afraid I can satisfy the hon. Gentleman's bloodthirsty cravings only with estimates, and not with scientifically ascertained facts. According to the German official casualty lists published up to the 31st May, 690,268 of all ranks had been killed or died of wounds. I must not be taken as doing more than giving the official German figure. Hon. Gentlemen must form their own estimate of the credibility or accuracy of these figures. Any estimate, however, in the numbers of killed and died of wounds, whose names have been omitted from these casualty lists, must be purely conjectural

    1363
    In answer to the second part of the question, I may inform him that it has been calculated that the number of males between seventeen and eighteen years of age on the 1st December, 1914, was 674,580, and on the 1st December, 1915, 691,274.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Why does the right hon. Gentleman refer to this question as being a bloodthirsty craving on my part, when the object of it was to show how many Germans of military age are killed each year and therefore the futility of the War?

    INFANTRY EQUIPMENT.
    Mr. O'GRADYasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the 1908 Infantry equipment was adopted on ideas submitted by Colonel (then Major) Burrowes, of the Royal Irish Fusiliers; whether this officer placed his ideas entirely at the disposal of the War Office in 1903; whether Burrowes' design was eventually patented in 1906 by the Mills Equipment Company, at present contractors for supplying this article; whether the Mills Equipment Company are now in a position to exact royalties from the War Office and from other firms manufacturing the article on their patent; and will he state the reason for the War Office agreeing to a private company patenting an invention handed ever by an officer on active service to the Department?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am afraid that my hon. Friend has been misinformed. Colonel Burrowes' design was adopted as the most suitable, but it could only be satisfactorily carried out in web material by employing a special weaving process belonging to the Mills Equipment Company. Colonel Burrowes was, therefore, allowed to enter into arrangements with the Mills Equipment Company, under which he was remunerated by them in return for the right to use his design. The royalties payable to this firm are partly in respect of Colonel Burrowes' design and partly in respect of the use of their special weaving process.

    WOOL (ARMY PURCHASES).
    Sir JOHN SPEARasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if at least one-third of the 1916 clip of grease wool was sold at 15d. per lb. before the issue
    1364
    of the order; and if he will fix that as the price to be paid by the Government in taking the wool they require?
    Mr. FORSTER: No figures are available to show the amount of the 1916 clip, which had changed hands before the date of the order, but I am advised that the quantity is probably small. The price at which such wool changed hands would vary greatly according to quality. The prices which it is proposed to pay for English wool will be higher than the price quoted in some instances and lower in others. I think that it would be convenient if I were to say now that I am prepared to receive a representative deputation on the question of the price to be paid. We have no wish to be harsh or unreasonable, and I think the matter could best be dealt with in this way.
    Captain BATHURST: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that many farmers have already paid for the wool on their sheeps backs considerably more than he is now offering them for it?
    Mr. FORSTER: That, among other aspects of the question, can be best dealt with when we deal with the matter by deputation. I hope the deputation will be representative of all classes who are interested in the question so that we may have a thoroughly satisfactory discussion.
    Mr. G. FABER: When will it be held?
    Mr. FORSTER: I do not know. As soon as the deputation can be organised.
    Mr. GWYNNE: Was the Board of Agriculture consulted?
    Mr. FORSTER: Yes.
    Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR: Is the hon. Gentleman sending out invitations to persons suitable to form part of such a deputation?
    Mr. FORSTER: I do not think it rests with me to send out the invitations, otherwise I might unconsciously invite those whom I wished to meet. Perhaps the arrangements had better be in the hands of the Central Chamber of Agriculture and the National Farmers' Union.
    Mr. WARDLE: Is it a fact that the price the War Office are now offering for wool is 60 per cent, higher than it was during the ten years preceding 1914?
    Mr. FORSTER: It is 60 per cent, higher than the average of eight years preceding 1914.

    INFANTRY SUBALTERNS (PAY).
    Mr. ASHLEYasked the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the fact that the pay in cash to second-lieutenants of Infantry of the Line serving at Home varies from 7s. 6d. to 10s. a day and the pay of first-lieutenants is 1s. a day more, he can see his way to extend to subalterns of the Line serving at Home the same privileges as to grants for meeting rent, rates, taxes, and other liabilities as have been granted to those serving in the ranks?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I have consulted my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and he is prepared to agree to the extension of the scheme to lieutenants and second lieutenants who joined the Forces on or after the 4th August, 1914, whether they joined as officers or in the ranks.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Does that apply to the Navy as well?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: Yes, I think it will apply to the Navy as well, but I will consult my right hon. Friend before giving the hon. Member a final answer.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS.
    Mr. JONATHAN SAMUELasked the Secretary to the Local Government Board what is the number of disabled soldiers at present receiving industrial training under schemes initiated by the Statutory Committee?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: The Statutory Committee think it desirable to utilise existing schemes for training disabled soldiers pending a full consideration of the whole of this difficult and complicated subject. They are giving earnest attention to it. I may add that there are in operation a number of schemes for the purpose referred to.
    Mr. J. SAMUELasked the Secretary to the Local Government Board whether it is the intention of the Statutory Committee to appoint a permanent secretary to the Committee; and, if so, when?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: The Statutory Committee have not at present decided upon the appointment of a permanent secretary. Meanwhile the duties of secretary have been performed by Lieutenant-Golonel Alfred Welby, the secretary of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: Does not the Statutory Committee think that it is essential that there should be now a permanent secretary appointed so long after the constitution of the Committee?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: It is still more essential, that they should get the right man. They have every hope of getting the right man if they wait a little longer.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is Colonel Welby giving his services voluntarily, or is to be paid?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: He has been secretary of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation. Whether he will receive any honorarium at the end of his term of office it is impossible for me to say.

    BRIGADIER-GENERAL OWEN THOMAS.
    Sir HERBERT ROBERTSasked the Prime Minister what are the duties of the administrative military position in Wales which has been offered to Brigadier-General Owen Thomas; and whether the position has been accepted?
    Mr. TENNANT: The appointment offered to Brigadier-General Owen Thomas was a recruiting appointment. I understand that General Thomas has stated he is unable to accept the offer.

    SUPPLY OF COAL TO FRANCE.
    Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the circular headed Supply of Coal to France, dated 25th May, 1916, has been issued with the authority of his Department; whether Clause 8 of that circular provides that coal exporters and coalowners in each district of the United Kingdom shall appoint committees; whether the coal exporters of the Port of London have appointed a committee; whether that committee has been refused by the Central Executive Committee the right of representation upon its membership, and whether the Board of Trade will take steps to ensure such representation, in view of the large tonnage of coal exports controlled by London firms trading with France?
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Harcourt): The circular referred to was printed and issued by the

    1367
    Board of Trade, and Clause 8 provides for the appointment of local committees. I understand that a London Committee has been appointed, but that it is not represented on the Central Committee. Neither the local committees nor the Central Committee are in any way appointed by the Board of Trade, and I fear, therefore, that the Department cannot well intervene in the matter.
    Sir F. FLANNERY: Will the right hon. Gentleman use the influence of his Department to enable this appointment to be made?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I will see what can be done.

    AMERICAN MEAT TRUST (BACON SUPPLIES).
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) how many tons of American bacon there are in the London docks; if he is aware that the American Meat Trust will not allow tons of bacon to leave the docks, and in consequence tons of it are going rotten; and if he has received a Report on the matter in accordance with his promise; and (2) if he is aware that fifty barges of bacon seized as unfit for human food on the Thames belonged to the American Meat Trust firms; and if he will take steps to prevent the American Meat Trust allowing good food to perish?
    Mr. HARCOURT: The quantity of bacon now on the docks and quays in London is considerably larger than usual, but I have been unable to learn from reliable sources of the condemnation of any important amounts other than such as had suffered sea damage; the last occasion when considerable amounts were condemned on this ground was over five months ago. After careful inquiry I cannot find that there is any foundation for the statements in my hon. Friend's questions.
    Mr. THORNE: Has the Board of Trade any power to make the American Beef Trust unload this bacon instead of keeping it stored, not only in London but in the Port of Liverpool, for the purpose of keeping up an inflated price?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I cannot answer as to powers without notice.
    Mr. R. McNEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to discover whether the American Beef Trust is in fact holding up supplies, and if so, make short work of them?
    Mr. HARCOURT: Yes.

    CHURCH LANDS (SMALL HOLDINGS FOR SOLDIERS).
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the clergy of the Church of England have secured exemption from the Military Service Act, he will promote legislation for Disendowment, so that the lands held by the Church may be put to national use, such as the provision of small holdings for discharged soldiers?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir. I do not propose to adopt the suggestion.

    ROYAL DOCKYARDS (RATES OF PAY).
    Mr. C. DUNCANasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that when men are moved from southern Royal dockyards to similar yards in the north, a distinction is made between the allowances made to skilled as against less skilled men of 2s. 6d. for the night; and whether he can see his way clear to raise all to the 7s. 6d. rate?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD OF ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The allowances mentioned are those payable under Admiralty Regulations. They are based on the workmen's rates of pay. The rates of allowance have been fully considered, and no alteration therein is proposed. My hon. Friend seems to think that a new rule as to these allowances has been introduced in connection with the transfer of men from the south to the north. That is not so.

  AIR SERVICE.

    CAPTURE OF BRITISH MACHINE.
    Mr. GWYNNEasked the hon. Member for Rugby, as representing the Air Department, whether a flying machine of the latest type was recently sent from Farnborough to France in charge of a pilot -who had never been abroad before;

    1369
    whether the officer informed the authorities beforehand that he did not know his way; whether he lost his way and eventually landed by mistake in the German lines; and, if so, what steps, if any, have been taken to avoid our newest machines being handed over to the Germans within a few hours of completion?
    Major BAIRD: The facts are as stated, except that from the inquiry held it does not appear that any protest was made by the officer in question. The circumstances under which the incident occurred are as follows:—A batch of machines of a well-known type had been fitted with a new type of engine. These machines were urgently required at the Front, and a number of officers were detailed to take them over to France. Some of these officers had done the journey before, others had not: all were qualified cross-country pilots trained to fly the type of machine in question. The particular officer referred to graduated as a pilot for this type of machine after thirty-two hours' flying, which is considered an ample amount. His report showed him as efficient and a good cross-country flier. The need for machines in France is so great that it is impossible to keep them back until officers are available to fly them over who have previously done the journey, which, moreover, is not considered a difficult one for a trained cross-country pilot. To take a machine across is an ordinary incident in a pilot's duties, and as many as twenty-four machines have gone over in one day lately. Such regrettable incidents have occurred to the Germans also, who recently presented us with a brand new Fokker. There is no means of avoiding them altogether in war times, but every care has been taken and will continue to be taken to reduce the risk of their occurrence to a minimum. The pilot in this case evidently lost his way, and it appears from a letter received by his parents from him that his machine was hit and rendered unmanageable by fire from the ground as he was descending. Otherwise, on discovering his mistake, he might have got away.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Was the pilot supplied with the usual map, or was it an out-of-date map?
    Major BAIRD: I anticipated some curiosity on that point, and consequently
    1370
    I have taken the precaution of providing myself with a copy of the map, which I shall be prepared to show to my hon. and gallant Friend. It is the Ordnance Survey map as used by the general staff and supplied to pilots.
    Mr. R. GWYNNE: Will the hon. and gallant Member say whether there was an observer on board, and, if so, had he any experience of the route?
    Major BAIRD: Yes, Sir, there was an observer on board, but he had no more experience of the route than the pilot. It is not a question of knowing the route any more than you can expect the man who takes a ship to New York to know the road to New York. It is a question of knowing the navigation. This pilot was qualified as an aerial navigator, and he should have had no difficulty in finding his road.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Was the passenger an observer, or simply a passenger?
    Major BAIRD: I should like notice of that question.

    PORT OF LONDON (WAGES OF WATCHMEN).
    Mr. CROOKSasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether a petition presented by the watchmen of the Port of London to the Commissioners of Customs and Excise has been brought to his notice; and whether further consideration will be given to the possibility of making some concession to meet the increased cost of living to these men, whose standard rate is only 24s. a week?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Montagu): A petition from the London watchers was received by the Board of Customs and Excise on the 27th June. It has been transmitted by them to the Treasury, and is now under consideration.

    INDIAN ARMY OFFICERS (RATES OF PAY).
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India under what Regulation officers on the supernumerary list of the

    1371
    Indian Army have their Indian pay cut when temporarily employed under the War Office?
    The COMPTROLLER of the HOUSEHOLD (Mr. Charles Roberts): The officers of the Indian Army, to whom I understand my hon. and gallant Friend to refer, ordinarily receive "unemployed" pay, which has been fixed on the assumption that they would not be receiving other pay from Government sources. On their employment by the War Office the question of the total emoluments that these officers should be permitted to draw was discussed with that Department, and it was decided that in certain cases a reduction of Indian unemployed pay should be made with the object of fixing the aggregate emoluments at reasonable rates, having regard to British and Indian scales of pay generally. Under this decision officers whose War Office pay does not exceed £200 a year continue to receive their full Indian unemployed pay; in other eases a reduction is made which varies according to the rate of pay received from the War Office.
    Colonel YATE: Will the hon. Gentleman answer my question: Under what Regulation has this been done?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I gather that it is not a Regulation, but a decision between the War Office and the India Office.
    Colonel YATE: Then I am to understand that this is done ultra vires and contrary to the Regulations?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I do not think that inference can be drawn.
    Colonel YATE: I do.

    MID-SCOTLAND CANAL.
    Major CHAPPLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether our naval activities in the North Sea have demonstrated the advantages that would have resulted from a mid-Scotland canal connecting the Forth and Clyde; and whether he will secure from those best able to judge a report on the strategic value of such a canal?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I am afraid that this question cannot be discussed with advantage at the present time.

    LECKY'S DIVORCE BILL [Lords].
    Message to the Lords to request that their Lordships will be pleased to communicate to this House copies of the Minutes of Evidence and Proceedings, together with Documents deposited, in the case of Lecky's Divorce Bill [Lords].—[The Lord Advocate.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: Can the Prime Minister inform the House what business will be taken on Thursday?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Subject to rearrangement, on Thursday we shall take the further stages of Bills on the Paper to-day and to-morrow.
  Mr. MORRELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he will give an opportunity for discussion of the new scheme as regards conscientious objectors?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I think we had better see the new scheme in working first.

  OUTPUT OF BEEK (RESTRICTION) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  OUTPUT OF BEEK (RESTRICTION) BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Limit on Brewers' Output.)
    (1) A brewer shall not brew at his brewery during the first two quarters to which this Act applies more than the aggregate maximum barrelages for those quarters as determined for the purposes of this Act, and shall not brew at his brewery in any subsequent quarter to which this Act applies more than his maximum barrelage for the quarter as determined for the purposes of this Act.
    (2) If a brewer acts in contravention of this provision he shall be liable in respect of each offence to an Excise penalty of one hundred pounds, and, in addition, to an Excise penalty of two pounds for every barrel of beer brewed by him exceeding the maximum barrelage.
    (3) This Section shall not apply to brewers other than brewers for sale.
    Amendments made:
    In Sub-section (1), after the word "brewery" ["brewery during"], insert the words "or breweries."
    Leave out the word "two," and insert instead thereof the word "three."
    After the word "brewery" ["brewery in any"], insert the words "or breweries."—[Sir G. Younger.]
    Colonel GRETTON: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (3), to add the words "nor to beer brewed solely for export, if exported."
    A very large quantity of beer brewed in this country is exported, and the restrictions embodied in the present Bill have been designed for use at home. A very large business has grown up during the last eight or ten months in connection with this export, and the effect of this Bill if forced on the brewing trade would be to cut off a very large part of that beer, which would be supplied through other sources. I am informed that in certain cases the export of malt for beer is going on, and I believe that to be the fact. There is also the fact that the Government, while restricting the output of beer for consumption by the troops in France, are not restricting the importation of foreign barley as malt which is to go on under this Bill, and though the beer is not brewed in this country, the malt is sent to France to ferment there. There is also this consideration. The supply of German beer to foreign countries has been very largely cut off, in fact, almost entirely cut off. This given our breweries an opportunity for trade which will be useful to this country at the termination of the War. If there is a restriction on export that trade will be lost and will fall back again into German hands. There are brewers in this country, of whom I am one, whose trade in beer for export purposes is a trade in old beer—that is to say, beer brewed in one season would not be exported from this country until the year after. For brewers in that position the supplies of beer brewed before this Bill was introduced will suffice for the immediate future, but looking ahead for a year or more, this Bill is going to impose most serious restrictions. I think that those points should be taken into consideration. I am not impressed by the arguments in reference to the tonnage occupied by beer that is exported. Beer is not exported in shiploads. It is only exported in small quantities, in comparatively small consignments, as part of a general cargo. The beer exported from this country goes to those particular foreign countries to which there is not a very large export of material at the present time, and where ships are constantly required to bring back articles which are urgently needed in this country, often by

    1383
    the Government, and nearly always for national purposes. I certainly think that this case requires some consideration by the Committee, and I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Pretyman): I am afraid that I cannot accept this Amendment, because the effect of it would be that whereas all the beer available for consumption in this country was to be reduced by 15 per cent, any quantity of beer might be exported. That would clearly defeat the object of the Bill. I think that I can answer the points that have been made by my hon. Friend. The export of malt is now prohibited. My hon. Friend shakes his head.
    Colonel GRETTON: It is licensed.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: It is prohibited. It cannot be exported without a licence. Licences are being confined to a quantity of lager beer malt which is already in existence in this country, and which it would be waste not to allow to be exported, because there are only two or three brewers of lager beer in this country, and without exception they prepare their own malt. I understand that the malt used for brewing lager beer cannot be used for brewing ordinary English beer. Therefore, if this malt were kept here and not allowed to be exported it would be simply wasted. The malting season is now over, and it is not proposed to allow this export to continue when the new malting season begins. Maltsters have been so informed. I assent to what my hon. Friend says, that the object of this Bill is not to prevent small parcels of beer or malt either being exported. The main object is to prevent the importation of large quantities of brewing materials. If we accepted this Amendment I am afraid that the object of the Bill would be defeated. I hope that my hon. Friend will not press the Amendment.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: Perhaps my hon. Friend's Amendment goes a little further than he desires, because it refers to the export of beer to every part of the world, but the hon. Gentleman's answer with regard to the beer exported for our troops in France is surely not conclusive. The hon. Gentleman suggests that the malt
    1384
    which was going to be sent from this country to France to make this beer is lager beer malt, which would be of no use in this country. It would be of no use in this country at the present moment, but it can be made of use by putting it into the kilns and exposing it to a higher temperature than that to which it was originally subjected. But this is an argument which I take note of in order to emphasise, if I can, the almost idiotic way in which the Board of Agriculture has dealt with this matter from the beginning. I do not think that I am using too strong a word. More than a year ago it was brought to their notice that a certain amount of malt was being made by maltsters in certain parts of England and Scotland for the purpose of lager beer brewing in Holland and Denmark. The Board of Agriculture in Scotland showed conspicuous and somewhat unusual good sense by prohibiting its export altogether. But that policy did not find favour with the Board of Agriculture here, and it was hard lines on those in Scotland who had made this malt, without any idea that their trade would be interfered with, not to be permitted to export it, while in England they were exporting on a licence—this was a year ago—and there was no need whatever that they should go on making any more. The hon. Gentleman now tells us that they have made a great deal more, causing a repetition of the situation, which has been one of acute agitation ever since, and they should not, I submit, be put in the difficulty of having to ask the hon. Gentleman now for leave to do that which they had leave to do last year. I hope that the practice will be stopped now, and that a little more consideration will be shown than has been manifested in the past in this matter. If it be true that the malt can be utilised here, it is surely better to brew the beer here than to send the malt to France to be brewed there. In the first place they brew in France under very bad conditions, which cannot be compared to the conditions here with regard to cleanliness or in other respects, and I believe there have been very grave complaints from the military authorities as to the beer which is brewed in France. In any event, even if the bad beer were made in this country instead of in France, there would be the advantage of having it brewed here, and the money coming back to us.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: This amount of malt I is additional, and, if the hon. Gentleman stopped it, you would not be able to export another gallon of beer.
    Colonel GRETTON: I do not understand that last remark made by the hon. Gentleman. It is quite clear that there is power to export malt by licence, and it has been very plainly put by the acting President to the Board of Trade, in answer to a question the other day, that the, Department still intend, so far as they are concerned in the matter, that malt shall continue to be exported for the supply of beer to the troops. We are asking that the beer shall be brewed in this country as far as possible, but you are going to allow the malt to be brewed abroad, and you will not allow the extra quantity to be brewed in this country. The matter apparently does not seem to be very clearly understood, but I do not want to press it on the Government at the present moment. There are certain facts which I do not wish to discuss publicly at this stage, but which I may have to bring before the House on the Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Standard Barrelage.)
    (1) The maximum barrelage shall be determined by the Commissioners in the ease of each brewery and shall be, as respects any quarter, the standard barrel-age as defined in this Section with the addition as respects any quarter after the first quarter of the surplus barrelage as so defined.
    (2) The standard barrelage for the purposes of this Section shall be—

    (a) in the case of a brewery which was working during the corresponding quarter in the year ending the thirtieth day of September, nineteen hundred and fifteen, the number of barrels which appear to the Commissioners to have been brewed at the brewery in that quarter; and

    (b) in the case of a brewery which was not working in the corresponding quarter of that year, the number of barrels which appear to the Commissioners to be reasonable having
    1386
    regard to the average number of barrels brewed at the brewery during the time the brewery has been working; and

    (c) in the case of any special brewery where the Commissioners are satisfied that, owing to the transfer of a brewing business or any other change of circumstances taking place after the thirtieth day of September, nineteen hundred and fifteen, and before the fifteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and sixteen, the standard barrelage as ascertained under the foregoing provisions affords an unfair standard of comparison or no standard of comparison, such number of barrels as the Commissioners think just having regard to the special circumstances of the case;

    reduced in each case by fifteen per cent.:
    Provided that if a brewer rives notice to the Commissioners before the first day of June, nineteen hundred and sixteen, that he desires that this Section should be applied to his brewery with the substitution of the year ending the thirtieth day of September, nineteen hundred and fourteen, for the year ending the thirtieth day of September, nineteen hundred and fifteen, and of thirty per cent, for fifteen per cent., this Section shall be applied to his brewery with those substitutions, subject to the power of His Majesty by Order in Council to withdraw this privilege or to substitute any higher percentage for thirty per cent. if, at any time after the expiration of six months from the first day of April, nineteen hundred and sixteen, it appears that the rate of the total output of beer in the United Kingdom is not reduced to below a rate of twenty-six million barrels a year.
    (3) For the purposes of this Section the surplus barrelage shall be, as respects any quarter, the number (if any) of barrels by which the aggregate number of barrels brewed during the previous quarters to which the Act applies is less than the aggregate standard barrelage for those quarters.
    Colonel GRETTON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), paragraph (a), to leave out the words "thirtieth day of September, nineteen hundred and fifteen," and to insert instead thereof the words "thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and sixteen."

    1387
    I understand that the retail trade offers no objection to this proposal, and it appears moreover to be very necessary. This is where I think it comes in. I understand that at a later stage an Amendment will be moved, imposing the same dates, which the Government will accept, and which has been agreed to by all the traders concerned, to the effect that the retail trader shall, under certain circumstances, be entitled to a certificate to enable him to get his beer as a free trader. It is quite obvious that if the retail trader under this Amendment has to work on a period to be inserted in the Bill, the wholesale trader must work on the same period. The effect of the Amendment which I submit is to substitute last winter for the winter before. It is obvious that if the production in the earlier period had been higher and business had fallen off, no difficulty would arise because there would be sufficient beer in the market, but the case must be considered where, by the development of large munition works, or as the result of Government orders for troops and so on, there has been a large increase in the demand for beer during last winter. If this Amendment is not inserted, this peculiar ease will arise, that the output of beer in a particular neighbourhood will, under this Bill, remain at 85 per cent. of the amount in the earlier period, and if my Amendment is not inserted, and the later Amendment is accepted, the result will be that the retail trader will be able to go to the brewer and require a certificate of 85 per cent. on the second winter when trade was so much higher. The brewer cannot brew it, and the retail trader will go to another brewer and get a larger quantity than the previous brewer was allowed to produce. If the certificate of the brewer and of the retail trader corresponded and were for the same period, the quantities would correspond.
    4.0 p.m.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I have considered this Amendment very carefully, and because of the difficulty which it raises I cannot see my way to accept it. I really do not think it is necessary, and it would cause very great inconvenience, particularly at the Excise. The period we have chosen is the complete brewing year, ending the 30th September, 1915, and in conferences which have taken place about this Bill several suggestions were made of different periods not ending with the complete brewing year, and the Excise authorities always expressed great objec-
    1388
    tion to any departure from that, unless it was absolutely necessary. The brewers generally have agreed to the 1915 period. My hon. Friend shakes his head, but they have agreed to that. We had conferences with the trade, at which my hon. Friend could have been present if he liked. The trade conference of the Brewers' Society agreed to the period for 1915. That was the arrangement; and the amount of beer brewed in the twelve months of the complete brewing year ending 30th September, 1915, the standard year, was 30,222,000 barrels, the total amount of beer brewed in the year ending 30th of March, 1916—that is what my hon. Friend suggests we should take—was 30,290,000 barrels, practically identical. The position to which my hon. Friend refers is really provided for and we are perfectly prepared to take that risk. It may make a few gallons of difference, and, if so, that will have to be adjusted, if adjustment is necessary, which I hope it will not be. The suggestion is that under a Clause which we hope to accept later on from the hon. Member for Birmingham (Sir F. Lowe) we shall allow a licence holder to give a certificate to a brewer for a quantity equal to that which he received during a certain period, and that that certificate might be larger; but, on the other hand, it might be less than the amount he would be entitled to brew under the Bill. If a few odd barrels are added to the brewer's output under that arrangement he will have the right to them and no objection will be raised to that certificate being returned to the same brewer. Therefore I think my hon. Friend ought to be grateful rather than the reverse for this arrangement being allowed to stand. The reason for the adoption of the 1916 period in the later Clause is, as I explained on Second Heading, to carry the arrangement between the licence holders and the brewers up to the latest possible date, so that we may take the arrangements as they are and not as they were six months before. Therefore, on the whole, I have come to the conclusion that in the interests of the Bill and of all concerned it is better to leave the Bill as it stands.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: When the agreement to which the hon. Gentleman refers was made the Clause of the hon. Member for Birmingham had not been considered and was not on the Paper. The object of proposing this Amendment is in order to bring the two Clauses into really close

    1389
    relation with one another; otherwise you will require adjustment between the year chosen and the period selected, since the year 1914–15 may be quite different from those of 1915–16. Take the case of a canteen, for instance. They may ask for a certificate and get it, but their camp may then be in Southampton and it may have previously been in Edinburgh, and other brewers would probably not be able to supply the order. This is merely a question of expediency. The hon. Gentleman spoke of an Excise difficulty and of the brewing year. The Excise make up their accounts every month and make their calculations on monthly or quarterly figures, and it would be no trouble to them to take any particular period, so that that is no argument whatever against the adoption of the Amendment.
    Colonel GRETTON: It has never been explained what the objection of the Excise is, except, perhaps, to the hon. Gentleman. The Bill has nothing to do with the Excise except in the limitation of brewing. As it happens, the quarters would work out very evenly under this Amendment, and the figures are always made up in quarters. If that is the only objection to the Amendment, I really must press it upon the hon. Gentleman. My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs mentioned the case of canteens. This Amendment will facilitate the business of canteens, and if he has in mind the Board of Control, to which I do not feel any particular friendliness at present, if necessary this will facilitate them also. I cannot accept the objection of the hon. Gentleman, and I am surprised that the argument has been used that this has been agreed to by the trade generally. When 1915 was agreed to there was no question of substituting another period for another purpose. The whole position is changed by the Amendment at a later stage. Obviously the thing is unworkable in itself, and I must ask the hon. Gentleman to further consider the Amendment.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I am sorry the hon. Gentleman thinks it desirable to press his Amendment, which, after careful consideration, I cannot accept. The whole of the arrangements have been based on the year 1915. So far from the statement of the hon. Gentleman being justified, he was not present, and perhaps is saying what he has heard and not what he knows himself. After my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham's Amendment appeared on the Paper there was a further confer-
    1390
    ence of brewers with all the representatives of the brewers, when they agree in substance to accept the Amendment.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: Not after the Amendment was on the Paper.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Not in its exact present form, but the Amendment in its original form. It has been modified to a certain extent, but the principle as it now stands—that is, the principle of Free Trade against Compulsion, which is what it amounts to—was agreed to at that conference. No suggestion of this kind was put forward, and no suggestion officially made afterwards. I am perfectly certain this Amendment would injure the bill and create difficulties. This Bill has really been in operation since the 1st April last, and has been working on the standard of 1915, and has been accepted and in force all over the country. My hon. Friend, who is in constant touch with us, thinks it desirable to make changes which will be of some advantage to the trade. I have no doubt his object is to help us in every possible way, and I desire to acknowledge that the brewers generally have done their best to help us. But we have to deal not only with my hon. Friend but with the whole trade, large brewers and small brewers and everybody concerned. They have been proceeding on the understanding that we are going to act on the 1915 standard. Further than that, we have given an alternative of 1914. They have made careful calculations, and have made up their minds whether they are going to have 1914 or 1915. Now my hon. Friend wants suddenly to put all that into the melting-pot and suggests that we should take 1916, which would mean that everybody would have to reopen the books and go into a totally new calculation and discover whether it would be better to decide, not between 1914 and 1915, but between 1914 and 1916.
    If I saw any real advantage in the change I would face that, because my whole object has been to try and cause the least inconvenience possible to everybody concerned. I recognise that inconvenience has to be caused. As long as we get our restrictions, after that our object is to cause the least possible inconvenience to all concerned. I have gone into this Amendment from that point of view, and I do not think my hon. Friend has really made out any strong case for the Amendment. Officials and others who have a most intimate knowledge of the trade an I

    1391
    with every desire to give as little trouble as possible take that view, and I have come to the conclusion, taking all things into consideration, that the present standard of 1915 is better, even allowing that some small discrepancy may happen when the Amendment of the hon. Member for Birmingham is accepted, therefore I must adhere to my decision.
    Colonel GRETTON: I understand the hon. Gentleman does not think that I was speaking with the concurrence of others in the brewing trade. I can assure him that if that is his difficulty then I think it can be overcome. I hope I shall afford him proof that this Amendment is really required, and I now ask leave to withdraw.
    Mr. HODGE: I object to the Amendment being withdrawn, and I do so only for the purpose of pointing out how the whirligig of time brings its own revenge. When various other Bills have been before the House the Government have been jibed at from the other side of the House because they consulted with Labour Members, as, for instance, in the case of the Munitions Act. But here to-day we have evidence of the fact that the Government have been in consultation with the brewing trade with respect to this particular Bill. I do not object to that. I think in the best interests of measures of this character that it is essential that those who know most about them and are greatly interested in them should be consulted. I simply desire to point the moral that in future we should remember this particular aspect of the matter.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. PETO: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2) (a), to leave out the word "fifteen" ["nineteen hundred and fifteen"], and to insert instead thereof the word "fourteen."
    Although the hon. Gentleman told us that the brewers agreed generally to this, as a matter of fact a very great deal happened between 30th September, 1914, and the corresponding date in 1915. In some cases brewers took very large contracts for the supply of beer to canteens, while in other districts brewers found that a great many of their customers had removed from the neighbourhood, and therefore their output was reduced. The diminution of output in respect of brewers who agree to take the 1915 standard is 15 per cent., but the smaller
    1392
    country brewers who are injured by the removal of their customers, and by their concentration in camps where canteen contracts operate, are required, if they select the 1914 standard, to reduce their output by 30 per cent. I cannot see any equity or justice in that. I should like to hear what the real reason is. It may be necessary to take into consideration the fact that there has been this concentration of beer drinkers in certain localities, that these large contracts have been made, and that the brewers who have been fortunate enough to increase their profits in this way should get off so much more lightly than the unfortunate country brewers who have been harassed in every possible way under the Regulations of the Central Control Board. They have the worst of both worlds. Their customers have been taken away and they are not allowed to supply those remaining, and yet if they want to have a normal period of their brewing output taken as the basis, they are to have their trade reduced by double the amount proposed in the case; of the more fortunate brewers. I am sure that the small country brewers never agreed to this, either at the conference which has been referred to or anywhere else. I have had the strongest protests from them. If the real object of the Government is to reduce the consumption of malt, hops, and other articles of that kind, they have secured the full benefit of what is proposed in this Bill by the unnatural reduction of trade which has already taken place in consequence of the War. I therefore ask for some explanation of why, in the framing of this Bill, they have consulted only the interests of the big brewers who have the best opportunities for making additional profit, and sacrificed the smaller brewers, who have not had any of these canteen contracts to swell their profits.
    Sir J. D. REES: I am afraid this Clause is really past praying for, after the withdrawal of the previous Amendment. I have risen merely to enforce what my hon. Friend has just said, to urge upon the Parliamentary Secretary that the case of the country brewers should be very carefully considered, and to warn him that he is now reaping some of the odium caused by the extreme injustice of the Central Control Board, which must animate everybody who wishes to see justice done to the liquor trade, and will affect every Amendment and every Clause in this Bill.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I am afraid I cannot accept the responsibility for the sins of the Central Control Board, as it is not under the Board of Trade, nor do I know what are the particular iniquities to which my hon. Friend refers. With regard to the remarks of the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto), I really do not quite understand his point of view. Although we have had conferences with the brewers, there are such people as the consumers, and in considering this Bill we cannot consider it solely a matter for the trade. We have to consider also the question whether or not the consumers can get their beer. There has been a large migration of the beer-drinking population owing to the War. In many rural districts, such as that represented by my hon. Friend, recruiting has been admirable. A large proportion of those who drank beer in the Devizes district are now at military centres, which are usually nearer the East Coast, or on some ground taken by the War Office as a centre for training. It would be ridiculous for us to propose by means of this Bill to restore the position of the brewer in Devizes, who through that migration has lost something like 40 per cent, or 50 per cent, of his trade. The suggestion apparently is that under this Bill we should give him back some of the trade that he has lost, that we should enable him to brew in Devizes beer which cannot be drunk in Devizes, and congest our already congested railways by carrying that beer from Devizes to Ripon or elsewhere. I am sure my hon. Friend would not suggest anything of the kind. It is impossible to do that. We have to recognise that, before this Bill was thought of, this migration had taken place. Originally it was suggested, I think on behalf of the brewers, that the year 1914 should be taken. The Army Council, the military brewers, and everybody who had any real knowledge of the subject at once said, "If you take the year 1914, you will take the pre-war condition, and by so doing you will ignore the present distribution of the population. You will have to carry the beer from the places where it is brewed under the old condition to the places where it will be drunk under the new condition." Really that would be a most un-businesslike proceeding, and I should have been very sorry to have had to face the criticism in Committee here which would very properly have been directed against the Board of Trade, if, merely to benefit the small local brewers, we had adopted
    1394
    any such principle. What we have done is to meet the brewers as far as we can by giving them the 1914 alternative as an option. The reason why 30 per cent, is taken instead of 15 per cent, is very simple. The consumption of beer in 1914 was very much greater than in 1915, and in order to get down to the 26,000,000 barrels which is our basis, we had to take 28 per cent., instead of 14 per cent., and the corresponding figures of 30 per cent, instead of 15 per cent, simply represent a reduction to the same level. The question of differentiation against the small brewer as compared with the large brewer does not arise at all. We have done the best we can to adjust the figures, and to do the least possible injury to the brewers. We are bound to have regard to the consumers from one end of the country to the other. That is the reason why I cannot accept this Amendment. I think we have gone as far as it is possible to go to meet my hon. Friend. I quite feel the hardship which the small brewers have suffered, but that hardship has not been caused by the Government, nor is it due to this Bill. We are told that they have lost 40 per cent, or 50 per cent, of their trade. Under this Bill they are to be forced to reduce their output by only 30 per cent. Therefore if they have lost 40 per cent, or 50 per cent, they will be able to increase their present output by 10 per cent, or 20 per cent.
    Mr. PETO: After the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary, I beg leave to> withdraw the Amendment, but I would call his attention to the percentage in the proviso at the end of the Clause.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. E. STRAUSS: I beg to move, after the word "brewed" ["brewed at the brewery"], to insert the words "by the brewer."
    This Amendment has to be taken in conjunction with other Amendments standing in my name. As the Committee is aware, Clause 2 deals with the standard barrel-age, which is the barrelage for the year ending the 30th September, 1915. What would happen to a brewer who, on the 1st October, 1915, sold his premises but not the goodwill of his free trade and tied trade. I am afraid that in such a case there might be two claimants to the barrelage of the brewing premises. Unless the brewer transferred his barrelage to another firm he would be unable to supply his customers. I hope that some

