Sitting of 5 July 1916

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Folkestone Gas Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Land Drainage (Feltwell) Provisional Order Bill,
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 3) Bill,
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
Municipal Corporations (Buxton Scheme Confirmation) Bill [Lords],
Read a second time, and committed.

DESTRUCTIVE INSECTS AND PESTS ACTS.
Copy presented of Order numbered D.I.P. 364, dated 19th June, 1916, entitled the American. Gooseberry Mildew (Importation of Fruit) Order of 1916 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
Order [28th June] that the Paper relative to Destructive Insects and Pests Acts do lie upon the Table read, and discharged—Paper withdrawn.

DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACTS.
Copy presented of Order 9,767, dated 29th June, 1916, postponing the operation of the two Orders described in the Schedule thereto until the 1st August, 1916 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
NATIONAL PORTRAIT GALLERY.
Copy presented of Fifty-ninth Annual Report of the Trustees of the National Portrait Gallery, 1915–16 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ANGLO-PERSIAN OIL COMPANY.
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 4th July; Mr. Montagu]; to lie upon the Table.
WAR CHARITIES (DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE).
Copy presented of Report of the Committee appointed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department to consider representations made concerning charitable funds for objects connected with the War, and to advise as to the control and supervision of such funds [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copy presented of Order made by the Council of the undermentioned local authority, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department:—
County of Somerset (parish of Dulverton)
[by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

EAST INDIA (PROGRESS AND CONDITION).
Copy presented of Statement exhibiting the moral and material Progress and Condition of India during the year 1914–15. Fifty-first number [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 36.]
ALKALI, ETC., WORKS REGULATION ACT, 1906.
Copy presented of Fifty-second Annual Report on Alkali, etc., Works by the Chief Inspector, being for 1915 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    NAVAL PRIZE MONEY (DISTRIBUTION).
    Colonel YATEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether all naval and

    1495
    marine officers, and naval and marine ratings, including Royal Naval Reserve and Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve, serving afloat or at the Admiralty, or holding other appointments ashore, at home, or abroad will be equally eligible, according to rank, to receive prize money; and how do the Government propose to calculate what a man is entitled to receive if, for instance, he has been serving since the opening of the War or has joined at a subsequent period, it may be only a few days before the cessation of hostilities?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The points raised by my hon. and gallant Friend are at present under consideration, and it would be premature to make any statement until the details are settled.
    Colonel YATE: Will the the right hon. hon. Gentleman ask the Government to give a day for the discussion of this question? Or will he appoint a Committee to collect information with regard to this very complicated question?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Of course, we will collect all the information and make our plans.
    Commander BELLAIRS: May we take it that the Bill will provide that the Lords of the Admiralty will have a share of this prize money?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not think that arises.
    Colonel YATE: But will the right hon. Gentleman appoint a Committee to draw up a scheme?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I should like notice of that question.

  JUTLAND NAVAL BATTLE.

    SIR JOHN JELLICOE'S DISPATCH.
    Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if ho has received Sir John Jellicoe's dispatch on the Horn Reef battle; and, if so, will he say when it will be published?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. It is hoped that the dispatch will be published next Friday.
    Mr. R. McNEILL: With reference to the question on the Paper the right hon. Gentleman will observe that people are giving different designations to this battle. Will the Admiralty consider the question of giving it an official designation?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: We will consider that.
    Mr. G. FABERWill the Papers be finished on Thursday night in time for publication on Friday?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Then are the newspapers to have it before the House of Commons?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I naturally desire to respect the rights of the House, but I imagine this dispatch would not first be submitted to the House. Previous dispatches, both Navy and Army, have not been so submitted; they have been published in the "Gazette."

    BELLIGERENT RIGHT OF SEARCH.
    Major HUNTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the policy of tightening the blockade which has now been put into force means that all ships arrested by the Navy on suspicion of carrying goads with enemy destination are now to be adjudicated upon by our Prize Court without interference by the Foreign Office or by any other authority, or whether such interference is in some or many cases still practised?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord Robert Cecil): Under modern conditions of warfare it is impossible to exorcise the belligerent right of search satisfactorily on the high seas. Hence it has become necessary to send into a British port for search all or almost all ships proceeding to ports in neutral countries adjacent to Germany which do not voluntarily call at such ports. There the search takes place, and it is only after such search that any judgment can be formed as to the probable ultimate destination of the cargo carried by the vessel. The data for such a judgment include the nature of the cargo, the character of the consignors and consignees, the amount of similar articles recently imported into the neutral country for which the ship is bound and, it may be, other information of a secret character which

    1497
    has come into the hands of His Majesty's Government. All information bearing on these and other relevant points is collected in London, and it is therefore in London that the question is necessarily determined whether there are any grounds for putting into the Prize Court the ship, the cargo, or any part of it. To put into the Prize Court all vessels and their cargoes which are sent into port as explained above, as apparently my hon. Friend suggests, would be neither just nor wise.

    BRITISH PRISONERS IN GERMANY.
    Sir J. LONSDALEasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs if he has any further Report from the American Embassy respecting the treatment of British prisoners in Germany; and if the representations conveyed to the German Government through the American Embassy have produced the desired effect?
    Lord R. CECIL: It is assumed that the hon. Member's question refers to civilian prisoners of war. I regret to say that no reply has yet been received from the German Government to our proposal for the exchange of all the British civilians interned at Ruhleben.
    Mr. G. FABER: What is proposed to be done?
    Lord R. CECIL: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put his question down for tomorrow.

    SOUTH AFRICA (NATIVE LABOUR).
    Sir H. CRAIKasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is with the knowledge or co-operation of the Colonial Office that Mr. Fuller, a member of the South African Senate, has come to England to arrange for bringing over to England a certain amount of native labour; and whether, before official countenance is given to any such project, the dangers, economical, physiological, and moral, which it involves will be fully considered and an opportunity of discussing it given to the House?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Bonar Law): No such proposal is under consideration by His Majesty's Government. I have no information on the subject beyond what has appeared in the Press.
    Sir H. CRAIK: If any such proposal is started by any agent from South Africa, will the Colonial Office take steps to stop it?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It certainly could not be done without the consent of the Government, and it will be time enough for me to express an opinion when that consent is asked for.

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    NON-COMBATANT COMPANIES.
    Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War how many Non-Combatant companies have been sent to Egypt, Salonika, East Africa, and Mesopotamia, respectively; how many Eastern Companies, Non-Combatant Companies, have been formed; whether men sent abroad in these companies have received the ordinary leave granted to men proceeding abroad; whether any men in these companies persist in disregarding military orders; whether any have been court-martialled; and whether he receives regular reports as to their conduct and treatment?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): This question of my hon. Friend and others seems to be based on the assumption stated in the last part, i.e.,that regular reports as to the doings of each individual of the Non-Combatant companies are received at the War Office. This, however, is not the case, and I am unable to regard these men as deserving any special treatment in this regard different from that given to other soldiers. The answer to the first part of the question is none, and to the second five. The rest of the question I am unable to answer.

    MEDICALLY REJECTED MEN (RE-EXAMINATION).
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether a man who is unfit and does not go up for re-examination until he is called up after 1st September has the right of appeal in the event of his being accepted, or must he appeal before 30th September?
    Mr. TENNANT: A man who has offered himself for enlistment and been rejected since the 14th August, 1915, and to whom written notice to present himself again for medical examination is sent by the Army Council before the 1st September, 1916,

    1499
    must deliver to the appropriate tribunal before the 30th September any application which he proposes to make for a certificate of exemption.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War (1) whether the only men who will not be reexamined are those who are blind, without limb, lame, paralysed, and those whose names are recorded in the military register as having been rejected by a medical board; whether those who have been rejected at the primary military examination, but whose names were not recorded owing to the fault of the recruiting officer, will be re-examined or the mistake simply rectified; (2) whether, as promised by the President of the Local Government Board, recruiting officers have been instructed to give medically rejected men an opportunity to present their cases before being summoned for medical re-examination; if not, whether he will issue such instructions so that the recruiting officers may have all necessary information before deciding what men are to be summoned for medical re-examination; and (3) whether the recruiting officers throughout the country have been notified that the aim of the Army Council in summoning men for medical re-examination is to eliminate only the improperly rejected—that is, men holding certificates which have been granted to others than themselves and transferred to them, and men holding certificates saying they were unfit because of some transient and now long-past disability; and whether recruiting officers have been instructed to proceed on those lines in deciding what men are to be summoned for medical re-examination?
    Mr. TENNANT: I have already sent to my hon. Friend a copy of the Instructions issued by the Army Council with reference to the re-examination of men previously rejected, and I will send him a copy of the Army Form which is to be sent to men who offered themselves for enlistment and were rejected since the 14th August, 1915. I do not think there is anything that I can usefully add to the full information contained in these papers, except possibly a reminder to him that as this country is engaged in a serious struggle it needs all the man power at its disposal.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have seen these papers and because I have seen them I have put
    1500
    these questions down? Because of his unsatisfactory reply, I will raise the matter on the Adjournment to-night.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War why men who have already been medically rejected are invited to attest up to 31st August under the Derby scheme; why it is stated that if they do not do so they will be called up-under the Military Service Act; and whether this applies to men who hold certificates of rejection in any of the categories mentioned by him?
    Mr. TENNANT: This invitation was extended to these men because many of them expressed, either directly or through intermediaries, their wish to have an opportunity of coming forward again voluntarily as they had done in the past. My hon. Friend will agree with me that these men's patriotism is most praiseworthy, and that the Army Council would have been much to blame and would have created a grievance if they had withheld the opportunity desired. The statements which have already been made in regard to calling up men for re-examination holds good.
    Mr. HOGGE: Do I understand that none of the four categories mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman as coming under the proposal are to be called up under the Derby scheme?
    Mr. TENNANT: So far as I realise the situation, the men who have offered themselves voluntarily and have been rejected will have exactly the rights stated in the forms I have sent to my hon. Friend. What that has to do with the Derby scheme I am really unable to say.

    FISHERMEN.
    Mr. ELLIS DAVIESasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether B. Owen, No. 412221, 17th Cheshires, was passed by the Carnarvonshire county tribunal for service in the Navy, he being a fisherman; that Owen was refused on medical grounds, but that he was placed in a labour battalion; and whether, in view of the scarcity of food and in the national interests, he will take steps to have Owen released, even temporarily, so as to follow his occupation as a fisherman?
    Mr. TENNANT: The War Office does not, of course, possess information of all the circumstances affecting individual soldiers. On the information given in my

    1501
    hon. Friend's question it appears that a mistake has been made, and inquiries will be made in the circumstances.

    PLUMBERS.
    Mr. WATTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his Department has made an arrangement with tribunals throughout the country that working plumbers of over twenty-five years of age are not to be called up until, at the earliest, 10th October, in view of the fact that very few of these men now remain to perform the work necessary for the community?
    Mr. TENNANT: No such arrangement has been made. On 1st March the Reserved Occupations Committee heard evidence from a full deputation of the Institute of Plumbers and the United Operative Plumbers' Association and decided that there would be no necessity to give any special protection to plumbers by way of reservation beyond that which plumbers engaged on munitions work or in public utility services obtain. The Committee since that date has not found any reason to lead them to consider that there is any necessity for further action.

    EXEMPTION CLAIM.
    Mr. EDMUND HARVEYasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the case of Mr. Sidney J. C. Warr, of Southend, who made his claim for exemption before the Appeal Tribunal on Saturday, 17th June, and on the 24th received a telegram from the tribunal granting him leave to appeal to the Central Tribunal, but not withstanding that he had returned his calling up paper to the recruiting officer with the information that he was appealing to the Central Tribunal, was arrested on 27th June as an absentee; and what steps he is taking to remedy the injustice that has been done?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am unable to answer this question to-day. Perhaps my hon. Friend would repeat it next week?

    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
    Colonel YATEasked the Prime Minister whether, considering that conscientious objectors who put forward objections as a pretext and cloak to cover their indifference in responding to the national call should be treated, as they ought to be treated, with the utmost
    1502
    rigour, His Majesty's Government will now take steps to mark the difference between those who have responded to the national call and those who have not, by depriving these so-called conscientious-objectors of the rights of the franchise and the other rights and privileges enjoyed by those who do their duty by the State?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): As I have informed the House, steps will be taken to compel such men to do their duty, and I think nothing would be gained by adopting my hon. Friend's suggestion.
    Colonel YATE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it right that these men should be treated differently from those-who do their duty?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, I do.
    Colonel YATE: Will the right hon. Gentleman take some steps to mark that?
    The PRIME MINISTER: We are doing.
    Mr. HOGGEasked whether a conscientious objector in the Army against his will can apply to have his certificate varied before the tribunal?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): The issue of Regulations dealing with this matter is under consideration.

    ALIENS.
    Mr. KINGasked the Home Secretary whether he has already set up the special tribunal to examine aliens who are or may be made liable to military service; if so, who are the members of this tribunal; where and when will the tribunal sit; will its proceedings be public; whether legislation will be necessary to give effect to its decisions; and whether he will state what persons will come under the denomination of political refugees whose case is to be sympathetically considered?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The details of this proposal are under consideration. A statement will be made in due course.
    Mr. KING: In view of the larger number of these aliens in Glasgow, and also in Manchester, will my right hon. Friend consider either setting up special tribunals for these places or visits to these localities?
    Mr. SAMUEL: Yes, the question of setting up tribunals in towns outside London is under consideration.
    Mr. E. HARVEY: Will my right hon. Friend give some assurance that in setting up these tribunals due regard will be had to the position of men who have sought refuge in this country on account of their political or religious views?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I have already made a statement about that to the effect that those who are political refugees will have their cases considered
    Colonel YATEasked the Prime Minister whether, considering the impossibility of distinguishing between a German naturalised in this country who is legally absolved from his German nationality and one who is not so absolved, His Majesty's Government will now take steps to cancel all naturalisation certificates and to re-issue such certificates only to those persons who have finally been certified as legally absolved from their German or other nationality, so as to prevent the possibility of any naturalised subject owing allegiance to two sovereigns at the same time, and to prohibit all changes of name on the part of naturalised aliens?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The Prime Minister has asked me to reply to this question. I have nothing to add at present to my answer to the hon. and gallant Member on the 26th June, and to my speech on the Home Office Vote on 29th June.

    UNATTESTED TELEGRAPHISTS.
    Mr. THOMASasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that, in the case of Post Office telegraphists, all unattested men, regardless of age or seniority, are being released for military service, whilst attested mien are being indiscriminately retained; and, having regard to the desirability of the Government setting an example of fair treatment in the release of men for the Army, whether he will see that no difference is made as regards recruiting between attested and unattested men and, in order to avoid any danger of victimisation or injustice, that junior men be released first, seniority to be the important factor when deciding what men shall be retained in the service of the Post Office?
    The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Pike Pease): The answer to this question was given in the course of the Debate on the Post Office Estimates, last Monday, and in accordance with the pledge then given, my right hon. Friend is communicating with the War Office.

    LOCAL TRIBUNALS.
    Mr. THOMASasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that certain railway companies refuse to grant facilities to employés who have been appointed members of Military Service Tribunals to enable them to attend the meetings of these bodies, and that such action has the effect of defeating the legal right of labour to representation; and whether, therefore, he will communicate with the railway companies and urge that in this matter every facility possible should be given to the few employés concerned to enable them to perform their duties on the Military Service Tribunals?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: My right hon. Friend has only heard of two complaints of this kind, and he is in communication with the railway company concerning them. I have ground for saying that the companies do not wish to stand in the way of their men acting as members of Military Service Tribunals where the attendance at the tribunals will not seriously interfere with their railway work.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the decisions of many Appeal Tribunals which sit in public do not announce their decisions publicly; and whether he can see his way to give instructions that they should do so?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: It is not obligatory on tribunals to announce their decisions in public; my right hon. Friend does not think it necessary to issue any directions on the matter.

    REGIMENTAL RECORDS.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Under-Secretary for War whether the War Office receives information regarding the part taken by individual regiments in action; and, if it does, whether any objection exists to publishing such information which is recorded in the Press but lacks official confirmation?
    Mr. TENNANT: The names of regiments which have distinguished themselves in operations are mentioned in the official communiqués from General Headquarters when such information can be given to the public without assisting the enemy. The War Office do not withhold

    1505
    mention of regiments when it has been sanctioned by General Headquarters. It obviously rests with the military authorities responsible for the operations to decide which regiments are deserving of mention, and they form, their opinion without reference to the impressions which may or may not have been formed by Press correspondents. The hon. Gentleman must not suppose that the War Office receives a daily or weekly report on the performances of each unit similar to that furnished by schoolmasters with reference to their scholars at the end of each term.
    Sir J. D. REES: Why does the right hon. Gentleman spread himself out in this way? Is it with a view to a flight? Why does he resent questions regarding regiments which are put at the instance of relatives of the men in the regiment, when he answers so patiently innumerable questions with respect to shirkers, shammers, slackers and conscientious objectors?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is raising controversial topics irrelevant to the question, and I will beg him not to repeat the performance.
    Mr. HOGGE: May I inquire—
    Mr. SPEAKER: We had better pass on.