    1395
    Amendment of this sort will be accepted, otherwise there will be a great deal of trouble, and possibly litigation.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I quite recognise my hon. Friend's point, but this Amendment could not be accepted, as it would go very much further. I think the point will be met by two changes in the Bill, which will be made by Amendments standing in my name to paragraph (c), under which full power is given to the Commissioners of Excise to make any necessary changes. The paragraph will read:
    "…where the Commissioners are satisfied that owing to the transfer of a brewing business, or any other change in the circumstances of the brewery, taking place after the 30th day of September, 1914, the standard barrelage as ascertained under the foregoing provision does not afford a proper standard of comparison, or affords no standard of comparison, such number of barrels as the Commissioners think just, having regard to the special circumstances of the case."
    That would enable all these adjustments to be made by the Commissioners. The insertion of the word "proper" instead of the word "unfair" will enable the barrelage to be decreased as well as increased. The word "unfair" rather suggests only increase. The word "proper" covers decrease as well as increase. I know my hon. Friend will suggest that tinder Clause 5 difficulties may arise, but when the Amendment of my hon. Friend (Sir F. Lowe) is accepted, compulsion goes, and the free trade Clause will apply. Therefore I think that these changes will absolutely meet my hon. Friend's point. I believe he has one particular well-known case in mind. I have taken advice upon that case, and I am advised that these changes will cover it without any further Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I beg to move, in paragraph (c), to leave out the words "of circumstances" ["or any other change of circumstances"], and to insert instead thereof the words "in the circumstances of the brewery."
    I think it is pretty obvious on the face of it that "in the circumstances" is too wide. The words might cover changes of population, and innumerable matters might be brought before the Commis-
    1396
    sioners which it was never intended should be brought. Therefore I propose the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made:
    Leave out the word "fifteen" ["nineteen hundred and fifteen"], and insert instead thereof the word "fourteen."
    Leave out the words "and before the fifteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and sixteen."
    Leave out the words "affords an unfair" [" affords an unfair standard of comparison"], and insert instead thereof the words "does not afford a proper."
    After the word "or" insert the word "affords."
    Leave out the word "June," and insert instead thereof the word "August."
    After the word "that" ["that this Section "] insert the words "the foregoing provisions of."
    Leave out the words "this Section," and insert instead thereof the words "those provisions."—[Mr. Pretyman.]
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I beg to move, in paragraph (c), after the word "privilege" ["to withdraw this privilege"], to insert the words "as from the date of such Order in Council."
    I suppose the right hon. Gentleman will accept that Amendment?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I will accept it, and will improve it, if I may.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: Oh, very well!
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    Mr. PRETYMAN: The form in which I shall in a moment propose my Amendment, I think, will be rather better from the hon. Member's point of view, for the date of the Order in Council might even be a little too soon. I therefore propose to add "as from a subsequent date, to be fixed by the Order in Council."
    Sir G. YOUNGER: Yes, that is better.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Words, "as from a subsequent date, to be fixed by the Order in Council" there inserted.—[Sir G. Younger.]
    Further Amendment made: Leave out the words "percentage for thirty per cent.," and insert instead thereof the words "percentages pro rata."—[Sir G. Younger.]
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I beg to move to leave out the word "a" ["below a rate of"], and to insert instead thereof the words "the required."
    Mr. PRETYMAN: That Amendment is unnecessary.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I think it would be better if the Bill were altered as I suggest.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: It is a matter of drafting—"the required" refers to nothing. I have referred the hon. Member's suggestion to the draftsman, and I hope he will leave the Bill as it now stands.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I hope there is no point in the Amendment, but I have very grave doubts as to whether or not it does not involve a very large matter. However, if the right hon. Gentleman tells me across the floor of the House that my words are not needed, I am perfectly willing to withdraw.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir FRANCIS LOWE: I beg to move, at the end of paragraph (c), to insert the words:
    "(3) If any licensed premises shall after the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and fourteen, have been or be sold, transferred, mortgaged, or leased to any brewer, the brewer shall be entitled thereafter to supply to the licensed premises the same quantity (less fifteen per cent.) of beer as has previously been supplied to those premises, and if the beer has previously been supplied by another brewer the maximum barrelage of that other brewer shall be reduced by the amount of such supply, and the maximum barrelage of the brewer to whom the premises shall be so sold, transferred, mortgaged, or leased, shall be similarly increased. The transfer of a mortgage on any licensed premises shall be deemed to be a transfer of licensed premises within this Section."
    To begin with, I may point out that this Amendment does not in any way interfere with the main object of the Bill, which is to restrict the output of beer generally. This Amendment does not have the effect of increasing that output in any way, but it is really a safeguard—a very small point really—of the power, of the free, unfettered power, which the licence holder now possesses to sell his premises, to mortgage them, or to lease them in any market which he may consider to foe the most favourable. It is per-
    1398
    fectly obvious that in the case of such a man the people he would first go to in case he wished to sell or mortgage his premises would be the brewers, and the more brewers he could go to the more competition there would be, and the more favourable terms he would be likely to get. In the Clause as it stands it seems to me that that might be somewhat interfered with. Under paragraph (c) in the Clause as it stands the brewer could only get the right, although ho has purchased the premises or lent money on mortgage, to supply them with beer if he satisfied the Commissioners of Excise that that constituted such a change in circumstances as enabled him to increase his output. At all events, I think that there is considerable doubt about the matter, and I think it is very desirable to have these words in, both in the interests of the licence holder and of the brewers. I submit they are reasonable, and I trust my right hon. Friend will see his way to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I am quite ready to accept this Amendment. It is quite reasonable, but it really relates mainly to the transfer of tied houses, and enables the brewer who purchased the tied house from another brewer or, as my hon. Friend has suggested, purchased any licensed premises whatever, when he purchases the house, to assume the right to brew—that that right to brew should pass from the brewer hitherto supplying the house, without in any way an alteration of the total output of beer as restricted by this Bill. It merely transfers the right to the person who has bought the premises to which the rights apply.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I have no objection whatever to this Clause being put into the Bill except that it is redundant, because the point is or will be covered.
    Sir J. D. REES: May I express my satisfaction at the way this matter is going. The right hon. Gentleman is very ready to accept anything that he can which does not impair his Bill.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: As I understand it, this only applies to tied houses.
    HON. MEMBERS: No!
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Then how stands the case of a free house in which the supply of beer is divided amongst a number of brewers? Will account be taken of the amount supplied by each of

    1399
    the brewers to this free house? And will this, or will it not, have the effect of reducing their output?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: A later Clause covers that point.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. E. STRAUSS: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (3), to add,
    "(4) Provided that where a brewer has ceased to brew at a particular brewery and continues to brew at another brewery, or has contracted with another brewery to brew for him the barrelage of the brewery at which such brewer has ceased to brew, shall, so long as such arrangement remains in force, for the purposes of this Section be deemed to be part of the barrelage of the brewery at which such brewer continues to brew, or of the brewer who has contracted to brew for such brewer. In the event of the contract of the brewer who has ceased to brew being terminated he shall be entitled to transfer such barrelage to any other brewer with whom he may make a fresh contract."
    I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept this Amendment. It removes all doubt, and I can assure him there is an apprehension in the minds of a number of brewers who have entered into brewing arrangements that they are at the tender mercies of the Commissioners. If the Amendment carries out the wish of the hon. Gentleman I see no reason why he should not accept the Amendment. It only carries out what he desires. It is very unpleasant to people who have entered into brewing arrangements that there should be litigation or trouble, and if the hon. Gentleman will accept this Amendment I am sure it will relieve the minds of many brewers who have entered into such arrangements, and will satisfy those who have invested their money.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I have consulted the draftsman, and I really think this is better left out, because it is absolutely covered by paragraph (c). It is impossible to foresee what exact arrangements may, be made for a transfer, and when you get a general Clause, covering every conceivable case, it will cover the particular case or so which my hon. Friend has in mind. I really think it is better left general, and I do not think my hon. Friend need have any fear of the Commissioners.
    1400
    They have no possible interest in the matter, as there is no question of taxation or interest to the State. It is merely to provide, where there has been a transfer of brewing rights from one brewery to another, that the Commissioners will be able to adjust the matter as between one brewery and the other. In the interests of drafting and the proper carrying out of the Bill, I think the professional advice I have had is really to be relied on.
    Mr. WARDLE: I hope the hon. Gentleman will not accept this.
    Mr. HODGE: Will this have any effect on those who are at present brewing nonalcoholic beer—that is, beer under 2 per cent, proof spirit?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: It does not touch that point at all. This Clause simply deals with the question where one brewer has sold part of his property to another. I think it would be out of order to discuss it on this particular Amendment, although I am quite ready to explain it.
    Sir G.YOUNGER:I think on the Question, "That the Clause stand part," it will be possible to discuss that particular point.
    Amendment negatived.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Sir G. YOUNGER: This Clause restricts the output in future by 30 per cent. from 1914 or 15 per cent. from 1915. I do not mean to make any objection whatever to the Clause as it stands. The brewing trade, when faced with the dictum of the Board of Trade that it was essential to restrict tonnage, and that this was the only possible way in which they conceived it could be done, accepted at once the statements made by the President of the Board of Trade, and set to work with him to try to devise a scheme under which it might be carried out. In that particular calculation every material used in brewing brought from abroad was taken into consideration, and amongst these were hops, and the restriction of 15 or 30 per cent, has been based upon the calculation that something like 10,000 tons of hops were imported from America, Germany, and the Colonies in the past years for the purposes of brewing. The President of the Board of Trade has prohibited the import of hops largely under the pressure

    1401
    of my hon. Friend, one of the Members for Kent, and no doubt his intention was very admirable so far as his constituency is concerned. Hon. Members know that Kent grows most hops in England, and the best hops in England, I will say. The right hon. Gentleman's Department has now prohibited the import of hops, and in doing so has gone altogether outside the arrangements which he made with the brewers with regard to the restriction of their material, because this 30 and 15 per cent, reduction in the output of beer is calculated on the assumption that there will be an equal reduction in the future in the import of barley and also of hops. The hon. Gentleman realises no doubt perfectly well that even with the restricted quantity of beer to be brewed, the military beer, which everybody is so anxious to provide, cannot be produced unless a certain amount of foreign and Colonial hops is introduced into this country. No doubt at present there is a considerable quantity of hops in the country, but that time will pass very soon, and those stocks will be used up, and you will be left subject to the home grown article and the imported, which, no doubt, under licence the Board of Trade in certain cases will permit.
    What I want the hon. Gentleman to say is, that if this restriction is going to have the effect of curtailing the necessary supply of hops, there will be no difficulty whatever in granting suitable licences for importing hops, and I want him to go further and say, that if growers of hops in England take unfair advantage of the restriction, and put an absurdly high price on their product, he will reintroduce the free import of hops. It would be grossly unfair to prohibit the import altogether, if he is going to allow those people—and, mark you, agriculturists are not liable to the Excess Profits Tax—to do that. Therefore they must be controlled in some kind of way from taking an unfair advantage. The other point I want to mention is the question of non-alcoholic beer. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has had it brought to his notice that the Board of Control is about to issue an order to prevent, I believe, licence holders from selling during prohibited hours any class of liquor which contains less than 2 per cent, proof spirit. That is the sort of beverage sold in refreshment houses. That requires to be looked into and altered. But, over and above that, if there is going to be a demand for this particular article, the brewers will not be able to brew it,
    1402
    while people outside without any restriction will be able to brew it as much as they like. It is made from malt and hops, but is lighter and contains more water, and if brewers wish to brew this they will be prevented by the fact that they are restricted, while the people outside can use barley, malt and hops because they are utterly uncontrolled. That is another matter the hon. Gentleman's Department will have to deal with.
    Mr. HODGE: I should like to support the hon. Baronet in the case he has put. A certain number of brewers are brewing this non-alcoholic drink. Are the gallons they brew to be reckoned as part of the quantity they are permitted to brew, or will those be treated as not coming under the category of this Bill? I think it is an important point, and the Government should also take into consideration the point of view that the hon. Baronet has placed before the Committee. In the brewery they must pay the duty upon this particular non-alcoholic beer, but if it is brewed in a place that is not called a brewery there is no duty to pay.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: They pay duty under the Finance Bill.
    Mr. HODGE: Another point is that this non-alcoholic beer can be sold in refreshment houses or in sweet shops without a licence, but the brewer and the publican during prohibited hours cannot sell it. I think that that is really an anomaly which the Government ought to deal with, and probably the hon. Gentleman on Report stage will accept an Amendment that this Bill should not apply to beer brewed of a gravity not exceeding 1.026 and which is no more than 2 per cent, proof spirit. I hope the hon. Gentleman will keep the matter in mind and not only accept this Amendment, but press upon the Government the removal of the other anomalies which the hon. Baronet mentioned.
    5.0 p.m.
    Mr. L. HARDY: I hope the hon. Gentleman opposite will not at once give way to the questions addressed to him by my hon. Friends to-day, because I do not think there is any proof whatsoever that there will not be hops sufficient for the requirements of the country, especially under the reduction enforced by this Bill. The question of price has been raised, and I go so far with my hon. Friend in this, that I think if there is any large increase of price in consequence of the prohibition it ought to be met by some other action on the part of the Board of Trade. But

    1403
    it must be remembered that the price of hops has been unduly depressed. The importations were greatly in excess of the average during the last month and the home market has suffered considerably. The prohibition has not in any sense raised in any way the price. The market has remained quite stagnant, showing that there is no real desire on the part of the brewers to get hops, and there are quite enough hops in the market at present for the trade. There is no likelihood of any question of this sort arising at the present time. I should like to ask how long the importation of hops is going to be allowed without licence? It has been increasing in the last few weeks. I find that during the week of the 29th it amounted to 6,000 cwts. I should like to know when the actual prohibition ceases and whether it does affect all countries. I do not know whether hops are being admitted from the Continent or not.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: For the first time in my life I should like to say a word in support of what has been said by the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger). I would like to know whether the brewers have to pay above and beyond the duty levied under the Act. If so, I hope the Government will take steps not to discourage the brewers in utilising their premises for the production of harmless instead of a very harmful beverage. If there could be a profitable development in that direction it would be a great advantage to the public at large, and it might not, in the long run, be a disadvantage to the brewing trade. If there is anything which deters the development of what I hope will be a profitable trade in an article that will do less harm than most of the products of breweries, I hope the Government will remove any such obstacle.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: On the Second Beading of this Bill I made it perfectly clear that this was not a temperance measure, but simply a Bill for restricting imports on account of the shortage of tonnage, and I stated that I should resist any attempt to use this measure for any other purpose than as a measure of war legislation. I am not suggesting that my hon. Friend (Mr. Chancellor) wishes to do otherwise, but I feel sure that all hon. Members will agree that we cannot use
    1404
    this measure for that purpose. If we did the trade would have a very just cause for complaint. After all, brewing materials have to be used for temperance beer as well as for other beer, and it would be unfair to restrict, on purely war grounds, the importation of materials for one kind of beer whilst allowing absolute freedom in regard to other kinds of beer produced in the same brewery. I have had this question before me, and I need not wait until the Report stage to explain the position. This non-alcoholic beer is a beer which must have less than 2 per cent, of proof spirit in it. This beer has the property, if it is kept for a certain time, of further fermentation, and perhaps in a few weeks, if the beer is kept, you may find the 2 per cent, of proof spirit has very considerably increased, and that beer may no longer be a temperance drink. There also arises the question of gravity, and I believe that the limit of gravity at which beer ceases to be excisable is 10.16. It has been stated that some of this temperance beer has a gravity of less than 10.16, but I believe that is rarely the case, and the gravity is more often 10.18, 10.20, 10.22, and 10.24, and where you have 2 per cent, of proof spirit it may become 4 per cent, or 5 per cent, by process of time if it remains in the barrel.
    Ordinary beer which is kept some considerable time gains in strength, and I am afraid that temperance beer is so nearly beer that it is subject to the same tendency, and becomes non-temperance after a certain time. The reason I am pointing out these scientific details is that it is quite obvious that for the purpose of the Excise where it is necessary to go into a brewery and supervise the whole production of beer in that brewery, and treat it as a whole and assess the duty which is payable, it would be absolutely impracticable to attempt to draw the line between temperance beer and ordinary beer brewed in the same brewery; in fact, it would be almost impossible to draw the line, because this beer is variable after it is put into the cask. I have discussed this matter with the Excise authorities, and they inform me that it is quite impossible to allow a temperance beer to be brewed at a brewery and to be treated apart from the other beer brewed in the same brewery which is subject to duty. That, however, does not prohibit a man under the ordinary law outside the brewing trade who chooses to manufacture any

    1405
    liquor which is non-alcoholic, whether it be ginger beer, or this particular form of drink, which may be made from brewing materials, but which does not come under the Excise. A man will do this at hip own risk, and if he chooses to keep that non-alcoholic drink until it becomes alcoholic, and then sells it, he is subject to heavy penalties for selling alcoholic drink under the guise of non-alcoholic drink. Therefore it is impossible to alter this proposal in the Bill.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: Is there no way of restricting the people who use the same materials as brewers, mostly sugar?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: No.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: Why should they not all be restricted in the use of sugar?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: My hon. Friend's suggestion is perfectly logical, but that would apply to everything used in this country. We are restricting beer, and what has been mentioned here is not beer. It may be necessary to restrict other things, but I hardly think we can go into that matter in connection with this Bill, and it would have to be done under a totally different class of restriction on all forms of beverages. With regard to hops the Board of Trade is rather between the hammer and the anvil in regard to the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kent (Mr. Hardy), but I do not think the course taken by those hon. Members is unreasonable, and it would not be difficult to hold a fair balance between them. I agree that the importation of hops must be permitted under licence, under two conditions. First of all, if there is a real scarcity of hops and the Board of Trade is satisfied on the subject, licences may be granted. There may be an unfair price and price is the barometer of scarcity. The point on which we might differ would probably be as to what was too high.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: From £5 to £6 per hundred weight is a good price for one class, and £7 or £8 for the other.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: My right hon. Friend opposite does not contradict that, but I do not mink the Board of Trade is likely to have much trouble in arriving at a proper price. I do not think we should be justified in withdrawing the prohibition and allowing the free importation of hops.
    1406
    All we should have to do would be to grant such licences as are necessary to enable brewers to obtain the quantity required for their trade.
    Mr. HARDY: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether he would consult the trade before granting licences on account of scarcity?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: We should consult both the trade and those interested in the hop industry. We shall endeavour to inform ourselves on this point. It is impossible for us to know without inquiry on what principle licences should be granted unless we have informed ourselves as to the tax on both sides. The present position is that prohibition is already in force, and the hops which are now coming in are those which had started before the prohibition was enacted. As soon as those are here they will be added to the stocks, and then the licensing system will be enforced on the principle which I have mentioned, which I hope will be satisfactory.
    Sir J. D. REES: The hon. Gentleman; representing the Government said he was rather between the hammer and the anvil on this question, but I think he is rather between an overwhelming element and an overpowering personality. I do not want to lengthen this Debate, but I should like to say a word on the controversial note which was struck by the hon. Member for Haggerston (Ms. Chancellor). I do not want this Debate to degenerate into a talk on teetotalism, but I would like to know if some other word could not be used for this non-alcoholic drink than beer? Could it not be given some other name? I think it would be very advantageous that it could be called by some other totally different designation.
    Colonel GRETTON: On the question of this so-called non-alcoholic beer, like all other liquors that contain sugar, it has in it alcohol, but in a smaller proportion. I understand that the Board of Trade do not recognise this particular beverage as beer. If that is so, I would like to know will they undertake prosecutions against people who sell it as beer? Brewers and the public have to pay a very heavy tax on beer, and the Board of Trade and Customs take up the position that all liquor fermented in a brewery is beer. Surely if an article which is more or less a colourable imitation of beer be sold under the same name in competition with beer which is taxed so heavily, it should be treated

    1407
    in the same way and subject to the same restrictions, or it should not be sold as beer. This non-alcoholic beer may be made to any extent, and many hon. Members desire that it should be made to a greater extent, although there is no suggestion of restrictions upon the importation of the materials from which this article is made. I am not quite sure that this particular article is going to be the success which some persons wish it to be. I tasted it without prejudice, and it is exceedingly nasty. I am told that people will drink it out of curiosity, but they do not drink it very often. If they do, they get very thirsty and are very glad when the houses open and they are able to get an ordinary drink. There is really no justification in this measure for prohibition of the importation of hops, because they are very light and they do not add very seriously to the weight of a cargo. The object is an entirely different one. I am not putting forward my own case, but I want to draw attention to the fact that some brewers in this country use these foreign imported hops for particular purposes. It is not only a question of the quantity, but also of the quality. This, however, is a matter in which I believe the Board of Trade mean to act fairly, and if any hops are required licences will no doubt be obtainable. The brewing trade do not wish to be unreasonable. The assurance of my right hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Laurence Hardy) that prices will not be made extortionate, and the understanding that if they are the market will be opened again, will be considerable consolation to those brewers who strongly object to prohibition.
    Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 3.—(Restriction on Establishment of New Breweries.)
    A manufacturer's licence for a brewer for sale shall not after the fifteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and sixteen, be granted while this Act is in operation, except to a person holding such a licence and for the same premises as those in respect of which the licence is held.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I beg to move, after the word "licence" ["holding such a licence"], to insert the words "or to his successors in business."
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I am advised that these words are unnecessary. Of course, I should naturally accept them if they were necessary, because clearly the point should be covered, but I am advised that the words are redundant.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I beg to move, to leave out the word "as," and to insert instead of thereof the words "or other premises in connection with."
    Mr. PRETYMAN: My Amendment at the end of the Clause to add the words "or for premises substituted for those premises" would take the place of this Amendment, if my hon. Friend would agree to it.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I am not quite sure about those words. There are outlying premises and so forth in connection with breweries, and I think we must have both Amendments. Premises in connection therewith as well as premises in substitution for those particular premises should be included if you are to be quite fair in the matter.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: The Amendment that I have on the Paper goes quite far enough, and I do not think that we could accept the hon. Member's Amendment in this form. It is rather vague to say "other premises in connection with." There might be stables and all kinds of outbuildings in connection with a brewer's premises. We have considered the matter very carefully, and I have put down an Amendment which I think really does meet my hon. Friend's point. We take the premises which are now being used for brewing, and if the brewer desires to substitute any part of his premises not now so used he can do it.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: In my own case there are premises a mile and a half away entered in the Excise regulations. It is not only the brewery, but all the premises, with which you have got to deal.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: If they are already licensed, they remain licensed.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: It is not a question of licence. They are entered along with the brewery premises, but they are not licensed as such.
    Mr. PRETYMANThey will not need to be.
    Colonel GRETTON: There is really something in this point. The question of the premises entered in the licence is really a complicated and technical one and has arisen in the past. These words would really be necessary in many cases, and, if they were not inserted, the hon. Gentleman would be reverting to a state of things which does not now exist, and would be putting brewers in a worse position.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: The matter is, obviously, very technical. The object of the Clause is to protect the existing brewing trade and to provide that no premises shall be licensed except those already licensed. That is perfectly simple, and I honestly cannot see the object of the Amendment, but as my hon. Friend raises it from a technical standpoint I am really not qualified to argue it—
    Sir G. YOUNGER: Will the hon. Gentleman consider it between now and the Report stage?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: It has been carefully considered, and my Amendment is all that we can do at present, but I will have the arguments used by my hon. Friends carefully considered and let them know on the Report stage whether I can accept their Amendment or not.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment made: At the end of the Clause add the words "or for premises substituted for those premises."—[Mr. Pretyman.]
    Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 4.—(Effect of Act on Contracts.)
    Where the provisions of this Act interfere with any contract made by a brewer before the first day of April, nineteen hundred and sixteen, to deliver beer or in connection with the delivery of beer, that contract shall be modified so as to conform with the provisions of this Act in such manner as may be agreed upon between the parties to the contract, or, in default of agreement, determined in England by arbitration, in accordance with the Arbitration Act, 1889, in Scotland by a single arbiter to be appointed by the sheriff, and in Ireland in accordance with the Common Law Procedure Amendment Act (Ireland), 1856, and for the purposes of that Act, but subject to any agreement of the parties to the contrary, this provision shall have effect in like manner as
    1410
    a submission to arbitration by consent authorising a reference to a single arbitrator and incorporating paragraph (i) of the Schedule to the Arbitration Act, 1889.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I beg to move, to leave out the words "any contract made by a brewer before the first day of April nineteen hundred and sixteen, to deliver beer or in connection with the delivery of beer," and to insert instead thereof the words
    "the performances of any contract to deliver beer, or in connection with the delivery of beer, or of any condition, express or implied, in any tenancy agreement or other contract made by a brewer before the first day of April, nineteen hundred and sixteen."
    I understand that these words are really necessary in order to cover cases which are left in a vague position.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I really do not think that these words are any better than the words in the Bill which are perfectly clear. I propose, however, to accept an Amendment to leave out the word "deliver," and to insert instead thereof the words "sell or supply." I do not think it makes any material difference, but if my hon. Friend suggests those words and thinks that they are better I do not object to them.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: The object of my Amendment was to bring in tenancy agreements which are not in some cases regarded in the same light as contracts.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: The effect of these words might be limiting. I am advised that a tenancy agreement is a contract and that the words in the Bill will cover everything.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment made: Leave out the word "deliver" ["deliver beer, or in connection with the delivery of beer"], and insert thereof the words "sell or supply."—[Sir F. Lowe.]
    Sir F. LOWE: I beg to move to leave out the words "in connection with the delivery of beer." I presume this Amendment will be somewhat altered.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: No; we do not want it
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 5.—(Supply of Beer to Free Licensed Souses.)
    (1) Where a licence holder who is not bound by any covenant, agreement, or undertaking, and is not otherwise under Any direct or indirect obligation of any kind to obtain a supply of beer from any particular brewer, was, on the thirtieth day of September, nineteen hundred and fifteen, obtaining a supply of beer from any brewer, he shall be entitled to obtain from that brewer under reasonable conditions a similar supply, reduced by fifteen per cent., during any period for which this Act applies, or such less supply as he may require.
    (2) If a licence holder considers that any brewer has in connection with the supply of beer to him failed to comply with the provisions of this Section he may apply to the Board of Trade for relief under this Section, and the Board of Trade may if they are of opinion, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, that it is just to do so, give relief by the reduction of the maximum barrelage of the brewer who has failed to comply with the provisions of this Section, and the transfer of that barrelage to any brewer who has undertaken to give the required supply to the licence holder.
    Where relief is so given the maximum barrelage of the brewers concerned shall be adjusted in such manner as the Board of Trade direct as a consequence of the relief given.
    (3) In this Section the expression "licence holder" means the holder of a retailer's on-licence authorising the sale by retail of beer; and includes, where any licensed premises have changed hands, the licence holder for the time being; and where any premises on which beer is sold are under the management of the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic), the Central Control Board.
    Sir F. LOWE: I beg to move to leave out Sub-sections (1) and (2), and to insert instead thereof the following new Sub-sections:

    "(1) Any licence holder in so far as he is not bound by any covenant, agreement or undertaking to obtain a supply of beer from any particular brewer, and who has at any time during the year ended the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and sixteen, been supplied with beer by any brewer or brewers, shall be entitled to obtain
    1412
    from such brewer or brewers particulars of the quantities and gravities of the beer supplied, and also a certificate or certificates stating the total number of standard barrels represented by the beer supplied during each quarter of the year ended the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and sixteen, or such shorter period as the supply has continued.

    (2) The licence holder shall after forwarding any such certificate to the Commissioners be entitled to obtain the same number of standard barrels (reduced by fifteen per cent.) from any other brewer who may be willing to supply him therewith, and in every such case the maximum barrelage of the brewer ceasing to supply the licence holder shall be reduced by the amount stated in the certificate (less fifteen per cent.), and that amount shall be transferred to the brewer who has undertaken to supply."

    The object of this Amendment is to leave the free-licence holder as free as he is at present to obtain supplies of beer from any brewer or number of brewers. Under the Clause as drawn he will become practically tied and bound to one brewer, because, although he could continue to obtain supplies from the particular brewer with whom he has been dealing, he would not be able to go and obtain supplies from any other brewer. That seems to be manifestly unfair, and it is only right he should be left as free as he is at the present time. The only way in which he can, under the Clause, change his brewer is by satisfying the Board of Trade that the brewer with whom he has been dealing has failed to comply with the provisions of the Clause. That is a very cumbersome and it might prove a very dilatory and inconvenient process. Furthermore, if the brewer fails to comply with the provisions of the Clause, the buyer does not want to be tied to any particular brewer any more than he is now. It seems to me only fair and reasonable that this alteration should be made, especially as it will preserve the freedom of the free-licence holder. In fact, it will carry out the main provisions of the Act, because the buyer will only be able to obtain the same supply as before, less 15 per cent. But if this method were adopted, he would be entitled to ask the brewer who had been supplying him for a certificate giving the particulars of the quantity and gravity of the beer supplied, together with the number of standard barrels, and having got that certificate he

    1413
    could take it to another brewer who might be willing to supply him, or, indeed, he might take it to several brewers, so long as he only obtains the quantity which he purchased in the comparative period, less 15 per cent. There are one or two Amendments on the Paper, but I do not know whether I would be in order in referring to them at the present moment. The first—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): We had better deal with the Amendment when that arises.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I may apologise to the Committee for making a very great change in the Bill by accepting this Amendment. It is my intention to accept the Sub-sections proposed by my hon. Friend in the place of those which stand in the Bill. The reason is this: Obviously one of the greatest difficulties in framing this Bill arose in dealing with supplies of beer which are obtained by retailers, those retailers being at the same time free to change the brewer from which they have obtained their supplies in the past. Clearly it would not be right in the Bill to tie the retailer, who is a free buyer of beer at the present time, to the particular brewer who happened to be supplying him at the date of the introduction of the Bill. It would really convert all buyers of beer into tied-house tenants, and that is quite unnecessary. The suggestion made in the original Clauses of the Bill was that we should apply compulsion to the brewer who was supplying at a particular time to continue to supply, and if for any reason the parties quarrelled, then the buyer was to be enabled to go to the Board of Trade, who would put him on to another brewer who could supply that which, owing to the disagreement, he could no longer obtain from the original brewer. That appeared at the time to be the only method of dealing with that difficulty. If we had acceded to the licence holders' request for compulsion, we should have had to adhere to this Clause, subject, of course, to any Amendments this Committee might introduce.
    But, after considering the proviso, the free buyers came to the conclusion that they would prefer real free trade to compulsion, and, the suggestion for compulsion having been abandoned, they preferred to have a Clause on the lines proposed by my hon. Friends opposite, which ^would give them this right, that while
    1414
    they are obtaining beer now from any brewer, they should be able to obtain a certificate from that brewer showing the number of standard barrels of beer they are getting, and with that certificate they should be at liberty to go to any other brewer and ask him to supply them. If the brewer agreed to supply them—he being, of course, perfectly free to supply or to refuse to supply—he would then be permitted by the Excise, to whom the certificate would be sent, to brew the extra quantity of beer stated on the certificate, while the original brewer would have the amount he was entitled to brew decreased by the same quantity. That, in itself, is a great saving of administrative trouble. I think the right hon. Gentleman opposite who is doing very good work in a similar matter in regard to supplies of paper will be able to inform the Committee that a very great burden is thrown upon the tribunal which has to adjust supplies between the wholesale and the retail trade. At first we saw no alternative to a like burden being thrown on the Board of Trade; it would have involved some kind of tribunal together with a good deal of administrative trouble. This arrangement, however, has been suggested by the free-licence holders themselves, and it has been accepted entirely by the brewing trade. Both parties are satisfied, and I hope the Committee will agree to the change, and at the same time accept my excuses for not having put it in the Bill originally. Any Amendment can, of course, be discussed later on, but I ought to say that the Bill as originally drafted applied only to on-licence holders. By Amendments to be introduced later on, however, it will cover clubs, and licences in every form.
    Sir F. LOWE: And canteens?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Yes, clubs, canteens, and all licence holders of any kind whatsoever will be covered by the Amendments which are to be inserted in the Bill later on. All these persons, whether clubs, off-licence holders, or free buyers of beer (other than buyers for private consumption), and free buyers for resale, will be entitled under this Clause, some even being brewers themselves—brewers who have licences as beer dealers and who buy from other brewers—all these will be entitled to change their brewer and take a certificate, showing the quantity they are entitled to purchase, to another brewery.
    Sir F. LOWE: Will the words be "holders of Excise licences," and will provision then be made for the inclusion of clubs?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Yes; all the Amendments are on the Paper. I have described what will be the effect of the Clause as amended, and I hope the Committee will accept it.
    Mr. NIELD: I have been very glad to hear the observations of the hon. Gentleman, because it relieves many of us who had intended to propose Amendments providing for the inclusion of clubs of our task, seeing that their inclusion has now become an accepted principle. But I would ask the hon. Gentleman to consider between now and the Report stage whether the words of the proposed Amendment, "the 31st day of March," are as good as the words "or before the passing of this Act." There are some points which might be raised, and it would be as well therefore for the hon. Gentleman to consider whether the wider words would not be better under the circumstances. This affects clubs in a different way to the ordinary licence holder or beer seller.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Does my hon. Friend want to alter the date, the 31st March, 1916?
    Mr. NIELD: Yes.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I do not think the hon. Gentleman quite appreciates what these words really do. They fix the date, which is the end of the twelve months, which will be the comparative period, and it is obviously necessary to bring them up to the last possible moment. We want to deal with the trade as it is and not as it was. We hope the Bill will come into operation as from the 1st April, and therefore we have fixed the date at the 31st March.
    Mr. NIELD: But—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member had better wait until we come to this particular Amendment.
    Mr. DENNISS: It strikes me, reading the proposed Clause side by side with the one at present in the Bill, we may, by making the change, defeat the object with which the Clause is put in. Under Clause 5, Sub-section (1), when a licence holder has been in the habit of buying his beer from a certain brewer he will be entitled to obtain from that brewer a similar
    1416
    supply. Under the proposed Clause he will not have that right. He will not have the right to compel the brewer with whom he has been dealing to continue to sell to him, and he may be unable to get his beer elsewhere.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: The licence holders are satisfied.
    Mr. DENNISS: It is not satisfactory to me.
    Sir F. LOWE: They have asked for it.
    Mr. DENNISS: The trade may have asked for it.
    Colonel GRETTON: The retail trade has asked for it.
    Mr. DENNISS: I am not thinking of the trade or of the brewer. I am thinking of the consumer, and of the club, and in conjunction with my hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Ealing I have put down certain Amendments, but the agreement to include clubs has rendered it unnecessary, for us to move them. I do ask the hon. Gentleman, however, when dealing with this question, not to leave the clubs out in the cold, and I fear this Clause as amended will do so unless further words are introduced.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I would suggest that if it is the general wish of the Committee to allow Sub-sections (1) and (2) to go out of the Bill, they should be struck out, and then we can deal with the substituted Sections in due course.
    Mr. DENNISS: I am rather opposed to these Sub-sections going out, because the result would be to deprive the licence holders of their absolute right to get their beer in any case from the brewer with whom they have been dealing. I am not for a moment considering the case of the retail trade, or the free public-house, or the brewer. I am speaking for the clubs, and I very much object to these Sections being left out, because they do now give an absolute right to go to the brewer in any case. I do not want them to be left out in the cold. I do not want the brewer from whom they have been buying to be in a position to refuse to continue to supply them. Of course they will get their certificate all right, but then other brewers to whom they apply may refuse to supply them. A brewer, for instance, may say, "I want to give all my beer to my tied houses," and there is

    1417
    nothing in the Bill to prevent a brewer giving more than 85 per cent, to that customer.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: The hon. Member does not seem to realise that the clubs can go to the brewer and say, "If you brew me this beer I will give you a certificate which will enable you to brew so much more." That cannot be done in the case of the tied house.
    Mr. DENNISS: It seems to me the effect of this proposal would be to leave the clubs out in the cold. Brewers do not like clubs. They would readily squeeze them out if they could do so. They prefer the retail houses We want to protect the clubs, and see that they get their proper 85 per cent, of their ordinary beer supply. The mere fact that the brewer gets a certificate enabling him to brew the quantity of beer he has been selling to the club previously does not, when the club goes to buy from another brewer, protect the club. It may go in vain to the other brewer.
    Sir F. LOWE: On a point of Order. There is nothing whatever about clubs in these Sub-sections. They only deal with licence holders. When we come to discuss the question of the licence holder, then the question of clubs will come in also.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I understand the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Denniss) is objecting to the deletion of these two Sub-sections.
    Mr. DENNISS: Yes, because the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade has told us that he is going to put clubs in the same position as the licence holder.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: The hon. Member is quite in order.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: On a point of Order. There is nothing about clubs in these Sub-sections which it is proposed to leave out. They only deal with licence holders.
    Mr. DENNISS: I am urging that the clubs will be in jeopardy.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: On a point of Order. I have undertaken to put in clubs, and if these Sub-sections go out, neither clubs nor anybody else will be able to get compulsory powers.
    Mr. DENNISS: That is the point. I am very glad that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me. I contend that it will be a position of jeopardy for the clubs. If
    1418
    they were doing a retail trade or were tied houses they would be perfectly safe. Inasmuch as arrangements have been made between the brewing trade, the retail trade and the Government, we do not mind, but when it comes to the question of clubs, of which the retail trade is absolutely jealous and would crush them out if it possibly could, then we say that advantage might be taken of this arrangement between the retail trade and the brewers to crush out the clubs. I would ask the Committee to consider very carefully whether or not in these circumstances clubs will suffer.
    Sir T. WHITTAKER: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade has referred to the fact that I have had some experience of this kind of thing in connection with paper. I would suggest to the Committee that the arrangement now suggested is a very great improvement upon the arrangement in the Bill. Therefore it is desirable that these Sub-sections should go out. The difficulty of an arrangement like this is where you have a standard year some time back, when you are dealing with people who have to get their supplies now and who are, perhaps, dealing with another firm. It is a very serious difficulty, of which this is a very happy solution. It is only possible because of the peculiar conditions of the liquor trade, where you have the Excise at work and can do it. In connection with the paper trade you could not make an arrangement like this. In regard to the objection raised by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Denniss) it is not a real one. The clubs will have the same rights as they have now. They will have a great power. They will have a certificate which will entitle them to get their beer from any brewer who will supply them. They have with that certificate a power to the brewer to brew the quantity of beer to supply them. That is the point. That brewer will thereby get an extra amount of business which he cannot ask from anyone else. He will be glad to have that business, because he will have the extra right to brew which will follow the certificate which the club will take to him. My experience is that the brewer is not opposed to the club. The retailer is, but the brewer is not. It is an outlet for his supply. The brewer will be willing to supply, and the club buys from the brewer. The hon. Member will find there is no danger in that direction. From the experience I have had I should say that this

    1419
    will prove to be far the simplest method of dealing with a difficult phase of this question.
    Colonel GRETTON: I see no objection to the main features of this Clause. There are however, great disadvantages from the point of view of the free trade brewer. The Government are setting up a restricted market by limiting the possible amount of beer to be sold to 26,000,000 barrels. They intend, very rightly, to give the licence holder a right to trade in that market and make what terms he can in order to get the best beer that suits his trade. They are not, by the principle of their Bill, providing the free trade brewer with a free market. It will come to this, that the tied brewers, with a market created by their own tied houses, have got concessions with which they are well satisfied. The tied licence holder, by the conditions of his tie, gets all he requires, so far as the Bill permits. The free buyer, the licence holder, the bottler, the dealer, and even the brewer who buys beer from elsewhere, will be able to get his beer where he chooses. But the free trade brewer cannot go out into the market. He has an absolutely restricted market, and in that way he is being hit harder than anyone under the Bill as it now stands. This is a serious grievance among the free trade brewers, which I have been asked to put before the Committee. It is difficult for those who are not accustomed to the trade to understand what a free market means. It has been created by custom and generations of trade. The effect of the proposal is that free buyers have their market, while the free trade brewer is only to have a restricted market imposed upon him by the restriction of his output, which may be further reduced by certificates taken away.
    As regards clubs, I do not think there is any great fear that they will not get the beer they want. There are many brewers who consider that clubs are not desirable customers. That, no doubt, is because of their experience of clubs in a particular district. Clubs vary. There are very good clubs, and bad clubs. Some clubs do a good trade with the brewer; they pay punctually, and their accounts are good. Others are different. They pay badly in some cases, and their trade is of very little use to the brewer. If brewers do not wish to trade with clubs, it must be because they do not wish to trade with a particular
    1420
    class of club who do not trade in a satisfactory manner. I am not going to object to these words being struck out. Several points will have to be raised upon the Clause. I shall have to raise again the point as to the date. I understand the; Government are willing that it should be the 31st of March in this Clause, but that they are not willing that is should be the date of the passing of the Act. I also propose to insert the words "failing agreement with such brewer or brewers," and I have another Amendment which I propose to make at the end. I think it is right that the Government should give the free trade buyer liberty to buy his beer where it best suits his trade.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade will realise that the acceptance of this Amendment has made such a vast change in the Bill that it is quite right that those of us who are anxious to protect any particular body should have some little time to consider the change and to get from the hon. Gentleman any particulars we desire. There is no desire on our part to adhere unnecessarily to the words in the Bill if we can see our way clear to the protection we desire being obtained by the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for the Edgbaston Division of Birmingham (Sir F. Lowe). We must have that made distinctly clear. There is not the slightest doubt that, as the Bill stands, the clubs have a protection. Whatever may be the abstract opinion with regard to clubs, they have as much right to have their interests safeguarded in a measure like this as any licensed body or any other person dealing with the sale of beer. As the Clause stands, they would have a distinct claim on there brewers for a supply of beer. We are told that they would be in no worse position if Sub-sections (1) and (2) are taken out and the new Sub-sections are inserted. I want to have from the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill a lucid explanation in full as to how far the clubs are protected by this certificate. I do not say there will be such a thing, but it is possible that you may have a body of brewers, such as those foreshadowed by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Rutland (Colonel Gretton), who have a strong objection to clubs—
    Mr. PRETYMANmade an observation, which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: Perhaps you will explain that point. You say that they will not be in any worse position under the existing Sub-sections than they would be under the proposed new Sub-sections, because they will be debarred from having their supply of beer under the Bill as it stands at present.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Perhaps I ought not to have interrupted the hon. Member. What I meant was that the position in which clubs will be put under the new Sub-sections is exactly the same position they are in now—not under the Bill, but as now. They can go to any brewer they like and get their beer from him. The brewers now, if they choose, can create a ring and refuse to supply the beer. They do not do it, and they will have no more reason for doing it after the Bill is passed than they have now. [An HON. MEMBER: "The supply is limited."] Not more than it is now.
    6.0.p.m.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: We are legislating now with regard to a limited supply. I understand the answer is that the clubs are protected in respect of the limited supply, because they possess a certificate which gives the brewer the power of creating the necessary supply, and that without that certificate he would not have the power of creating that supply, ergo, he will be anxious, on account of the extra profit brought by the club to him, to do the business with the club. I want to see that clearly foreshadowed. If we do decide to make this alteration, will the hon. Gentleman give us a few days consideration before putting the Bill down for Report?
    Sir J. D. REES: Referring to the speech of my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Denniss), did I understand my hon. Friend in charge of the Bill to accept his argument? I did not quite understand some of the remarks he interjected. There are some of us representing different interests interested in this Bill who believe that there is no interest of clubs or anything else which is prejudiced by the substitution of these two Sub-sections for those in the Bill, but that it will make for the general improvement of the Bill. If there is any difference of opinion about that I should like to know. Will my hon. Friend make that extremely clear? Otherwise some of us who have put down and taken off Amendments will
    1422
    be in a somewhat awkward position. I do not understand why we should be discussing clubs upon this Amendment, and I do not really believe they are prejudiced by it. We shall have the clubs on later. No one is likely to overlook the clubs. Most of the drinking of Members of Parliament is done in clubs, and they are not likely to forget the clubs at all. They will be fully considered when their time comes. Nor is there this antagonism which my hon. Friend dwelt upon between the brewers and the consumers—I believe the brewers honestly try to suit the consumers—over and above such inevitable antagonism as must exist between everyone who supplies and everyone who uses any commodity. I hope my hon. Friend will stick to his guns.
    Mr. BOWERMAN: I should like to support the suggestion of my hon. Friend that time should be given for the consideration of these two Sub-sections. This Bill has been before the country for some weeks. It has certainly been before all the clubs, which take quite a keen, if not a keener, interest than a good many retail traders in this matter, and it seems to me that the principle now is turned inside out. Under the Clauses of the Bill as they stood the desire of the clubs was to receive protection—that they should not be boycotted if you like—and that they should not be placed at a disadvantage compared with the houses known as tied houses and so on. The hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill gave a promise that the clubs should be protected. There is no indication given that the Clauses as put down, which have been accepted, would be taken over by the Government, and it is from that point of view that I think those whose interests are vitally affected, and who number some millions of men and many thousands of clubs, should have an ample opportunity of considering the altered state of the Bill, and if that is done, perhaps, the result may be more satisfactory.
    Sir J. WALTON: I rise to support the contention of my right hon. Friend who has just spoken. The situation is certainly complicated, and the matter requires the most careful consideration. As the Bill stood when we met to-day, clubs were given the right to demand 85 per cent, of the beer that they were receiving before the restrictions came into force, and they were to receive it under the Bill under reasonable conditions.

    1423
    Already I have communications from licensed holders in houses in my Division that the brewers have raised their prices 6s. per barrel, whilst they have not raised the price to their tied house licensed holders at all. I thought we should require to make a clearer definition of what was meant by their receiving their supply under reasonable conditions. But these new Clauses revolutionise the Bill and alter the basis altogether, and if, on the other hand, it prevents the brewer selling the beer that he has hitherto been supplying to clubs elsewhere, the clubs can get a certificate which entitles them to go to any brewery in the country. In that way I am not certain that the clubs would not fare just as well if not better than under the Clause as framed in the original Bill. But it is such a vital change in the principle, especially when you have compulsorily reduced the quantity of beer to be brewed, that it would almost follow, on the other hand, that you must compulsorily protect the consumers of that beer so that they shall have their proper proportion of the reduced quantity. At any rate, I feel in this matter that it is not sufficiently clear for us to come to a final decision on it, and I should rather that a little time were given in order that both free house licensed holders and also clubs might have an opportunity of considering the proposed Amendment.
    Sir F. LOWE: I should like to say, in reply to the suggestion that there has not been sufficient time for these new Clauses to be considered, that they have been on the Paper for two or three months at least. I put them on the Paper before the whitsun holidays. The whole thing was before hon. Members. They had the Bill and the Amendment proposed. If they have not considered them it is entirely their own fault, and I cannot see any ground for postponing the discussion. Then, as regards the clubs, they will, under these new Clauses, have just the same power of getting beer from the brewers as they have at present. The only thing is that, as the Bill was originally drawn, it proposed to make it obligatory on the brewers to supply licensed holders and clubs and every sort of person. They are under no such obligation now. A brewer can either supply or not. But the chances are that plenty of brewers would be only too pleased to supply a club or any other person who had a certificate. I cannot for the life of me see, therefore,
    1424
    what the grievance is in regard to clubs, and no case whatever has been shown for any delay in the final consideration of the Bill.
    Sir E. CORNWALL: I think the hon. Member is not quite fair in suggesting that those interested in the Bill are at fault because they have not regarded his Amendments on the Paper as Amendments on which they could base their negotiations. They have carried on their negotiations with the Government. They were not told that the Government was going to accept the Amendments of the hon. Member. Therefore, the changes introduced into the Bill by the Government suddenly accepting the hon. Member's Amendments are very large, and I think my right hon. Friend (Mr. Bowerman) is quite right in asking the Board of Trade and the Committee to give those who are concerned with regard to these proposals time to consider their effect. It is rather difficult for us to make up our minds, sitting here in Committee, to the extent of the change or how far it will affect clubs. There is a very large number of clubs in the country. They have approached many Members of the House. I raised the question on Second Reading and the hon. Member agreed to make a concession on the Committee stage, and we are grateful to him for having kept his bargain. I do not suggest now that there is any breaking away from what he promised or that what was in his mind then is not what is in his mind now, but the clubs, which have asked so many Members and who are very much concerned about the provisions of the Bill, should have time to tell' Members of the House who take 'an interest in the matter what they think of the changed conditions which will arise from the introduction of these two Sub-sections. I think the clubs are protected. The main point is that the clubs should be in as good a position in the Bill. I think they are protected, and I should be prepared to meet representatives of the clubs and tell them that in my opinion they would be perfectly safe in readily accepting the altered conditions. But at the same time they have a right to put their case and tell us their views and put them before the Committee, and if we could have inserted in these new Sub-sections the provisions which the Government are prepared to put in with regard to clubs—and there are many Amendments on the Paper with regard to them—we might between now and Report, if the Government do not propose to take

    1425
    it too soon, get into touch with the representatives of the clubs and, so far as we can, keep them favourable to the proposals of the Government.
    Sir R. ADKINS: I wish to support this contention on broad grounds. I can quite understand how it has come about that the acceptance of this Clause has been notified to those representing free houses, but, in the great press of business, has not been notified to those who have been the spokesmen for the clubs. In order to get this legislation accepted with the maximum of acquiescence, and to avoid friction throughout the country, surely a very few days are worth while for the purposes which have been made so clear by my hon. Friend. We understood, from an answer of the Prime Minister to-day to the hon. Member for Sheffield, that the Report stage of this and other Bills before the House to-day is contemplated on Thursday. If it were possible to take the Report stage of this Bill on Monday instead of Thursday, there would be ample time to make it clear to the clubs that they are in as good a position as they were in the original Bill or to make it clear to the Government that there is a material difference. I want the Bill to pass into law with the certainty of acceptance, which at the moment it has not got.
    Mr. N1ELD: I think, after the last one or two speeches which have been made, it is my duty to say this: It may be by accident, but I had knowledge that the Government intended to accept these Amendments, because I was jointly approached with my hon. Friend (Sir F. Lowe) to support the Amendments which were proposed by the licensed holders, and so in a dual capacity I got notice that they were going to accept these Amendments, I can say this, speaking as a member of the governing body—and there are two or three other Members of the House who are also on the governing body of the association of a body of clubs numbering over 1,650 and comprising upwards of half a million of members—that they were acquainted with these proposed Amendments and have considered the substitution of the altered Sub-sections for the old ones. They do not fear the absence of compulsion in regard to getting beer. They are perfectly satisfied that under these new conditions the clubs will be put upon the same basis as the licensed holders, and therefore they do not ask for anything further. They are quite content to accept
    1426
    this position, and I assure the hon. Member that a very large number indeed of these clubs have thoroughly considered the effect of these Sub-sections and are satisfied to leave matters as they are.
    Mr. BOWERMAN: While I accept very fully what has been said, I must say that I would rather the assurance came, from the responsible officials of the Clubs Union. So far as I know, whilst they were perfectly satisfied with the assurance given by the hon. Member (Mr. Pretyman) on the Second Reading, that protection would be afforded them, no expression of opinion has been given by the executive of that organisation on the two Sub-sections that are now to be accepted by the Government. It is for that reason that I think they should be given a full opportunity of considering them.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I do not think that necessity arises, because we make it perfectly clear on the face of this Bill that the pledges given to the clubs are absolutely fulfilled, and that they should have exactly the same treatment as other free buyers. That is in the Bill. What we have said in the Bill is that we will put the clubs on exactly the same footing as any other free buyers, without reservation of any sort or kind. What we desired to do was to meet the wishes of the free buyers. They first asked for compulsion. I we then inserted Clause 5 as it stands in the Bill. What is the kind of protection they would get from compulsion? I think I may, perhaps, show the Committee what the difficulties would have been. Under compulsion there would obviously have been a disinclination on the part of the brewer to give beer which he was compelled to give against his will, and which he would prefer to give to his tied house. There would have been all sorts of questions about the quality of the beer, and there would have been complaints as to prices, and so on. The question might have been raised on the part of the brewers that the person who was asking for the beer was not certain to pay for it, and so on, and these questions would have had to have been adjudicated upon by the Board of Trade. We foresaw these difficulties, and we felt, having undertaken to protect the free buyer, that we must face them. The free buyers themselves also realised these difficulties, and they came to the conclusion that from their own point of view the protection which we had undertaken to give them would be

    1427
    better accorded by giving them their full free trade rights instead of compulsion. They preferred that form of protection rather than the form of protection given in the Bill. As the Clause put down by the hon. Member for Birmingham (Sir F. Lowe) and other Friends were almost similar, we conferred with the representatives of the free buyers, and we amended that Clause on the advice of the draftsman, and the Sub-sections which are on the Paper are the result.
    I do not think there is any case for delaying the Bill. The clubs are getting the full measure of the promises made to them, and they are getting absolutely the same treatment as anybody else. That is the promise that I gave and that is the guarantee I give. I am sure the Committee will not suggest that we should give one kind of treatment to free buyers at large and another kind of treatment to the clubs. I quite understand the anxiety of my hon. Friend (Mr. Denniss), and I do not in the least complain of this point being raised in the form in which he raised it, and I do not complain of one word he said, because I admit that our acceptance of this Clause has come as a surprise to a large number of hon. Members. I agree that putting down a Clause in the name of a private Member, however distinguished, does not mean necessarily that it will be accepted, and until the statement was made on behalf of the Government that the Clause will be accepted no hon. Member could necessarily be held bound to have examined the Clause and to have supposed that these words necessarily would be incorporated in the Bill. Were the circumstances not so perfectly clear as they are, I think there would be a very strong case. However, I hope, after what I have said, remembering that this is a War measure, and that it has already been hanging about for a very long time, and that the clubs are getting full protection, and are really going to be not only in the same position as they are now, but even better, I hope we may proceed. The fear expressed is that a club would go to the brewer and that the brewer would be unwilling to supply them and that if he would not supply them any other brewer might refuse. That is exactly the position now without any Bill. If a club goes to a brewer now and that brewer will not supply them they can go to another brewer, and if he will not supply them and if they go to another brewer and
    1428
    he will not supply them, there is no compulsion at the present time. Therefore, in that respect this Bill does put the clubs in a better position than they are in now, because if a club now takes its custom away from a brewer, that brewer is perfectly at liberty to go on brewing the same amount of beer and can sell to anybody else he likes. The brewer cannot do that under this Bill. The club is given a privilege in common with every other free buyer. If its custom is withdrawn from a brewer, and the brewer has refused to supply them, the club can take its free rights to another brewer, and the amount to which they are entitled will be taken from the maximum barrelage of the brewers ceasing to supply and added to the amount which may be brewed by the brewer who has undertaken to supply. There is no protection of a Government Department, by licences, guarantees, and the rest of it, anything-like as good as the free right to take their custom where they like and get a good article and pay a fair price for it. That is the best guarantee that could be given to them, and they get it under this Bill Therefore, I hope the Committee will accept this change. I have tried to explain it as fully as I can. I hope the words of the Clause as it stands will be allowed to-be withdrawn
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
    Question proposed, "That the proposed words be there inserted—

    "(1) Any licence holder m so far as he is not bound by any covenant, agreement, or undertaking to obtain a supply of beer from any particular brewer, and who has at any time during the year ended the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and sixteen, been supplied with beer by any brewer or brewers, shall be entitled to obtain from such brewer or brewers particulars of the quantities and gravities of the beer supplied, and also a certificate or certificates stating the total number of standard barrels represented by the beer supplied during each quarter of the year ended the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and sixteen, or such shorter period as the supply has continued.

    (2) The licence-holder shall after for-wording any such certificate to the Commissioners be entitled to obtain the same number of standard barrels (reduced by

    1429
    fifteen per cent.) from any other brewer who may be willing to supply him therewith, and in every such case the maximum barrelage of the brewer ceasing to supply the licence-holder shall be reduced by the amount stated in the certificate (less fifteen per cent.), and that amount shall be transferred to the brewer who has undertaken to supply."

    Mr. NIELD: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to insert at the beginning of Sub-section (1) the words "A registered club or."
    Mr. PRETYMAN: If the hon. Member will look further down on the Paper he will see that I am dealing with that on Sub-section (3).
    Mr. NIELD: That is the Definition Clause.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: It is not actually a Definition Clause, but it is Sub-section (3) of Clause 5, which states what is a licence holder. The words that I propose to insert enlarge the expression "licence holder" so as to include clubs, thereby giving clubs the full privileges of a licence holder, whatever they are under the Bill. If my hon. Friend will accept that and withdraw his Amendment, I shall be glad.
    Mr. NIELD: The only reason against accepting that is that it is the old form of legislation, which gives rise to difficulties hereafter when the Statute has to be construed. You have got to deal not only with the club as an entity, but presently with the person who shall act for the club.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member move his Amendment?
    Mr. NIELD: Yes.
    Colonel GRETTON: Where does this Amendment come in? How will the Subsection read?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It will read "(1) A registered club or any licence holder," etc.
    Mr. NIELD: I wish I had been able to move it earlier. I saw that my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Denniss) was "stealing my clothes," and I determined to put in an Amendment to give me an opportunity of placing before the Committee that which I was entitled to put on behalf of the clubs I represent.
    1430
    That is how it comes in as a manuscript Amendment. I can answer the objection of the Board of Trade by saying that it is far more satisfactory in the substantive Section to deal with it in the way I suggest rather than accept what is proposed later on to enlarge the definition of licence holder so as to include clubs, because there you are dealing with an individual, whereas the club is an entity, and you require to have words expressing the person who is to act for the entity, the club. Presently you will have to insert the words "the secretary of any such club." I do think that in the interests of clear reading of the Statute that we should, as far as possible, take care to have it clearly understood without the necessity of explaining it hereafter in some Definition Clause.
    Sir RYLAND ADKNS: I should like to support the Amendment. I am thinking of the person who will be reading this Act of Parliament. If you say on the face of the Sub-section "A registered club or a licence holder," etc., there is no room for mistake, there is no temptation to go to consult someone else, and there is no unnecessary expense in understanding what the Statute means in this respect; but if it is a question of going to a later Definition Clause and seeing that it includes so-and-so, we all know in practice that that means time wasted.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: It is not in another Clause; it is in the same Clause, and only a few lines further down. I do hope my hon. and learned Friend will not press this Amendment. The matter has been very carefully considered by the draftsmen. This question is dealt with in a Sub-section which stands in my name and which has been on the Paper for a considerable time, and anyone who reads this Sub-section, which is not a Definition Clause at all, will see that it states, "This Section shall apply to registered clubs and to canteens held under the authority of the Secretary of State," etc. This is not a question of words inserted in a Clause by a private Member; it is an official Government Amendment, and it applies the whole of this Section to registered clubs. I am sure that in the interests of good drafting and in the interests of clearness we must retain this form of expression rather than the haphazard suggestion that has been made, though with perfectly good intention. I Even though made by a gentleman skilled

    1431
    in drafting as my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Nield), I do not think it would be desirable to accept it.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: The hon. Member has told us that clubs are to be put upon the same principle as any other private person.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: No; I did not say so. I said, "as any licence holder and free buyer." A free buyer does not include a private individual. The expression "free buyer" that I used is not used in the Bill; he must be a licence holder. Any licence holder who is a free buyer, whether he be the licence holder of an on-licence public-house or whether he be a beer seller who has been hitherto a free buyer of beer, and not under any kind of contract with a brewer which compels him to sell particular beer provided by a particular brewer, under this Bill he, as a free buyer and licence holder, gets the privileges which this Clause confers. The words I propose to insert provide that a club is included in that definition. It does not include private individuals. A private customer who is in the habit of buying beer direct from the brewer does not get it.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I have kept out of this discussion because I think that the Government are doing what I want them to do. I am thoroughly in favour of the Clause as it was being struck out and the Amendment being put in. What I am asking now is that the words which the right hon. Gentleman used, very likely through a slip of the tongue—"free buyer"—should be incorporated in the Bill, because there is no reason why persons who buy direct from the brewer should not have the same privilege as a club in the same district. I would therefore suggest that the words simply should be "any person." As it is now I think that it is an extremely clumsily-drawn Clause. There is no reason why a club should be in a better position than any other free buyer. The club is in a totally different position from the licensed house, as it does not pay Licence Duty, but it is in exactly the same position as a private person.
    Mr. DENNISS: If the word "person" were put in a club would not be included, because a person is the one thing which a club is not. It is an association of persons which has no corporate existence. The Interpretation Act which says the
    1432
    "person" includes corporation and so on would not include club. The word would have to be "purchaser," or some such word as that. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ealing (Mr. Nield) made some suggestion that I had stolen his clothes over this Clause. I do not think that that is quite correct, as I had put down the Amendment for to-day first.
    Mr. RUTHERFORD: The whole difficulty seems to have arisen from the Clause which the Government have adopted beginning with the words "licence holder," and many who want every free buyer to be included, including clubs, say at once that a club is not a licence holder, and there are any number of free buyers who are not licence holders. The hon. Member in charge of the Bill says that he is going to put some words in, in a Subsection a little lower down, in order to make clear that in addition to licence holders certain other persons, who are free buyers, are to have the same privileges. I do not think that exception will probably be taken to the course suggested by the Government. At the same time the Amendment now before the Committee is equally open to objection because it is "any registered club or licence holder." There are other free buyers besides registered clubs or licence holders. Therefore the suggestion already thrown out would be a very good one, if the Government see their way to adopt it, to commence the Clause by saying "a free buyer as defined in Sub-section (3) shall have" so and so. Then you go to Subsection (3) and say the benefits of this Clause are to belong to so and so, free licence holders, who are free buyers, and to the various classes which the Government have already indicated they would include. There is a proper way to do these things, and there is a way which is bound to lead to confusion. My sympathies are entirely with the public who have got to construe this Bill. Some day or other a copy of this Act will be found in every club, and they will want to know exactly how they stand. I do not think it fair of the Government, or of anybody who proposes an Amendment here, to cast upon a number of individuals, some of whom have no legal training whatever, who are running these clubs, the difficulty of construing an Act of Parliament that commences with a statement that is inconsistent with the rest of the Act. I think, therefore, that the initial words of the Clause ought to be such as to enable the

    1433
    members of every class entitled to benefit under it as free buyers to know that they are included in that class. It should not begin with an expression clearly restricting it to one class.
    Mr. STRAUSS: The hon. Gentleman will agree that free buyer and club are not exactly the same thing. A club might have an agreement to take some beer, which agreement might be terminated after the termination of this Act. Will such institution have the benefit of Clause 5?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: That is so. I am afraid that I cannot accept the Amendment suggested by my hon. Friend that we should include every private buyer, for all the small quantities of beer required by private buyers in a free market. I do not think that this is necessary. Does my hon. Friend really suggest that every private buyer who has ever bought beer from a brewery in any small quantity should be entitled to a certificate for that amount of beer less 15 per cent. I do not think he would press that. I rather expected when we included clubs that someone would raise this point—"Why should not every private buyer have these rights?" I do not think it necessary. It would throw a lot of work upon the commissioners who would be plunged into all sorts of difficulties. There will be very little difficulty for private people who want beer getting all they want.
    Amendment to proposed Amendment negatived.
    Colonel GRETTON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1) of the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and sixteen," and to insert instead thereof the words, "thirtieth day of September, nineteen hundred and fifteen."
    The hon. Gentleman made great difficulty about accepting an Amendment of mine to make the periods of the brewers and the buyers correspond. The Bill proposes to give the free licence holder a different period from that given to the brewers. Whichever period the Government adopt will make no difference in the total quantity of 26,000,000 barrels. A large proportion of the business of many brewers is dealing with free traders. There is for brewers obviously great difficulty if the free buyer has certificates for one period and the brewer himself has only a right to brew quantities for another period with a less quantity of beer in his
    1434
    particular case. It has been suggested, that the free buyer might call for a certificate and hand it back to the brewer. It is an extraordinary suggestion that the brewer should increase his quantities by a process of that kind, and I cannot think that it is seriously proposed. I see very great difficulties in carrying out this process. The Excise would have great difficulty because they would have to amend and adjust their quantities.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I cannot accept this Amendment. The reason for bringing this up to the date 31st March, 1916, is that we are dealing with contracts between retailers and consumers and brewers, and it is obvious that we want to take the most recent period we possibly can in order, as far as possible, to make our arrangements upon the existing basis, and not upon arrangements which were made some time ago. The small difference which my hon. Friend suggests will create great difficulties will not create any difficulties. The only difference between a certificate given under this Clause and a certificate-perhaps given under the Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend is this, that if we alter the date to September, 1915, the sum total of the certificates which can be given would necessarily tally exactly with the limitation of the 26,000,000 barrels under this Clause. There might be a trivial excess. To that extent the brewer would benefit, but beyond that there would be no trouble whatever. They would have in some cases when a certificate is handed to them to alter the total. I cannot see that any difficulty would arise. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept the Amendment as it stands as one which is convenient for both parties.
    Colonel GRETTON: I cannot think that my hon. Friend realises the position. The sum total of the quantities for the United Kingdom will show very little variation in the certificates, but there will be considerable variation in certain districts. I do not object to the words here, provided that there is the same period for the brewer and the buyer. I think I can convince my hon. Friend, and will ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment to proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Colonel GRETTON: I beg to propose as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after the word "brewers," to insert the words "failing agreement with suck-brewer or brewers."

    1435
    This Amendment is, of course, somewhat different from what the Government contemplates. Its effect would be that the buyer, before taking his certificate, should endeavour to come to some agreement with his brewer. It is not the intention of this Bill that the free-licence holder, or anyone else should upset the trade. We want to carry out the object of the Government, and they desire to carry out the restriction with the least amount of possible disturbance. Therefore, I ask that these words may be inserted in order that the buyer may go to his brewer and settle with him, and not take away his custom for frivolous or unnecessary reasons, or anything of that kind, but that there shall be the ordinary trading negotiations. As this Clause stands it is contemplated by some of those who agree with it that the buyer should go to his brewer and get a certificate of the quantity of standard barrels, and go straight with it to another brewer. The presumption is that he has bought at a certain price beer of a certain quality which has been suitable to his trade and given satisfaction. Why should it be presumed that this trade is necessarily to be upset? I ask that these words should be inserted, so that there may be some negotiations between the two parties before certificates are transferred, and I take it that it is not desired to upset existing trade arrangements by reason of the necessity of having to pass this Act.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I am afraid I cannot accept these words. I do not think it at all amiss that the hon. Gentleman should move the Amendment and in the opinion he has expressed, and I am, personally, quite in agreement, and I hope that no customer will take the certificate away from the brewer who is at present supplying him without previous negotiation, and I assume that will be done in the ordinary course of trade. I cannot sec why the right to this certificate should make any difference in the natural order of proceedings between the brewer and the customer, and no reasonable man would leave his brewer without he had some ground of complaint or until after he had entered into some kind of negotiation. The proceedings under the Bill merely give him the right to a certificate, and for myself I do not think we ought to insert words which would give the right to demand a certificate. I hope the hon.
    1436
    Gentleman will be content with having raised the point, and will not press words which would have no meaning and no effect whatever.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: What is the position with regard to the Clause? It is desired that there shall be perfect freedom to deal with anyone, and, supposing that is the effect of the Clause, the words which are now proposed would in no way limit that freedom. They merely suggest that in the giving of this freedom there should be some negotiations with the brewer before the trade is taken away. The words would not have the slightest effect on the question of principle, and they would express the intention of Parliament in giving this very wide freedom. Of course if the words are refused I do not suppose they will be pressed upon the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. NIELD: If the Government accepted those words I think the draftsman would have something to say about them to begin with, and, moreover, the buyers would find they were fettered, because they would first have to fail to get an agreement as a condition precedent to asking for a certificate to buy elsewhere. The seller of the beer should be a free man, and if he says he is going to a new brewer he might be told that he could not get a certificate because he had failed to come to an agreement. He would have all the trouble of a miniature arbitration, if he failed to come to an agreement, before he could enforce a certificate. I certainly object to the insertion of the words.
    Colonel GRETTON: The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, and another hon. Member on the other side, have talked of the free buyer being able to endow another brewer with the certificate. That is not the intention, and what is wanted is that if the buyer cannot get beer of the quality which he requires, and on terms which are reasonable under the circumstances, he should be able to get beer elsewhere. The hon. and learned Member (Mr. Nield) is under a misconception of what took place earlier in the Debate, and he has clearly indicated that these buyers should be able to demand a certificate and put it in his pocket to go elsewhere. The free buyer, and everybody who has any dealing under this Bill, is treated better than the brewer. I think it is unfair that the hon. and learned Member who has got so much without any opposition whatever should raise objection

    1437
    to these words. I will raise this point again on Report, and I hope the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill will be in a more conciliatory frame of mind, and do -something to meet the free trade brewer. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in Sub-section (1), after the word "quantities" ["particulars of the quantities and gravities"], to leave out the words "and gravities."
    There would be great difficulty in supplying the gravities, and in the case of very small orders it would, in many cases, mean an enormous amount of research. The gravities vary owing, it may be, to variations of temperature, and so forth, and it would be exceedingly difficult to give the information. In moving to leave out the word "gravities," I had intended to include the word "qualities."
    Mr. PRETYMAN: The object of putting in the word "gravities" is to enable the customer to test whether the number of standard barrels which the brewer gives him upon certificate tallies with his own records of the amount of beer which he has received. The buyer knows that the standard barrel is 10.55, and the gravity of the beer supplied may vary anything from 10.30 to 10.55.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: Or 10.70.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Or 10.70. I only give the information which I naturally absorb in studying the Bill. I understood it was 10.55 the standard barrel, and the gravity of the beer, may be either greater than 10.55 or less, that is supplied to the customer in so many barrels of beer. The customer may not know exactly what the gravity was, and if he desires to ask his brewer for a certificate, he will have had, say, 200 barrels during the period to which the certificate applies, and he will get a certificate from the brewer for 189 barrels. He will want to know whether he can check that quantity against the 200 barrels of beer which he actually had, and in order to do that he would only have to do a simple sum to get the gravities, by multiplying each set of barrels by the gravity of the beer he has had, add those together, and divide it by 55.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: How is that to be found?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: If my hon. Friend will have one moment's patience, I will
    1438
    explain. The reason why those words were inserted was that customers thought them necessary to enable them to have a check. My hon. Friend says it is impossible that those particulars can be furnished.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: Accurately.
    7.0.p.m.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Of course, if they cannot be furnished accurately I do not think we should impose an obligation on the brewer which cannot be carried out; but my information was that the particulars could be supplied. Still, I know that my hon. Friend is a very high authority on the point, and I will consider it with the experts before the Report stage. I think it better to leave it as it stands now, and between now and Report perhaps my hon. Friend will confer with me and the experts, and if it is found that it is impossible really to give the gravities, then I will take the word out, or insert some other word. The word "qualities" is rather an indefinite word, and it would be rather difficult in regard to the quality of beer to find what is exactly meant by the word "quality." We will discuss that point on Thursday on the Report stage, and, I hope, arrive at a satisfactory conclusion.
    Colonel HALL WALKER: I think if you read the next line it might cover the whole case, because in any event you have to supply a certificate of the standard barrel-age, and it is, as a rule, quite sufficient for the man when he gets the same quantity of standard barrels, less 15 per cent. One brewer may be making beer of a strong brew and another of a weaker brew, but the main thing under this Bill is that every man gets his fair share, less 15 per cent. of the standard barrels brewed.
    Colonel GRETTON: Beer generally is sold under descriptions, with no guarantee of gravities, although certain brewers have gravities which they use and which are well known to the trade. What is proposed by the Section could not really be done.
    Mr. RUTHERFORD: I think that these words ought to be left out. I think the customer will get all the protection wanted and reasonable by having the quantity supplied and also the standard barrelage. If you are going to ask every brewer to go back over last year and make out a statement as to the gravity of all the beer he supplied, you are asking brewers to do something which the majority would be absolutely unable to do. Even if it were

    1439
    possible, it is one of those particulars which each individual member of the trade keeps to himself. I trust that the hon. Member will see his way to accept the Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.
    Colonel GRETTON: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2), to insert the words "provided that where the licence holder is himself a brewer for sale, the certificate shall not be used to obtain a transfer of barrelage for himself."
    I think this Amendment is one which is thoroughly justified. It really does not concern anybody outside brewers themselves, and it carries out the principle of making the least possible disturbance of trade. These words are not my own, but were suggested to me, and I am indifferent as to the exact form of words, as long as the principle is carried out.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I am prepared to accept this Amendment in principle. I have not yet had time to submit the actual wording to the draftsman, but will do so between now and Report stage. If I have any change in drafting to suggest, I hope my hon. Friend will not object.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), to leave out the words "a retailer's on-licence," and to insert instead thereof the words "an Excise licence."
    This is the first of a series of Amendments dealing with this Sub-section. These Amendments are intended to include in this Section under the expression "licence holder," as I have already indicated, all the free sellers of beer and also the clubs. I will read the Section as it will stand when amended, and I hope that the Amendments which stand in the name of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Sir F. Lowe) and other hon. Members, which are designed to carry out the same intention as that carried out by my Amendments, may be withdrawn. The Section will read:
    "In this Section the expression 'licence holder' means the holder of an Excise licence, authorising the sale by retail of beer, whether wholesale or by retail, and includes where any licensed premises have changed hands the licence holder, for the time being…and where the holder of a licence is a manager, managing the licensed
    1440
    premises on behalf of any other person, or a tenant of any other person, who controls the ordering of the beer for the premises, the person who so controls the ordering of the beer. This Section shall apply to registered clubs and to canteens, held under the authority of the Secretary of State, or the Admiralty, as it applies to licensed premises, with the substitution of the person managing the club or canteen for the licence holder."
    Mr. NIELD: I agree that the word "Excise" carries out every point, and I have no further objection to make.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In Sub-section (3) leave out the words "by retail" ["retail of beer"].
    After the word "beer" ["retail of beer"] insert the words "whether wholesale or by retail."
    At the end of the Sub-section insert the words "and where the holder of the licence is a manager, managing the licensed premises on behalf of any other person, or a tenant of any other person who controls the ordering of beer for the premises, the person who so controls the ordering of the beer." After the words last inserted add,
    "(4) This Section shall apply to registered clubs and to canteens held under the authority of the Secretary of of State, or the Admiralty, as it applies to licensed premises, with the substitution of the person managing the club or canteen for the licence holder."—[Mr. Pretyman.]
    Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 6.—(Definitions.)
    In this Act unless the context otherwise requires—
    The expressions "brewer" and "brewer for sale" have the same meaning as in the Inland Revenue Act, 1880, and the expression "beer" has the same meaning as in Part II. of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910;
    The expression "brewery" means premises in respect of which a manufacturer's licence to a brewer for sale is in force;
    The expression "barrel" means the standard barrel containing thirty-six gallons of beer of original gravity of 1,055 degrees;
    The expression "quarter" means the three months commencing on the first day of January, the first day of April, the first day of July, and the first day of October in any year; and
    The expression "Commissioners" means the Commissioners of Customs and Excise.
    Amendment made: After "1880" [" Inland Revenue Act, 1880"] insert the words "and includes the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic)."—[Colonel Gretton.]
    Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    CLAUSE 7 (Short Title and Duration) ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered to-morrow (Wednesday), and to be printed. [Bill 61.]

  NATIONAL INSURANCE (PART II.—MUNITION WORKERS) BILL.
  Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Tomorrow.—[Mr. Meet.]