    GALLIPOLI DISPATCHES.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Under-Secretary for War (1) whether Major-General Peyton's Gallipoli dispatches will be published; if so, within what period of time; and (2) whether any dispatches will be published regarding the part taken by the 2nd Mounted Brigade in operations at and in the evacuation of Gallipoli, and by the mounted troops who replaced that brigade after its dispatch to Egypt?
    Mr. TENNANT: I will answer these two questions by repeating what I have often stated previously. The operations of subordinate commanders are covered by the dispatches of the Commander-in-Chief and are not published. This rule applies to the case mentioned in these two questions.

  DISTURBANCES IN IRELAND.

    MEMBERS' VISITS TO PRISONERS.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Under-Secretary for War whether it was with the
    1506
    concurrence of the Government that a Member of this House, at a time when he had a question on the Order Paper calling attention to the unsanitary condition of Wakefield Prison, after many untried Irish prisoners had been sick and two are believed to have died there, was prevented from entering and verifying the complaints made to him regarding that prison; whether the sanitation is so bad that a Member of Parliament interested in that subject cannot be allowed to examine it; whether this Member is excluded from other prisons for the same reason; whether there are any untried Irish prisoners now in those unsanitary prisons; whether those in them are sick; and whether they will be transferred to healthy quarters as soon as able?
    Mr. TENNANT: Yes, Sir; the action taken in refusing to an hon. Member admittance to the Detention Barracks under military control has the full approval of the Government. The hon. Member refused admittance was the hon. Member who puts this question. It has been found necessary to do this owing to the highly improper utterances of the hon. Member when he was allowed the usual privileges granted to Members of this House. The allegations contained in the last six lines of the question are not founded on fact, as has been found to be the case in so many of the hon. Member's previous allegations.
    Mr. GINNELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the question put on the Paper with reference to Wakefield Prison was based on a letter received from a prisoner there and bearing the mark of the Prison Censor? Is it the fact that no prohibition regarding myself was sent to Wakefield Prison until that question had appeared on the Paper?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am aware that no prohibition was made as to the hon. Gentleman's visits to prisons until he had used the opportunities afforded him in a most improper manner.

    UNTRIED PRISONERS.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Home Secretary if Ernest Blythe is still untried like the Irish prisoners; why he is being treated more severely than they; when he is to be tried, and where; and whether he will be sent to the camp at Frongoch pending trial?
    Mr. SAMUEL: As I have already explained twice to the hon. Member, Blythe

    1507
    has been interned under Regulation 14B of the Defence of the Realm Regulations. He was entitled to make representations against the order for his internment to the Advisory Committee, and did so in writing, but refused to avail himself of the opportunity of appearing before them in person. It is considered inadvisable that some of the chief leaders of the movement should be interned with the remainder at Frongoch, and arrangements are being made for their internment elsewhere.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Why is this man described as a chief leader of the movement, as he was in Abingdon by order of the Government, and remained quietly there during the rebellion?
    Mr. SAMUEL: Nevertheless, he was one of the leaders in the movement which ultimately resulted in the rebellion.
    Mr. GINNELL: Does not the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that this is more severe treatment than that given to the men at Frongoch for the same offence?
    Mr. SAMUEL: There is no question of their being put in solitary confinement.
    Mr. HEALY: He is secluded by himself. Is not that solitary confinement?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I do not think he is secluded by himself. When arrangements are finally made for these men to be interned and they are brought together in one place they will all be in association.
    Mr. HEALY: This man has been in Brixton since 8th May without seeing a soul.
    Mr. SAMUEL: I think the hon. and learned Gentleman is misinformed.
    Mr. BYRNE: Would not the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of treating them as political prisoners?
    Mr. SAMUEL: They are not treated as prisoners at all. They are not kept in similar confinement.
    Mr. BYRNE: I refer to the man named in this question and the other Irish prisoners sentenced to terms of penal servitude. Could not the right hon. Gentleman consider treating them as political prisoners?
    Mr. SAMUEL: This man has not been sentenced to penal servitude at all, but is interned.
    Mr. BYRNE rose—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better put any further questions on the Paper. I cannot possibly hear him.

    INTERNED PRISONERS.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Home Secretary on what charge Mr. John O'Hanrihan, into whose case a special inquiry was promised, is still interned, notwithstanding his twenty-one years' service in the Army with the best record obtainable by his rank; whether he is aware of the purpose of a local policeman to injure him in his business; and, if the Government do not concur in that purpose, whether an immediate civil trial will be allowed, or Mr. O'Hanrihan's release?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I have no information concerning Mr. John O'Hanrihan, but I presume the question relates to an Irish prisoner called John Hourihane, of Lick, Skibbereen. The grounds for his internment appear in the notice of the order which has been served upon him. His case is under consideration by the Advisory Committee, who will be able to judge of the accuracy of the allegation made in the question.

    ROYAL COMMISSION (REPORT).
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Prime Minister whether before any arrangements are concluded for the future government of Ireland, he will give a day for the discussion of the Report of the Royal Commission on the rebellion in Ireland?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am not prepared to give any pledge at present on this subject.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: If the right hon. Gentleman will not give a pledge will he give a day for the discussion of this Report, which contains a distinct and complete condemnation of his own Government?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot give any pledge at the present time.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Docs the right hon. Gentleman really—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better put down any further questions.

    CLERKS IN GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT.
    Major WALTER GUINNESSasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that clerks in Government employment who were made prisoners when fighting

    1509
    British troops in the Dublin rebellion have since their release been reinstated; and whether he has sanctioned the giving of Government pay to those who took part in the rising?
    Mr. H. SAMUEL: The reply to both parts of the question is in the negative.
    Major GUINNESS: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire as to Patrick Kelly, who was taken prisoner defending Jacobs' factory, and as to Patrick Sheehan, who fought in the rebellion—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of those questions.

    IMPRISONMENT OF MR. GERARD CROFTS.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Home Secretary if Mr. Gerard Crofts, of Dublin, has been convicted of anything but the singing of patriotic songs, will he say what it is, on what evidence, and whether in an open Court whether he is the only prisoner undergoing penal servitude for the singing of patriotic songs; and, having regard to his delicate health and the character of the offence, if he is to be kept in custody whether it will be as a political prisoner?
    Mr. TENNANT: I cannot answer this question without examining the proceedings and the evidence. This I have not yet been able to do.
    Mr. GINNELL: When does the right hon. Gentleman expect to be able to do so?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am afraid I cannot state the time.

    ADVISORY COMMITTEE (APPEALS).
    Mr. J. O'CONNORasked the Home Secretary what is the procedure in respect to the hearing of appeals to the Advisory Committee when the same have been heard; is the decision of the Committee final, or do they merely recommend release or detention; if the latter, to whom is the recommendation made and what follows upon such; are the military and police of Ireland consulted or referred to before the release if the same be recommended; and will he state the real value and advantage of an appeal under 14 B of the Regulations under the Defence of the Realm Act?
    Mr. SAMUEL: With respect to the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for East
    1510
    Mayo. The Committee make their recommendations to me, and the responsibility for the action taken rests with me. With regard to the last two points, the Advisory Committee take police and military evidence in cases where they consider it necessary; the advantage of the appeal to the prisoner is that it secures him a full hearing of all he has to say in favour of his release, and that release will normally follow if the Committee so recommend.
    Mr. J. O'CONNOR: What time elapses between the recommendation of the Committee and the release, if release be recommended? I desire to know also, whether a police constable in Ireland has a veto upon the decision of the Committee?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The answer to the first part of the supplementary question is that the release would follow at once; and the answer to the second part is in the negative.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Have any recommendations been made to the right hon. Gentleman, and is it essential that these recommendations of the Committee should be unanimous?
    Mr. SAMUEL: No, Sir; it is not essential that they should be unanimous. A small number of recommendations for release have been made, and the men have been released.
    Mr. BYRNE: Has the right hon. Gentleman yet received any recommendations regarding the Irish lady prisoners who were tried by the Advisory Committee in Westminster Hall last Friday morning, and can he say when they will be released?
    Mr. SAMUEL: No, Sir.
    Sir W. BYLESasked the Home Secretary, having regard to the number of entirely innocent persons who, without charge or trial, are now interned in this country as the result of the recent Irish rising, if he will endeavour to accelerate the decisions of the Advisory Committee?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The Committee sit daily, for very long hours, and are dealing with the cases as quickly as possible.