  GAS (STANDARD OF CALORIFIC POWER) BILL.
  Ordeir for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Mr. KING: The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Pretyman) has just got one Bill through so easily that he might possibly do the House the kindness of explaining a little about this Bill. I did not rise immediately the Question was put because I had hoped that we should have had an explanation—
  Mr. PRETYMANrose—
  Mr. KING: I am afraid I shall lose my right of addressing the House if I give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I will make a few observations on this Bill which will enable him to know the line he ought to take in reply. This is an extremely good Bill, at any rate in its object. The object is quite admirable, and in saying that at once I say it without any qualification. I wish to see achieved that object, which is to substitute for the illuminating standard of gas a standard of heating
  1442
  power. In the old days when we had open flame burners, and people used gas for lighting purposes with open flame burners, it was of the utmost importance to have good illuminating gas, but now there are hardly any illuminating burners of that kind. We use gas with mantles from which we obtain light from heat and not really from illuminating power. We also use a great deal of gas for cooking and stoves, and it is altogether right that we should alter the standard of power. Why is this done at the present time? It is not emergency legislation at all. It is legislation that is very belated, very belated indeed, and which ought to have been carried through long ago. It is all very well to say that it is better to carry it now than to put off the time. I think very likely that is so; but what does this Bill do? It enables the Board of Trade, or in the case of gas undertakings which are under local authorities the Local Government Board, to make Orders by which any gas undertaking may alter its standard of power. That is quite right; but how many gas undertakings are there? There is an enormous number in this country, and they will all be immediately benefited to this extent: that they can at once, if they get an Order made on their behalf, reduce their illuminating power with very great advantage to themselves, and also to the consumer if they reduce the price to the consumer. The result will be that as soon as this Bill is passed you will have applications from all the various gas undertakings in the country for Orders in this direction, which, no doubt, will be quite a right policy. How many gas undertakings are there? We have a very large and voluminous Return issued every year. The last one was ordered to be printed by this House on the 26th July, 1915, and I presume that very few Members have really studied this very long and really rather uninteresting and unnecessary Return. I will give to the House the total at the conclusion of the Return, which shows the number of undertakings, and which also shows what a very great industry this gas industry is. There are 831 gas undertakings in this country. Are they all coming at once for Orders to the Local Government Board, or the Board of Trade? That is the point to which I hope my hon. Friend will reply. If we have 831 applications from the various gas undertakings in the country for Orders in this direction immediately this Act is passed, are you prepared to give them Orders at once?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: No.
  Mr. KING: Very well, then. To whom are you going to give preference? You are going to give preference to some companies and not to others.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: No.
  Mr. KlNG: Oh! Then what is the necessity for having the Bill at all?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I will explain that.
  Mr. KING: I should very much like to know that. I will put my point in another way. If you are going to pass legislation of this kind, it is for some immediate purpose. What is it? So far as I can make out it is only to issue Orders. There are 831 undertakings which are available for receiving these Orders, and how are you going to cope with them all at once? It is a very important point indeed whether you are going to use the powers in this Bill at once, and, if so, whether you are in a position at a time like this to cope with them adequately. No less than £160,000,000 are invested in these gas undertakings in the country. The expenditure for the year is £28,000,000, so that, of course, in order to alter the whole basis of the gas industry, as this Bill does, you are not undertaking a small task, and I think we ought to have some assurance as to how this Act is to be worked, why it is wanted at the present time, and whether the authorities are in a position to deal fairly with all the localities at one time.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Hear, hear!
  Mr. KING: We may have a satisfactory answer. I come to another point. We have here in Sub-section (2) of this Bill a very important provision, which says:
  "In considering the expediency of making such an Order the Department shall have special regard to whether the undertakers have erected—and worked or are prepared to erect and work—suitable crude benzol recovery plant for the production of benzol and toluol."
  What does that mean? It means this: That these undertakings, companies, or local authorities which are to have the benefit of these Orders are to be encouraged to go into the chemical trade—a very desirable thing at this time—for the purpose of obtaining as plentifully, as possible the raw materials of munitions, especially explosives, and the raw materials of many of our industries for which we have in times past been largely
  1444
  dependent on Germany. What does it mean? It means that gas companies, which were not established to do chemical work primarily and principally, are to be encouraged to set up plants. Are all of these 831 undertakings to be encouraged to set up special plants for the production of benzol and toluol, and to be told that they are not to be allowed to have the benefits of this Act unless they do? That is a point which really is very serious, because it may mean, and very possibly will mean, that if there is an enormous increased production of all these byproducts the price will go down, and there will be an over-production of them. I have no doubt that is a matter which has had some consideration at the hands of the Board of Trade—indeed, I hope so. We ought to have some indication of what this policy means. I will go further and ask whether, when you are encouraging companies to make chemicals which have had Acts of Parliament given to them to make gas, and for that purpose alone, are you going to keep the accounts separate? You ought to keep the accounts of the gas companies separate for their gas undertakings and for their chemical undertakings. Otherwise, you would be allowing them to give to the public at no reduction of price possibly an inferior article, while all the time they are speculating and possibly losing very heavily in their chemical industry. It is all very well to say that in this way we are going to encourage the chemical industry of the country, and that is a very good object. I quite admit it. These companies, however, were formed and had special privileges given to them for the purposes of gas, mainly or solely, and so I think the public ought to have some assurance and some safeguard that their interests as gas consumers are going to be properly conserved. How does the hon. Gentleman propose to safeguard the rights of the public as consumers of gas? So far as I can make out, there is in the Bill no provision at all for that object. I do not see one. I have tried to draft a provision of this nature which I shall put on the Order Paper, and which we may possibly consider in Committee. It may be that the hon. Gentleman may be able to satisfy me that that is not necessary. I may, of course, here refer to the sliding scale. All gas companies are now under the sliding scale; which means that if they reduce the price of gas, then they can increase their dividends payable to their shareholders, and

  1445
  only as they reduce the price of gas may their dividends be increased. That, of course, is an excellent provision, and a great security to the public. But there is no reference to a sliding scale here. The illuminating power, the quality of the gas, may be reduced, and the public may be getting an article which is going to be produced very much more cheaply by the company; but there is no provision whatever that I see that when a cheaper article is given to consumers by the company then the consumers are to pay less, or, indeed, to get any benefit at all. There is another point on which I think there ought to be some assurance given. Of course, this Bill is not entirely clear, because it leaves a good deal to the Board of Trade or the Local Government Board as to the forms and conditions under which the Orders will be granted, and perhaps quite rightly. I have thrown out a few points which I think worthy of consideration, and I hope we shall have some answer to meet possibly the objections and difficulties which I foresee, and which I think are quite real and worthy of attention.
  Sir NORVAL HELME: I rise to support the Bill. The fact is that at the present time it may be taken that some 95 per cent, of gas is consumed for heating purposes and through the incandescent lights, 5 per cent, only remaining which is used for purely illuminating purposes. Hence, in asking the House to accede to this Bill, I think the public are to be advantaged by the principle that is now before it. As a matter of fact, in many of the recent private legislation Bills application has been made for powers, which have been granted, to vary the standard which has been given in former days, and when you remember that the greater the calorific power of the gas the more illumination you get from it, from the incandescent burners, it makes a great difference to the arguments which have just been pressed. There is economy for the public in the use of such burners, and I think, therefore, that we should support this Bill, and that we can trust the Government to see to justice and equity in its administration. The old tests are obsolete. The prescribed quality of the gas, which had to be fourteen candles, tested in a surface burner and so on—all this test was very difficult. At the same time we now have an advance in the system of illumination, and the Government are requiring the extraction of toluol, thus reducing the illuminating power of the gas supplied under the old
  1446
  standard. I think the Government is to be congratulated that now, in this Bill, for which it asks the consent of the House, it is going to bring the practice of the day into harmony with the general law. I beg to support the Bill.
  Sir W. PEARCE: We do not often find a Bill dealing with gas companies generally: but I welcome this Bill to-day because I think it does deal with a point that really requires a change. The substitution of the calorific power standard for illuminating power is, of course, some small financial help to gas companies. On the other hand, I do not know that the public is disadvantaged in any way. The gas companies certainly require some return for the large operations many of them have undertaken at the instance of the Ministry of Munitions in increasing the supply of benzol and toluol, and I am glad to see that this is an important condition in the Bill. Although I say this, I do feel very much the point which was made by the hon. Member opposite, that in view of the fact that these operations of the gas companies are becoming very, very considerable, and in come cases more than considerable—almost a larger production than the gas itself—I should have been glad if the Government had included in this Bill a Clause dealing with the financial separation of the two operations. It really is required in everybody's interests. It is required in the interest of the gas companies, so that they should know exactly how much profit they are making on their various operations; in the interest of the public and in the interest of the consumers. The point is one which has often been raised, but there has seldom been an opportunity of introducing it into a Bill. Here we have a Bill which deals with the gas companies generally, and although I welcome what the Bill contains, my complaint is that the Bill does not include the other point for the a lvantage of the whole country.
  Mr. W. THORNE: I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill whether the Government intend to make provision to give gas consumers some compensating advantage for the value which they lose by this Bill, which is of general application. If I remember rightly, when the South Metropolitan Gas Company, the Gas Light and Coke Company, and one or two others of the gas companies of London, were promoting private Bills for the purpose of reducing the illuminating power of their gas from

  1447
  sixteen to fourteen-candle power, there was a Clause in all these Bills which made it compulsory for the gas company to reduce the price of gas 2d. per 1,000 feet. The reason that concession was made was that by reducing the candle-power from sixteen to fourteen a saving of many thousands of pounds was made by some of the larger gas companies. It was the purification for the extra two candle-power that cost the companies a good deal of money. At one time a great deal of Cannel coal was used for illuminating purposes, and in consequence of there being a shortage of this coal the companies used other coal. The result was that it saved the companies many thousands of pounds, therefore the consumers were entitled to the reduction of 2d. per 1,000 feet. If this is going to be of general application, the Government should see that these particular gas companies reduce the price of gas at least 2d. per 1,000 feet. It is upon those lines that the hon. Member for North Somerset has raised this particular question. I do not know whether there is anything in the Bill giving the Government power to reduce the gas 2d. per 1,000 feet; if not, I think there should be. If it had not been for the introduction of gas-mantles the gas company would not have been allowed to supply gas of the quality they do now. If you were to discard your gas-mantles and fit on old burners you would soon find out what I might call the various kinds of impurities that pass through in consequence of the candle-power being reduced. I contend that the consumer is entitled to a reduction of 2d. per 1,000 feet in consequence of the change to which I have referred.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I am glad I did not rise to explain the Bill in the first instance, or I should have had no opportunity of replying on the points raised. I think all the points which have been mentioned have been met in this Bill. The object of the Bill is twofold. First of all, it is a war measure in that the present object of the Bill is to do everything possible to induce gas companies to increase the supply of benzol and toluol required by the Ministry of Munitions. The reason that the Bill has been drafted is that we wish, and intend, during the War to confine the permission given to companies which are prepared to erect plant for the purpose of producing benzol and toluol, which are badly re
  1448
  quired. I am glad to see from the speeches which have been made on this Rill that the House itself supports the idea of this change being made permanent—that is to say, it is quite obvious that it is quite out of date to insist upon the quality of gas being gauged by its illuminant power simply as gas in old-fashioned burners. My hon. Friend who has just spoken pointed out that this is a matter of past ages, for the old class of burner in an inhabited room is a thing to be by no means encouraged, but rather discouraged, because, from the impurities of the gas, it is a distinct danger to health. Many of us remember the kind of atmosphere we used to encounter in places of amusement, for instance, where the light was obtained from the old-fashioned gas burner, and all must agree that any legislation which intends to prolong that state of things was not only mischievous, but very much out of date now, and that we ought to have altered our standard long ago. The standard has been altered in this sense: that in all the separate Orders which have recently come before Parliament—and that covers already a very large proportion of gas companies and includes the Gas Light and Coke Company, which had an enormous output of something like 13 per cent, of the whole output of the country—the companies are now under the system to which my hon. Friend referred. Therefore, we are only really carrying out a principle of which Parliament has already approved, and which it inserts in the private Bills which gas companies bring to this House.
  We do not, however, propose to extend the principle generally until after the War, for the reason which I have given; though we take power to do it, and it is our intention to do it. We do not intend to carry it out during the War beyond the giving of Orders where those concerned will erect this plant, for the first object we have here is to provide for the necessities of the War. We must, therefore, defer till afterwards subsidiary considerations. We thought, however, we had better take the power, if the House would consent, for general purposes. Both during the War and after the War the question will certainly arise as to whether a company will derive considerable advantages by this change, and how far the consumer should share those advantages. The power that is taken in the Bill gives to the appropriate Government Department, which hon. Members will see

  1449
  from the Bill is the Board of Trade in the case of private companies, and the Local Government Board in the case of public authorities who are undertaking to supply the gas, authority to hold an inquiry before giving an Order. In holding that inquiry it can examine into the question of the advantages which the gas company or the public undertaking will derive from the changed standards. The Departments will be certainly within their powers, and they will certainly exercise the powers, to examine into the advantages obtained, and as a condition of giving the Order, they will be able to insist that any proper and reasonable reduction in the price of gas shall be included. I think, therefore, that meets the point which has been raised. I must point out now, however, that it may be in the Orders which are made during war—in some cases certainly—there will appear advantages which the company will derive on account of this particular situation or opportunities in putting down plant which will be required for national purposes during the War, but which may not in all cases remain profit afterwards, because there may not be such a demand for the products of toluol and benzol. In some cases there may be more, and in some less. That will be a point which the inquiry will have to embrace. It may be that on that point the company will be able to put forward the plea that while it derives profit from the erection of the plant during the War, that plant will be of very little use to it after the War. Up to the point to which that applies that will have to be taken into consideration, and I think my hon. Friends will agree that that could not possibly be left out of account.
  As to the point raised by the hon. Members for North Somerset and Lime-house, who spoke in favour of the keeping of separate accounts, I shall certainly have it considered. I would point out, though, that in the selling of gas a company or a public authority takes into account all the profits which it makes by the by-products. The production is treated as one. Perhaps my hon. Friends would like to confer with the officials of the Board of Trade upon the matter, for it does seem to me to be rather necessary to keep these things as one in order that the real ultimate cost of the gas may be arrived at, and in estimating the price at which it should be sold. The prime object of the company, and the object which
  1450
  it has received the authority of Parliament, is to supply the public with gas, and any subsidiary operation which the company undertake apart from the main undertaking should be credited to the main undertaking, and should be an element in deciding what price the company is entitled to charge for its gas. Though it may be desirable or necessary as a matter of account, I should rather like to go into that matter in detail, for I do not quite appreciate the reasons for the separation of the accounts; and we get back to the fact that whenever chemicals may be produced as by-products that the result, whether it be profit or less in the production of those chemicals, really goes to affect the profits of the company as a whole, and cannot be financially separated from the general statement of accounts upon which the company's rights to charge them is based. I think that really deals with all the points which have been raised, and I think I can undertake that, if the House will be good enough to give authority for this Bill to be passed, that in carrying it out that the Government Departments will have regard to the considerations which have been raised here.
  Sir R. ADKINS: May I inquire whether the Bill applies to companies which already have special departments for the treatment of benzol or toluol?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Certainly. I will certainly see that if the words of the Bill do not cover that, that they shall cover it.
  Sir R. ADKINS: I take it from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman that this question of the separation of the accounts is not to be inserted in this Bill, but that after the War it will be considered.
  Sir W. PEARCE: I by no means contended that any profits made in the manufacture of by-products should not go in the reduction of the price of gas. That is what I desire. What I did point out, however, was that these operations were becoming so extensive and complicated that unless separate accounts were kept it would be impossible for any undertaking to know exactly where they were in regard to that particular manufacture. Unless there are separate accounts kept from the gas undertaking, when the gas companies make these other substances,

  1451
  it will be quite impossible for either the gas company or the Government to know how they stand in the matter.
  The necessity for the separation of accounts has come home very much to me just lately. The chemical industry has been made a controlled establishment, especially with regard to productions such as sulphuric acid, and many large companies are making those very chemical substances that the Government control. There is no separation of accounts in those large chemical operations of the purely gas operations of a gas undertaking. It has been impossible to treat them in the same way, so that we have to-day a large number of private traders making certain things similar to what gas companies are making, and the private traders are controlled, whereas the gas companies are out of control. In the discussion last week it was pointed out that one set of operations are subject to 80 per cent, tax and the other to 60 per cent, tax. That is by the way. The operations are becomining so considerable that it would be extremely useful to every one concerned if a separation of accounts were arrived at and were insisted upon by the Government.
  Question, "That the Bill be now read a second time," put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. Pea.]

  POLICE, ETC. (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The SECRETARY Of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Samuel): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  This is a Bill which contains a considerable variety of provisions in detail, all arising out of the present War conditions. I have observed that on the Order Paper there are several Notices of Motion opposing the Second Reading of this Bill. All are directed, I think, to one Clause, whether that appears in the terms of the Motion itself or not. Therefore it is desirable, and I think it would save the time of the House, if at the outset I were to state the reasons which have led the Government to propose Clause 8 in the Bill dealing with the duties of certifying
  1452
  surgeons. Let me make it clear to hon. Members who are interested in this subject, in the first instance that we are not proposing to abolish all the functions of certifying surgeons. They will still have the duty of certifying physical fitness of children and young persons who are seeking work under the Factory and Workshop Act. They will still have the duty of examining all cases with regard to industrial poisoning. They will also have to understake periodical examination of workers in dangerous trades under the special rules relating to dangerous trades. Indeed, the Home Office is continually enlarging the functions of certifying surgeons in this latter respect, and requiring more and more the assistance of certifying surgeons with respect to workers in dangerous trades.
  The only point with which this Clause deals is the duty which has hitherto been performed by certifying surgeons investiting the deaths or injuries caused to workers by certain classes of accidents. With regard to about one-third of the whole number of accidents the law requires that the occupier—that is the person who owns the factory or workshop, or manages it—should report when an accident happens both to the factory inspector and to the certifying surgeon, and then the certifying surgeon has the duty of holding an investigation as to the nature and cause of the death or injury caused by the accident, for which, of course, he is paid a fee, and the fees in the course of the year amount to about £12,500. Now the only duty that the certifying surgeon has to do is to examine the workman who is injured and to say, "Yes, this man has had a finger cut off," or whatever it may be, by a machine of a certain character. He has not got the duty—in fact, he has not the right—of taking any steps whatever with regard to remedying the defects of the machine or securing that it shall be more safe in the future than in the past. He can give no instruction to the factory owner, or say that the machine was not sufficiently guarded and in future must have a more perfect guard. All he can do is to report to the factory inspector that the man had his finger cut off. The factory inspector then has to consider whether he shall examine the machine and give instructions to the occupier. What the Home Office wants to know is not what the nature of the injury is from a medical point of view, but it wants to know how it happened, the cause of the accident,

  1453
  and how it can be prevented in future, and for that purpose we do not require the assistance of a man of medical knowledge, but we require the assistance of a man with mechanical knowledge. That is to say, the factory inspector in all cases has to do the actual work that is required to prevent this accident occurring again, and these reports are found in practice not to save the factory inspector any work at all, but rather to increase the work he has to do, and hinder rather than help.
  The staff of factory inspectors receive about 50,000 reports every year from the certifying surgeons which, in almost all cases, are mere duplications of any reports sent to then by the occupiers. The occupier reports to the factory inspector that such-and-such a man has had his finger cut off. He receives also a report from the certifying surgeon, "I have examined such-and-such a man and find his finger has been cut off by such-and-such a machine." In the view of the Home Office—this view has been held for many years past—those reports in almost all cases are a mere duplication, and are unnecessary. For my part I should not dream of acquiescing in any change of the law which would in any degree weaken the safeguards of the worker, and my hon. Friends who know the keenness of the Home Office chief Inspector of Factories and all his staff to safeguard the interests of the workers, would not imagine for a moment that they would acquiesce in framing a proposal of this kind if in any way it was likely to have that deleterious effect. On the contrary, we must do everything in our power to make industry more and more safe, and I am proud to remember that the very first Bill I introduced as a member of the Government in the Office of Under-Secretary to the Homo Office ten years ago was the Notice of Accidents Act, 1906, which put the whole of this matter on a better footing, and I hope has been instrumental in saving workers from a very large number of accidents.
  Colonel YATE: Would it not, then, be better to strengthen the hands of the doctors in this respect instead of abolishing them?
  Mr. SAMUEL: We do not want doctors; we want factory inspectors. It is not necessary to know that a man has a lesion of the hand or an injury to the leg. From his own point of view to get it cured, it is no doubt important, but these reports of
  1454
  the nature of the injury are really of no value to the Home Office at all. The whole subject was most carefully investigated by an expert Committee which was appointed in 1908. My right hon. Friend, now the Under-Secretary of State for War, was chairman of it, but on his taking office in the Government be was succeeded by my right hon. Friend who is now Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture. This Committee consisted of the following gentlemen: Mr. A. M. Carlisle, of Messrs. Harland and Wolffe; Sir William D. Cramp, for many years assistant chief factory inspector; our late Friend and colleague, Mr. Gill, a respected and active member of the Labour party; my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald); Mr. J. B. Tattersall, representing the Oldham Master Cotton Spinners; Mr. J. S. Taylor, of the firm of Taylor and Challen, engineers, Birmingham; Mr. H. Vivian, then a colleague of ours in this House; and Miss Mona Wilson. This Committee was appointed in order to consider the causes of the increase of accidents, and to recommend what additional precautionary measures were in their opinion necessary and desirable. They made a most thorough inquiry and sat for more than two years, and reported unanimously in 1911—there are a number of minority reports, but not touching this point—that these reports from the certifying surgeons were useless, were duplications, and might without disadvantage be abolished.
  Labour organisations, we know, are very ready to make representations to the Government on any matter which affects them. This Bill has been printed now for a number of weeks, and I have received no representations from anybody representing organised labour except a few local branches of the Oldham section of the cotton trade. I have discussed this with a deputation representing the Transport Workers Federation, and they are satisfied with the steps I propose to take. The only opposition which has come to this proposal comes from the doctors themselves. They are a strongly organised profession.. Whenever there is any proposal which touches their interest they are very ready to approach Members of the House of Commons. It is from them that circulars have been received which hon. Members have had, and it is at their instigation, I venture to think, the opposition which has so far revealed itself proceeds. I do not know how at the present time, when there is

  1455
  so great a dearth of doctors, when we need medical men for the services of the War, we can defend requiring a number of medical men all over the country to spend time and energy in sending in 50,000 unnecessary reports. And if it is true that those gentlemen will no longer receive the fees to which they have been accustomed at the present time, when there is so great a demand for medical men, when the medical profession of this country is under-staffed, this is the moment when the change can be made with the least hardship to the men who have hitherto performed this work.
  Sir P. MAGNUS: Does this Bill provide for the period of the War only?
  8.0 p.m.
  Mr. SAMUEL: No. This proposal does not stop with the period of the War. There are two things which, I think, ought to be done for the security of the workers against accidents, which are, as we all know, far too frequent in the factories and workshops and other industrial establishments. One is I should like to see a more organised step taken by the Home Office to induce the local branches of trade unions to make representations whenever any of their members have sound reason to believe that dangerous conditions prevail in the places where they work. I should like to see trade unions far more active in this respect, sending into the factory inspectors a much larger number of complaints than they now do, drawing the attention of the factory inspectors to specific cases in which danger arises, so that they may be specially examined. The other step which I think should be taken is to strengthen the medical side of the factory administration. We have now three whole-time medical factory inspectors. Industry is now becoming to a great extent a matter of chemistry, and the factory inspectors ought to be strengthened on this side. When the War is over, I should like to see part of the money which is saved in paying fees for what I regard as useless reports devoted to the appointment of seven whole-time medical factory inspectors instead of three. Probably when the War is over the Treasury may not be averse to allowing the Home Office to spend a part of the savings made during the War upon a much needed strengthening of the factory inspection staff. That is the case for the proposal in this Bill. The Retrenchment Com
  1456
  mittee having had their attention drawn to the report of the Accidents Committee of 1911 strongly and unanimously recommended that these useless fees should no longer be paid. This House urges the Government to economise whenever it is possible, and especially in the direction of reducing the number of useless official: reports. I do not know how any hon. Member of this House can oppose the Government on this matter when they say, on, the authority of the Factory Department of the Home Office, that these reports are useless and can be abolished, and that they are not worth the expenditure which they incur. I do not know how I should be justified, in face of the report of the Retrenchment Committee and the Accidents Committee, in continuing to ask the Treasury for this £12,500 a year in existing circumstances.
  Colonel YATE: The right hon. Gentleman has asked the trade unions to report, but would they not be much strengthened if they had the doctors behind them?
  Mr. SAMUEL: I can only repeat that this is not a doctors' question, because in these cases the doctor can tell us nothing but what we knew before.
  Colonel YATE: What are the trade-unions to tell us?
  Mr. SAMUEL: They can say, "Here is a machine which is dangerous." The doctor would not know anything about that. All the doctor does is to report that a man has had an accident, and they write a report to the factory inspector to tell him what he knows already, namely, that the man has had an accident. Clause 7 is a useful Clause dealing with the welfare of workers affecting women employed in factories and workshops. There is a very proper Clause to enable police authorities to pay compensation to persons who have been enlisted to assist the police under war conditions, and who have suffered accidents, and this applies to their representatives in case of death. There is a Clause to enable the Clause that prevails in Scotland for regulating street collections to apply to England. There are a number of other Clauses. I should like to say that I shall not be able to accept on the Committee stage any new Clauses that do not directly relate to the conditions of the War. This is a Bill with a very wide title, and it is possible to put down thirty or forty new Clauses dealing with matters exceedingly desirable in themselves, but

  1457
  under the circumstances in which legislation is carried on at this time I must ask hon. Members to direct their attention only to matters which directly arise from and relate to war conditions.
  Sir HENRY CRAIK: I am unwilling to delay an emergency Bill which I think will command the consent and the support of the House, but this is an omnibus Bill. The Clauses are entirely separate, and it is necessary to raise important points. It is necessary now to give notice of this opposition and discuss the matter, although it may not be necessary to go to a Division. I am afraid that the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman have not persuaded me that the proposal which he now makes is in any way justified. I am quite sure that the Retrenchment Committee examined this question and made their recommendations in good faith, and I would be the last to attempt to oppose or to raise unnecessary objections against any serious proposal for retrenchment which they may have made. But really when we come to consider retrenchment we must, in the first place, have some sense of proportion. A great deal more is involved in this than the right hon. Gentleman was willing to admit in his speech. What is the saving which is proposed? It is £ 12,500 a year spread over 2,000 certifying surgeons. The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that the only objection raised was that put forward by the certifying surgeons themselves. I think that was rather an unfair insinuation, and it certainly is not the only motive which makes me rise to oppose the suggestion. Amongst 2,000 surgeons this small sum of £12,500 cannot be an object of such extreme covetousness that they would organise an opposition from one end of the country to the other. I speak upon information which has been given to me when I say that there are only about 100 surgeons who have anything like considerable pay out of this £12,500, and out of the 2,000 surgeons the vast majority, amounting to something like 1,900, get nothing but a mere pittance when they are called in to perform an examination. If it is not necessary these surgeons need not be called in. They are not wholly salaried officers, but they get a certain pay for doing a certain work. I have another objection to this proposal being brought in under the cover of an emergency retrenchment Bill. I do not think it is fair in a retrenchment Bill to raise a question which has long been one
  1458
  of dispute fought over and over again, and put it in a Bill of this sort to be passed in an emergency on the strong suggestion that any opposition to it is interrupting the public good and interfering with the action of the Retrenchment Committee. I do not think it is far in a Bill of that sort to try to settle a question which has been long fought over, and which has been tried as an experiment before and has failed. The right hon. Gentleman said that he had the support of the Committee of 1911. On two previous occasions in the year 1901, and again in 1905, legislation was attempted with precisely the same object and failed, and was withdrawn by the Government of the day, owing to the opposition raised, not by the certifying surgeons, but by the representatives of the working classes. With regard to the Committee of 1911, the right hon. Gentleman read a list of those who-composed it, and I observe that there was not a single representative of the medical profession upon it whose experience and' knowledge on the subject might have been valuable. Not only was there no skilled medical knowledge on the Committee of 1911, upon whose unanimous fiat the right hon. Gentleman rests so much, but I understand that not a single medical witness was called before the Committee.
  Mr. SAMUEL: Oh, yes!
  Sir H. CRAIK: I am informed that the surgeons were not asked to give evidence and I think the right hon. Gentleman will find that that information is corrects The connection of the certifying surgeons with accidents in the factories has existed ever since the Factory Acts were passed, and although slight modifications in every direction have been repeatedly made since: that time, none of those legislative changes have introduced any change with regard to the security provided by the presence and the reports of certifying surgeons upon accidents. I have shown that so far as the money consideration weighs, it is a very slight one indeed in the case of the certifying surgeons. The fact is that, they consider there is a much more serious objection from a professional point of view. The right hon. Gentleman said he had no intention of ousting the certifying surgeons from a great many of the important duties they perform in connection with factories and factory work. But surely the very fact that they give the certificate as to bodily ability to perform this work, and are constantly in the habit,

  1459
  of visiting the factories, has enabled them to become intimately acquainted not only with the owner and proprietor, but with the working men and the boys and girls themselves, and consequently they know what accidents they are liable to and their habits. Surely that makes it very important for the factories and those employed there that this important part of their work should not be taken away from them, because it gives a wider outlook to their professional practice and makes them closely acquainted with the workers whose interest is entrusted to them.
  It is that wider aspect, that wider range, that deep and closer connection that is kept together between the certifying surgeon, with all his medical knowledge and interest, with that medical knowledge which experience gives, that is important, and it is that point of view that these certifying surgeons feel is the strongest part of their case. With regard to the workers, are we to be told that the whole matter is one of machinery? Are we to have nothing but a mere machine inspector to tell us what is the cause of an accident and its effect upon the life and habits of the workers? Is the certifying surgeon, with his medical knowledge and experience of the habits of these people, with his constant lifelong habit of judging and testing their powers to take part in the work, who knows the pain and suffering that may be endured by those workers, to be dispensed with? It is not for themselves alone. If it were, I should not be speaking against the right hon. Gentleman. It is because I think that these men, like the rest of their profession, have a deep sympathy in their work, and are anxious to do their best for the welfare and the health of those who are entrusted to their care, that they desire that this part of their work should not be put off. They desire that there should be something more than the man who looks after the machinery, the mechanical engineer whose verdict the right hon. Gentleman thinks is quite sufficient. There is surely something we owe to the workmen, and above all at this moment, when we are trying to draw in, and rightly trying to draw in, diluted labour, and when the dangers to the workers are increased. The watchful eye of the certifying surgeon, with his knowledge of how this or that defect in a machine may tell on the human Agent working the machine, is especially necessary when you are diluting factory
  1460
  work by bringing in unskilled labour, and bringing it in, let me remind the right hon. Gentleman, not merely for ordinary factory work, but for new and specially dangerous factory work. I presume the munition factories have special dangers of their own. Is it at a time like this that you are going to cut the workers off from the aid and the sympathetic examination they have received from the medically skilled?
  The right hon. Gentleman admitted that the certifying surgeon has one little function. He can see the workmen. That is immensely important. The workman will give him a frank account. He will seek his sympathy. He is accustomed to taking the advice of a medical man who sympathises with his work. He is far more likely to give him a full and free account of the accident than to a mere mechanical inspector. The certifying surgeon has been accustomed to examine these workers personally; he has been accustomed to associating with them, and, according to the right hon. Gentleman, he will still carry on that association. It is precisely for those reasons that I wish him to continue seeing the workman, examining into his interests, and hearing his story in order to know how he feels with regard to the work and the conditions. It is precisely that which I think supplies an additional argument for keeping up the connection. I beseech the right hon. Gentleman to believe that however much I may be interested in the certifying surgeon, and however ready I may be, as I am bound to be, to listen to their story, it is not for this trifling amount of money that I raise this question It is because of the additional help given by them and the knowledge and wide range given by their professional work, and still more it is because, according to their evidence, which I thoroughly believe to be sincere and honest, it is in the interests of the workers with whom they have been so long associated, whom they have learned to know, and whose special liabilities they have tried to understand and to avoid, that I ask the right hon. Gentleman when he comes to the Committee stage of this Bill to withdraw this obnoxious Clause, and not to attempt by a subterfuge to settle a long dispute which Parliament has refused to settle in this direction before under the guise of an Emergency Bill, on the supposition that such a Bill is introduced only because it is absolutely necessary in the interests of the country.
  Mr. TOOTILL: I want to take the opportunity of thanking the right hon. Gentleman for the very kindly and sympathetic reference he made to my predecessor in this House, Mr. Gill. It was very gratifying to hear him referring in such kindly terms to Mr. Gill's work in this House. He referred to the fact that he signed a Report which was submitted to the Home Office, I believe, in 1911. I remember Mr. Gill, along with other Members of this House, and others out of it, going round to visit various factories and workshops throughout Lancashire and Yorkshire. I remember the conversations we had in regard to this particular part of his Parliamentary work. It is very desirable that retrenchment should take place in every direction in which it can be carried out without impairing or endangering the efficiency of any of the Departments of the State, but if it can only be done at the expense of interfering with safeguards for the working people of the country that ought to strengthened rather than weakened, then it is a very dangerous policy. The Home Secretary in 1906 had the pleasure and duty of bringing in a measure to further protect and safeguard the workers of the country. I believe the working people firmly believe that the present Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary are their friends. I do not think that they have introduced this Clause with any desire whatever of weakening the position of the workers. I would like to ask the Home Secretary why at a time like this these reports have suddenly become unnecessary. He has pointed out that these reports of the factory surgeon are not now so essential as they have been previously. That was the impression I got from his statement. Then why were they thought necessary when they were first introduced as a part of the duties of the certifying surgeons? Evidently, at one time, they were regarded as more or less necessary officials or they would not have been introduced. May I speak now as one who has spent nearly thirty years of my life as a worker in a cotton factory, and I think that the point I am going to make is one I know something about. Suppose I was putting a strap on a spinning mule, which is done daily in hundreds of cases, and the ladder I had to put up was fixed in a certain position, and that ladder gave way, and I came down to the ground, and I got in my finger or arm or any part of my body what is called a spelk, or small piece of timber
  1462
  saturated with oil or grease or other things, and septic poisoning resulted from that, and the doctor's evidence of that would be required for compensation. It would be required at present for compensation; but when I was working there was no compensation. I have suffered from septic poisoning caused by that means when the doctors were not so very careful as they are now in following up cases of that kind. If compensation is to be paid in a case like that, would the doctor's evidence not be, in the opinion of the Home Office, absolutely essential. I think it would be, and there are numbers of cases of a similar kind which might result in septic poisoning setting in, not just at the moment, but at a later period, and I think that the doctor's report, especially if he is called upon to substantiate the facts contained in that report, are very material indeed.
  I admit it is unfortunate that a strong volume of trade union opinion has not reached the right hon. Gentleman in regard to this matter. It certainly would have strengthened our hands, those of us who have taken up this case, and I hope the Home Secretary does not think that it is unnecessary opposition, or that it is uncalled-for opposition, and I tell the House candidly that I am not animated at all by any kind of interest in the certifying surgeon, beyond seeing that every class in the community is at any rate entitled to equity and justice in any legislation that comes from this House. I am merely taking it up on those grounds. I admire the spirit of the right hon. Gentleman when he actually admits that what is required is more inspectorate power and I hope that while he is in the position which he occupies at present it may be found possible, and practicable even, to deal with that very important matter in the interests of the workers of the country. These people who are many times depending on the doctor's evidence ought to have the continued privilege of having the advantage of the doctor's guidance in regard to these particular accidents. I want to put another point, as a practical man and a worker in a cotton factory. Suppose, for instance, in the execution of my duties I am a man who is in charge of a mule who has with him a creeler, or little piecer. Such a man cannot always be having his eye on the little piecer, and cannot always follow him about, however anxious he may be to safeguard him,

  1463
  because he feels there is a joint responsibility between the employer and himself, and he feels very anxious indeed for that little boy, who is not altogether capable of knowing exactly where the danger lies, just in the case of unfenced machinery. I believe it is better fenced now than ever in the history of factories and workshops, but it is even yet needed to be further fenced to give protection to those boys who are called creelers, or little piecers. Suppose he is going round and in and in and out of the machinery. I know there is a law that machinery is not to be cleaned, and that no boy is called upon to clean any part of the machinery, whilst it is in motion. But even in that case you cannot always keep the boys out of touching something that is dangerous, and they are entirely unconscious of the real danger until the accident occurs. Then suppose what is called a scrawl-band—I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman knows exactly what that is; I dare say he does, having sometimes visited the factories and found out some of those things. Suppose this scrawl-band is not sufficiently and properly guarded and protected. It is a dangerous part of the machinery, especially when it is in motion, and supposing that boy is doing his work and "sweeping under the wheels," as we call it, and he does not know he is so near to it, as I was, and he is taken round, as I was, by the rope and he is caught on the shoulder, and the mark is there still on me. I did not realise the specific danger there was about this scrawl, but I was taken round, and the doctor in certifying stated that it was an extremely dangerous part of the machinery. It was a long time after that before that was fenced as a dangerous part of the machinery.
  Mr. SAMUEL: Had the doctor any power to take any action?
  Mr. TOOTILL: I suppose he could report to the Home Office or the factory inspector, and surely some action would be taken; some action at least ought to be taken. I merely put this point to ask the Home Secretary whether he thinks or does not think it is necessary that these doctors should be continued to carry out their existing duties of their office so that the workmen in the factories may know that they have not only the inspectors to depend upon but they have actually, as a third party, report, or support, the certifying surgeon. I cannot understand for a
  1464
  moment why the Home Secretary desires to accept this 1906 Report as having made it possible to carry out in his Department some form of retrenchment. We do not object to that, provided always that the safeguards and the efficient protection of the workpeople can be maintained at the same time. I do think that the life and limb of the workmen ought to be the primary consideration in this matter, and that when we are talking about legislation in this House, at any rate, some of the strongest motives that animate us ought to be human life, and human safety, and I would go further and say, human honour, as one of the highest ideals we can have in promoting this class of legislation. I was delighted with the way in which the right hon. Gentleman expressed himself with regard to this particular aspect of the subject, and his desire that further powers should be given for an increased number of inspectors. I hope the time will come when he will be able to carry that into effect.
  An HON. MEMBER: He suggested he would do so after the War.
  Mr. TOOTILL: I hope he will see his way to take the matter up, and I believe he will, and that there will be a great advantage arising from it. I want to assure him that we have no desire to prevent hint from doing that in taking up our present position, and I want to say straight that I am not acting at all from any motive promoted by the certifying surgeons themselves. Who will take up the work of the certifying surgeons? Will it devolve upon the inspectors or upon the employers? We ought to have a specific statement upon that point, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us satisfaction upon it, because it will be patent to all Members of the House that it is essential we should have a clear statement on the point. No one is better qualified to give it than the representative of the Home Office himself.
  Sir P. MAGNUS: The Home Secretary has now had the opportunity of listening to two speeches in which very strong arguments have been adduced for retaining the services of these certifying surgeons. I trust that, before this Bill enters upon its Committee stage, he will give very careful consideration to the points that have been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow University (Sir H. Craik) and the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. Tootill), each