    AMERICA (CORRESPONDENCE).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Postmaster-General if he will state what the arrangement is, if any, between this Government and that of the United States with reference to interference with innocuous correspondence to and from America, respectively; whether it is known to the

    1511
    American Government that letters of poor people in Ireland to friends in America, seeking financial help in consequence of the death of their relatives in Dublin in the recent rising, and letters from such friends in America conveying help, are alike stopped and confiscated in this country; and whether, instead of stopping the outward letters and leaving their senders in ignorance, the postage having been paid, the senders will be given an option of sighing an official form of expression conveying the substance of the request, which will then be duly forwarded?
    Mr. TENNANT: When once it has been established that correspondence between this country and America is innocuous, it is subjected to no interference whatever by the censorship authorities in this country. This rule is of general and universal application. No exception is, of course, made in the case of the letters of poor people in Ireland who require or receive financial assistance. No arrangement has been made with the Government of the United States in regard to the censorship of this correspondence, the exercise of which is one of the universally recognised rights of sovereignty.
    Mr. LYNCH: In view of the necessity of preserving not only the good will, but the confidence of the United States, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the effect of the numerous misunderstandings indicated in the question?
    Mr. TENNANT: I quite realise that it is desirable to use precaution and tact in the matter. These most necessary obligations are not being lost sight of.

    SHOOTING OF NON-COMBATANT CIVILIANS.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is yet in a position to supply a complete list of the seventy-one civilian prisoners, including women, shot without trial at Richmond Barracks, Dublin, after the suppression of the insurrection, and hastily buried without identification; the number shot and hastily buried at Portobello Barracks; the number shot and buried in cellars in the North King Street area; the number shot in Eden Quay and district; and, if the names of all are not yet available, whether he will supply those so far ascertained?
    Mr. TENNANT: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer he received from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on the 3rd July. I have nothing to add to the answer already given.
    Mr. GINNELL: Will not inquiry be made into any of these cases except through the military authorities who are accused?
    Mr. TENNANT: No, Sir; all inquiries are made through the military authorities.

    CORK CITY.
    Major NEWMANasked whether, owing to the attitude of the republican party in Cork City, the police on night duty are obliged to carry loaded rifles; and what steps are being taken to reassure the law-abiding inhabitants of the city and district?
    Mr. SAMUEL: Since the recent outbreak in Dublin the constabulary on day or night duty in Cork City have been armed with revolvers, but not with rifles, except when employed in guarding special points. All necessary precautions are being taken.

    IRISH REPUBLICANS.
    Major NEWMANasked whether on the 26th ultimo a body of military officers were hissed and insulted by a crowd of Irish republicans on emerging from the Theatre Royal, Dublin; whether he is further aware that non-commissioned officers and private soldiers have complained in writing of having recently been hooted, jeered at, and spat upon while walking in the streets; and will he say what action he proposes to take?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The police have no knowledge of the alleged occurrence at the Theatre Royal, nor was it reported to the Provost-Marshal. Soldiers have been hooted in the streets of Dublin upon a few occasions. The police have orders to arrest offenders.
    Major NEWMAN: If I send the right hon. Gentleman a sworn affidavit by those who have seen these occurrences will he have the matter inquired into?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I shall be very glad to consider any information the hon. Member gives me.

  FINANCE BILL.

    PETROL DUTIES (STATIONARY ENGINES).
    Mr. GRANTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the new duties on petrol apply to petrol for stationary engines used for such purposes as lighting?
    The CHANCELLOR Of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. McKenna): No, Sir; though, of course, a licence for the supply will be necessary.
    Mr. PETOasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether petrol used by motor and aircraft manufacturers for the purpose of testing machines on the bench, on the road, or in the air, is free from the new duty levied on permits for the issue of petrol; and, if not, whether he will insert words in the Finance Bill to give effect to this?
    Mr. McKENNA: The answer to the first part is in the affirmative, and the second part does not arise.

    INCOME TAX.
    Mr. PETOasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether telegraphists employed solely on military and naval work at the War Office and Admiralty will be entitled to reduced rates of Income Tax under Clause 20 of the Finance Bill?
    Mr. McKENNA: I gather that the hon. Member is referring to civilian employés of the State paid out of the Vote for the Post Office. If so, no question of relief under Clause 20 arises.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND.

    PROPOSED SETTLEMENT.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his concurrence has been obtained with that part of the negotiations for the partition of Ireland which involves the expendture of £80,000 of public money to found and run an evening "Freeman's Journal" in Dublin, to advocate partition and support those in favour of it; whether the scheme provides for the investment of public money in any other journalistic enterprise in Ireland; and whether, in the accounts of the fiancial relations between the two countries, all such investments of public money will be treated as expenditure for the benefit of Ireland?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am not aware of any such arrangement.
    Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire and not allow this payment to escape audit like that of £5,000 paid to Mrs. Pankhurst for a bogus procession?
    Mr. McKENNA: I have no need to inquire, because I am quite sure no such arrangement has been made.
    The following question appeared in the name of Major HUNT:—
    50. To ask the Prime Minister if he can now state whether under the Irish settlement proposed by the Minister of Munitions, the exclusion of the six Unionist counties was to be final and not subject to revision after the War, or whether it was to be temporary and provisional; whether it was made clear to the Irish Unionist leader and to the Nationalist leader which it was to be; and did the Irish Unionist leader receive a promise from any Minister that the exclusion should be final and not subject to revision after the War?"
    Major HUNT: As the Prime Minister does not appear to know what the proposals were which the Cabinet unanimously agreed to, I ask leave to put this question off for the third time.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: I desire to ask the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury whether there is any prospect of a statement to the country on the Irish situation?
    Mr. GULLAND (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): I cannot answer that question.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: May I ask the Home Secretary or some other Minister when the House of Commons is going to have some information on a matter which is of such urgent importance, and which is given to every outside tribunal apart from the House of Commons?
    Mr. SAMUEL: No, Sir; I am not in a position to say when a statement will be made.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Will there ever be one?

  AIR SERVICE.

    ROYAL AIRCRAFT FACTORY, FARNBOBOUGH.
    Mr. ASHLEYasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the Committee appointed to inquire into the

    1515
    working of the Royal Aircraft Factory at Farnborough has concluded its investigation; and, if so, when will the Report be published?
    Major BAIRD(representing the Air Board): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. The Committee has concluded its investigation, and its Report will be laid before the House at an early date.

    TERRITORIAL FORCE (THIRD-LINE UNITS' BANDS).
    Colonel YATEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the War Office in reconsidering Army Order No. 1219, of 18th June, 1916, regarding the discontinuance of bands of third-line units of the Territorial Force, will take into consideration the fact that, in the case of the third-line unit of the 4th Leicester Territorial Battalion, the town of Leicester presented the battalion with a fine set of band instruments, that there is no cost to the public for upkeep, that a large proportion of the bandsmen are unfit for active service, and that the band itself is an asset of great military value in the camp in which the battalion is training, and will therefore sanction the continuance of the band?
    Mr. TENNANT: The question of bands is, as I have stated, being reconsidered, but I cannot yet announce any decision. My hon. and gallant Friend may be assured that this decision will not turn upon the question of the cost of provision and upkeep of instruments. He will realise that the question of personnel is the main element.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman keep in mind the suggestion that he should allow bands to continue, provided that all the men fit for general service are discharged from the bands?
    Mr. TENNANT: Yes, Sir, due weight will be given to that.

    VOLUNTEER FORCE (MUNITION WORKERS).
    Colonel ALAN SYKESasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he has consulted with the Minister of Munitions with a view of coming to an
    1516
    arrangement by which munition workers who enrol in the Volunteers will not be called away from their munition work in case of the mobilisation of the Volunteer Force, unless the emergency is such as to make it necessary to mobilise every available man in the country, including munition workers?
    Mr. TENNANT: The object which the hon. and gallant Member has in view is, of course, constantly present to the minds of the Army Council, who are consulting all those, whether public Departments or otherwise, who are concerned, but I cannot announce any decision to-day.

    ARMY SERVICE CORPS.
    Mr. THOMASasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether a charge made for Army Form W 3105, to soldiers serving in the Army Service Corps in France is authorised; and, if not, whether he will at once take steps to see that the practice is discontinued?
    Mr. TENNANT: No, Sir; a charge for this Army Form is not authorised, and I have no information that a charge is being made. Perhaps my hon. Friend will be good enough to give me any information which may be in his possession?

    ROYAL ENGINEERS (CIVILIAN OVERTIME PAY).
    Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if the civilian clerks of works and foremen of works employed in the department of the Royal Engineers were eighteen months ago granted overtime pay for any overtime they worked; that this was considered by them as a grant to help them to meet the increased cost of living; if the commanding officer of the Royal Engineers at Aldershot in March last stopped the payment for overtime; and whether, in view of the increased cost of the necessaries of life, he can see his way to increase the pay of these men?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): Overtime pay in these cases was authorised by the War Office in December, 1914, but it was in payment for extra time worked, and not as a grant towards increased cost of

    1517
    living. I have no information as to what took place at Aldershot in March last, but presumably it ceased to be necessary to work extra time.
    Mr. WILSON: Is it not the fact that overtime iias been worked while overtime rates have not been paid? Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries?
    Mr. FORSTER. Certainly.

    CHEAP RAILWAY FARES.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether return railway tickets at a cost of single fare and a quarter were issued to visitors to the Royal Agricultural Show at Manchester; and whether he can see his way clear to have the same facilities extended to the working classes of the country during the August Bank Holiday?
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Harcourt): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. The issue of cheap railway tickets to visitors to the Royal Agricultural Show was an arrangement made exceptionally in view of the importance of the Show to the agricultural interests of the country. As regards the latter part of the question, I am afraid I can only refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on the 27th June to the hon. Member for West Wolverhampton, of which I am sending him a copy.

    MESOPOTAMIA EXPEDITION (MEDICAL ARRANGEMENTS).
    Sir H. CRAIKasked the Secretary of State for India if the Report of Sir W. Vincent and General Bingley upon the medical arrangements in connection with the Mesopotamia Expedition has yet been received; and, if so, when it will be published?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Chamberlain): The Report has not yet been received.
    Mr. ANNAN BRYCEasked the Secretary of State for India whether the sum of at least sixteen lakhs of rupees was put by princes and other wealthy persons in India at the disposal of the Government of India for the purpose of a proper medical equipment of the expedition to Mesopotamia; if so, what portion of that sum
    1518
    was applied to such equipment; and what Department or officer of the Indian Government was responsible for the expenditure or non-expenditure of the money?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No such gift has been reported to me by the Government of India. Several Indian chiefs combined to present a hospital ship for the general purposes of the War, and some motor ambulances, motor cars and the like have been presented by individual donors or by communities for the troops in Mesopotamia.
    Sir HENRY CRAIKasked the Postmaster-General whether the postal rates of letters and parcels for the forces in Mesopotamia have been increased?
    Mr. PIKE PEASE: The postage rates for parcels sent from the United Kingdom to the Indian troops forming part of the Mesopotamian Expeditionary Force have been recently assimilated to those which have always been in force for the rest of the Mesopotamian Expeditionary Force, namely, 1s., 2s., and 3s. for parcels weighing 3 lb., 7 lb., and 11 lb. respectively. There have been no other changes in rates of postage.

    INDIAN ARMY RESERVE OF OFFICERS (RULES FOR PROMOTION).
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India whether he has had under his consideration the question of revising the Rules for Promotion in the Indian Army Reserve of Officers?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The subject of promotion in the Indian Army Reserve, of Officers has recently engaged the attention of the Government of India, and they have submitted certain proposals to me, which I have approved. The principal change is that while the Indian Army time-scale of promotion is to be retained as the general rule, Indian Army Reserve officers who are reported fit for accelerated promotion may, on the recommendation of the Commander-in-Chief in India, be promoted at any time to higher rank. Officers joining the Indian Army Reserve who had previously served in the Army as commissioned officers, will, on joining the Indian Army Reserve, be given the rank in which they left the Army, and will be allowed to count their previous service towards promotion. Second-lieutenants who belonged to the Cavalry branch of the Indian Army

    1519
    Reserve at the outbreak of war, or who joined it before 7th June, 1915, will be promoted to lieutenant on being detailed to serve with a 'Cavalry unit in the field, arrangements being made whereby such officers shall not supersede Regular officers of the Indian Army with longer service. The Government of India have been requested to send home copies of the revised rules, and the hon. and gallant Member shall be informed as soon as they are received.

  FINANCE (NEW DUTIES) ACT.

    GAELIC ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION.
    Sir J. LONSDALEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, having regard to the withdrawal of the prohibition under martial law of football and hurling matches in Ireland, the Commissioners of Inland Revenue have arrived at a decision as to whether, under the Finance (New Duties) Act, the entertainments of the Gaelic Athletic Association will be exempt from Entertainments Duty?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am informed by the Board of Customs and Excise that an application from a branch of the Gaelic League for exemption of their entertainments has been received, and that the Board have decided that on the evidence before them there is no title to exemption.

    VEGETABLE PRODUCTION (ROYAL PARKS).
    Captain BATHURSTasked the First Commissioner of Works if, in view of the high and increasing cost of meat, he will consider the desirability, while abandoning flower beds in the Royal parks, of raising therein for the instruction of and an example to those who have garden plots adjoining their houses, whether in London or elsewhere, such vegetables as are deemed by experts to be an effective substitute for meat?
    Mr. HARCOURT: This question has been fully considered, but I regret to say that the objections to the proposal are so serious that I have not felt it advisable to give effect to it.
    Mr. CATHCART WASON: Will my right hon. Friend take into consideration
    1520
    the fact that the flowers in the Royal parks are a great joy and comfort to thousands of our wounded soldiers?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I am not prepared to accede to the request.

    LOSS OF HIS MAJESTY'S SHIP "HAMPSHIRE."
    Sir RICHARD COOPERasked the Prime Minister if, in view of the public anxiety over the circumstances surrounding the loss of His Majesty's ship "Hampshire," he will fix an early day for discussion of the Motion standing in the name of the hon. Member for Maidstone or that of the hon. Member for Walsall?
    The PRIME MINISTER: As the hon. Baronet is aware, a formal Court of Inquiry has already been held by the naval authorities into all the circumstances attending the loss of His Majesty's ship "Hampshire," and the conclusion has been repeatedly stated to the House. It is not proposed to hold any further inquiry.
    Sir R. COOPER: I beg to give notice-that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment of the House to-morrow evening.
    Mr. G. FABER: Did all the witnesses who were examined at the inquiry take the same view of the cause of the disaster?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot say.
    Mr. HOGGE: How many more names does the right hon. Gentleman want to the Motion on the Order Paper before he will give a day?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have given my answer.
    Commander BELLAIRS: Could not the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the question and keep an open mind until after the discussion has taken place in the other place to-morrow?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I did not know there was such a discussion.

    REV. DR. JOHN CLIFFORD.
    Mr. PETOasked the Prime Minister whether the Rev. Dr. John Clifford, of Westbourne Park Baptist Chapel, is in

    1521
    receipt of a pension of £200 a year from the Civil List; if so, for what services to the State was this pension granted; whether he is aware that Dr. John Clifford has recently been taking an active part in anti-recruiting and Stop-the-War propaganda, having been present and addressed a Stop-the-War conference at Devonshire House from which the Press representatives were excluded, and that his speech was afterwards reported in the "Labour Leader"; and, under these circumstances, will he consider the advisability of stopping any further expenditure of public money in the support of Dr. Clifford?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative.