  1465
  approaching this important subject from different points of view, so that he will be willing, at that stage, to assent to the exclusion of this particular Clause from the Bill. I am very desirous indeed that some practical result shall follow from the excellent speeches that have been made. So far they are almost of academic interest, because I do not think that either the hon. Member for Glasgow University or the hon. Member for Bolton is desirous of preventing this Bill from being read a second time. That being so, it seems rather unnecessary to continue the Debate on the Second Reading with regard to this particular Clause. I am very desirous that when we come to the Committee stage we shall be able to show such overwhelming reasons in favour of retaining the services of the certifying surgeons that my right hon. Friend will then assent to the omission of this particular Clause from the Bill. It is a question for the Committee stage and not for the Second Reading; therefore I would prefer to reserve such additional arguments as I might be able to adduce in favour of the retention of the services of the certifying surgeons until we come to the Committee stage, when we shall have the opportunity of asking the right hon. Gentleman to omit this particular Clause from the Bill. For that reason I hope we may take the Second Reading as soon as possible, so that we may have a full Debate later on upon this particular Clause.
  Mr. STEPHEN WALSH: I shall be very pleased indeed to respond to the invitation of the hon. Member for London University (Sir P. Magnus), but I would like to find out from the right hon. Gentleman who is in charge of the Bill a little more definitely what his intentions are upon the Committee stage. One point undoubtedly is a strong one for him at present, namely, that the trade unions have made no strong objection to this particular Clause. I am not at all sure that the trade unions were quite aware that this Clause was to be forced through. The workers of the country up to the present have been engaged upon a very big task, and I am not sure whether the fact that we have set aside our party politics for the time being has tended to their enlightenment in other respects. I can promise that, so far as one man is concerned, the trade unions will know what is suggested before the Committee stage is reached. We are entitled to ask
  1466
  this question: This particular authority was created in 1833. A great wave of enthusiasm, very proper enthusiasm, rushed over the country at that time for an improvement in the conditions of the workers in the factories. It is unnecessary to say a single word as to what the conditions were at that time. This authority has been in existence for eighty-three years. Have the trade unions or the workers of the country ever objected to the certifying surgeons? Have they put forward a complaint that these men were performing functions which, in their belief, were unnecessary and ought to be done away with? If any such case as that had been made, we must all admit at once that an overwhelming case would have been made out for the Clause in this Bill. I do not think that has ever taken place, and I shall be very much surprised if it has. If the right hon. Gentleman or his Department had received from any organised body of labour, or even any disorganised body of labour, a suggestion that the work of these people should be done away with and that they were performing functions which were unnecessary and overlapped, then I believe there would be a strong case; but at present, when the dilution of labour is taking place to a degree never before known in the history of the country, when people unacquainted with the work in the mills and factories all over the country are being brought in by the tens of thousainds, there is not only no necessity for doing away with, but I believe there is a necessity for increasing this class of official. Is it suggested that the danger is lessening? I am not at all conversant with the facts in regard to factories.
  Mr. SAMUEL: Hear, hear!
  Mr. WALSH: But I do suggest that it would be difficult for the right hon. Gentleman or his Department to prove that accidents were substantially lessening even before the dilution of labour took place. I do know that the plea of the late hon. Member for Bolton was constantly for a great increase in the inspectorate. Has the inspectorate been increased?
  Mr. SAMUEL: Yes.
  Mr. WALSH: When?
  Mr. SAMUEL: Every year. The hon. Member is simply arguing for the continuance of what are useless reports, because he thinks the factory inspectorate

  1467
  ought to be increased. I want to increase the factory inspectorate, but that has nothing to do with the certifying surgeons.
  Mr. WALSH: The right hon. Gentleman wants to increase the inspectorate after the War. What becomes of the question of retrenchment? Twelve thousand five hundred pounds during the War is an absolute flea bite. The right hon. Gentleman does not suggest that these men are doing harm?
  Mr. SAMUEL: They are doing no good.
  Mr. WALSH: I distinctly say that they are doing good. The vast majority of accidents upon which these people report take place in the cases of boys and females. It is of the very essence of the case that there should be a person quickly upon the job. Is it suggested that the factory inspectors can be quickly upon the job? The very fact of the necessity for increasing the inspectorate gives away the case that they can be quickly upon the scene. The certifying surgeons live well within the immediate localities. They are quickly upon the scene and they have the person who has suffered the accident in hand very quickly. They are able to speak to the conditions under which the accident takes place at once, and with an authority and definiteness that an inspector never can possess. This matter after all affects the lives of the people so directly and so completely that a paltry amount of £12,500 can very well be allowed to go on until the whole matter can be investigated.
  I understand there have been three Committees. There was a Committee in 1905. Was there a single certifying surgeon called to that Committee? There was a Committee again in 1911. Was there a single certifying surgeon called to that Committee? Certainly we had gentlemen before us, who proved to be men of character and men of standard, and what they said to us was that not a single man had been called before the Committee. Have any of the organisations working with the industries to which these certifying surgeons are specially attached been asked to give evidence even before the Retrenchment Committee? If they have and they spoke in favour of the abolition of this functionary, of course I will admit that our case is considerably weakened, but when these men are the first upon the job when accidents happen, when they are the people to make a report
  1468
  of the conditions under which the accident has happened, when dilution of abour is taking place under conditions never known before, when unskilled labour is being brought into these dangerous occupations in a degree that has never been known before, when as a matter of fact it is more than ever necessary to conserve the life and limb of the young worker, male and female, this, forsooth, is the time and these are the conditions under which it is suggested that we ought to save £250 a week. I do not think the game is worth the candle, and I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill should weight his case with an argument such as that. So far as I am concerned, and I hope my trade union colleagues we will see at least that the organised workers know what is going on. It shall not be done in the dark, if it is done at all. If there is a saving, they shall know exactly how it is being made. If the certifying surgeons are to be done away with in so far as this branch of their work is concerned, the organised workers, at least in Lancashire, shall know about it, so that when the Committee stage arrives there will be a body of evidence on the part of the organised workers of my county who will know exactly what is taking place.
  Sir J. YOXALL: There was a great Bill that went through this House called the Children Bill, and to the author of it I make my appeal to withdraw this Clause. I cannot understand how the man who framed and carried through this House the Children Bill can now father to the smallest extent, even in one Clause of the Bill, a proposal which, if carried into effect, would injure the health and endanger the lives of countless children in this country. The number of children employed in factories and workshops in the last eighteen months or two years has grown to an enormous extent. The number of half-timers—not registered perhaps as such, but really acting as such—has grown to an enormous extent, and it is on their behalf that I make my appeal. What happens? Here is a child of twelve years of age. His parents wish him to go into the mill. Something has been said by the Home Secretary about the absence of trade union criticism and opposition to the Bill. I am sorry to say there are one or two trade unions which not only do not oppose the going of these children into the mills at twelve years of age, but support it and defend

  1469
  it. The boy of twelve years of age must go to a certifying surgeon, who says whether or not that boy is fit to do work in that particular mill, and so long as the man he goes to is a man who is daily, or weekly at least, in that kind of mill investigating accidents which arise out of the machinery in it, that certifying surgeon knows whether or not the boy can safely go upon that particular piece of work. There are boys who are very dull. They are more likely to be dull when they come from households which not only permit, but urge them to leave school and go to dangerous labour at the age of twelve. There are some whose eyesight is defective, and some whose hearing is defective. The hon. Member opposite, from his own experience, has related what occurs in regard to scavengers. It is true that machinery must not be in motion when these tiny youngsters are crawling in with brush and shovel, or with their fingers, to make slight alterations or to clear out rubbish or what not from the machine. It is a great machine with all sorts of recesses, and the man watching it, anxious as he may be to fulfil the law, and above all to do no harm to the youngster, if he has to deal with a dull youngster whose eyesight or hearing is not very good may start the machine with the youngster inside it. Who is to certify better than the surgeon, who pays frequent visits to the factory and knows the danger, whether the boy is fit to work there? What is the fountain and origin of this particular Clause? The Home Office for years has been opposed to these certifying surgeons. I hold no brief for them. I have no interest in them whatever, and they probably take no interest in me. But the Home Office is opposed to them because it is the natural tendency of a Government Department to seek to keep everything in their own hands, and to do everything in their power, so far as it can at all be brought within their purview, by persons appointed by themselves, rising in their own hierarchy in the ordinary governmental way. Further inspectors are to be appointed. What then becomes of your saving of £12,500 a year?
  Mr. SAMUEL: After the War.
  Sir J. YOXALL: Then why not wait till after the War before you make a change at all? Will the War last more than another year? There is no answer
  1470
  to that. No one will prophesy. Twelve thousand five hundred pounds saved in one year, and how many children's lives lost or bodies injured! While the great mass of the people is loyal to the Government and desirous to support it through thick and thin while the War is on, there is rising throughout the whole country a storm of indignation and profound distrust, I might almost say contempt, for the typical upper Civil servant who runs these Government machines, and when the War is over a reckoning will take place. The right hon. Gentleman has in the past shown his independence and has risen above that tendency to which most Ministers succumb sooner or later, and it is he, above all men, who, influenced by this bureaucratic influence, brings forward this proposal. The main inception, I suppose, rests with the Retrenchment Committee, another body whose proposals, so far as they refer to children, have been profoundly suspect. The right hon. Gentleman expresses his surprise at the absence of organised opposition to this Bill. If he will promise to-night that the trade unions are made acquainted with what the Bill means, perhaps he will get the opposition, and I will promise him that those of us in this country who are interested in the welfare of children shall make plain what this Bill means. We are interested in the welfare of children after they leave school, and therefore we realise the importance of this question. It is because we believe in fair play for the children, and it is because I believe that the right hon. Gentleman believes in fair play for the children, that I make an appeal to him, as the author of the Childrens' Act, to save the children under this Clause.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Brace): I have listened with great interest to the Debate, and I am bound to say that I am surprised at the amount of heat that seems to have developed, and the amount of suspicion under which the Home Office has been brought because of this Section of the Bill. My hon. Friend (Sir J. Yoxall) spoke in rather contemptuous words about the higher branches of the Civil Service. I wonder what the hon. Gentleman, the representative of the Universities of Glasgow and Aberdeen (Sir H. Craik) would say about that. I hardly think that the two non. Gentlemen would be able to reconcile

  1471
  their differences upon that matter. We are introducing this proposal because, in the opinion of the Home Office, it is an essential and necessary reform.
  Mr. DENNISS: In war-time?
  Mr. BRACE: In war-time or any time, it is, in the opinion of the Home Office, an essential and a necessary reform. The hon. Gentlemen who have been emphasising the desirability for the protection of the health and lives and limbs of children really need not press that phase of the social problem either upon my right hon. Friend or upon myself. As a matter of fact, this proposal is not intended to interfere with that system of inspection. The health work of the certifying surgeons in connection with the certification of children and young persons and cases of industrial poisoning, and the periodical examination of workers in dangerous trades, will not be interfered with at all. Hon. Members have spoken as if the certifying surgeons were really making an examination of all the accidents that take place in factories, that they are doing work which they alone can do, and that their work is of such vital importance that if it is not continued it will introduce into the working lives of the factory operatives a standard of danger that does not exist at the present time. In 1914 the total number of accidents notified to the inspectors was 159,413, and the number of those which were also notified to the certifying surgeons was 52,563, so that less than one-third of the total accidents in factories were notified to the certifying surgeons.
  Sir J. YOXALL: All the worst?
  9.0 p.m.
  Mr. BRACE: The real test is, what does the certifying surgeon do? The certifying surgeon receives a report from the occupier or the employer. I have taken the trouble to go through hundreds of these reports, and we get exactly the same report from the certifying surgeon as we do from the inspector.
  Mr. DENNISS: Then he is as good as the inspector?
  Mr. BRACE: The certifying surgeon acts upon exactly the same report as the inspector.
  Mr. WALSH: The certifying surgeon has been there first.
  Mr. BRACE: I hope my hon. Friend will restrain himself.
  Mr. WALSH: I am restraining myself. The surgeon has been there first in tens of thousands of cases. What is the good of saying they act on the same report?
  Mr. BRACE: The first report is received from the employer. Upon that report the certifying surgeon acts. When the employer sends a report to the certifying surgeon he sends a report at the same time to the factory inspector, and I have examined hundreds of these reports, and I find exactly the same report comes from the certifying surgeon as from the inspector, in the language provided by the employer.
  Mr. DENNISS: What is the use of the inspector?
  Mr. BRACE: There the hon. Gentleman touches the very crux of the problem. It is the inspector who is the technical authority and who is the man capable of advising the employer, and has the right under the Regulations of the Home Office to advise the employer what reform should take place in order to prevent a recurrence of the accident that has been reported.
  Sir H. CRAIK: Is it not the case that the inspector bases his report very often not upon any visit he has made himself, but upon the report of the certifying surgeon?
  Mr. BRACE: The report of the inspector is based upon the report sent by the employer.
  Sir H. CRAIK: And the certifying surgeon.
  Mr. BRACE: I assure hon. Gentlemen that when I am telling the House of Commons that in the hundreds of cases that I have examined these reports are exactly in the same language as supplied by the employer, the House of Commons may rely upon it that I am making a statement of fact which can be verified. I think I have some right to be considered by the House not as being unsympathetic to the factory worker. If I thought for one moment that the abolition of the certifying surgeon would introduce danger to the health, life, or limb of the factory worker, neither my right hon. Friend nor myself would be here to ask the House to agree to this proposal. The hon. Member

  1473
  for Ince (Mr. Walsh) presented a very strong statement with his usual eloquence and close reasoning, based upon no sound premise. I would remind him that the mining industry is infinitely more dangerous than the cotton-factory industry, and yet you have no such thing as certifying surgeons connected with the mining industry.
  Mr. WALSH: Yes, you have. You have a vast mass of surgeons within easy reach of every colliery, and as soon as a man gets out of the pit after an accident there is a paper given, to him, and the first thing he does is to go to the surgeon. There you have a certifying surgeon. In my own county there is one society which has 50,000 members, and at every colliery there is this particular system of certification which you are endeavouring to abolish in connection with the factories.
  Mr. BRACE: My hon. Friend, I am sure, would not mislead, but he has left an impression on the House in connection with the mining industry that there are scores or hundreds, if not thousands, of certifying surgeons.
  Mr. WALSH: There is a system of certification in connection with every colliery. It is not the factory surgeon at all, but there is a surgeon living within easy reach of every colliery in my county and every other mining county in this Kingdom.
  Mr. BRACE: What my hon. Friend has said is not germane at all to the point which I am making. I am trying to tell the House of Commons that in the mining industry, which is highly dangerous to life and limb, there is no such thing as a certifying surgeon. It is true that in connection with all collieries there are doctors maintained and paid entirely by the workmen themselves. The abolition of the certifying surgeon under this Section will not prevent the continuation of medical men employed and paid by the workmen themselves as now. All that we propose is that the certifying surgeon who is engaged upon a work largely of a duplicating character, who send reports to the Home Office which are not at all helpful in reducing accidents, either fatal or non-fatal, should be dispensed with. Will the House please not confuse the issue? The medical inspection of young persons and inspection for other purposes and the inspection in connection with dangerous trades will continue as heretofore. My hon. Friends
  1474
  below the Gangway will please remember that the last Report issued upon this point recommending the abolition of certifying surgeons was signed by the late Mr. Gill, a very distinguished Labour leader and factory leader, and the Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald). Does the House of Commons think for one moment that those two distinguished representatives of Labour would have agreed to the unanimous recommendation for the abolition of that principle if they thought that it would have added in the slightest degree to the danger to the workers whom they so powerfully represent?
  Mr. GOLDSTONE: Was it a recommendation for abolition or for reducing the amount of reporting done?
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: There were two recommendations. This is not carrying out the recommendations of the Report.
  Mr. BRACE: I do not know what my hon. Friend has in mind. There are two ways in which the Committee suggest the system might be altered—the work of certifying surgeons as to accidents might be wholly dispensed with, and the inspector have power to forward the report of a certifying surgeon for information in any case in which he thought it necessary. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] If my hon. Friends think that that is a suitable scheme to put in the Bill, my right hon. Friend, I am sure, would be prepared to consider it.
  Mr. DENNISS: What is in the report should be in the Bill.
  Mr. BRACE: If the House of Commons thinks that the Home Office is wrong, the proper way to put the Home Office right is on the Committee stage of the Bill.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: No; on Second Reading.
  Mr. BRACE: The Second Reading of the Bill deals with general principles. If you want to amend any part of the Bill you must wait for the Committee stage.
  Sir H. CRAIK: Every Clause in the Bill is separate.
  Mr. BRACE: The Home Office have come to the conclusion that it is desirable to abolish this system of certifying surgeons. What we want is more factory inspectors with technical knowledge, and if we are to have, as I believe it is desirable to have, a higher standard of medical

  1475
  inspection, the Home Office would prefer to have full-time medical inspectors rather than the system of certifying surgeons as at present exists. We bring down the proposal which we think satisfactory. If we did not think it satisfactory it would not be proposed. Incidentally that proposal will save the nation £12,500 per year. I suppose that the proposal can be none the worse because it is saving that amount, but I hope that the House of Commons will not allow itself to be led to the conclusion that this saving is the dominant factor behind the proposal. It is not. The proposal is made because the Home Office have come to the conclusion, after a most careful survey of the problem, that the certifying surgeons are not essential to the life and health of the factory workers, and it is for that reason that we ask the House of Commons to agree to abolish them so that we may, if you like, introduce a better system. Why should we wait until after the War for this? We think it is fair to abolish certifying surgeons or we should not propose it. We think it an advantage to have more factory inspectors and more full time medical inspectors. In proposing that that reform should wait until after the War we are founding ourselves upon the recommendation of the Retrenchment Committee that it is essential that we should endeavour to avoid the expenditure of money so far as possible while the War lasts. The reason why we ask the House of Commons to agree to this proposal at this particular time is because it is the best of all times to ask for it so far as certifying surgeons are concerned. Twelve thousand five hundred pounds a year is a largish sum. True, it is divided up among a number of men, but an hon. Member says that a few of the certifying surgeons draw a really substantial sum from this class of work. Doctors are very short just now, and if there is any time when the certifying surgeons can face this change in their life with the least inconvenience that time is now.
  An HON.MEMBER: The inspectors will be doctors.
  Mr. BRACE: There will be medical inspectors, it is true, but we hope to add to the inspectorate of the Home Office for factory purposes a number of inspectors with high technical knowledge. If I am asked why we do not propose to increase the inspectorate now, my answer is that this is not a fair time to increase the
  1476
  inspectorate because of the large number of highly intelligent, capable men who are at this moment serving their country in a military capacity, and if you are going to increase the permanent inspectorate of the Home Office now you will cut away the opportunity for these men to enter into these positions. I beg the House to try to appreciate that neither my right hon. Friend nor myself, nor the Home Office, have any thought other than which is for the highest welfare of the factory workers, speaking from their several standpoints. I have been impressed by the point made, that if necessary the inspector should call in a medical man, and in that respect I think my right hon. Friend would be prepared to consider the matter upon the Committee stage. Having endeavoured to survey some of the reasons why the opposition should not be pressed, either by a continuation of the discussion or a Division, I would ask the House to give us the Second Reading of the Bill, reserving till the Committee stage further discussion upon this matter.
  Mr. BOYTON: I cannot help thinking that there is a hidden influence, an unseen hand, in the working of the Department over which the right hon. Gentleman presides so ably. And it seems to me that there is this unseen influence and hidden hand in connection with the Retrenchment Committee as well as the Home Office, which seeks to interfere very largely with the privileges of the medical profession. I should have thought that at a time like this the Home Office would not again have attacked the medical profession. One of the recommendations of the Retrenchment Committee was that the fees in connection with the notification of diseases should be substantially reduced, and now, on the top of that wholly unnecessary and unfair action, they come now to say, "We will save £12,500 a year by abolishing certifying surgeons." It seems to me that there is a hidden influence here against the medical profession. I cannot understand why the Retrenchment Committee should make such a dead set at a profession which is doing so much as the medical profession is doing at the present time. Really, I cannot help feeling that there must be a mysterious influence in the Retrenchment Committee that we cannot measure or gauge here. Why on earth, at such a time as this, when in the industries of the country, and in the new war industries which are being set up, which employ

  1477
  hundreds of thousands of young people who have never been in these employments before, should you set up more inspectors and shut out the doctors? I am not able to say what the effect of such a decision will be on the factories, but I have heard enough to-night from those who are acquainted with the subject to say, apart from the injustice which is done to the medical profession, that a very great injustice is being done to the workers of the country.
  Mr. A. WILLIAMS: The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs began his statement by saying that the proposed abolition of certifying surgeons has been brought forward because it is essential and necessary. I could not help thinking, on that phrase, that it is rather an exaggeration of a proposal to save the country £12,500 a year. Nobody would for one moment suspect the Under-Secretary or the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary of any want of sympathy in this matter, but that does not prevent those who have had some experience of it and have been investigating it, from having a perfect right to express their own opinion. The sympathy of the hon. and the right hon. Gentleman does not prove they are right, because in the matter of sympathy we can perhaps all claim to be their equals. The hon. Gentleman said the passing of children by surgeons would not be interfered with by this Bill. On paper that is so, but the point of importance is that you are taking away from the surgeon the means of getting essential information for that part of his work. The certifying surgeon constantly visits the works, and becomes acquainted with all the machines, and so obtains the knowledge necessary to enable him to decide whether a particular child is bright enough and is in every way fitted to undertake the work to which it is proposed to send him. You may leave on paper the right of the surgeon to answer the question, but if you take away the means of his getting knowledge, you are taking from the child a very real protection. The hon. Gentleman said that these certifying surgeons do not exist in regard to mines, and my hon. Friend (Mr. S. Walsh) replied that there is a system, though not a Government system, yet a highly elaborate and complete system, of certifying surgeons in connection with mines. Mining is an industry which is highly organised from every point of view, and
  1478
  what is done in mining cannot necessarily be done in less organised trades. In mining you have the over-men with statutory obligations, managers with statutory obligations, workmen inspectors, or local inspectors with statutory positions—Government appointments; you have Government inspectors and assistant inspectors, and you have the trade unions. In all the colliery regions you have most elaborate and complete organisation, and because you have that you can get along without certifying surgeons.
  But it does not in the least follow that you can get along in factories and workshops, which have grown up under entirely different conditions, and which for seventy years have had these certifying surgeons upon whom the workers have depended for their safety. The Under-Secretary for the Department also suggested, as a kind of compromise, that the inspector might refer certain cases to the surgeons, and that the surgeons would then report upon them—that is to say, you are asking the inspector to do what he has not the means of doing. He would simply receive the employer's notification of the accident, and whether it was necessary to have a special inquiry in the great majority of cases he would not be the means of knowing. The whole contention of the right hon. Gentleman and of the hon. Gentleman representing the Department means that the certifying surgeons are useless. I myself thirty years ago was, for a period, an employer in the North of England, and certainly we did not in the very least regard them as being useless; we regarded them as being a valuable protection for workmen, such as all good employers desire to see. It is said that the reports sent in are merely a repetition of the notice the employer sends in. I think that is not so. I am sorry to differ from the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman on questions of fact, but I think they are wrong in their facts. I have here a copy of the certifying surgeon's report on accidents—a Government form that he has to fill in. If I look at item No. 6, under the heading "Accidents," he has to say—
  "By what part of the machinery and in what other way it was caused? If by machinery, state whether at the time of the accident the machinery was in motion by mechanical power."
  If I am right, the employer has to say that also; but you then come to (6), and the surgeon has got to say—
  "Whether it was guarded or fenced?"

  1479
  I do not think the employer has to say that. Then it goes on—
  "If so by what means?"
  The employer is not asked to say that. Then it goes on—
  "If it is due to mismanagement of the machinery by a person oilier than the injured person, state whether the person was experienced in the work."
  The employer is not asked to say that. Then it goes on—
  "How many hours he had been on duty prior to the accident?"
  The certifying surgeon has to come as quickly as is possible to ascertain that fact, which the employer is not required to state. The employer could not very well be required to do so, because it might be a case of incriminating himself. I think these things show that the certifying surgeon's report cannot be a mere copy of the employer's notice. If any certifying surgeons send in a mere copy it is because they have not filled in what they are required to do, and I would suggest to the Home Office that, instead of seeking to abolish them, that they should in these particular cases try to make them do what they are required by Act of Parliament to do. An omission of that sort I should imagine must be very rare, because the inspectors, where necessary, keep certifying surgeons up to the mark in this respect. If certifying surgeons send in reports without filling in the necessary particulars they are called upon to do so by the inspector and the report sent back, and they are told that the omission may cause the inspector to make an otherwise unnecessary journey. Under No. 13 the certifying surgeon has to state the nature and extent of the injuries and has to classify the injuries, which the employer has not to do, and he has also to say whether there has been any septic poisoning. On the other side of the page there is a space for further observations by the certifying surgeon and
  'the names of any persons who have given them evidence as to the cause or circumstances of the accident should be included in these observations.
  In investigating accidents attended with septic poisoning it should be ascertained as far as possible whether infection was probably contracted in the works and, if so from what cause, and how far facilities were provided and used for keeping wounds clean—for example, by using an application of suitable simple dressings."
  It is one of the chief parts of the duties in works of certifying surgeons to see that there are about the factory the usual first-aid appliances for the wounded and
  1480
  men with some knowledge how to apply them. The certifying surgeon often reports what is going to be done to prevent similar accidents in future. I think I have shown that it really is not possible that these reports are mere copies of the employer's notices. No doubt in many very simple cases there is very little to add, but the law does not exist for the simple cases that settle themselves, but for a comparatively small percentage, which are difficult and which require these further precautions. It has already been well pointed out that the certifying surgeon is first on the spot after the accident. He is the only man who sees the patient and goes to the patient's bedside in the man's home or, if he is taken to a hospital, to the hospital.
  Mr. WALSH: Or boy or girl either.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: He is the only person who has the legal right of entry to the place to which the patient is removed. Surely that is very important. The case has been argued as if it were altogether a question of mechanical accidents, and we have been asked what do certifying surgeons know about machinery. I think a certifying surgeon who has been for some time engaged in this work gets to know a good deal about machinery. There are as well chemical and electrical accidents, and surely he is well able to form some opinion about a chemical accident. The fact is that the certifying surgeon is a sieve through which all these thousands of accidents pass, and it is on his report that the inspector judges in the great majority of cases whether a visit by him is necessary or not. It is not, I think, denied that in some cases useful service of this kind is performed, and if in a substantial number of cases useful service is rendered under this system, then it ought not to be abolished until we are actually ready to put something better in its place. The inspector does not visit every factory once a year, and I believe that on the average 75 per cent, of the factories and workshops are visited by an inspector once a year. The certifying surgeon is very often there once a week to pass children or to see whether any children are to be passed for work. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to yield to the manifest feeling of the House. It is a remarkable thing that not one single Member thought it necessary to come down to support this change. I appeal to him to withdraw altogether this Clause which proposes to abolish what has

  1481
  been a part of our industrial system and recognised as a useful and an essential part of that system for seventy or eighty years.
  Mr. DENNISS: I have had a great deal of correspondence on this subject from my Constituency which, I suppose, contains more factories than any constituency in the Kingdom and perhaps more complicated machinery. It contains the largest machine works in the world, except Krupp's, and an enormous number of cotton mills. What I object to most is what I call the breach of the truce and that a highly controversial matter between the working classes and the rest of the community should be introduced in time of war. I understood that any highly controversial matter was not to be introduced in time of war in this House in the shape of an emergency Bill. This is an emergency Bill, and can only be excused by the fact that it is necessary to be carried out immediately for some purpose connected with the War. What is that purpose? Economy, we are told. It does not appear to be so. The economy is very mistaken, and the result must be very small, and if the object indeed is economy, if a number of inspectors are appointed to take the places of the certifying surgeons, then what about their salaries and travelling expenses all over the country? The Under-Secretary, in his defence of this portion of the Bill, argued in a circle. He said they did not bring in the Bill to save money, but because the reform was necessary and good in itself. In that case it is not an emergency measure, but is a highly controversial matter, since it seeks to alter a state of things in the middle of a war which has existed for over seventy years, and for that reason I object to it. The Under-Secretary went on to say that they would not have introduced this Bill because they themselves were in favour of it, but because it was a reform which will save money.
  Mr. BRACE: I think the hon. Gentleman is wrong in saying we do not want it. My argument was that we did want it.
  Mr. DENNISS: The hon. Gentleman said, first of all, that they wanted it as a necessary reform, not to save money, but because it was good in itself. When there was great opposition indicated he said it was to save money they brought it in and that the Retrenchment Committee had recommended it. Nobody doubts that if it had not been for the Report of the
  1482
  Retrenchment Committee it never would have been introduced. That Committee was there not for reforms, but for economies.
  Mr. SAMUEL: Is the hon. Member in favour of economy?
  Mr. DENNISS: Controversial reforms are inadmissible during the War. Every trade union in the country will be up in arms about it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] We have heard Labour Members speak. At all events, whatever may be the result of the Division to-night, I put it to the Home Secretary, whose ability and zeal for the public weal we know, that before he perseveres with this Clause in Committee he should see the trade union leaders and get the opinion of the Labour party on this subject, and also that in bare justice he should find out for himself what the certifying surgeons have to do in this matter. Let me give an instance of what occurs. A young person is injured. The doctor sees him. From the nature of the wound he sees that it is caused by some machinery which ought to be fenced. Having been to the factory many times he knows the machinery and he knows that it is not fenced. He cross-examines the young person. He goes to the factory and finds that the machinery is fenced. The employer says, "The accident could not have been caused by unfenced machinery, because the machinery is fenced." "Yes," replies the doctor, "but I know that it was not fenced when I was here last. When was the fencing put up?" No inspector can do that. The Under-Secretary said, "Doctors are short; doctors are wanted; therefore these certifying surgeons should be set free from their work in factories to do the ordinary work of doctors." I interposed and said, "The inspectors you are going to appoint will be doctors; therefore you do not save anything in that way." Then the hon. Member said, "Oh, but we will not increase the inspectors now because we are at war and numbers of them are at the front. It would not be fair to appoint any men at home as inspectors, as those who are at the front ought to have a chance of competing for these appointments."
  Mr. BRACE: Hear, hear!
  Mr. DENNISS: The hon. Gentleman cheers that observation. The logical result is that inspection is to go short. Thirty-three per cent, of the inspectors are at the front. Inspection is already

  1483
  short, and it is at this time that you propose to abolish the certifying surgeons as well. Accidents are more frequent than ever they were, because there are more dangerous trades, especially new and unaccustomed trades. Inexperience is one of the most frequent causes of accident. Fatigue is another. The people are all working at high pressure and often overtime. It is under these circumstances that this proposal is made, and that is the position in which the Bill is going to leave the lives and limbs of the children, young people, women and grown-up men in the factories. The inspectors go to the factory only occasionally, very often a long time after the accident. The doctor is there every week, sometimes every day. He knows every bit of machinery in the place. As we have now a large increase in electrical and chemical work, besides mechanical, his knowledge as a doctor is often more important than his knowledge of machinery. I often go into factories, and I know the machinery in a mill. Any person of average intelligence gets accustomed to the machinery, and knows it as well as any inspector. The inspectors are doctors, too; they are not skilled in mechanical machinery. Representing the sort of constituency that I represent, I am bound to oppose this measure. Unless the right hon. Gentleman gives us some undertaking, we must press the matter to a Division. Whatever the result of the Division may be, the right hon. Gentleman ought to consult those who know. I feel that he has been misled. There are the Association of Certifying Surgeons and the trade unions: I hope and believe that he will consult them. Having done that, if he insists on going on with the Bill he will, before the Committee stage, be in possession of such evidence as will enable him to form a real and considered judgment in the matter, which I am sure he is not now in a position to do.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I regret that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State should have intervened at so early a stage in the Debate, when there were still many points to be put for the consideration of the Government, and especially that he should have ended his speech after about one and a half hours' Debate on this important subject with the request to the House that it should debate it no more. I shall have to disregard the appeal of my hon. Friend, and I am
  1484
  sure he will forgive me for not being able to accept his somewhat pontifical request. The view I take is that we ought not to be guided in this change by any question of economy. We ought to consider solely the people for whose benefit this protection was originally introduced and exists to-day. If any change is to be made it should surely be one based upon the considered judgment of the Committee which inquired into the matter. I was very much surprised when the Under-Secretary quoted the late Mr. Gill and the hon. Member for Leicester as having approved this proposal. In the same connection I must express my regret that a wholly inadequate and partially inaccurate statement is made in the Memorandum accompanying the Bill. That Memorandum, after stating that the Committee on Retrenchment had made this recommendation, goes on to say that the Committee on Accidents in Factories had previously in 1911 made a similar recommendation. That statement is inaccurate. It is a very partial statement of the truth, and being a partial statement of the truth is wholly misleading. I am sure my right hon. Friend will recognise that that Memorandum is misleading, because the Committee on Accidents did no such thing. They made two proposals. The first was the proposal embodied in the Bill. They went on to make a second proposal as follows:
  "The occupier may report to the inspector only, and the inspector has power to forward reports to the certifying surgeons for investigation in any case in which he thinks such investigation desirable.
  They go further than that. My hon. Friend has challenged the reading of that, but he will see that it tends to destroy his previous statement. He ended his extract much too soon, because the Committee come down in favour of the second proposal. They go on to say:
  "That the second proposal has the advantage—"
  that is, an advantage over the proposal which the Government have proposed—
  "has the advantage that it would not relieve the occupier wholly from the liability of investigation by the surgeon, and that it would enable the inspectors to indicate to the surgeon any particular points within his field of inquiry upon which the inspector requires further information."
  Much more important than that is the passage that precedes both of these recommendations in the Report of the Committee, for they only suggest that some part of the work should be dispensed with. They go on to say:
  "In scattered districts, and perhaps as regards some small factories in the larger centres, the surgeon's

  1485
  report is still useful, and it may be useful ill investigations of poisoning which come within the definition of accidents, where medical opinion on the cause of the accidents is needed, such, for example, as cases of gassing by carbon monoxide."
  I accept fully, and every Member of this House accepts fully, the statement of the Home Secretary and of the Under-Secretary that they desire to do nothing at all to interfere with the welfare of the people in factories, but I think that the Government takes a very serious responsibility when it brings forward a proposal, which is not the proposal that was made by the Departmental Committee of Inquiry, a Committee in part at least of experts, and which, while sweeping away the system of certifying surgeons, does not replace the work that they did, even in those exceptional cases where it is particularly necessary. It is for this reason that I hope my right hon. Friend will reconsider the matter, and will not press this Clause in its present form. I understand from the interjection that he made that he will be willing to accept the second proposal of the Committee. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will tell me if I am right and that he would be willing—
  Mr. SAMUELmade an observation which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: If the right hon. Gentleman would give some indication that his mind is not finally made up, and that the criticisms which he has heard tonight will be duly considered, it will be a very great relief to us.
  Mr. GOLDSTONE: The hon. Member who has just spoken has disposed entirely of the statement in the Memorandum of this Bill that Clause 8 is based on the Departmental Committee's Report. Obviously, whoever was responsible for the drafting of the Memorandum of this Bill, was not very accurately informed as to the recommendations of the Departmental Committee which is claimed as the basis for it. Then may I turn to the other part of the Memorandum dealing with this Clause, and ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell us, when he makes his statement later, which member of the Retrenchment Committee is qualified to speak with any authority on the work of the certifying surgeons? In endeavouring to recall the names, I am bound to say I fail to recall the name of one member of the Retrenchment Committee whose evidence would
  1486
  carry very great weight in the matter of the suggested police work of the certifying surgeon.
  An HON. MEMBER: Chiozza Money!
  Mr. GOLDSTONE: I am not sure that hon. Member is an authority on the internal working of factories or as to the necessity for the retention of the certifying surgeon.
  An HON. MEMBER: The Member for Derby!
  Mr. GOLDSTONE: He is acquainted with railway matters, but not with textile industries. The hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary who has just interrupted me was never less happy than in his defence of this Bill. We have heard him from below the Gangway make some very fine speeches indeed. I never heard him to worse effect than in attempting to de fend this Bill. I felt quite sure his heart was not in it. All his colleagues are against him, and the House as a whole is against the Front Bench. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"] I understand the hon. Member for Glasgow is with the Government in this Bill. He is one of the faithful few. I do not know whether the Whips have been busy in the House while we have been fighting with the Front Bench. The Under-Secretary for State suggested that the miners had a system by which they paid for themselves, and my hon. Friend opposite cheers that statement. Does he wish to suggest that the cost of the maintenance of the certifying surgeons should be thrown upon the workers in the textile industry? Is that, the point of his interruption? What about the half-timers who are defended by the work of the certifying surgeons? It would appear to me that the hon. Member should take an early opportunity—
  Mr. S. WALSH: The half-timers have no union.
  Mr. GOLDSTONE: My hon. Friend informs me that the half-timers have no union. I hope my hon. Friend will take a very early opportunity of studying in detail the Report from which he quoted. He said 159,413 cases of accident had taken place, and that 52,563 of them had been investigated by the certifying surgeon at a cost of £12,500—an average of four investigations for every twenty shillings. That surely is worth maintenance? I propose to give the House one or two particulars