    OLD AGE PENSIONS.
    Mr. BARNESasked the Prime Minister if, having regard to the condition of old age pensioners owing to increased prices and also to the fact that local burdens have been lessened by the State payment of pensions, he can see his way to an increase of pension during the period of high prices and to making the cost of such increase a charge on local rates?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Legislation would be required to give effect to this suggestion, and for the reasons stated by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the Motion for the Adjournment on the 26th ultimo His Majesty's Government are not satisfied that a case has been made out for such legislation.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the tremendous agitation that is going on in different parts of the country in consequence of the old age pension not being increased? I am quite sure if the Government were to make some proposal they would get universal support.
    The PRIME MINISTER: That may be, but we have to consider where the money is to come from.
    Mr. THORNE: Half-a crown a week will only amount to £7,000,000. Surely we can find that very small sum, anyhow?
    91. The same hon. Member asked haw many boards of guardians have, respectively, passed resolutions in favour of an extra grant of money to the old age pensioners?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: One hundred and sixteen resolutions have reached my right hon. Friend on this subject, but there are important differences in the recommendations made.
    Mr. THORNEasked the President of the Local Government Board whether, until the Treasury authorities are prepared to provide an extra grant to old age pensioners, he can see his way to issue a circular instructing boards of guardians throughout the country to allow old age pensioners the value of 2s. 6d. in kind, such allowance to be made on a doctor's order in each case in order that the pension is not forfeited; and if he is aware that the purchasing power of 5s. in the case of food-stuffs has been reduced by 52 per cent.?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: My right hon. Friend has no power to give such instructions as are suggested. In regard to the general position of old age pensioners at the present time, I may refer to the reply which I gave on the 28th June to the hon. Member for Bury.
    Mr. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these old people are crying out like cripples at the Cross in all parts of the country for something to be done for them? It is certainly high time that something should be done about the matter.

  MUNITIONS.

    SUNDAY LABOUR (WOMEN AND YOUNG PERSONS).
    Mr. COWANasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will indicate the extent to which the Sunday employment of women and young persons is at present authorised in munition factories; and what steps are being taken to restrict it within the narrowest-possible limits?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Brace): The Sunday employment of women and young persons is allowed only under Special Exemption Orders, and these Orders are granted by the Home Office only for two purposes, namely, to expedite work of an exceptionally urgent character, or to enable continuous processes to be carried on. Apart from a few cases where authority has been given to work on a Sunday in the event of a breakdown of machinery or similar emergency

    1523
    the total number of Exemption Orders in force on the 1st of this month was forty-six. In nineteen of these the permission given is subject to a condition that each worker employed on Sunday shall be given a holiday on another day in the same week. In fifteen cases the Sunday employment is part of a system of eight-hour shifts, in which provision is made for weekly or fortnightly periods of rest. In the remaining cases, with one exception, employment is not permitted on every Sunday. Every effort is made to restrict these Exemptions as narrowly as possible. Each application is carefully inquired into by the Factory Inspectors, and, wherever necessary, it is referred for consideration to the Hours of Labour Committee appointed for the special purpose of advising the Ministry of Munitions and the Home Office on this and similar questions.
    Colonel Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Government factory inspectors have great difficulty in persuading private firms to abandon Sunday labour inasmuch as Government factories themselves are working on Sundays?
    Mr. BRACE: I am not aware of that.

    ANNAN DISTRICT (SALE OF INTOXICANTS).
    Mr. MOLTENOasked the Minister of Munitions whether, in view of the special conditions of the Annan district And the necessity for the utmost output to meet the Government's demands, he will consider the desirability of curtailing and diminishing, if not prohibiting, the sale of spirits and strong drink rather than increasing the number, attractiveness, and importance of the places where these drinks are sold?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MUNITIONS DEPARTMENT (Dr. Addison): The hon. Member may rest assured that this matter is receiving careful consideration from the point of view emphasised in the question.
    Mr. MOLTENOasked the Minister of Munitions whether his attention has been drawn to the petition protesting against the erection by the Liquor Control Board of Annan of a place for the public sale of intoxicants with various attractions, such as a cinema theatre, etc., signed by every magistrate in Annan, every doctor, minister of religion, solicitor,
    1524
    bank agent, all the accessible justices of the peace, every member of the school board except one, and members of the town council, and leading employers of labour, addressed to the Central Liquor Control Board; whether he has evidence that they do not represent the strong feeling of the community, and what the evidence is; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
    Dr. ADDISON: I am informed that arrangements have been made to enable the petitioners to discuss these matters with the local committee.
    Mr. WATT: Is this Control Board a nominated Board, and, if so, who nominated it?
    Dr. ADDISON: It is appointed under an Act of Parliament, and for the purposes of that Act.
    Mr. MOLTENOasked the Minister of Munitions if he will state how the managers of the public-houses, under the Liquor Control Board in Annan, are brought under the Licensing (Scotland) Act, so as to be punishable for offences under that Act, in view of the fact that they have not been granted any certificate by the magistrates; and, in order to clear up the uncertainties of the authorities, and public, if he will state definitely by what authority or under what Act or Regulations the managers can be prosecuted for any offences which would be punishable under the Licensing Act?
    Dr. ADDISON: I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the relevant provisions of the Defence of the Realm (Liquor Control) Regulations, 1915.
    Mr. MOLTENOasked the Minister of Munitions whether he is aware that the sale of spirits has ceased in the Gretna area where the men are under the control of the construction managers; and whether he will consider the possibility of extending the same restriction to the neighbouring district of Annan, where a number of the temporary construction workers are housed, instead of extending the facilities for drinking?
    Dr. ADDISON: The sale of spirits has ceased in the factory owing to the action of the management, but not in the rest of the Gretna area. The question whether further restrictions should be imposed upon that portion of the district in which large numbers of the temporary construction workers are housed (which includes

    1525
    Carlisle and Longtown as well as Annan) is being carefully considered, but the hon. Member is under a misconception if he thinks that the action of the Control Board at Annan either has increased, or is intended to increase, or will increase, the facilities for drinking at that place.
    Mr. MOLTENO: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the very strong opinion of the people on the spot?
    Dr. ADDISON: I do not know what the opinion on the spot is. I know that their are 14,000 navvies there who were not there before, and there is bound to be more drinking because there are more people to drink.

    WOMEN WORKERS (HOURS OF WORK).
    Mr. HASLAMasked the Minister of Munitions whether he is aware that, where women work the eight-hour shift system, with thirty or forty minutes' interval within the eight hours for refreshment, it is reported that better results both with regard to health and production are obtained than under the twelve-hour shift system; whether there are now any industries under his control where women are allowed to work longer hours than are permitted under the Factory Acts; if so, will he immediately take steps to stop this practice, which is shown by the Report of the Health of Munition Workers to be detrimental to health and effective production; and whether all oases of overtime worked by women workers are reported to the Home Office and require the sanction of that Department?
    Dr. ADDISON: It has generally been found that from the point of view of health a three-shift system, where practicable, is preferable to a twelve-hour shift system. In a good many cases, however, the shortage of labour and difficulties of housing accommodation make a three-shift system impracticable, and the system involves also certain difficulties of organisation. On the other hand, a two-shift system where hours in each shift are not excessive is often quite satisfactory. As regards the second part of the question, it has been decided, in concurrence with the Home Office, to bring the hours of work for women and young persons in controlled establishments generally within the weekly limit of sixty hours allowed under the ordinary provisions of the Factory Act, and steps are
    1526
    being taken to give effect to this decision. Wherever an emergency necessitates any extension of hours the sanction of the Home Office is required.

    CHILDREN (EMPLOYMENT).
    Sir P. MAGNUSasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can give the number of children under fourteen years of age who are employed in controlled establishments and by firms engaged in Government contracts; and whether they are subject to any special Regulations?
    Dr. ADDISON: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. I have no information on the point raised in the first part, and I am not aware that the Home Office have made any special Regulations as to the employment of such children as distinct from other young persons. Their employment would, of course, be governed by the Factory Acts in any case.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: Are the Board of Education unable to give the information asked for in the first part of the question?
    Dr. ADDISON: We are not able to give more precise information on the point.

    GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS (ADVISORY COMMITTEES).
    Mr. A. BRYCEasked whether there sit on any of the Advisory Committees appointed in connection with the work of the Admiralty, War Office, or Ministry of Munitions, any person or persons interested directly or indirectly in the supply of the materials with which such Committees are concerned; and, if so, what are the names of such persons and upon what Committees do they sit?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am not sure that I understand the drift of my hon. Friend's question. These Committees would be of but little use to the Departments concerned unless they contained persons whose knowledge of the matters referred to them is first-hand and absolutely up to date. I need hardly add that the Departments fully realise their responsibility to guard against any possible abuse of the system. I am not prepared to throw upon the Departments concerned the labour of collecting the information asked for in the last part of the question.
    Mr. BRYCE: I beg to give notice that on an early occasion I will call attention to this matter. I do not think the answer is very satisfactory.

    COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (APPLICATION FOR SUMMONS).
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the application of Mr. Robert Harding at Bow Street Police Court on 30th May for a summons against the Commissioner of Police for restoration of property; whether he is aware that a summons was refused on the ground that the Commissioner would not defend the action; and what he proposes to do in the circumstances?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The notepaper in imitation of official War Office paper which was the subject of the charge against this man was destroyed by order of the Court. All other property taken from him by the police was restored to him on the expiration of his sentence. The second part of the question is not understood. The decision of the magistrate appears to have been right, and I do not propose to take any action in the matter.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the second part of the question is quite plain, that the Commissioner of Police refused to defend his action?

    GERMAN AND AUSTRIAN MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS.
    Mr. G. FABERasked how many German and Austrian medical practitioners naturalised and enemy aliens, respectively, there are at present in this country; and whether any and, if so, how many of either class are interned?
    Mr. SAMUEL: This information is not available, and could not be obtained without very great labour. The number of German and Austrian medical practitioners left in this country is small, as there was an arrangement for mutual repatriation at the beginning of the War.

    CINEMA FILMS (CENSORSHIP).
    Sir J. LONSDALEasked the Home Secretary if ho has arrived at any conclusions with regard to the appointment
    1528
    of a censor of cinema films, with powers to prevent the exhibition of pictures of a disreputable character?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I am not yet in a position to add anything to the answer I gave to the hon. Baronet on the 24th May last.

    MALT EXPORTS.
    Colonel GRETTONasked the President of the Board of Trade the quantity of malt which is stated to be prepared for export under licence; and if he will say what proportion of this quantity it is proposed to allow to be exported under licence?
    Mr. HARCOURT: A return of quantities, in stock has been called for from maltsters under the Articles of Commerce (Returns) Act, 1914. As soon as the information is received I will communicate with the hon. Member.

    RAILWAY FARES (REFUND ON LOST TICKETS).
    Mr. THOMASasked the President of the Board of Trade whether an instruction has been issued by the War Office whereby railway companies are precluded from making any refund of fare on lost tickets during the period of Government control; and, if so, whether, in view of the injustice of a person being required to pay double fare for a railway journey, he will have this instruction withdrawn so as to enable the railway companies to revert to their former practice of refunding the extra fare in cases where satisfactory proof is forthcoming?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I understand that the War Office have issued an instruction on this subject in regard to soldiers travelling by rail. In the case of ordinary civilian passengers no alteration has, I am informed, been made in the companies' usual practice.

    ENEMY AIR RAIDS (COMPENSATION TO RAILWAY EMPLOYES).
    Mr. THOMASasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the agreement made by him with the Railway Executive Committee whereby the railway companies under

    1529
    their control should compensate men injured by hostile air raids or bombardment on the same basis as that on which compensation is payable under the Workmen's Compensation Act has not been made retrospective so as to cover the cases where such injury had already occurred; and whether, therefore, he will take the necessary steps to extend this measure of justice to all men who have suffered such injury whilst following their employment?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I will communicate with the Railway Executive Committee on this point, and inform my hon. Friend in due course of the decision arrived at.

    FOOD SUPPLIES.
    Mr. PERCY HARRIS (Leicester, Harborough)asked the President of the Board of Trade what powers he has to prevent the holding up of foodstuffs; whether he has any official information showing that quantities of bacon have been stored at the docks for the purpose of increasing prices; and whether he proposes to take action to prevent the withholding of the necessaries of life in war time?
    Mr. HARCOURT: Under the Articles of Commerce (Returns, etc.) Act, 1914, the Board of Trade have power, if they are of opinion that any article of commerce is being unreasonably withheld from the market, to take possession of any supplies of the article, paying the owners of the supplies such price as may, in default of agreement, be decided to be reasonable, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, by the arbitration of certain judges specified in the Act and in the Proclamation made thereunder. With regard to the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave yesterday to a similar question by the hon. Member for West Ham.
    Mr. W. THORNE: In view of the information which is placed at his disposal as to the tremendous amount of bacon which is held up in the London docks and in the Liverpool docks, will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries, and if he finds an excess of bacon, which should not be there, will he make the American Beef Trust unload it and put it upon the market?
    Mr. HARCOURT: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. HARRISasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can publish a statement of the advances in wholesale prices in the principal articles of food since July, 1914, and at the same time make a statement of the cause of such increases, so that there should be a more general understanding of the economic factors that are influencing the supply and price of food?
    Mr. HARCOURT: The Board of Trade have recently appointed a Committee to deal with the whole question of prices of necessaries, and it is very undesirable to prejudge the results of its investigation.
    Mr. HARRIS: Will it be possible for the Committee to issue an early Report on these special points that would allay public unrest?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I must consult the Committee on that point; but I should think it is not unlikely.
    Sir GILBERT PARKERasked the Prime Minister whether a Government Committee has been appointed to deal with food prices; if so, whether co-operative societies are represented upon the Committee, and by whom; and whether he will consider the possibility of appointing a representative, or representatives, of private traders such as the Federation of Grocers' Associations of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. HARCOURT: The Prime Minister has asked me to reply to this question. I am afraid I can add nothing to the reply which I gave on Monday to questions asked on this subject by various hon. Members.

    BULBS (PROHIBITION OF IMPORTS).
    Mr. REND ALLasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state on what grounds the importation of bulbs has been prohibited; and whether it is proposed to partially or wholly withdraw the prohibition during the continuance of the War?
    Mr. HARCOURT: The prohibition of the importation of these, as of many other classes of goods, was imposed with a view to securing tonnage space for goods more essential in the national interests. It is not proposed to withdraw the prohibition, though circumstances may, of course, arise which may justify the issue of licences in exceptional cases.
    Mr. WATT: Is the right hon. Gentleman, aware that cut flowers are permitted still to be imported from Holland? Does that not seem very inconsistent?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I was answering a question about bulbs.

    PETROLEUM COMPANIES.
    Major HUNTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that there are no British share holders in either the British Petroleum Company, the Petroleum Steamship Company, or the Home Light Oil Company, and that the shares of all these companies stand in the name of the Europaische Petroleum Union, controlled by the Deutsche Bank, Berlin, he can say why these companies have not been wound up?
    Mr. HARCOURT: Following the advice of the Board of Trade Advisory Committee the companies referred to have not been wound up, because it is desirable that after the enemy interest has been eliminated the extensive organisation established for the supply and distribution of petroleum products should be available for the benefit of this country. The best method of dealing with the enemy interest is at present under consideration, and in the meantime the businesses are being carried on under supervision. I may add that although the Europaische Petroleum Union is the registered holder of substantially all the shares of these companies, Russian, French, and Belgian undertakings claim that the beneficial interest in almost half those shares is vested in them.
    Major HUNT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why when it is necessary to continue a business the Government should allow the business to be conducted for the benefit of Germany after the War?
    Mr. HARCOURT: If the hon. Member will study the answer I have given him, and of which I have sent him a copy, I think he will see that that is not the case.
    Major HUNTasked who are the directors and who are the managers of the British Petroleum Company, the Petroleum Steamship Company, and the Home Light Oil Company, respectively; and when and by whom were such directors and managers appointed, whether by German shareholders before the out break of war or by the Board of Trade since the commencement of hostilities?
    Mr. HARCOURT: The directors of the British Petroleum Company, Limited, are Mr. Kean, a British subject; Mr. Olsen, a Norwegian subject; Mr. Braun, a French subject; Mr. Nobel, a Russian subject; Mr. Waterkeyn, a Belgian subject; and Mr. Colt, a British subject. The first two were directors at the outbreak of war and were appointed in 1906 by the subscribers to the memorandum of association. The remaining four were appointed by the board of directors, Mr. Braun in 1908 and the other three since the War. Mr. Kean is the manager. The directors of the Petroleum Steamship Company, Limited, are the same as those of the British Petroleum Company, Limited, with the substitution of Mr. Hagelin, of Petrograd, for Mr. Nobel. Mr. Olsen was appointed by the articles of association, and the others by the board of directors. The managers are Messrs. Lane and Macandrew. The directors of the Homelight Oil Company, Limited, are Mr. Olsen, Mr. Kean and Mr. Mosditchian, who is an Armenian. They were all directors at the outbreak of war.
    Major HUNTasked what profits have been earned by the British Petroleum Company, the Petroleum Steamship Company, and the Home Light Oil Company for the benefit of the German shareholders since the outbreak of war; and whether such profits or any of them have been paid to the Public Trustee to hold for the German shareholders until after the War?
    Mr. HARCOURT: Dividends amounting to £69,203 8s. and £36,258 4s. were paid to the Public Trustee by the British Petroleum Company, Limited, and the Petroleum Steamship Company, Limited, respectively, for the year 1914. The accounts of the Homelight Oil Company, Limited, did not admit of the declaration of a dividend. The accounts of these companies for the year 1915 will be considered shortly. The ultimate destination of this money will be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Trading With the Enemy Acts.