  1487
  of these accidents. My right hon. Friend will perhaps be surprised to learn that the great number of them occurred in the cases of children between thirteen and eighteen years of gae. There were 96 fatal accidents to boys and 8 fatal accidents to girls in that category. There was the loss of the right hand or arm to 20 boys, and 6 girls, the loss of the left hand or arm to 11 boys and 4 girls, the loss of part of the right hand in the case of 434 boys, and 139 girls, and the loss of the part of the left hand in the case of 384 boys and 106 girls. There were minor injuries to 7,094 boys, and 2,315 girls. In the case of children—and for these I make a special appeal—between twelve and fourteen years of age, the certifying surgeons investigated the cases of 1,597 boys and 58 girls. Surely a total such as that suggests the need of retaining the work of the certifying surgeon! It is contended by the right hon. Gentleman—I believe he makes this a main part of his case—that the reports of the employers and the certifying surgeons are in so many cases identical. Why? For the simple reason that the employer knows that his report will be followed by that of a man with technical knowledge. That is the safeguard. Does my right hon. Friend assume that with the withdrawal of the certifying surgeons that the reports of the employers on these cases would be as they are to-day? He may assume this; I do not. The fact that the certifying surgeon is there to come later is a guarantee that you get a faithful report from the employers in these eases. It is the first check. It seems to me that the hon. Member for Oldham was not quite accurate when he talked about this being a controversial measure. There is no controversy as between the House.' It is a matter of very small controversy between the House as a whole and one of the Members for Glasgow and two hon. Members on the Front Bench.
  Mr. DENNISS: Between the House and the individual Minister.
  Mr. GOLDSTONE: And the reason is this: Members think it worth while to come down to an important thing like this affecting the health and well-being of thousands of children. The sense of the House is against the right hon. Gentleman and the Under-Secretary. It appears, therefore, to me if the right hon. Gentleman is going to do the right thing on this
  1488
  occasion, he will make an outspoken pronouncement that this Section of the Bill will not be proceeded with In this time of war we have a right to ask it, and it seems to me that, with inspectors not to be appointed until the cessation of war, to do away with the certifying surgeons is a real injustice to the children particularly, and to all persons who work in factories and workshops. I, therefore, join my appeal to that already so powerfully uttered, that the right hon. Gentleman will indicate that he will not proceed with this Section of the Bill.
  Mr. WING: I have listened to the whole of this discussion, and certainly it has been one-sided. The general tenour of it would lead one to believe that there was only one Clause in the Bill. It is a Bill containing very many useful Clauses, but the inference you might draw from some of the preceding speeches would really indicate that the medical profession is exceptionally well represented here tonight. I only desire to thank the right hon. Gentleman for this Bill, because it includes very many useful projects. It touches the policeman, and makes safe his pension. It does something to relieve those who meet with accidents in assisting the police in their duty, and it also deals with a matter, to which I have called the right hon. Gentleman's attention in times past, namely, that those students who have been at the various universities, studying metallurgy and mining, and have answered the patriotic call and left the country, in order to defend it, should not suffer by their patriotism. That will be welcome to a very large number of students who have been exceedingly anxious as to their position on returning from the seat of war. Personally, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the Bill, and the many useful projects contained in it.
  10.0 p.m.
  Mr. SAMUEL: I may be allowed, by the leave of the House, although I have exhausted my right of speech, to say a very few words on this discussion. The character of the Debate this evening shows what is the fate of any Minister who ventures to suggest an economy. Continually we are being told that the Government is extravagant; that there is a great deal of unnecessary reporting; that officialism is too widely extended. The Government is appealed to in all the organs of the Press, and whenever there is a Debate in the House of Commons about economy in general—about economy

  1489
  with a big "E"—the Government is urged to overhaul its expenditure and see in what manner it can save the nation's money. It does so. It goes through all the various Departments and sees particulars in which money can be saved which, in the opinion of the Government, is now spent wastefully. The moment any Minister comes to the House of Commons and suggests any particular economy with a small "e," instantly some vested interest is affected. Wires are pulled, Members are circularised, individuals are urged to speak, and the impression is given that the whole House is in favour of the continuance of this expenditure. That is the position here. Of course, it is to no one's interest to get up and support the Government, and if any hon. Friend is interested in many Clauses of the Bill, and fears possibly the whole Bill may be dropped, he does support the Government. But no one has any interest in a particular economy. The view may be taken that it is only a small point costing £12,500, and why not go on wasting your money on unnecessary Reports? I consider it to be the duty of a Minister, in presenting Estimates to the House, to assure himself that the money is necessary and that the expenditure is justified on its merits, and when my attention is called to a particular expenditure which I cannot justify, which my expert advisers tell me does not result in a return which is worth the money, my duty is to go to the House of Commons and say so.
  It is of immense importance to safeguard the life and limb of the worker. We must not lessen any safeguard that exists. I am absolutely the last man in this House to propose any measure which would increase risks and lessen safeguards. If hon. Members could only see certifying surgeons' reports as I have seen whole stacks of them, they would take a different view. These reports, with few exceptions, are mere repetitions of the reports already sent in by the occupiers. They are perfectly valueless, and the Factory Department of the Home Office would not come down and say that those reports could be abolished if they had any real value in them. The hon. Member for Nottingham in a very powerful speech represented this as being a vagary, or the report of a body of bureaucrats. The Committee of 1908 did not consist of bureaucrats. I should not have made this proposal if it had come on their authority alone, and if it had not
  1490
  been the result of a prolonged and careful investigation of a Committee of an expert character. This Committee consisted of three Labour Members, amongst others, who signed a unanimous report. This is what the Committee says:
  "The Committee consider, however, that the time has come when much of this work could be dispensed with. They have come to this conclusion quite apart from any consideration of the efficiency with which the work is done. In the larger centres of population and industry the inspectorate is now so closely in touch with, the factories that investigation of accidents by the certifying surgeon has become, in most cases, superfluous. The inspector can judge from the occupier's report whether the accident should be investigated by him and the report which he receives from the certifying surgeon seldom adds anything which it is necessary for him to know. Nor does it generally dispense with the need of a visit by the inspector. If the occupier's report is not sufficiently full when first sent, the inspector returns it for further details: and if it shows either that an investigation is required, or that instructions must be given for the prevention of danger in the future, the inspector is seldom saved a visit by the fact that the certifying surgeon has visited, since the surgeon is not, generally speaking, an expert in accident risks, and has no power to give instructions to occupiers. It is only occasionally that the certifying surgeon's report contains details not given by the occupier of such a kind as to save the inspector a visit."
  Hon. Members have suggested that we propose this to the House out of sheer wantonness, and out of the desire to destroy an efficient and a valuable system of inspection. Here is the Report, signed by three Labour Members of this House, by two or three representatives of factory departments, and by Miss Mona Wilson, all experts, saying that those reports are useless.
  Sir P. MAGNUS: Often useless.
  Mr. SAMUEL: Are as a rule useless. I have since discussed this subject with my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester (Mr. R. Macdonald), and with Mrs. Tennant, who was for many years the chief woman factory inspector, who has done so much in this direction, and she expressed the view that these reports were useless, and that there was no necessity to continue this expenditure.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Does not that Committee go on to suggest the retention of a part of the certifying surgeons' work?
  Mr. SAMUEL: We are retaining all the work of the certifying surgeon with regard to fitness for dangerous trades and industrial poisoning. This Committee recommends that the work of certifying surgeons as to accidents might be dispensed with, and they also recommend that the certifying surgeon might still be used in special cases, and I think there is something to

  1491
  be said for that. I was greatly impressed by what the hon. Member for North-West Durham (Mr. A. Williams) said as to the desirability of having special reports from the medical men where it is not a case of An accident caused by some piece of negligence, but where it is a case of septic poisoning or gassing or a case arising from some deleterious chemical substance which comes under the definition of accidents. There is a good deal to be said for that, and I had contemplated arranging for medical reports on those cases. I have been very much impressed by the tone of the Debate this evening, but I feel sure that much of what hon. Members have said has been said under a misapprehension, and if they were to see these reports they would know that they really have not the value which they attach to them. We have examined large numbers of them, and we have not made this proposal without seeing that the great majority of them are useless and a waste of money, and I cannot conscientiously ask the House to vote money which I know is wasted. I will, however, give further consideration to the suggestions made by the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark (Mr. Whitehouse), the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. A. Williams), and other hon. Members, and I will put down an Amendment which I think will meet their views, and which I hope will meet the views of some other hon. Members, while at the same time eliminating this wasteful expenditure, and which will enable us to continue the work of the certifying surgeons in cases where it is useful to the Factory Department and for the protection of the life and
  1492
  limb of the workers. In view of all this, and in view of the fact that the Bill contains a variety of most useful Clauses which the whole House wishes to pass into law, I hope that hon. Members will reserve their judgment until the Committee stage and allow the Second Beading of this Bill.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. Gulland.]
  The remaining Orders were read, and confirmed.

  NATIONAL INSUEANCE (PART II.—MUNITION WORKERS [EXPENSES].
  Committee to consider of authorising the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of contributions towards the: cost of benefits conferred by any Act of the present Session to extend the provisions of the National Insurance Act, 1911, relating to unemployment insurance to certain trades and employments in connection with the present War, and of any excess in the payments out of the Unemployment Fund over the receipts of that fund under such Act. (King's Recommendation signified), To-morrow.—[Mr. Gulland.]
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKEB, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 22nd February, proposed the Question, "That I this House do now adjourn."
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Ten minutes after Ten o'clock.

WAR.
  DISTURBANCES IN IRELAND.
  DISTURBANCES IN IRELAND.
  ARRESTS.
  ARRESTS.
  NAVAL PRIZES (VALUATION).
  NAVAL PRIZES (VALUATION).
MILITARY SERVICE.
  MARRIED MEN.
  MARRIED MEN.
  SOLDIERS' PAY (DEDUCTIONS).
  SOLDIERS' PAY (DEDUCTIONS).
  AGE (ACCEPTED RECORD).
  AGE (ACCEPTED RECORD).
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY SERVICES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS).
  NAVAL AND MILITARY SERVICES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS).
  RAILWAYS (PASSENGER ACCOMMODATION).
  RAILWAYS (PASSENGER ACCOMMODATION).
  HAY ON RAILWAY EMBANKMENTS.
  HAY ON RAILWAY EMBANKMENTS.
  EMPLOYES IN ROYAL PARKS (WAR BONUS REFUSED).
  EMPLOYES IN ROYAL PARKS (WAR BONUS REFUSED).
  Customs and Excise Service (Promotion).
  Customs and Excise Service (Promotion).

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the petition for a Bill by the
Shropshire, Worcestershire and Staffordshire Electric Power Company
ought to be dispensed with and leave given to introduce the Bill.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:
London County Council (Money).
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

SHROPSHIRE, WORCESTERSHIRE AND STAFFORDSHIRE ELECTRIC POWER BILL. [H.L.]
Presented (pursuant to leave given this day) read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
RHODES ESTATE BILL. [H.L.]
Second Reading (which stands appointed for To-morrow) put off to Tuesday next.
NORTH BRITISH RAILWAY BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
CONWAY AND COLWYN BAY JOINT WATER SUPPLY BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
ST. JOHN'S CHURCH, KINGSTON-UPON-HULL, BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

LAND DRAINAGE (LILLESHALL) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL. (No. 57.)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL. (No. 58.)
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.

CANADA COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
IRVINE'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Minutes of evidence and proceeding before this House on the Second Reading, together with the documents deposited in the case, returned from the Commons.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
Reported, without amendment, and re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

RETURNS, REPORTS, &c.
Miscellaneous, No. 21 (1916)—Further Correspondence respecting the conditions of diet and nutrition in the Internment Camp at Ruhleben (in continuation of "Miscellaneous, No. 18 (1916)" [Cd. 8259]):
Coal Shipments—Tables giving details as to shipments of coal abroad, coastwise, and as bunkers, from each port of the United Kingdom, for each of the years 1914 and 1915:
National Relief Fund—Report to His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales by the Executive Committee of the National Relief Fund, on the administration of the Fund, up to 31st March, 1916:
Trade—Annual Statement of the Trade of the United Kingdom with Foreign Countries and British Possessions, for 1915, compared with the four preceding years. Volume I:
Australia—Report on the Trade of Australia for the year 1915, by Mr. G. T. Milne (His Majesty's Trade Commissioner in the Commonwealth of Australia):
Presented (by command) and ordered to lie on the Table.
Housing, Town Planning, &c., Act, 1909—Draft Order of the Local Government Board approving, with modifications, the Chesterfield (Chester Street Area) Town Planning Scheme:
Naval and Marine Pay and Pensions Act, 1865—Four Orders in Council, dated 27th June, 1916, made under the Act:
Foreign Jurisdiction Act, 1890—Two Orders in Council, dated 27th June, 1916, made under the Act:
Greenwich Hospital Act, 1865—Order in Council, dated 27th June, 1916, approving a Memorial of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty praying sanction to increased salary to the Superintendent of the Royal Hospital School, Greenwich:
Shops Act, 1912—Order made by the Urban District Council of Bedlingtonshire and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department affecting a certain class of shops within the said Urban District:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and ordered to lie on the Table.

PETITION.
Universities (Scotland) Act, 1889 (Ordinance of University Courts of St. Andrews, Glasgow, Aberdeen, and Edinburgh, General No. 4 (Regulations as to Preliminary Examinations)—Petition that this House will present an Address praying His Majesty to withhold His assent from the above-named Ordinance of the General Council of the University of Glasgow; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

SMALL HOLDING COLONIES BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Marquess of Crewe.)
LORD JOICEY: My Lords, it is not my intention at this stage of the Bill to make any serious opposition to it, but I cannot help expressing my surprise that at the present time His Majesty's Government should have thought fit to bring in a measure of this kind, entailing a large expenditure of money, simply as an experiment. All municipalities and companies which require increased capital have the greatest difficulty in obtaining permission to get that money, which is needed to carry on what are in many cases very necessary works. Therefore it is, as I have said, surprising to me that His Majesty's Government should have brought in a Bill of this kind, which, so far as I have been able to learn from what has been said by noble Lords who have taken part in the debates upon it, is to cost at the least £300,000. I am certainly in favour of doing all that we can for the unfortunate men
512
who come back from the war incapacitated; but when I look at the expenditure involved in this Bill, and the fact that it will deal with only something like 300 men in all, it does seem to me an extraordinary thing that your Lordships should be asked to pass a measure of this nature at the present time.
I heard with interest the speeches made at previous stages of the Bill regarding what is to be done with the men who come back from the war. In my opinion, most of the men who have been taken from the industries of the country, and whose withdrawal has led to our industries suffering seriously, will return to those industries—it would be a great misfortune if they did not—and with regard to the land, so far as my experience in Northumberland and Durham goes, I am satisfied that there will be no lack of employment on the land for experienced men. It is little use putting men on the land who have not had agricultural experience. Many people seem to think that anyone can cultivate land with advantage. But my experience leads me to the conviction that it requires just as much expert knowledge to deal with land as to deal with any other industry; and if you place men on the land who are not competent to deal with it, you may rest assured that the scheme will be a failure.
My noble friend Lord Sheffield, in the course of the Second Reading debate, protested against this as a very bad Bill. I agree with him in the main. The principle undoubtedly is a good one—to provide for men who return from the war and to get more men on to the land; but I do not think this is the best means of doing that. I have some striking cases in my own experience, where men have started with small holdings and by degrees have got those small holdings up to large ones. In my judgment, our present system of land occupation is as good a system as we are likely to get from any legislation. It is a sort of graduation enabling small tenants to become larger tenants, and eventually to become large farmers; and that is the class of man who, in my experience, has been most successful on the land.
I was astonished, looking at the statistics the other day, to see the number of small holdings that there are in this country. From the statistics of 1915, which take no account of mountain and heath lands, it appears that there are 90,000 holdings of from 1 to 5 acres, 120,000 of from 5 to 20

513
acres, 78,000 of from 20 to 50 acres, 59,000 of from 50 to 100 acres, and 32,000 from 103 to 150 acres. These are what I consider small holdings, and they represent no less than 12,580,000 acres. Surely, with so many small holdings as this His Majesty's Government might have had an opportunity of testing the value of co-operation without spending £300,000 to create a colony. I had a property in Wales some time ago where the average size of the holdings was 100 acres. We had the co-operative system there, but it applied only to purchases. The men co-operated to purchase their manures, lime, coal, and things of that kind, but they would not co-operate to sell their produce; and I am afraid that if you do not have compulsion there will be considerable difficulty in getting the small-holders on the colonies proposed to be set up under this Bill to agree to the sale of their produce by other people. Co-operation is a good thing, and I would like; to see it tried; but there are many opportunities of trying it without going to the great expenditure proposed in this Bill.
Now, have small holdings been a success in this country? I had hoped to hear from the noble Earl who introduced this Bill (Lord Selborne) figures with regard to the great success of the small holdings which had already been established. I know the small holdings in Northumberland and Durham, and I cannot say that they are a success. The country has spent over £5,250,000 on small holdings. I admit that there may be exceptions, but if you take them as a whole I do not think that the Small Holdings Acts have been a success. This Bill appears to be an experiment, I presume in the hope that the proposed small holding colonies may possibly lead to success. I am doubtful about that. In the discussions that have taken place I have heard noble Lords say that one of the objects principally aimed at is to increase the produce from the land. I do not pretend to be so experienced regarding this as many noble Lords, but so far as my experience goes I have found that the largest produce in proportion comes from the large farms. Small farms do not produce anything like so much per acre as do large farms. I am sure that this small experiment will be a failure. The principle to which I have referred is the same in every industry in the country. Small shops have disappeared owing to the larger shops; small ships have disappeared owing to the larger ships;
514
small collieries have disappeared owing to the larger collieries. The same principle obtains with regard to farms. You will find that the large farms can produce more per acre because the large farmer has more capital, has a better knowledge of his business, and can work his land to greater advantage. I am therefore not in favour of small holdings for ordinary agricultural produce. You may, however, change the produce. You may have poultry; you may grow vegetables; but that is not an ordinary agricultural holding. It is a specialised condition of things, and it is only those people who have knowledge of these special things who are likely to succeed in connection with them.
This Bill involves a very large expenditure. I have heard the sum of £1,000 mentioned as the estimated amount required for a small holding. My noble friend Lord Grey, speaking on the Second Reading of this Bill, expressed the wish to see the number of small holdings largely increased. He alluded to Canada, where men who had been fighting in the South African War had received grants of land. I do not know what may have been my noble friend's experience, but my experience, so far as Canada is concerned, is that a large portion of the men who had grants of land have since sold their land and gone into the towns. It is no use giving land to people who do not desire it. That is clear from the experience in Canada and in other Colonies.
I see, further, that the scheme under this Bill is to be controlled by the Board of Agriculture. I am not in favour of any industries being controlled by Government Departments. My experience of departmental control is that Government Departments harass industries. They deal with questions which they very often do not understand; and I doubt, indeed, whether any Government Department has ever given real assistance to the industries of the country. My experience is that our industries have been developed and made successful by the individual efforts of the men who controlled and managed them. Government Departments make all kinds of regulations which hamper and restrict the operation of those people who have possession of the various industries; and I feel quite sure that when the Board of Agriculture come to deal with these small holdings they will act very much on the same principle, and that instead of being

515
an advantage it will be a disadvantage to have this scheme controlled by the Board.
I was rather surprised to find that His Majesty's Government propose in this Bill to buy the holdings and to make the State the owners of them. I look with considerable suspicion upon that proposal, particularly when my noble friend Lord Grey says that we shall eventually have 250,000 small-holders instead of the 300 to be accommodated under this Bill. If you create a further 250,000 small-holders on the principle contained in this Bill, it will mean an expenditure of £250,000,000. Are you going to sanction a great scheme for the expenditure of public money to enable the State to become the owners of the land? I think it is a very dangerous proposition to enter upon. We hear a lot of talk about nationalising this and that. Many people seem to want to nationalise everything they do not themselves possess. I think it is a dangerous step, and I regard with some degree of anxiety and surprise the bringing in by the Coalition Government of a Bill of this description. I find, however, that it has not been the custom for your Lordships to reject a Bill on Third Reading, and therefore I have not moved the rejection of this measure; but I have such an objection to it—I think it is a dangerous Bill and one which is economically unsound—that I have felt compelled to enter my protest against it before it leaves your Lordships' House.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, one interesting feature of the debates on this Bill has been two speeches from noble Lords sitting on this side of the House and owning allegiance to my noble friend the Leader of the House. Lord Sheffield, on the Second Reading of the Bill, made a speech which was an interesting reminiscence of the tenets of the Manchester school in the 'forties. Now the noble Lord who has just sat down has made a speech which I should imagine the Daily News and the Daily Chronicle would associate with the Toryism with which they would taunt me. But I do not hold the noble Lord's views. I am afraid that he has left me far behind in the principles of Conservatism. Let me briefly touch on some points that he has raised. He says that the minimum cost of these small holding colonies is to be £300,000.
LORD JOICEY: Judging from what has been said in the course of the debates.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: If the noble Lord had conducted his business on that principle I am afraid he would not have achieved that success on which we all congratulate him and for which he is famous, because he has substituted the word "minimum" for the word "maximum." The sum of £300,000 was the maximum cost to which this scheme was to run. The noble Lord will be relieved when I tell him that, with the assistance of Captain Bathurst and my colleagues at the Board of Agriculture—before I had to resign the position of President of the Board—we had already secured two of these colonies without purchase; that is to say, there will be no capital expenditure for the land. We are getting them on a very long lease; so that the £300,000, which was always a maximum, has now begun rapidly to dwindle.
In the second place, the noble Lord said that I had not, in my speech in moving the Second Reading of this Bill [on May 25], brought forward any statistics to show that small holdings had been a success. I regret that the noble Lord either did not hear me or did not understand me, because what he has said necessitates that I should repeat the figures which I then gave. I said that under the Bill introduced by a Conservative Government many years ago, and under the Bill introduced by the noble Marquess who sits on that Bench, nearly £6,000,000 had been spent on the creation of small holdings, dealing with something over 200,000 acres, and placing on the land 15,000 small-holders. I stated that this had been such a success that out of all the schemes of all the county councils throughout the whole of England and Wales there had been only four deficiencies. Of those four deficiencies, one (in Norfolk) was caused by the bursting of the banks of a river which laid the land, not only of the small-holders but thousands of acres of the land of big farmers, under water for many weeks; and another (in my own county) was caused by a waterspout that literally swept the whole of the soil off a certain area, including the area occupied by the small holdings, into Porchester Creek. Those accidents could not possibly be ascribed to any fault in the scheme or in the Act. In the two remaining cases the deficiencies might fairl attributed either to extravagance of management or to bad judgment, but in both cases they were very small. The fact remains that

517
the State and the county councils have invested £6,000,000 in the creation of small holdings, with no loss to the public at all; and therefore the economic success of the small holdings policy is, I submit, already proved.
What I set out to do, with the assistance of my colleagues, was to try by this experiment, which the Cabinet sanctioned, to put the small holdings policy on a still better foundation. The noble Lord said that the more small holdings the less produce from the soil. I am not prepared to accept that dictum as a fact. But I do not put forward small holdings mainly or principally on the ground of an increase in production from the soil. I do not think they entail any diminution, and where intensive culture replaces extensive culture they certainly imply an increase of produce. But what I do base them on is this, that there is no more urgent political or social necessity in England to-day than to increase the rural population. I put that before all the schemes which the noble Lord mentioned. There is nothing which any municipality can desire money for, nothing that any corporation may contemplate in the way of public improvement, which is so urgent as the increase of the number of men and women and children who live on the rural land of England. And if I did not believe—as I do believe—that this will be a useful and successful experiment economically, I should still think it worth trying because of the paramount and overshadowing importance of that great national question.
I have only one further word to say. As I have explained previously, this is not a part of the demobilisation plans of the Government; but so far as it does go, this experiment is to be utilised to assist in settling on the land the seamen and the soldiers who have saved our nation. When I first spoke to your Lordships on the subject of this Bill I had not the information with me that I have now. Sir Douglas Haig very kindly undertook to make inquiry on this matter from several Divisions at the Front when they were resting from the trenches. Every man in those Divisions was asked whether he contemplated, after leaving the Army, settling on the land. A great number of men said they had no such idea in their mind; a certain number said they had not thought about it; but the number of men who answered quite definitely that they did mean to settle
518
on the land, if they got the chance, somewhere in the Empire, was far larger than I had anticipated. The question which the noble Lord has to face is this. Are we to tell these men, "You may go to Canada, you may go to Australia, you may go to South Africa, but in your native country the Government of the day will do nothing to help you"? I should, indeed, be sorry if this House followed the lead of the noble Lord and let it go forth to the Army that not only had we no sympathy with an increase of the rural population but that we would try no experiment, and raise not a penny of public money, in order to assist some of these men to settle on the land which they have saved.
THE EARL OF HARROWBY: My Lords, I venture to express my hearty approval of what the noble Earl has just said about small holdings. Perhaps I have some little authority to speak on this matter, as I have from 2,000 to 3,000 acres under small holdings and small farms. With regard to what the noble Earl said about increasing the population and the produce of the land, I can give your Lordships two instances. The first is of a large farm of 500 acres, which was cut up and four farms created. There is now treble the population employed on that area, and the produce has more than trebled also. The second case is that of a farm of 200 acres, which was equally cut up. There is now milked on half of the acreage twice as many cows as the larger farmer kept.
My quarrel with the Board of Agriculture's proposal is that the Board have given this House very little information as to how they propose to deal with the creation of these small holding colonies. I quite agree with their proposal with regard to market gardens. But with regard to the creation of small farms, I think that one mistake they have made is in under-estimating the cost. I agree with Mr. John Burns that what we want to do is to build cottages which will be a pleasure to the owners. We do not want to build a lot of barracks at a cost of £200 apiece; and I venture to state that no cottage can be built in these days at a cost of under £300. Yet in the Report of the Departmental Committee I notice that the sum of £200 is stated. Then, again, there is the cost of farm buildings. I have spent £20,000 on the creation of small holdings

519
during the last few years, and I can state with confidence that you cannot erect farm buildings for a holding of fifty acres at a less cost than £200. Together with the house, and the drains, roads, and fencing, I estimate that the cost of creating a small holding of fifty acres cannot be less than £600. Therefore the figures in the Committee's Report ought, in my opinion, to be amended.
I agree with the noble Karl who has just spoken that there is a great future for small holdings in this country, more especially in the case of land near our large centres of population. There are to-day hundreds and hundreds of large farms running right into the large towns which could and should be cut up into smaller farms, because there is a strong demand by a large number of efficient and able men who would be only too glad to take these farms; and the net result would be an increase in the rent to the landowner, an enormous increase in the agricultural population on the area, and, consequently, an increase in the amount of rates paid to the locality, and in the amount of Income Tax paid to the Exchequer.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): My Lords, after what fell from my noble friend Lord Selborne it is only necessary for me to say a very few words in finally commending this Bill to your Lordships. I also felt, as he did, that Lord Joicey took a somewhat needlessly gloomy view of the Bill itself and also of the possibilities of increasing the number of smaller farms and small holdings in this country. It is, of course, perfectly true that our system in relation to certain kinds of farming is not likely, and ought not, to be superseded by the creation of small holdings. Speaking broadly, sheep farming, whether on hills or on downs, or on what are known as turnip and barley farms, is never likely to be carried on by a system of small holdings. But that does not, of course, preclude the fact that there are a great number of branches of farming, some of the most interesting and the most lucrative, which can unquestionably be carried on quite as well, and in some cases better, on the smaller class of holdings.
As regards co-operation, my noble friend (Lord Joicey), speaking from his own experience in Wales, pointed out that although farmers generally are not averse
520
to a system of co-operative supply, yet it has not been easy to bring them either to a system of co-operative labour or of co-operative distribution. That is quite true. We all know that the farmers of Great Britain are not easy people to move into new paths, but that surely is no reason for not trying. And knowing what co-operation in all its branches is able to do in other countries, how farming is intensified by it, how production is increased and how profits are made, it surely is wise not to neglect an experiment such as this.
I am sure the House recognises what my noble friend (Lord Selborne) all through has enforced—that this is an experimental measure, and that the particular series of projects which it is intended to carry out have, as a matter of fact, not been tried under any of the previous measures for the encouragement of small holdings which have passed through Parliament. That, again, is surely a further reason for not neglecting an experiment of this kind, which can be undertaken, as my noble friend has pointed out, at a quite moderate cost in the first instance. My noble friend opposite, Lord Harrowby, whose experience in these matters I fully recognise because I have had occasion to know something of what he has done in his own county in the encouragement of small holdings, gives us a word of wise caution as to the possibility of the experiments costing more than the Board of Agriculture have been disposed to believe. That is no doubt a matter which is not to be lost sight of, particularly in view of the express desire and intention of my noble friend that these schemes should, to the utmost extent possible, be self-supporting. Personally I do not hesitate to say that close attention ought to be paid to such cautions as those made by Lord Harrowby. But all that only further points, I venture to think, to the desirability of making the experiment, and also of recognising that it is an experiment. Without troubling your Lordships more, I will merely congratulate my noble friend on the fact that, with the two notable exceptions to which he drew attention—of my two noble friends who sit on this side of the House—the reception of the Bill has been thoroughly favourable by your Lordships' House, which is so competent to form an opinion upon it.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

MILITARY SERVICE—CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL rose to call attention to the operation of the Military Service Act with regard to conscientious objectors who have not been so found by the Tribunals, to the case of C. H. Norman, and to complaints of brutal treatment at Wandsworth Detention Barracks and of the commandant, Lieut.-Colonel Reginald Brooke, and to move to resolve—
That in the opinion of this House it is undesirable to subject military prisoners to punishments not authorised by law.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have to call your attention this afternoon to some extremely painful matters. We have had in this House one or two small discussions on the question of the conscientious objector, but they have generally dealt rather with legal considerations than with the actual facts. To-day, even at the risk of wearying your Lordships, I think it necessary that some of the actual facts should be placed before this House. Your Lordships are familiar, from the discussions we have already had, with the fact that the Act provided that there should be an exemption for conscientious objectors who were so found by the Tribunals. The Question that I have put down relates to objectors who were not found to be conscientious objectors by the Tribunals, and I venture to say that almost every one of these represents a case in which the Tribunal has failed to carry out the duty which Parliament imposed upon it. I know the suggestion has been made, in answer to previous Questions, that the men concerned have been found by a competent authority, sometimes not once but twice, not to be conscientious objectors, and therefore they have to be considered as ordinary soldiers. The noble Marquess opposite (Lord Salisbury), who has experience on the Central Tribunal, knows, I think, that the Tribunals have not always succeeded in adequately distinguishing between them, and that the instances in which they have failed to give that relief which the Act of Parliament contemplated are not mere ones and twos, but are, unfortunately, more numerous than they should be.
When the Tribunal has not been effective in carrying out the duties imposed upon it, you have the result that there is drafted into the Army and into the military machine technically a soldier—merely technically
522
a soldier—a person who is, in fact, a conscientious objector to any form of military service There then at once arises the inevitable result. There is a conflict with discipline, the discipline of the Army. The persons who administer the military machine cannot be expected to put up with breaches of discipline. The conscientious objector, if he is, in fact, one, whether he can be expected to or not—and apparently by the Army authorities he sometimes is expected to—does not, in fact, submit to the military discipline, and you get the inevitable conflict which has had many unfortunate instances to which I will draw your Lordships' attention.
There are, of course, legal punishments of all kinds provided for refusal to obey discipline, but there has also been in a great number of cases a great deal of illegal pressure and illegal punishments, and it is to those that I desire to draw your Lordships' attention to-day. The object of that punishment is very easy to understand. It is administered by people who are of opinion that a conscience can be formed, or at any rate that the conclusions of a conscience can be modified, by sufficient physical pain and ill-treatment, and they hope, by the ill-treatment of persons who occupy this position, to make them give up their position and to serve in the Army without raising their conscientious objections; and in some cases they have succeeded, as your Lordships will hear.
I now propose to read to your Lordships some of the circumstances that have happened. This is a case from a barracks where several reports have been collected. This writer says—
"It has been a terrible day for them. One of them, S., has given in. They were stripped and scrubbed up and down fiercely several times. ' Horrible torture,' they said. One fainted. We saw the corporal, and he was nearly insane—"
That is the corporal who had been administering this form of illegal punishment—
"He had had such a terrible day with C.O.'s that he wanted to chuck the job and go to the cells instead. He was told to go on and he swore horribly, saying he would break our hearts and kill us to-morrow…. It is a most terrible ordeal…. A military prison seems to be a special place for torturing us."
Another man says—
"When we refused to obey orders we were either kicked in the back or hit in the face, in addition to being dragged round by the ears. … B. is the biggest brute I have ever seen, read or

523
heard of. There are now only four sticking it, and they have just had a scrub and been badly kicked. K. and R. can hardly walk."
Another report, referring to the same man, runs—
"The greatest bully in the camp, Lance-corporal B. (6 ft. 6 in. in height), after a time kicked us out of the tent and tried to make us march. A.I. got badly kicked on the leg. T.B. and D.C. each got a terrible blow on the side of the head. W.H. got his face badly scratched. J.J. got a thick ear and his nose bursted, while I had a stunning upper-cut breaking a tooth. He put us on our backs and ate his breakfast in front of us as we lay there (we got no breakfast). We were taken to the washhouse, and there—gave in. … It was a terribly brutal ordeal."
Another, referring to the same corporal—
"Also I. was kicked terribly; he can only crawl along leaning on me in terrible pain."
In these cases, as your Lordships will notice, the treatment had had the results hoped for. A visitor to this camp writes—
"The four persons are still standing out, and of the five who were sent here on Saturday all have given in except D. and S. … I saw the fellow, Lance-corporal B., who has been the person to give the brutal treatment. … When he learned who I was, he made it in his way to come round by me (while I was waiting to see the commanding officer) to say ' I've only seven now! ' The commanding officer would not yield. He would not admit that the men were being badly used, and said that so long as they were in the Army they must yield to discipline. I pleaded for a Court-Martial very hard indeed, but he would not promise to give one. He pointed to the fact that so many had given way already! We talked a good deal about the Army, Prussianism, etc., and, after telling us what they would do with such like in Germany, ' Yes ' he said with pride ' and in Russia,' and he would be glad if they could do it here…. It is most pathetic to see our boys; they looked so ill, worn, and depressed."
Here is another case—
"The commandant said ' Take him to the special room.' Four of them then set on me. … The sergeant I have mentioned deliberately punched me behind the ear, and all of them set on me again and bruised me more."
A little further on—
"We are getting knocked about in a terrible manner. We have been threatened to be shot—a message from the War Office, I was told. They are trying to stop letters from getting out. We are all getting bashed about. H. and I fainted to-day. F. has a swollen face."
Your Lordships know that persons of ordinary health and of military age do not faint readily from comparatively slight knockings-about.
Here, in this same report, is an illustration of the effect which this unfortunate
524
conduct is having upon discipline, one of the things which I myself most desire to remove—
"To-day they dragged another to church, which struck one as rather blasphemous. The opinion in the ranks is that they deserve what they get, but already I note a slight but very slight change in the demeanour of some of the men, chiefly old soldiers, or men who have knocked about the world. The corporal who beat his man on the face expressed great respect for him in my hearing, but doubted whether he could ' hold out against such a mighty big machine.' I am not particularly squeamish, having seen and taken part in many curious things …"
I believe that the majority of the cases I have been reading to your Lordships refer to Wandsworth Detention Barracks, but there are also several very bad cases which have been supplied to me from the Whitchurch (Salop) Barracks. Some of these cases referring to Lance-Corporal Barker, the man called "B," are from Whitchurch. This is one of the things this man said—
"' You are the damned ring-leader. I'll break your bloody heart. I've tamed the others. I'll scrub you myself; you're my man. I'll scrub you until the blood comes.' ' He scrubbed me cruel,' says this man; ' I was forced to cry out …'"
Here is the case of a man who was ordered to fall in—
"I refused, explaining that I was a conscientious objector. The commanding officer then called upon Corporal Barker, who had been specially sent for to deal with us."
This is, again, the same man. Apparently that was the way in which he dealt with them. This is from another letter—
"He said ' March.' We did not. He kicked me on the ankle. I fell. He then kicked me just below the knee; it is bruised yet. He again said ' March.' I staggered along slowly, so he kicked me again on the thigh. I went down again. I thought my leg was broken. I felt some one helping me up. It was Ban. He helped me back to the tent. I could not walk myself. Then we were taken to the baths and scrubbed with a stiff sink brush. Dan practically appealed to be shot. So you can reckon what it was. We were followed by about 4,000 men, a lot of them booing."
It may be suggested, and it has been suggested, that these stories are not true. I say at once that as far as I am concerned I am not prepared to accept any official denial of these stories, and that I should not be prepared to believe in any inquiry that was not conducted by independent people who were in no way under the domination of any official pressure whatever. These stories—I say at once that

525
I am not acquainted with them myself—come from people who I am assured are reliable; and your Lordships heard the speech which was made by the most rev. Primate the other night in this House. The most rev. Primate is not, I think, too ready to array himself against authority, or to give any support whatever to law breakers. Nor would your Lordships think that he was a man likely readily to believe stories of this kind which were without foundation. But he himself told you that the evidence was such that he was convinced that unfortunate incidents had taken place—incidents of the character which I have been reading to your Lordships. I say, therefore, that official denials will convey no conviction to me, and ought not to convey any conviction to any member of the public. These things have been officially denied in the other House, where they cannot be challenged and where no debate can be raised on a Question. The Government are responsible—every member of the Government is responsible—for allowing anything of this kind to continue, and every one of your Lordships is responsible if you do not protest against this kind of treatment and allow it to continue. It is not a responsibility that can be shelved by professing not to believe the stories, or by thinking that one has not personally ordered it, or by thinking that it is taking place unofficially and unauthorised in barracks. It is a responsibility which every one of us must share, the Government most of all, if it is allowed to continue one moment after attention has been drawn to it.
I now want to call attention to the special case of Mr. C. H. Norman. In this instance I know the man myself. I have known him for several years, and can assure your Lordships that I am prepared to accept as absolutely correct any statement that he makes. I have no sympathy with his opinions and am quite willing to admit that he is in many ways a very wrong-headed and very obstinate person. But the point with which I am dealing is merely the question of how he was treated. This is a diary of what happened to him at the Wandsworth Detention Barracks on the 23rd or 24th of May of this year—
"Met with shower of abuse on arrival. Asked for some paper to make will. They asked whether I would put on uniform—refused. Taken to cell and forcibly dressed. Repeated request to make will, as I might not be alive
526
more than three or four days. Officer went to commandant. I was taken to reception room and signed for things. Commandant arrived, and without a word to me ordered me to be taken to hospital and put in strait jacket. Was taken there and put in strait jacket, which was too small and caused me great pain. I told the attendant, but he could do nothing. Commandant and another officer arrived. Commandant mocked at me and spat at me. Other officer asked whether I was all right—a question which amused me in the circumstances. Medical officer came about 8 p.m., but did not explain anything. He said commandant had said I had threatened suicide. I told him I had asked to make my will, and that was all. I could not move myself in strait jacket and suffered a good deal, because I wanted to go to the lavatory but was lying on the floor and could not attract the attendant's attention. I did finally and went, and then was left standing. I had asked in the beginning for a chair, but was refused it…Sergeant-major came in and another officer, and asked how I was. I told him I was feeling ill. Medical officer came at ten, and released me on my giving my word against doing harm whilst under his authority. On the next day I was in hospital. On asking leave to write to my solicitor or friends, commandant swore and spat at me, expressing hope that the medical officer would put me in strait jacket again. … On the 26th May the commandant visited me again, cursed me, and said he wished I would cut my throat; that I was a coward who ought to be shot. Also spat at me.… June 1st, ordered to parade by commandant, who again cursed me, and said I should be sent to France and that it was a pity I was afraid to kill myself. Commandant again said I should be put in strait jacket. Ordered C.D. 1 and put in darkish cell; bread and water diet; all privileges taken."
I have also received a letter from Norman's father, a portion of which I propose to read to your Lordships—
"As the father of this young man, I can say without the least hesitation that his strongest convictions for years before the war were entirely anti-pathetic to every form of military influence—"
I am quite able to endorse that, and if ever there is or has been a conscientious objector, a person with every possible sign of the crank about him, it is this gentleman, C. H. Norman. The letter from the father goes on—
"It cannot possibly be in the interest of the nation that a young man of talent, imbued with strong intellectual convictions (however mistaken), and who has always had the public interest if anything too much at heart, should be subjected to every form of degradation and physical suffering because he will not abate the full force of his conscientious scruples."
Since these events, of which I have read you the diary, Norman has been court-martialled and sentenced to two years detention. At least I gather it is detention from the fact that he remained in barracks

527
and was subject to military control; at any rate, he has not been removed to a civil prison under the understanding—referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor, the other day—regarding the operation of the new Army Order, and I saw the other day in the newspapers that there has been a second Court-Martial on this same man. The reason for a second Court-Martial while he is serving one sentence and the effect of it I do not know, but I shall be glad to learn; and I shall also be glad to learn whether it is proposed to remove this man, who has suffered so much under military discipline and control. If he is not to be removed it is a breach of the spirit of the Act and of the Tribunals and of the Army Order, because he is, to my knowledge, a perfectly honest conscientious objector and a person who ought to have whatever relief is to be extended to such.
I have also stated that I desire to call attention to the commandant referred to in the diary which I have read. The commandant is Lieut.-Colonel Reginald Brooke, and the facts in some of these cases connected with him cannot be denied, because they are in writing in his own hand and are therefore available to confute anybody who attempts to deny them. This was a case in which a man had written a letter referring to the treatment of somebody else, and the commandant refused to let it out of the camp. Of that, naturally, I make no complaint. But he wrote on it this endorsement—
"Letter returned. Not of the sort I will pass. If your news as to Private Rendal Wyatt is true I am delighted to hear it, and sincerely hope the whole lot of the conscientious objectors will be treated in the same way.
(Signed) REGINALD BROOKE,
Lt.-Col. Commandant, May 19, 1916."
He was also sent an inquiry about another conscientious objector named Forrester, and to this he replied—
"Private Forrester was given sentence by me, and I shall continue to act in my Barracks according to my orders, without any regard to what you and the ' so-called public ' may think. I do not care one atom for public opinion."
On another occasion he said to the father of two men who were suffering there—
"I mean to make these men soldiers, and I shall continue to give them severe punishment while they disobey military orders. I don't care for Asquith or Parliament. I shall do just as I like with these men."
I am not sure whether it was not, perhaps, the sacrilege committed in his reference
528
to the Prime Minister that has caused him to be removed from his position, rather than his treatment of these men. He said to another conscientious objector—
"I don't care a damn for your conscience. You'll do what you are told, or by God I'll make your life a hell. You will be put in a strait jacket twenty-three hours out of the twenty-four, and don't you think you'll leave this place when your time is up. I have power to bring you before a General Court-Martial and keep you here in my charge."
It may well seem incredible to your Lordships that anybody occupying an official position of this responsibility could act and speak in this way. I should like to inquire why this gentleman has been removed, and whether there is supposed to be any truth in any of the statements that have been made about him, or whether his removal has been in the nature of a promotion. If any of these statements are true I should have thought that the proper course to take would have been to have a Court-Martial upon him, and afford these people the opportunity of giving their evidence and having the matter dealt with on oath. That course has not been taken. And when one remembers that his immediate official superior, or at any rate the person who deals with conscientious objectors at the War Office, is Brigadier-General Childs, to whom I have called your Lordships' attention before, one may, perhaps, not wonder that brutality in a subordinate is excused or winked at.
LORD SANDHURST: Oh, oh!
EARL RUSSELL: The noble Lord says "Oh, oh." I will give you my reasons why I say that. Brigadier-General Childs was asked whether he knew any Quakers, and he replied that he was glad he did not. Since then he has given evidence and been cross-examined, and I understand he said he thought the best thing to do with conscientious objectors was to have them all shot, although the words he used referred to Army Order IX (a) which I understand has the same meaning. I do not know whether the noble Lord will deny that this has been said by this officer on oath and in public. I came across, in The Times on Monday, an interesting address by no less a person than His Majesty to the cadets at Sandhurst on the duty of an officer, in the course of which the King said—
"You must cultivate a high standard of honour and moral conduct. … These qualities have always been the distinguishing characteristics of officers in the British Army."

529
Is it contended, in view of what has been said, and in view of what cannot be denied without an official Inquiry at which these people are given an opportunity of making these charges—is it contended that this gentleman to whom I refer comes within that definition, and that he behaves as one would desire a British officer to behave?
There have been other incidents at other barracks, but I desire to-day only to call attention to those which I have mentioned. But I would ask what is intended to be done in this matter. There are only two logical courses. I need hardly say that, characteristically, neither has been taken. One course is to regard these people as outlaws entitled to no sympathy and to no consideration, and in that case the best and kindest thing is to shoot them out of hand if you feel justified in doing that. The other course is the one that was contemplated by the Act of Parliament when it contained the clause in question. You may treat these men as lunatics, if you like, but they are people holding opinions so strong that you cannot influence those opinions by argument nor by physical persecution. You can apparently, as I showed in the earlier instances, cow them to the extent of making them, through sheer terror, do that of which their conscience disapproves, but that is a method which I, and I think all of your Lordships, deprecate.
The official answer, no doubt, will be what we have heard before—that these men have had the opportunity of going before the Tribunals, and that the Tribunals have refused their claim. As a matter of fact, in the case of Norman, he did not go before the Tribunal, although of course he had only himself to thank for that. But when it turns out that these men are conscientious objectors in fact, that answer will not do. Since I put this Question on the Paper we have had an important statement by Mr. Asquith. After making it, Mr. Asquith said—
"I think, perhaps, I may appeal to my hon. friends to read my statement carefully in print."
I have taken that course, and when this statement was referred to last week I ventured to think that it would have to be read very carefully before we could suppose that it carried out what we understood was the intention—that is, that these men should be civilly imprisoned and dealt with civilly when it was found that they
530
were real conscientious objectors. The Prime Minister's statement began—
"The procedure to be adopted by the War Office in the case of soldiers, under Army Order X, of May 25, 1916, sentenced to imprisonment for refusing to obey orders, is as follows …"
The first thing that is not clear is whether this applies to those who were sentenced before Army Order X was issued. The second point is that it is limited to a sentence of imprisonment. You can sentence a man to two years detention in barracks, and so escape sending him into civil custody. This is an evasion which makes the Order unsatisfactory. The only thing that will make it satisfactory is that every one of these unfortunate men—mistaken, if you like, but at any rate very unfortunate in the way in which they are being treated—should be brought under civil custody, and that there should be no technical quibbling differences as to when their sentence was and the form it took. The Prime Minister's statement goes on—
"All Court-Martial proceedings on conscientious objectors will be referred for scrutiny to the War Office."
It is then said that if they supply the information required in the questions it will be examined into. I hope they will all be advised to supply that information and have it examined into. But I have seen some of these people. They are extraordinarily unreasonable, and it may quite well be that some of them will not do that. Then the Prime Minister said—
"If the information is refused … the prisoner will remain under military control, his sentence will at once be commuted to detention, and he will be sent to a detention barrack to undergo his sentence."
What exactly is the meaning of that? Why are they to be sent back to military control unless it is to be assumed that they are shirkers, and then what is to be done with them beyond imprisoning? I think the Prime Minister's statement does not go sufficiently far, and does not make it sufficiently clear that these men are going to be properly dealt with.
This gradual growth, as it has been, of militarism in this country—and militarism, as Mr. Bodkin said when prosecuting for the Crown, in a sinister sense—requires to be looked into. It will not be put up with indefinitely by the people of this country, and it will not be got over by denying the facts or by issuing Orders which do not honestly deal with the difficulty. My own

531
impression is that, to begin with, there were very few people indeed who had any sympathy with the conscientious objector, or who were in the least anxious to fight his cause in any way. But I am perfectly certain that the action that has been taken by the Government and the conduct which has been allowed to be meted out to these men has been such as to produce an unfortunate and most undesirable sympathy for them, and has also to a very considerable extent helped to injure discipline in the ranks of the Army. I am as anxious as any member of the Government can be to remove that, and I ask the Government to endeavour to deal with the matter seriously and in a comprehensive spirit.
But all that I have called attention to to-day are the illegalities which have been committed. I think there is no politician, no statesman, no member of your Lordships' House, who would be prepared to say that he is in favour of a prisoner of any kind, for whatever reason, being subjected to illegal or brutal treatment. These knockings-about to which I have called attention are no part of any official sentence and they are illegal, and I hope that an expression of opinion by your Lordships will lead to those who have to deal with these men realising that if they punish them as, so long as matters go on as they are, they are bound to do, they must punish them in accordance with the law, and not by methods which are extra-legal and which are unfortunate and do a great deal of harm. I do not think any of your Lordships will disagree with the Resolution which I now beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That in the opinion of this House it is undesirable to subject military prisoners to punishments not authorised by law.—(Earl Russell.)
LORD SANDHURST: My Lords, the noble Earl has made his statement, if he will allow me to say so, in a temperate fashion, and with that lucidity of expression to which we are accustomed from him in this House. I regret, however, that he made an attack upon one individual in the War Office—General Childs. As to the statement which the noble Earl says General Childs made use of the other day on oath before a Court, I certainly did not see it; but the noble Earl did make reference the other day to the fact that General Childs, when asked whether he knew any Quakers, replied "No, I know no Quakers,
532
thank God." I think it is possible to attach too much importance to a statement of that kind. Had bitterness been intended, it would have been very easy to have formed a much more disagreeable sentence. Perhaps I may point out that this particular officer is one of great capability and great zeal, and I will go further and say, without fear of contradiction, that he is and has been a good friend to the conscientious objector. He has been instrumental, in the branch of the War Office in which he is employed, in reducing sentences and stretching privileges. I also know that he has been in communication verbally and by letter with various ministers of religion and also with officials of the Quaker Society, and I have seen appreciative letters which these people have written to him. He has been in close touch with these people and has always been accessible. So much I should like to say for General Childs.
The noble Earl covered a certain amount of ground. He said, in the last few words of his speech, that he particularly dealt with certain cases. But he did point out that prisoners were being subjected to illegal sentences, and he quoted three or four cases which he said had been denied, I understood, in the House of Commons.
EARL RUSSELL: Some of them.
LORD SANDHURST: The noble Earl will forgive me if I do not go into the details of these cases. I am not in a position to do so. He also mentioned the Prime Minister's statement. If he will allow me, I will take two or three of the various points he has raised in particular order, which may perhaps run more consecutively and be more convenient to the House. In regard to the case of Mr. Norman, whom the noble Earl mentioned as serving two years detention imposed by a Court-Martial, I do not know when that person was sentenced, but I believe I am correct in saying that no man is undergoing a sentence of more than 118 days in a detention barrack; and in regard to his being court-martialled a second time, I think the explanation is this. For insubordination, for refusing to obey orders, instead of the man being punished by the commandant of the prison, the commandant can set him back for Court-Martial, the result of which will be, if the man is convicted, that he will be sentenced to imprisonment in a civil prison in accordance with Army Order X, to which we referred the other day.

533
In regard to the eases that the noble Earl mentioned, noble Lords will readily understand that a variety of reports get about. Some are substantiated and some are not, and the evidence is contradictory. But in regard to the particular case of the man Norman, it is stated that he threatened to commit suicide; that he wanted to make his will because he wished to commit suicide. That being so, the order was given to put him under restraint, as the official term goes. This meant putting him into what I understand is a canvas waistcoat. Then he also either did, or threatened to, hunger strike. The consequence was that he had to be forcibly fed; that also requires restraint. But when either of these courses—restraint or forcible feeding—has to be resorted to, it is done under the supervision of a medical officer, who has in his report to state the time at which the treatment took place and the duration of the restraint. As regards forcible feeding, understand that this takes ten minutes, but that the prisoner is kept under restraint for somewhere about an hour to prevent artificial regurgitation.
EARL RUSSELL: The noble Lord will remember that I purposely abstained from making any complaint about forcible feeding.
LORD SANDHURST: Quite so. I am only stating the facts. There were five other prisoners, conscientious objectors, in this barrack, because they had refused to drill, and they had no complaints to make. As is known, this commandant has been relieved; but it has been reported that he did not act illegally, and that he did not exceed the powers that were given him.
The noble Earl went on to say that there was a variety of punishments. I do not know whether he used the term, but I rather gathered that what he meant was that punishments were invented or improvised for dealing with conscientious objectors outside what is legally laid down. I will give reasons in a moment to show that provision is made that such various punishments are not, or cannot be, made use of. The system of discipline in a military prison and detention barracks is laid down in what are known as the Rules for Military Prisons and for Detention Barracks. They are made by the Secretary of State under Section 133 of the Army Act and are laid on the Tables of both
534
Houses of Parliament for a period, I believe, of forty days, though as to that I will not be quite certain—it may be thirty days. The noble Earl gave instances of how a non-commissioned officer had kicked one man in the back, hit another man behind the ear, and so on. Again, by Section 37 of the Army Act such cases are provided for. When they are brought to light, the punishment is severe. In the case of an officer, he is liable to be cashiered; and in the case of a non-commissioned officer, severe punishment is provided for.
From what the noble Earl told us, this treatment to which he called attention is, in his view, going on not only in one barrack but in two or three. Now in connection with every detention barrack and every military prison there are officers known as prison visitors. The Rules laid down for the conduct of these officers are, like the others I have mentioned, laid on the Tables of both Houses of Parliament and come under Section 133 of the Army Act. I think the simplest plan to make the matter quite clear would be for me to read the Rules which apply to official visitors. They are—
"An officer, if possible not below the rank of Field Officer, shall be detailed weekly by the General Officer Commanding, or Officer Commanding the station, as detention barrack or military prison visitor. He shall see all soldiers under punishment and any other soldiers under sentence who desire to make a complaint, and shall inquire into such complaints and report direct to the General Officer Commanding. Complaints of soldiers under sentence may be heard in private.
A visitor appointed under this Rule is entitled to obtain access to all or any part of the detention barrack or prison, to see all men or any man under sentence, to inquire into the work and general conditions of the establishment, and to make such report to the General Officer Commanding or the Officer Commanding the station as he may think fit.
In the event of such report being unfavourable a copy will be forwarded confidentially to the War Office, and the fact that this is being done will be recorded in the Visitors' Minute Book. It will rest with the General Officer Commanding or the Officer Commanding the station, on receipt of such report, either personally to inspect the detention barrack or prison, or to take such other steps as he may consider desirable."
The noble Earl used the expression that these men are only technically soldiers. We all remember the Act that was passed a short time ago in which it was stated in Section 1, subsection (1), that every male between certain ages and on a certain date should be deemed to be a soldier and passed into the Reserve. I do not see

535
how the noble Earl can get round that. To my mind it is as clear as possible that all these men are soldiers unless exempted. Of course, there are always a great many people who let everything slide, who pay no attention to notices or proclamations, some owing to carelessness and some advisedly. These men, not obeying the summons, are absent without leave; and when a man is absent for over twenty-one days he is declared, under Section 72 of the Army Act, by a Court of Inquiry to be a deserter and is liable to apprehension by a constable. Then in the course of time he can be handed over by a magistrate to an escort to be taken to barracks; and this is the only way as I understand, by which that person can be tried, he being beyond the procedure of a civil Court.
Then comes the following process. The commanding officer, if he thought the circumstances warranted and subject to superior authority, might deal with the case summarily—that is, if he did not wish a man to begin his military service by serving a Court-Martial sentence—and inflict a punishment up to twenty-eight days in a detention barrack. I am speaking of the ordinary case, the case of alleged desertion. On the other hand, he has to give the man the option whether he would prefer to be tried by a Court-Martial—that is under Section 46; and if at the Court-Martial the man makes representation as to a conscientious objection, the case is, after confirmation, referred for scrutiny to the War Office. This is a particular point which the noble Earl mentioned. But that scrutiny is made with the sole object of ascertaining, if possible, by the Court-Martial proceedings, whether the man had been before the Tribunal, and if such be the case the records of the Tribunal are obtained with a view of supplying material to the Central Appeal Tribunal which may help them to form their decision.
The Prime Minister's statement was mentioned by the noble Earl, and with your Lordships' permission I should like to make a remark or two about it. In regard to conscientious objectors, there are two kinds under confinement—the first, who are obeying orders and behaving well in the detention barrack, and the others who refuse to obey any order at all. Those who refuse to obey any order at all—and this has a bearing on what the noble Earl said—are, I believe, being remanded
536
to trial by Court-Martial, which will result in their passing into a civil prison. They represent themselves to be conscientious objectors, and they will be dealt with by the Army Order.
EARL RUSSELL: Even if their sentence was before the promulgation of the Order?
LORD SANDHURST: I will answer that in a moment. I think it will be found, if these men misbehave themselves that instead of being punished by the commandant they will be set back to Court-Martial. That is my belief, and in accordance with the Prime Minister's statement they will be sentenced then to imprisonment in a civil prison. Men who are held to be genuine conscientious objectors will be released from the civil prison on their undertaking to perform work of national importance under civil control for the duration of the war. They will be transferred pro forma to Section W of the Army Reserve, and they will cease to be subject to military discipline or the Army Act so long as they continue to carry out satisfactorily the duties imposed upon them. And if they do not behave properly, they will then be put back to the civil prison to complete their sentence. If the man will not do national work, he will complete his sentence of civil imprisonment and then be discharged from the Army. Where a man, asserting himself to be a conscientious objector, refuses to give any information, and in all cases where the plea is not sustained, the sentence, under Army Order X, will at once be commuted to detention, and the man will be sent to a detention barrack to undergo his sentence and will there be under military discipline. As to detention, as I have said, I do not think anybody is undergoing a sentence of more than 118 days.
Doubts have been expressed that the Army Council will not follow the advice of the Central Appeal Tribunal. I do not think there need be any fear of that. The Army Council will never interfere with the final decisions of this body. That was endorsed in a statement by the Prime Minister in reply to a question last night. He said that the final decision as to the genuineness of a conscientious objection would rest solely and wholly with the Central Appeal Tribunal. I may add that the Central Appeal Tribunal who are to exercise this important function, in addition

537
to sitting on and sifting these cases, will frame the questions that it is desirable to put, and the only part which the Army Council will play will be that after the Home Secretary has released the man from the civil prison the Army Council will then be the instrument to release him from military law and discipline.
Now a word as to Lord Kitchener's statement that "the genuine conscientious objector will find himself under the civil power." This delicate question either was being considered or had been considered when that national calamity occurred and Lord Kitchener lost his life. I believe that Lord Kitchener had in his mind the conscientious objector purely from the religious point of view. But, as I read it, the Prime Minister's statement, taking the term "conscientious objector" as it appears in the Act, is all-embracing. I am sorry I forgot to mention one thing. I particularly wish to read what was said by the Prime Minister in regard to the scrutiny of these Courts-Martial—
"All Court-Martial proceedings on conscientious objectors will be referred for scrutiny to the War Office.
With regard to the cases of those who have been before a Tribunal, the records will be consulted. If the data therein are not sufficient, further investigation will be made; answers to categorical questions will be required, and those who have knowledge of the man's antecedents, such as ministers of religion, may be consulted.
With regard to those who have never been before a Tribunal, the first step will be to require them to answer the categorical questions which the Tribunal might have put. If the information is supplied investigation will be made into those answers, and for the purpose of such investigation, and in all cases where a prima facie case is established, the Army Council will depend on the advice of the Central Appeal Tribunal, or a committee of that Tribunal who have consented to lend their assistance for this purpose."
That is the answer that I have to give to the noble Earl. There are, of course, a number of people who, as the noble Earl has said, are not religious conscientious objectors. They may be few, but they are objectors from other points of view, and I have heard various terms applied to them, as have we all. I have heard them called on occasions cowards. The really conscientious objector may be respected, though his is a frame of mind that personally I cannot understand. In regard to the other men, speaking for myself I do not like to call any section of my fellow-countrymen cowards. If there is cowardice, it may be said to be mere moral cowardice of this kind—that they
538
are easily led and persuaded, very often, I think, by those who have ideas very different as to conscientious objections.
I desire to say only one word more. For six months it has been my duty to represent the War Office in this House. I have seen in the newspapers that possibly the Under-Secretary may be Lord Derby. Whether that is well founded or not I am not in a position to say. Sometimes these rumours are erroneous; but should it so happen that Lord Derby takes my place I venture very respectfully to say this, that I think the country and the Army will be very much to be congratulated, and also, if I may say so, that it will be a great advantage to your Lordships' House, because you will have an Under-Secretary to reply to questions you may raise who is fully conversant with every detail of his office. It has been very interesting to me to do this work and to be associated, if only in a very humble way, with that commanding personality, Lord Kitchener, whose relations with me were always so cordial and whose appreciation was always so generous. I should like to say this, as I leave the War Office for the third time All of us at times have no doubt criticised the War Office and been able to prove its various shortcomings, but until I got there the other day, in my humble capacity, I had no idea of the immense amount of work which the War Office has to put through. While I shall be sorry to take my departure, I can only thank your Lordships for the kindness with which you have received me whenever it has been my duty to intrude upon you.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, we have listened with great interest to the full statement that has been made by the noble Lord on behalf of the Government. I do not know whether the noble Lord regards it as an answer to the speech which was made by the noble Earl. He mentioned a great deal of interesting matter, and we heard the Rules, with which many of us have made ourselves familiar, that govern these questions of administration, the manner in which officers who visit the prisons are directed to carry out their inquiries, the possibility that prisoners have with regard to complaints, and a great many other subjects, including the important indications that the noble Lord gave at the conclusion of his speech about War Office administration generally. But

539
I looked in vain for any answer to the specific points that were brought forward in what I think the whole House must feel to be a reasonable and temperate manner by the noble Earl who introduced this subject.
I was surprised, in the first place, that whereas Lord Russell had given notice of a particular case, with the name of the man about whom the complaint had arisen and about whom he desired to ask questions, the noble Lord, in reply, could only answer that he really did not know about a second Court-Martial, and that he thought such and such other things had happened. But these were exactly the points to which, as the Notice on the Paper definitely stated, attention was going to be directed. Then there were the incidents, of which I have no personal knowledge, which the noble Earl brought forward. What we all, I imagine, wanted to know was not whether these particular things had necessarily happened exactly as they were described, or not so much, but whether there is an arrangement now in force which will render the recurrence of that kind of thing impossible. About that we did not get the slightest hint in the speech of the noble Lord. The other important point, about which all of us have been eager ever since we heard the Prime Minister's statement, was, Are the provisions which the Prime Minister indicated in his statement retrospective or are they not? Do they refer only to cases which are now arising, or are men who are now being subjected—if these stories are true—to treatment of the kind described, in any different position from what they were in before as regards the investigation of the subject or the transference of the men to other authority? Those are the points upon which we have been hoping for an answer, but at present, as far as I can see, we have had no explanation whatever. The rules which exist with regard to the visiting of prisons, the inspection of what has taken place, and many more things, are exceedingly interesting, but they do not bear on the particular points raised in the noble Earl's speech, and, what is most important of all, in the statement by the Prime Minister of what is to be the course of action in the future.
I think we want to get into a non-technical and a larger air about this matter. Time after time when this question has been brought up we have
540
been told of perfectly admirable regulations which are so technical in terms that it requires an expert to understand what they mean, but we have failed to get at the plain facts whether or no mischief is taking place and whether that mischief is now being remedied, whether the new system will differ in any large respects from the old, and whether the operation of the new system will be retrospective as well as affecting men who may now come under it. I do not think it is unreasonable that the House should want to know those things; because, however remote we may be from the slightest sympathy in our hearts with the action that is being taken by men who raise these objections in a perfectly illogical and often perfectly unreasonable manner, we do want to know that things are not happening which are calculated to spread distrust in Army administration, and are especially likely when, as is certainly the case, they are exaggerated, to do harm in the country. About that I looked in vain for any answer in the reply which has just been given to us. All that, we were told was—quoting, I gathered, from a document which we have not seen—that the action of a particular officer, Lieut. Colonel Brooke, had not been illegal, and that he had not exceeded his powers. Whether that means that the statements made respecting him by the prisoners are untrue, or whether, if they are true, those are within the powers of an officer placed in that position, I do not know. That is what we want to know. I do think that the interest in this subject outside in very many circles warrants us in pressing for a fuller and more explicit general statement as to what has happened, the bearing which the new rules will have upon the past, and what is likely to be the operation of these things in the days that lie ahead. I confess I have looked in vain for that in the answer to which we have listened, and I venture to hope that we may have some further word about it.
LORD HAVERSHAM: My Lords, after the speech of the most rev. Primate I am bound to say I think we ought to take into consideration the answer which has been given to-day in the House of Commons by the Under-Secretary of State. He stated that for the future all conscientious objectors will be tried by District Court-Martial; they will not be punished by non-commissioned officers, but will be

541
tried by a tribunal the impartiality of which I and all of us who have served in the Army know perfectly well is certain. The evidence will always be taken upon oath. Moreover, no sentence can be passed by a District Court-Martial and put into execution unless it is confirmed by the General Officer Commanding the district. That removes all doubts about violence or ill-treatment. I am sorry to say I cannot accept, without hearing the evidence, the charges which the noble Earl has made. Only the other day an immense number of cases were brought forward which were said to have happened in the Army abroad. When I challenged that, Lord Derby said, "Not a single conscientious objector has been sent abroad," so that every one of those cases must have been based on falsehood. I do not know where the noble Earl gets all this evidence from, but every one of us acquainted with the Army knows that these cases get about rapidly and grow as they go on. I am sure the most rev. Primate will be satisfied with the statement made by the Under-Secretary that any refusal to obey an order will not be tried on the spot but will be submitted to a perfectly impartial tribunal, a Court-Martial, and that before the sentence is carried into effect it must be sanctioned by the General Officer Commanding the district.
LORD DEVONPORT: My Lords, the interesting statement has been made to us that something which has happened in the House of Commons has a bearing on this question. I do not know what the statement is, and I am not very much concerned what it is. I venture to suggest that it has no bearing whatever on the subject-matter before us this afternoon. There have been most serious allegations made as to a system of brutality. I do not express any opinion one way or the other as to whether they are true or not, but the cases have been cited. Indeed, in the Motion as it appears on the Paper there is one case set forward as to which, as the most rev. Primate said, the official spokesman of the Government did not vouchsafe any reply.
I need scarcely say that I have no sympathy with conscientious objectors, but I have some concern for the reputation of the Army; and we are informed that it is damaging its reputation or its reputation is being damaged by the isolated
542
action of individuals in carrying on a system of ill-treatment. We are entitled to ask for some reply to these very serious allegations. My noble friend Lord Sandhurst did not attempt to give a reply. He gave us an interesting dissertation on all sorts of things quite remote from the questions at issue. He cited rules and regulations that govern the discipline of the Army, and I suppose he was assuming all the time—at least one would suppose so—that these rules and regulations were always rigidly adhered to, and that therefore nothing of the kind that has been recited by the noble Earl behind me could have happened. That is not good enough for us. We, after all, have our wits and intelligence, and we expect to have proper replies to questions of supreme importance of this kind.
Since the House of Commons has been referred to, I venture to think that if a member of that House had raised a question of importance and there had been an attempt on the part of a Minister to fob him off with the sort of reply that has been given here to-day, it would not have been tolerated for a moment. I think that when questions of this sort are asked, setting forth the charge, and when supplemented by most astounding statements such as were made by the noble Earl—they may be false utterly, or they may be true—we are entitled to some answer, and I suggest that we should have that answer before this debate closes. I have no personal interest whatever in the matter, but I cannot sit here when charges of this kind are made and consent to their being disposed of in the way in which my noble friend has attempted to dispose of them.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, it is clear, I think, that there are two entirely separate questions under discussion this afternoon—the one the allegations of particular and illegal ill-treatment of individuals by individuals; the other the larger and wider question, more specifically alluded to by the most rev. Primate, of the method of trial of conscientious objectors and the form of punishment to which they are legally committed. Those two questions, although of course related to each other, are in effect distinct; and I think that my noble friend who spoke last was not quite fair to my noble friend Lord Sandhurst in complaining that neither of these questions

543
had been fully dealt with by him. So far as the case of Mr. Norman is concerned, my noble friend replied upon that, although I gather that his reply was not regarded as sufficiently full. On the other hand, all the circumstances of the case of Mr. Norman have been read by most of your Lordships in the public Press, his trial having taken place and having been publicly reported; and supposing that any further information of his particular case is obtainable, I have no doubt that my noble friend Lord Sandhurst will do his best to obtain it from the War Office.
As regards the other cases of brutal and illegal treatment which were mentioned by my noble friend Lord Russell, which I am sure affected those who heard them with a sense of profound regret that such things should be even possible, they are not specifically mentioned in the terms of the noble Earl's Question on the Paper, and I gather that my noble friend Lord Sandhurst was not supplied with information regarding them—I mean the specific statements, fortified by names and places, which the noble Earl made of physical assaults by a particular non-commissioned officer upon several people who were, or at any rate claimed to be, conscientious objectors. It is evident that anything of that kind, assuming it to have taken place, would be altogether repudiated by every officer in the Army, and not least, of course, by the Army Council. But I do not understand that these charges are admitted by the War Office as being well-founded, and I think that the form of reply which my noble friend made was not entirely understood by the noble Lords who followed. He alluded to the system of frequent visits by officers from outside whose duty it is to report to the General in command. Their duty is comparable to that of visiting justices, of whose functions most of your Lordships are doubtless aware, and my noble friend's assumption, I take it, was that supposing these violent assaults to have been committed upon the person of certain conscientious objectors, it is inconceivable that complaints would not have been lodged by those who suffered with the officers who must have visited these detention barracks in the course of a few days after the cases were alleged to have occurred; and he, I have no doubt, would argue that the complaints were either not well-founded and could not be supported
544
by evidence, or, if they were, that the guilty party would receive a severe punishment in respect of them. In the absence of specific knowledge I do not see how my noble friend could have said more.
Then there is the larger and wider question as to which the most rev. Primate thought that a full reply had not been given—the question of the form of trial and of punishment which conscientious objectors receive, and whether it could be shown that the pledges originally given in this House by the late Secretary of State for War, and repeated in another place by the Prime Minister, are indeed being carried out. I understand that the point is whether, as a matter of fact, conscientious objectors who can be shown to be such are tried by Court-Martial, and whether they, on conviction, assuming them to be convicted, are then civilly punished. As I understand it, in all cases where a conscientious objector has preferred or agreed to be tried by a Court-Martial—that is to say, since the pledge was given—he has been so tried, and on conviction has been handed over to the civil authority; but in cases where he has not, so to speak, lent himself to that form of trial, he has been tried by the military authority and sentenced to confinement in detention barracks; that is to say, to a military punishment instead of the civil punishment which it was generally agreed he ought to receive. As I understand, arrangements will now be made whereby in every case the conscientious objector will receive a trial by Court-Martial, and, if convicted, will be handed over to the civil authority.
EARL RUSSELL: Including cases before the issue of the Army Order?
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: So I understand; but I speak there without direct knowledge. It is true that the demand, which I think was originally made by the noble and learned Lord (Lord Parmoor) and was supported by some other noble Lords in this House, that the whole process of trial should be civil, cannot be met—and for this reason, that you would have to devise an entirely new civil offence by Statute before you could convict anybody, the offence of desertion or of refusing to obey orders being a purely

545
military offence; and although it may be argued with great plausibility that the offence is really against the nation, against society and not against the Army, yet without going through a somewhat elaborate process of legislation that particular change of method could not be adopted.
But the truer importance, I think, ought to be attached to the method of punishment than to the method of trial; and in the case of these—I will venture to call them unfortunate people, because in some respects I think they are more subjects for pity than for anything else; they are in almost every case people whom it is impossible to regard as anything but bad citizens, who prefer the satisfaction of their individual prejudice to what is almost universally agreed by the society of which they are members to be their duty as citizens—I trust the event will show that the form of punishment; to be inflicted upon them, which I venture to think ought not to be a light one—that that punishment, even if it cannot be civilly imposed, yet at any rate should be carried out by the civil power and not under the pretence, because it would be nothing but a pretence, of treating them as soldiers when they are not soldiers, will not be soldiers, and, I fear, are not worthy to be soldiers.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I should like to say that in my opinion—and I have studied this question with some care—what has been said by Lord Sandhurst and by the noble Marquess is most satisfactory as regards the future treatment of the conscientious objector, if I rightly understand the proposition. I agree that it does not depend so much on the method of trial, although I should have preferred a civil trial. The crucial point is that the punishment should be undergone only in a civil prison. That was the purport of the Army Order which was passed after the late Earl Kitchener made his statement in this House; and if that were applied, ad I think it ought to be, retrospectively to all conscientious objectors, I believe that in substance the complaint they are now making would be satisfactorily met. It is too difficult a topic to assume that you can meet every individual case. The same information which was supplied to
546
the noble Earl opposite was supplied to me—namely, as regards what he called the brutality of treatment in these different cases; and I have in my pocket at the present time cases that I could hardly venture to deal with in public having regard to the conditions. I do not believe that any regulations such as the noble Lord has referred to would, without a change to civil imprisonment, affect the question satisfactorily. It is the human nature of the bully coming out when there is an opportunity. But once put these men into civil prisons, and I think all legitimate objections will be met; and if that is done retrospectively I hope we shall have an end to what appears to me to have been a scandal.
LORD SANDHURST: My Lords, I think I can clear up the point put forward by the noble and learned Lord. If under Army Order X, with which he is well acquainted, a conscientious objector is sentenced, he will go to a civil prison. Then the noble and learned Lord asked what about the men who are serving a period of imprisonment in a detention barrack. Speaking subject to correction, what I think will happen is this. If a man who is in a detention barrack misbehaves, instead of being tried by the commandant and subjected to this, that, or the other punishment, he will be tried by a District Court-Martial, which will have the result of sending him to a civil prison. Detention in a barrack is understood to be a less severe sentence than imprisonment. Therefore, of course, you cannot put a man back, without some process such as this, from the less severe punishment of detention to the more severe punishment of imprisonment.
LORD PARMOOR: Apart from technical difficulties, which I think might be easily got over, if you apply the principle of the Army Order retrospectively you deal with the whole question.
On Question, That in the opinion of this House it is undesirable to subject military prisoners to punishments not authorised by law—
A Division was challenged and the Bar cleared, but there being no Tellers for the "Not-contents" the said Resolution agreed to.

STATE WOOL PURCHASES.
THE EARL OF LICHFIELD THE EARL OF LICHFIELD had the following Notice on the Paper—
In view of the wool clip of Great Britain and Ireland having been commandeered, to urge His Majesty's Government to pay the farmers at least the same prices as those ruling and obtained in 1915, so that the home producer should not be unduly penalised.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this matter is an urgent one, and therefore I have no hesitation in bringing it to your notice even at this late hour of the evening. It is more than three weeks ago that the Government made the Order preventing any further transactions in home-grown wool, but it was only last week that the official announcement was made by my noble friend opposite, on behalf of the Government, that they intended to give considerably less than the market price for the wool which they were commandeering. The proposal then put forward was that the Government would pay the pre-war price of 1914 plus 30 per cent. This announcement has fallen as a great blow on the farmers of this country, who were confidently expecting an advance on the 1915 prices which would have compensated them for the increased cost of store sheep, feeding stuffs, and labour.
The prices proposed by the Government would, I think, work out at 10 to 15 per cent less than the 1915 prices. Lord Sandhurst stated the other afternoon that the Government figure was fixed after careful examination of wool prices over a long period, and after consultation with the Board of Agriculture, with wool buyers, and other interests. I should like to ask what possible relation wool prices over a long pre-war period have to the circumstances now existing, when cost and difficulty of production have increased so enormously. Again, as regards Lord Sandhurst's statement, I have no knowledge that the farming community were consulted in any way; and surely they are as much interested in this question as any other section. Further, I am given to understand that the Board of Agriculture have not agreed to the price that the Government name. Lord Selborne has left the House; otherwise I was hoping that he would have been able to tell us what the views of the Board of Agriculture were. Lord Selborne's resignation of the post of President of the Board
548
of Agriculture, just at this time when the wool question is before the country, has been a great loss. Surely the only fair basis of payment is to give as nearly as possible the latest market prices for the wool.
I have heard it suggested that there is justification for the Government taking farmers' produce below market price because farmers have been exempted from the Excess Profits Duty which was last year passed by Parliament. I cannot for a moment admit the justice of that argument. Why did Parliament exempt them? I have not with me the references to what took place in the other House, but surely the obvious reason was that most farmers, as we all know, are not "fliers" at keeping accounts, and under the old system they paid Income Tax on one-third of the annual value of their holdings. Therefore the authorities would have had no accounts to go upon on which to assess them for any excess war profits that they might have made. On the other hand, Parliament did impose a war tax on the farmers of this country; Parliament increased the amount on which they previously paid from one-third of the annual value of their holdings to the full value. Therefore farmers are now assessed at three times as much to the war chest of the country as they were in pre-war times. I do not think any case has been made out for denying a fair price to the farmers on the ground that they have been exempted from the Excess Profits Tax.
We all recognise that under the Defence of the Realm Act the Government have full power to take what they like, if they think it desirable and in the interests of the country, and to pay any price they may choose, or none at all, as they may see fit. I have no doubt that if an appeal were made to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack he would confirm this view of the powers which the Government possess under the Defence of the Realm Act. But surely the fact that the country has given these immense powers to the Government renders them under the greatest obligation to see that equal justice is meted out to all classes of the community, so that as little harm as possible should be done to trade and enterprise. Their duty obviously would be to give a fair market price for articles which they commandeered.
Let us consider for a moment the position of the home grower of wool as compared with that of the producer oversea who consigns his wool to this country. Your Lordships are no doubt aware that in the City there are periodical wool sales from month to month or during intervals of a few weeks. Next week there is to be one of these great sales at which wool will be sold from all parts of the world, mainly from the produce of our Empire; but also there will be large consignments from foreign countries, Argentina, other parts of South America, and so on. As far as I can make out, the proportion that home-grown wool bears to the wool imported into this country is only about 15 per cent.; of the rest, Australia sends by far the largest quantity. Let us take the case of the sale coming off next week. I believe that the Government would have a perfect right, under the Defence of the Realm Act, to commandeer any quantity of wool that was lotted out at this particular sale. But if they did this, do you suppose for a moment that they would give the sellers of the wool at this sale from 15 to 20 per cent. less than the market value? I cannot conceive that they would think of doing such a thing. Just imagine the position of the Australian producer of wool. He sends his wool over to this country believing that he will get a fair market price for it. There would be a turmoil in Australia if they heard that the wool had been commandeered by the Government at less than the market price. I think Mr. Hughes, who is now on the high seas, might be inclined to turn back and protest against such a course, especially after the splendid way in which Australia has rallied to the aid of the Empire. It is impossible to think that the Government would commandeer imported wool on such terms.
There is another reason why it would be impolitic for the Government to commandeer wool below the market price—namely, because this would have the effect of discouraging imports from neutral countries, and as the Government are anxious to get a large supply such action would have the opposite effect to that which the Government wished. Therefore I cannot conceive that they would in any circumstances adopt such a course. Why then should the unfortunate home producer be penalised in this way? You have urged him to
550
produce as much as possible on his holding as a national duty. Is this the way to encourage him to do so? Surely not. The only fair course seems to be to give him at least the 1915 price—not as much as he expected, but still the farmer will feel that his case has had fair consideration. And above all give it to him quickly so as to interfere as little as possible with his business. You can only secure the best results to the trade of this country by retaining the confidence of those engaged in industry and thus obtaining the largest returns for the successful prosecution of the war.
In connection with any interference with trade, let me quote the weighty words which fell the other afternoon from Lord Emmott, who has had exceptional opportunities, in his position in the War Trade Department, of judging of this question. He said—
"But I may perhaps express the opinion, from what I have heard this afternoon, that a case has been made out to show that this new Order was imposed without adequate inquiry having been made in regard to it."
And again he said—
"I appeal to His Majesty's Government to see to it that when interference is necessary it shall be made as little hurtful as possible to all interested by making as full inquiry as possible from experts in the trade before these new Orders are made."
The farmers of this country are absolutely unanimous that the 1915 prices are the minimum that should, in fairness, be given to them. At a meeting of the Royal Agricultural Society of England, held at Manchester, with a large attendance of members, a resolution was passed to this effect, I believe unanimously—that no less than the 1915 prices should, in fairness, be given. Farmers' clubs, at meetings in all parts of the country, are passing the same resolution. I should like, in connection with this, to read a few lines from a letter written by the Midland Farmers' Association to the Board of Agriculture on the same subject. They say—
"Store sheep were bought at high prices, partly owing to the then expected high price of wool, and farmers would be seriously prejudiced unless a price considerably in advance of the 1915 clip price is fixed."
The Board of Agriculture sent that on to the War Contracts Department, Tothill Street, Westminster; and the Midland Farmers' Association received

551
this reply from that Department, dated June 26—
"In reply to your letter of the 21st instant, I am directed to inform you that in carrying out this scheme of the purchase of the wool the Department hopes to interfere as little as possible with the terms and methods of purchase hitherto prevailing."
I am very much afraid that the good intentions mentioned in that letter have not been fully realised; but now in the hope that the farmers' case may receive adequate consideration from His Majesty's Government I appeal to them, in view of the wool clip of Great Britain and Ireland having been commandeered, to pay the farmers at least the same prices as those ruling and obtained in 1915, so that the home producer should not be unduly penalised.
LORD SANDHURST: My Lords, we all know the knowledge with which my noble friend who has just sat down speaks on this subject, and I can assure him that the Government in no way underrate the patriotism of the farmers. My noble friend covered a good deal of ground, but the main reference in his Notice on the Paper is as regards the question of price. I need hardly say that the Government do not desire to be unfair or unreasonable, and they hope to find the same spirit animating the farmers. This is an extremely technical subject and a somewhat difficult one to discuss across the floor of the House, and I am able to say that His Majesty's Government will be glad to receive a deputation on the subject of a representative character, including the Central Chamber of Agriculture, the Farmers' Union, and others interested, to discuss this question. I think that will be a piece of information which will be acceptable to the noble Earl.
LORD HARRIS: My Lords, as far as I can understand the views of the farmers in my neighbourhood, I do not think they will regard the noble Lord's reply as altogether satisfactory. And for this reason. The selection of the deputation, its reception, and the consideration of the discussion that takes place at the reception of the deputation—all this is going to take a very long time. This is really an urgent matter, and I am sorry that the noble Lord has not been instructed as to the intentions of the Government. The Government have commandeered the property of a particular
552
class. I am not contesting that they have the right to do that under the Acts which they possess. But I suggest to them that they have done so in this case without that careful consideration to which everybody is entitled when his property is taken. The farmer is as loyal a person as the member of any other profession, and when I have spoken to farmers about this matter they have not talked in terms of indignation at the commandeering of their property—they recognise that this is a possibility under present circumstances—but they do feel that in fixing the 1914 wool prices plus 30 per cent. the Government are not giving them a fair quid pro quo.
There are a few points that I will take the liberty of making public here, because in the report of the deputation that will presently be received it will be impossible to publish everything that is said there, whereas the records of your Lordships' House will contain all these points. Now I am perfectly certain of this, that the Government want to act with equity. I cannot believe for a moment that, in doing a thing of this kind, the Government would wish to act inequitably as between this particular profession and others. Curiously enough, I noticed yesterday in a Colonial newspaper a reference to what has been done by the Army in Egypt, and I will read one sentence—
"Food stuffs, and especially grain, are naturally the first need. All the wheat, maize, and barley required is bought in Egypt, and at prices which invariably show a substantial increase on the pre-war prices. Purchases are made in a compulsory fashion. The Army, for instance, took the whole of the last maize crop at an abnormal price."
That is what the Army is doing in Egypt. Why is the Army going to do something different in England? Farmers do not complain so long as they are treated equitably; but I submit that the Government's present proposal as regards payment for the wool clip constitutes inequitable treatment.
What is going to happen? Supposing you take the 1914 prices plus 30 per cent., how are you going to dispose of this wool? You are going to sell it to the usual purchasers, I presume, or to the manufacturers. At what price? Are you going to sell it at the market price? Very well; the purchaser will then be no worse off than if he had bought in the market. Then who is going to make the profit? The

553
Government. Out of whom? Out of the farmer. Is that fair? The wool is required for the manufacture of Army clothing. You are going to give to the manufacturer the price he asks; but the unfortunate farmer is to lose the 3d. or 4d. per lb. difference between the pre-war price and the 1915 market price. Or if you are going to let the purchaser have it at something less than the market price of this year, why, again, is he to have that advantage and the farmer to be put at a disadvantage? That is not equity, surely. I cannot understand what the Government are going to do as regards the price of the wool and its method of sale. It seems to me that they are in this dilemma—they have either to sell at the market price or below the market price. If they sell either below or at the market price, then they put the inequality on the farmer, for the purchaser is either in the position that he was or is better off.
I want to impress upon the Government the urgency of this matter. The wool business is a ready-money business to the farmer. A farmer's flock is his current cash. He can always turn to it for some ready money to pay his labourers. At this time of the year there are very heavy demands upon the farmer's purse. All his bills are coming in, and in some parts of the country they are exceptionally heavy—and then there is the rent I met one of the biggest and best farmers in my neighbourhood last week, a man who, I am perfectly certain, would regard it as a terrible disgrace to repudiate any debt. He told me, "I cannot help myself; I shall have next week to tell my landlord that I cannot pay my rent." So you are throwing an inequality upon the whole of the agricultural community, not only upon the farmer but also upon those who depend on the farmer. I am not at all sure that the Government can have realised what they were doing when they fixed upon the proposed price as compared with the market price. As my noble friend Lord Lichfield said, in what he quoted from the communication of the Midland Farmers' Association, the farmers this year were giving long prices for sheep, not only because of the price of wool but because there was a very good promise of keep. All the men who had the money thought it worth while to increase their flocks, because there was plenty of keep and they were certain of a return in consequence of the price of wool.
554
I will take the liberty of giving your Lordships one or two principal figure with which my agents have supplied me. They deal with various flocks of something like 5,000 sheep, and they find from their books that the weight of fleece to a Kent sheep, full size, is 6 lbs.; that is excluding lamb wool. They understand that the Government are going to take the basis of Kent wool at pre-war price as 13 d., and then scale that down for carriage and middlemen's profits, etc., which will most probably make it come out at an average to, say, 12 d. Now we got 13½d. in 1913. Therefore you are giving us actually worse prices than we got in the year before 1914. If you add 30 per cent. to 12 d., you bring it out at 15½d. The 1915 price was 18½d., so there is a loss of 3d. a lb. Take that at 6 lbs. to the fleece, and the loss works out at 18 d. to the sheep. Romsey Marsh, on which I have not sheep myself, bears about eight to the acre; so there is something like 12 s. an acre that you are going to take away. The farmer will be 12 s. an acre worse off in meeting his rent. And, as I have said, at this time of the year he looks to this money to meet his rent. Wool is a ready money business; the weight off the scales, and the farmer gets his cheque. He has already been waiting three weeks. The present state of things is inequitable as regards the men who have sold their wool. Sales had already taken place at market prices, and only those who happened to sell early are to get the benefit of the present prices.
Quite at the beginning of the war one of those Solomons who are constantly writing in the newspapers to educate practical farmers how to farm was commenting on the difference between the head of stock in various countries—in Germany and Austria-Hungary—and comparing the relative quantities, of course very much to the disadvantage of the British farmer, who, according to him, was a fool, a bigger fool than the German or the Austrian farmer. The writer pointed out what very much larger herds of cattle and pigs were being kept by those countries, and he concluded—
"It is only in the matter of that inferior animal, the sheep, that England exceeds those countries—"
This was a pretty useful "except" for the British Army—
"The United Kingdom possesses an aggregate of 27,000,000 sheep, compared with, in Germany and Austria-Hungary combined, 17,000,000."

555
Fortunately in England there were these 10,000,000 more sheep than in those countries combined. It is a most fortunate thing for the British Army that England is a sheep-breeding country, and I should imagine that our enemies would have been very glad indeed had their countries possessed that excess of sheep instead of us.
I venture to suggest that this matter has been entered into by His Majesty's Government rather hurriedly, and that no harm would be done by reconsidering the price that has been mentioned. As has been suggested from many quarters all over England, the middle price—that is to say, the price of 1915—is a fair concession to make. I urge that this concession should be made, and that, above all things, it should be made as promptly as possible.
LORD LOVAT: My Lords, I should like to point out to the House the position of Scotland in this connection. There the whole of the points which have been made by Lord Harris are specially applicable. A large proportion of the clip in Scotland is a black-face clip, which has no value for certain purposes. The Government would appear to be buying this by way of speculation. The majority of this clip is never used in this country; it used to be sold in Germany, and will probably be sold in America now. The point which Lord Harris made with regard to the profit is particularly pertinent. Are the Government going to make this profit at the expense of the poor crofters in the North of Scotland? The price of black-face wool will be something like 15 d.; the price to be offered is in the neighbourhood of 9d. This particular portion of the community has given a larger proportion of men to the service of the country than any other; they have no means of sustenance other than their wool clip.
This year, as noble Lords are aware, was one of the hardest years known for sixty or seventy years in Scotland, and the mortality of the lambs was very high. The price of wintering had gone up, especially turnips; and, as a matter of fact, the sheep had in many cases to be taken down to the low grounds, covering distances over which sheep had never before been moved in the memory of man. It hardly seems fair that such a step as
556
this on the part of the Government should have been taken without inquiry. When I say that, I have the authority of a meeting of Scottish farmers—at which the larger farmers were represented but not the small men—who said they were never consulted at all. I should like to ask His Majesty's Government whether they consulted anybody in Scotland, or who was the wise man on whose advice they decided on this movement.
Then the question arises, on which Lord Harris commented—the question of time. Time is most important. This is a very serious moment for this decision to have been made. It is all very well for the noble Lord who represents the Department to say now that they are inviting farmers and associations to state their views; but this is the very time when the wool is being sold. The regular time for the big sales is the first week in July. What is going to happen? The buyers have made their arrangements, and this is the time when the farmer and small-holder hope to get a certain return in cash. This will all have to be put off. How long will it take before the different representative bodies have been consulted? I submit that this is an experiment which, if it is to be done on other lines, should be done with the very greatest caution, and not entered into, as in this particular case, without the least apparent examination of the facts and the least consideration of the serious hardship it will occasion, not only to large farmers—who, after all, may have capital and may be able to weather through troubles of this sort—but to all those small-holders in the North of Scotland who regard this wool money as the most important return they get. And this year the matter is particularly important, because this has been the worst lambing year known in that part, and the cost of wintering for sheep has been higher than it has ever been before. I trust that when this consultation with the farmers takes place the Scottish farmers' representatives will be allowed to have their say in this matter.
LORD ST. AUDRIES: My Lords, I should like to impress on the Government what has fallen from noble Lords—namely, that the question of time is everything in this matter; and though it is more or less gratifying to know that a deputation is going to be received, the

557
inquiry should have been made before the price was fixed. The Central Chamber of Agriculture are very anxious that the price should not be finally settled until the deputation has been received. I am bound to say I think it is putting things off too late. This question of price is an urgent matter, and I can assure your Lordships that the 1914 price plus 30 per cent. is not good enough; it is grossly unfair to the farmer. Some people seem to consider that sheep live by grass alone. They do not. They are very expensive animals to feed. We have been ordered to produce more mutton and more generally on the farms, and we have done our best to do that. But the production of that mutton and that wool has cost a great deal more during the last twelve months than in 1914 and in the early part of 1915. You have to give sheep cake and corn and hay and roots. The price of cake has gone up 100 per cent.; the price of torn is rising; and as for hay, well, that was commandeered by the Government. When the snow fell in March all the farmers wanted hay for their sheep, the snow being feet deep on the ground, and they had to pay £7 15 s a ton for stuff not worth eating. In the same way, everything in connection with sheep has gone up—hurdles, sheep netting, everything; and I think I am right in saying that the cost of feeding sheep, including the increased price of artificial manure so necessary for the roots, has gone up by something like 60 to 65 per cent. in the last fifteen months.
Now as to the proposed price of 30 per cent. on 1914 prices. I have made inquiries over a great part of Somersetshire, in which county there are a great many different kinds of sheep and of crosses. You may divide the wool there into two kinds—short and long wool. The price of short wool in 1914 was 14 d. per lb.; add 30 per cent., and it comes to 18 d. The price in 1915 was 20½d. a lb.; so that if the Government pay the 1914 price of short wool plus 30 per cent., the loss to the farmer is 2½d. a lb. The price of long wool in 1914 was 12½d. a lb.; add 30 per cent., and the price is 16¼d. In 1915 it was 18¾d., so the loss to the farmer on long wool is 2½d. a lb. The short wool fleece runs to about 6 or 7 lbs. weight, and the long wool fleece to about 10 or 12 lbs. On the whole, therefore, taking the greater value of the short wool fleece, it is very much the same whether it is one
558
kind of wool or the other. But what the Government are offering for both classes of wool is 2½d. a. lb. less than 1915 prices.
With regard to the market value, the price for this year's clip, the Government have deprived themselves of the best way of finding that out, because they have closed the markets. You cannot, therefore, find what the actual market value is; but some farmers had sold before the Order came out, and one neighbour of mine, a grower of long-wool sheep, sold his clip this year for 20½d. a lb., as against 18 d. in 1915. Therefore if the Government's offer of the 1914 price plus 30 per cent. is carried out, this man loses nearly 5d. per lb. A neighbour of his was offered 22 d. as against 20½d., but he was just too late to sell before the Order came out, and he will have lost an appreciable amount per lb. As my noble friend Lord Harris has said, in the Australian market there is a considerable rise in the price of wool. If, therefore, the Government buy at the 1915 prices they will make a very good bargain indeed, because they will be buying wool at 2d. or 2½d. a lb. less than the real value at the present moment. I think the Government are treating the farmers rather hardly. They ask them to produce more, and then when they do produce it they commandeer the result at less than the market price.
Nobody will accuse the Government of undue economy in the purchase of war material generally. It is common knowledge that there has been considerable extravagance and waste, and I think it is very hard that this sudden wave of economy on the part of the Government should hit the home producer. I consider this delay and this setting up of advisory committees of purchasers and boards all over the country as quite unnecessary. I know that the wool business is very difficult and complicated; but, after all, the machinery of that business, the machinery by which the wool goes from the producer to the manufacturer in the end, has been in operation in this country for years past, and is in the hands of experts. Why on earth should the Government set up side by side with that an entirely new machinery, some of it of experts, but some of it of military officers who know nothing whatever about wool and are likely to be like the fifth wheel of the coach. If the Government fix a fair price—say at least the price of the 1915 clip—then I believe

559
there will be no difficulty whatever in using the machinery which exists at the present time. It would save a good deal of delay and a great deal of worry, and I believe that in the long run—because you cannot set up a new Government machinery without spending money on it—you will save over and over again the difference between the price of the 1915 clip and the price you propose to give. I can say this to the Government. The farmers throughout the country have played the game with you, and I sincerely hope that you will play the straight game with the farmers.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I will not stand long between my noble friend Lord Crewe and the House, but I should not like this debate to close without saying something on the important matter which my noble friend Lord Lichfield has brought forward. As Lord St. Audries has reminded your Lordships, I have repeatedly on behalf of the Government urged farmers to produce more during this time of war, and I think that in the face of great difficulties the farmers have made a noble effort to respond to the appeal made to them. I have also had to resist a demand of the farmers, in respect of goods they require, such as particularly sulphate of ammonia, which has risen greatly in price, that the Government should fix a maximum price to enable them to secure these articles at what they consider a reasonable price. I pointed out to them that it would be impossible to fix the price of what they required and not fix the price of what they produced, and I did not think that would be on the whole an advantageous arrangement for them. Therefore I am really concerned at the position into which the War Office has got itself over the price of wool.
I do not question the necessity for the requisition of the wool. I do not pronounce any opinion upon it. I am quite prepared to believe that the War Office were wisely advised in requisitioning all the home-produced wool. But I do associate myself most earnestly with the arguments brought forward by Lord Lichfield, Lord Harris, Lord Lovat, and Lord St. Audries; there is not one of those arguments which I am not prepared to endorse and which I do not believe to be accurate. Except this. Lord Harris spoke of this being a Government matter. Theoretically that is true; but practically in wartime it is impossible
560
for my noble friends Lord Lansdowne and Lord Crewe, with their immense responsibilities, to follow the details of Army administration as regards the stores required. There is only one Department of the Government besides the War Office which had a duty to watch what was going on, and that was the one for which I was responsible.
LORD HARRIS: And the Treasury, surely?
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Yes, the Treasury and the War Office besides. The very moment I heard that the War Office contemplated taking the wool in the way they have done, I held a watching brief on behalf of the farmers. The War Office had the power to deal with the farmers without consulting me, but I need scarcely say that the War Office were quite prepared to listen to the representations of the Board of Agriculture. I instructed my officers to follow closely all that went on, to report to me from time to time, and to impress upon the War Office the farmers' point of view, because what the farmer is entitled to is this—he is entitled to absolutely fair play, neither more nor less. If you give him less than the value of his wool, you are imposing upon him and upon him alone a special tax. He is taxed like all the rest of his compatriots, but he would be suffering in a way they do not in respect of a particular article which he produces. Therefore I hope that the War Office and the Treasury, while being careful to see that the farmer does not get an inflated value for the wool, will recognise that he is entitled to get the full market value.
I think the first mistake which the War Office made was in the composition of the advisory committee. So far as I know—I may be misinformed, but I do not think I am—the advisory committee is composed entirely of wool merchants. I do not say a word against those gentlemen. I have not the least doubt they are thoroughly skilled in their own business, and will most patriotically and honestly endeavour to assist the War Office. But I do not think that this was a properly constituted committee to suggest the price at which the farmers' wool should be taken. The farmers should certainly have been represented on that committee, and so far as I know they were not. It happened just about the moment when I had, I regret to

561
say, to sever my connection with the Government. One of the last papers that came before me was the report of one of my officers, whom I had instructed to watch this business, as to the price which the War Office were prepared to offer—that is, the price of 1914 plus 30 per cent.—and almost my last Minute at the Board of Agriculture recorded the fact that I could not endorse this price, and that the Board was instructed to protest against it, and to point out to the War Office that they were, though unintentionally, using the fanner in an unjust and hard manner.
It is quite true that time is of the essence of the case. But as things are I do not reject, as some of my noble friends have done, the proposal of the War Office to meet representatives of agriculture from the Central Chamber, the Farmers' Union, and other bodies, and to discuss this question, I hope with an unprejudiced and open mind and with a real desire to arrive at a fair price. I would only make this suggestion to my noble friend on the Government Bench. I think it would be a good thing if they were able to arrange that this deputation should be received, not only by a representative of the War Office, but by a representative also of the Board of Agriculture and possibly of the Treasury. I think this is a matter that goes far beyond the Contract Department of the War Office.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Hear, hear.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Although I repudiate the suggestion that it is possible for all the members of the Government to follow such details of departmental administration, I do think that in this case it would be to the public advantage to strengthen the body, which, after all, does represent the Government, that is going to deal with the farmer. I am quite sure that there has been no intention on the part of the War Office to behave unjustly. I think they have erred from the method in which they set about the business. But it is not too late to set the matter straight, to offer the farmer the fair market price to which he is entitled. I am quite sure that my noble friends on the Government Bench are as conscious as I am, or as any noble Lord, that the farmer cannot be kept out of his money for weeks and months. He must get his cash down at the earliest possible moment, or otherwise he is injured to a degree exceeding that which is caused by
562
the offer of too small a price; because it means that the whole of his financial arrangements for the year are dislocated, and he is put in that position which no honest man likes to feel himself in, that he cannot meet the engagements he has entered into with other people. And why? Because his own Government have taken his produce and have not paid him for it.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: My Lords. I would like to corroborate what has been said by my noble friend Lord Lovat. In the hill farms in the North, the great wool-producing farms, they have had a bad winter and a bad lambing time; therefore presuming the weight of the wool is somewhat the same as last year, which is not the case, they will not make anything like the profits they might have expected. But they are quite reasonable, and I think the speech we have just heard from my noble friend Lord Selborne must have convinced the Government that the price fixed has been arrived at on a wrong basis and is not justified. Personally I do not think that the 1915 price would be quite fair to the farmer; but I feel sure, if it is gone into, that that price must be considered as the minimum. I would urge the Government, after the speech that has been made by my noble friend and other noble Lords on this subject, that even without waiting for a deputation they should issue a statement to the public that they are going to give a reasonable price which may satisfy the farmers and thus remove what one might almost say, though quite unintentional, is not fair dealing on the part of the Government. Inadvertently they have created a great injustice, and the sooner it is remedied the better for everybody.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, it is clear from the speeches that have been delivered, not only this afternoon but before, that this question is not merely one of great importance to those interested but is also one of no small complexity. That is quite evident to us all, and I am glad that my noble friend Lord Selborne recognised, as indeed one would have been sure he would, that there can be no intention on the part of His Majesty's Government to behave unfairly to those who are specially concerned in the production of wool. The price of 30 per cent. above the 1914 rate, which is complained of, was arrived at after a careful examination. My noble friend has pointed out that in his view that

563
examination was not perfect, in the sense that the elements composing the advisory body did not include all who might properly have been included, but care was taken to arrive at a figure which was considered fair.
It may be taken, as my noble friend said, that in the opinion of the War Office the purchase of this year's entire clip of wool in this country was considered necessary. It seems to an outsider—I include myself in that class so far as this particular subject is concerned, because I was naturally not cognisant of the negotiations as they proceeded—that it would have been desirable if notice could have been given earlier. That I quite admit. But, as I understand, there were special reasons, with which I am not able to trouble the House, which made the matter become suddenly and unexpectedly urgent; and therefore a complete purchase of this kind, which I suppose had not been originally contemplated, became in the opinion of the authorities urgently necessary.
It is very difficult to talk about a fair price and the market price in this connection. The wool of the world is now bought, as regards an enormous percentage of the amount; for military purposes and for military purposes alone; and if the market price is spoken of as the price which that artificial and inflated demand produces, it cannot be denied that those who get that artificial price are making a profit out of the war. And when a similar argument is applied to coal and to various other articles it is found, as a great many of us know, that the full profit due to the demand directly traceable to the war by no means goes to the pockets of those who are at ordinary times the recipients of the profit. Therefore it is reasonable, I think, to argue that the farmer, like other people, cannot expect to get the full advantage of the whole war profit either as regards his wool or as regards anything else. He does not get it, as we know, with regard to the hay—that is one of the cases of a commandeered article—and I fully admit the force of what fell from my noble friend below the gangway (Lord Selborne) when he stated that the case of the farmer is a peculiar one in this respect, that a demand which he might make and which indeed has been made for the fixing of prices for various artificial manures, sulphate of ammonia in particular—no doubt the same could be made to apply to basic slag—that it is not possible to comply with that demand.
564
The whole matter comes, in fact, to be one of price, as to whether the particular price which has been fixed upon as representing a reasonable figure for this year 1916 is a fair one or not, because nobody has attempted to contest the claim of the Government to obtain this clip if it is considered necessary. Then, of course, you are confronted by the difficulty that although the cost of production to the farmer has, by common admission, increased, the calculation of the percentage of cost of production is a more difficult one for the farmer to furnish as evidence than it is, so far as I know, for all other classes of trade. In a great many cases it is quite simple to calculate the increased cost of the production of an article. Take, for instance, an article such as finished steel. A trader can refer to his books and trace back the enhanced prices from the iron ore or the pig iron through all the various stages. He can trace the precise rise in wages which appertains to those who are engaged in each particular process, and he can furnish a mathematical calculation of what the enhanced cost of the steel is. But when you come to anything produced by the farmer the process is infinitely more difficult, partly no doubt owing, as has been stated in this debate, to the fact that farmers as a rule do not keep very accurate accounts. Farming accounts are infinitely more easy to keep than is sometimes supposed, but farmers as a rule do not keep them very closely, and the various elements of calculation are no doubt more complicated than they are in many other trades. Therefore though the farmer has an artificial impression—and he is quite justified in holding it—that a sheep has cost him a great deal more to produce before it can be clipped for wool, at the same time it is not easy for him to bring the precise evidence which would satisfy a Court as to what further amount he ought to receive.
We should all be glad, and not only glad but we should consider it reasonable in the circumstances, that where a doubt exists as to what the farmer is entitled to he should have so far as possible the benefit of that doubt. Where the precise figure is difficult to calculate the verdict ought, we should submit, to be in favour of the agricultural producer for many reasons, some of which have been given to-night. And it is quite clear, I think, that a case for further examination—and I should hope favourable examination—of

565
this 30 per cent. figure exists. For that reason I venture to hope that the House will agree that in consenting to receive the deputation of which my noble friend spoke His Majesty's Government are taking the most practical and the most reasonable course. I do not think that it need involve any serious delay. It cannot be difficult to collect a sufficient number of those who are entitled to speak with authority on behalf of the sheep farmers and to prepare the various data which they would desire to place before His Majesty's Government. I lay stress upon this, because I entirely agree that time is very greatly of the essence of this question. There is no doubt that the whole process of this purchase of the wool clip inflicts what is an undesirable, and what in general may be called an unfair, strain on the sheep farmers. They are undoubtedly kept out of their money longer than they would be if the market pursued its normal course, and for that delay it is evident that the Government ought to and must pay. It is clear, so far as the farmers are damnified by being kept two or three or more mouths out of their money, that pro tanto the price ought to be increased. Even then, as the noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite pointed out, they are placed at no little inconvenience, because a farmer is almost compelled to a certain extent to live from hand to mouth, and the fact of his being kept out of his money for a time deranges sometimes to an almost disastrous extent the course of his business, and that is clearly a point which the deputation would have to consider. The point that my noble friend Lord Selborne made of the desirability of adding the representatives of some other Departments, and in particular a representative of the Board of Agriculture, to those who receive the deputation will, I can assure the House, have careful consideration, and it appears to me to be reasonable in itself.
There was one point that fell from Lord Harris to which I ought to allude—namely, the question of the allocation of profit. He argued that, wool being bought below its price, somebody must make a profit out of it, and that the farmer is the person who might reasonably have expected to make that profit. And he asked, Who would make it? Would the manufacturer make it?
LORD HARRIS: The Government or the manufacturer.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Yes. When the Government is mentioned it undoubtedly means the country. In speaking of the Government, we unfortunately do not make any profits for ourselves, but it is quite true that the National Exchequer would gain to a certain extent a profit which, supposing the farmer were able to get the full benefit of a highly-priced necessity of life at a particular moment, would fall to him, or, if so artificially arranged, would fall to the manufacturer. The saving will fall to the country as a whole, and not to any particular class of individuals.
LORD HARRIS: I gather from what the noble Marquess has said that the price to the manufacturer is to be the market price. Therefore the only person who is going to be injured is the farmer.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: The manufacturer, I take it, will make up the Government wool for Government purposes into military uniforms and the like, and be paid a reasonable price for so doing plus a reasonable profit. But it will not be sold to him, I imagine, or he will not get the benefit of the extravagant price which the Government might have paid and have not paid. The actual commodity will be Government property and will be passed on to him for Government purposes. That, I conceive, is what will happen.
LORD HARRIS: The whole of it?
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: May I be allowed to ask the noble Marquess a question? I did not gather whether there is to be one deputation for the whole of the United Kingdom, or a separate one for England and another for Scotland. And in what form are we to communicate with the people?
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I am obliged to the noble Duke for reminding me. I had it in mind to say that the particular representations made on behalf of Scotland by himself and by Lord Lovat will be carefully considered. I am not able to answer now as to whether the deputation would apply to the whole country, but I presume that it will; and supposing that it does, I think it is quite clear that it would also be received by a representative of the Scottish Office as well as by a representative of the War Office.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Does this deputation apply to Ireland?
THE MARQUESS OP CREWE: I cannot tell you; I do not know.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Does the purchase apply to Ireland?
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I am afraid I do not know that either, and my noble friend (Lord Sandhurst) is not here.
LORD HARRIS: He is speaking to the Lord Chancellor on the Woolsack.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN [addressing Lord SANDHURST, who had resumed his seat]: Does compulsory purchase apply to Ireland?
LORD SANDHURST: I think it does, but I am not certain.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I am sure all those who take an interest in this question are much obliged to the noble Marquess for the very sympathetic speech which he has made, and of course the statements made by Lord Selborne are very strong evidence in proof of the general justice of the demand which we have been making on behalf of the farmers. I am sure there is not one of us who wishes to get an extravagant price for the farmer. All that we have been arguing for is that the farmer should not be placed under special disabilities which apply to his produce and to his produce only. The tendency of the debate to-night has gone very much in the direction for which we have been contending, and although the Government are prepared to receive a deputation, they probably will have to receive, as has been shown, more than one deputation—a deputation for Scotland, one for England as well, and so on; and it stands to reason that these deputations must take a considerable time. Is the difference as regards the price of 1915 so appreciable as to make it desirable to incur the delay which must necessarily take place if you are to go into these matters thoroughly? What really is the difference?
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Although I do not carry the figures accurately in my head, I think you are approaching the region of millions when you are speaking of those figures.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Observe the way in which the Government have dealt with other great interests. If when the question of railways arose at the outbreak of the war they had gone into all the matters that were raised there would have been an enormous amount of time lost; there would have been difficult calculations and tremendous difficulties of every kind. The Government very wisely made a definite arrangement with the railway companies, which did away with all the delay and all the trouble which would have been occasioned. Now it occurs to me that if they were, in regard to this wool transaction, to agree to the prices of 1915 cadit quœstio they would not hear any more of the farmers, and I am sure the Government would save themselves an enormous amount of trouble of every sort and kind. I merely make that suggestion because I foresee that if you have this inquiry it will take longer than you think and involve going into a great many matters at a time when trouble and inquiry are undesirable. And I believe that in the end it will come out that the difference between whatever you arrive at and the price of the year 1915 will be so trifling that you had better accept the price of 1915 at once and have an end of the question.
THE EARL OF LICHFIELD: My Lords, I wish to thank the noble Marquess and the noble Lord for the care and attention they have given to this subject. It is, however, somewhat of a disappointment to find that no decision can be arrived at until after a deputation from the leading agriculturists has been received, because, as has been said all through the debate, the matter is of urgent importance and a speedy settlement is most desirable. But I am glad to find that the Government are not definitely committed to the price that was first suggested, and that they are willing to treat the farmers with consideration and to hear their point of view. I think, however, it will be very difficult for the farmers, when they are received on the deputation, if they are invited to argue their case as to price on anything like the lines which my noble friend the Leader of the House suggested. He talked about how much of the present market price was due to artificial reasons. If farmers are asked to prove how much of the price that they thought they were going to receive in 1916 was due to artificial reasons

569
and how much was due to the increased cost of production, it will be putting them a very hard case to prove. I must say I do not think it will be fair on the farmers if they are called upon to prove how much the price is inflated by artificial reasons. I therefore join with my noble friend who has just spoken (Lord Camperdown) in urging the Government to be good enough to consider whether really the simplest, easiest, and fairest plan to all concerned would not be to agree to the very
570
moderate request for 1915 prices which all the farmers will be satisfied with, though they do not amount to what they had been led to expect for the 1916 prices. I trust that this point may be considered, so that when the farmers come they may not be called upon to prove exactly how much they are entitled to receive.
House adjourned at Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.