    LEIPSIC FAIR (BRITISH PURCHASES).
    Sir J. LONSDALEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he has any information of large purchases of enemy goods having been made on behalf of British firms at the Leipsic Fair last autumn for delivery immediately after the

    1533
    conclusion of peace; and, having regard to the provisions of the Trading With the Enemy Act respecting such transactions, whether he proposes to take any steps to prevent British firms entering into such contracts?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I have no official information that such purchases have been made, but I shall be glad to have any evidence on the subject that the hon. Baronet is in a position to furnish, with a view to considering what action can usefully be taken in the matter.

    TRANSIT OF GOODS TO BELFAST.
    Sir J. LONSDALEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that, notwithstanding the assurance of the Midland Railway Company that the restrictions upon the forwarding of goods traffic to Belfast is only nominal, traders are still being refused facilities for the dispatch of goods, of which they are in urgent need, and that the Great Northern Railway Company are also refusing to accept goods for transit to Belfast; and if he will bring pressure to bear upon the companies concerned so as to ensure that the full service may be resumed without further delay?
    Mr. HARCOURT: If I am furnished with particulars of any consignments of goods for Belfast which either the Midland or the Great Northern Company has refused to accept, I will make immediate inquiries into the matter. As I informed the hon. Baronet in reply to his question of the 28th June, it is hoped that a resumption of the full service may shortly be arranged.
    Mr. R. MCNEILL: Does that mean each way?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I think so.

    ALIEN ENEMY FIRMS.
    Sir J. LONSDALEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, having regard to the decision of the House of Lords in the case of the Daimler Company, Limited, versus the Continental Tyre and Rubber Company (Great Britain), Limited, that registration in Great Britain does not turn a company whose control is mainly in German hands into a British company, and that payments to German companies, whether registered or not, is trading with the
    1534
    enemy, he will, for the protection of the public, publish a list of all firms under alien enemy control which have not yet been wound up?
    Mr. HARCOURT: It does not necessarily follow that all businesses now under supervision are affected by the recent decision of the House of Lords. All the companies likely to be so affected are included amongst those which are being inquired into by the Advisory Committee appointed by the Board of Trade, and I cannot publish the names of firms until the Committee has reported upon them.

    HARVEST LABOUR (SCOTLAND).
    Mr. WATTasked the Secretary for Scotland whether any arrangements have been made whereby soldiers will be available in Scotland for the harvests this year; and, if so, will he say to whom application ought to be made by farmers?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Application should ordinarily be made by farmers to the Local Board of Trade Labour Exchange, but a farmer living near a military station may apply direct to a commanding officer for military labour required at short notice and for a period not exceeding six days.

    BRITISH PRISONERS IN TURKEY.
    Mr. TICKLERasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if British prisoner taken by Turks at Kut are allowed to-communicate with relatives in this country; and has the Government any knowledge of any such communication having reached this country from officers other than those on the staff?
    Mr. TENNANT: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. About twelve letters from officers captured at Kut have reached this country, but it is not known if the writers had served on the staff.

    Crown Witnesses (Ireland).
    Mr. ASHLEYasked why the Irish Office, when they became aware in August, 1914, of the excessive expenditure in connection with the five Crown witnesses who were being kept in Dublin, did not take steps to curtail it; who the official was

    1535
    who was responsible; and on what ground the Attorney-General for Ireland in November, 1914, authorised the continuance of an expenditure at a rate which amounted for these five witnesses to £550 7s. 8d. for five months?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The expenditure referred to first came to the knowledge of the Chief Secretary's office on the 24th August, 1914, which, after inquiry, drew the attention of the then Attorney-General for Ireland to the matter on the 2nd September, 1914, with a view to effecting reduction. The other points raised in the question were recently investigated by the Committee of Public Accounts, and I would ask the hon. Member to await the publication of the evidence in regard to them.
    Mr. ASHLEY: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by the publication of the evidence? Who will publish this evidence?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I understand that in the ordinary course the evidence taken before the Committee will be published.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that they published three months ago whatever evidence was given?
    Mr. SAMUEL: That is not my information.

    Accidents in Factories.
    Sir P. MAGNUSasked the Home Secretary if he can state what steps have been taken to give effect to the recommendations of the Committee on Accidents in Factories as to the examination to be passed by applicants for inspectorships; and whether nominations for the inspectorate are now limited to the classes of persons suggested in the Report?
    Mr. BRACE: The revision of the scheme of examination and conditions of nomination was being considered, in consultation with the Civil Service Commissioners, at the outbreak of war, and has had to be suspended for the time being. Meanwhile, no fresh appointments to the permanent staff are being made.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: May I take it that before any fresh appointments to the permanent staff are made nominated candidates for inspectorships will be required to pass an examination in some branch of physical science?
    Mr. BRACE: I will make a note of the hon. Gentleman's desire.

    MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
    That they have agreed to,—
    Saint John's Church, Kingston-upon-Hull, Bill,
    Wakefield Corporation Bill, with Amendments:
    Amendments to—
    Canada Company Bill [Lords],without Amendment:
    That they have passed a Bill, intituled "An Act to provide for the acquisition and management of land by the State for experimental Small Holding Colonies, and to extend the powers of acquisition and management of land by certain Government Departments under the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909; and for other purposes connected therewith." [Small Holding Colonies Bill [Lords.]
    Government of India Bill,—That they propose that the Joint Committee appointed to consider the Government of India Bill do meet in Committee Room A on Wednesday, the 19th of July next, at Eleven o'clock.

    SMALL HOLDING COLONIES BILL [Lords].
    Read the first time; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed.

    STANDING ORDERS.
    Resolutions reported from the Select Committee.

    1. "That, in the case of the Clayton Aniline Company, Limited (Railways) [Lords], Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

    2. "That, in the case of the Conway and Colwyn Bay Joint Water Supply Board [Lords] Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

    3. "That, in the case of the Shropshire, Worcestershire, and Staffordshire Electric Power [Lords], Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

    Resolutions agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. LOUGH: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what Orders will be taken tonight'?
  Mr. SAMUEL: The first three Orders-Royal Marines Bill, Defence of the Realm (Acquisition of Land) Bill, Marriage of British Subjects (Facilities) Bill—and Order 17 [National Insurance (Part II.— Munition Workers) [Expenses].

ROYAL MARINES BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The Royal Marines are engaged for twelve years, and can then be re-engaged for a further period of nine years. Before the War the statutory authority for retaining men after the expiration of either of these terms of engagement was Section 5 of the Royal Marines Act of 1847, part of which read:—
"Provided that if either the first or second term of limited service for which any Marine shall have so engaged shall expire while he is serving on any foreign station, the said first or second term of limited service may be prolonged for such further time, not exceeding two years, as shall be directed by the Commanding Officer on such foreign station."
Commander BELLAIRS: Will the right hon. Gentleman read the whole of that Section?
Dr. MACNAMARA: I am sorry I cannot do that. I have only this extract. In November, 1911, Parliament passed the Royal Marines Act, 1914, which extended the provisions of Section 5 of the Act of 1847 to enable us to hold to extended service for a period of two years all Marines wherever they might be serving. The law, therefore, to-day is that the Act of 1847, amended by the Act of 1914, provides that Marines may be retained two years after their twelve years' engagement expires, and may be retained,
1546
if they re-engage, for two years after their twenty-one years have expired. It is now desired, through this Bill, to extend this still further.
Commander BELLAIRS: Are those powers compulsory or are they at the option of the men themselves?
Dr. MACNAMARA: They are compulsory during the War. It is desired to extend this to the men of both classes— that is to say, the men who have completed their first engagement for twelve years, and the men who have completed their further engagement for nine years— and it is proposed that they shall be liable to continue serving to the end of the War, wherever they may be serving. That is the Bill.
Colonel YATE: Will they be given any bounty?
Dr. MACNAMARA: I am coming to the terms. As regards pay, the rates of pay and conditions of payment will not be affected. Since the Act of 1914 was passed detained pay of 2d. a day has already been extended to Marines under Regulations corresponding to those in force for seamen, and will still be payable during the extended service for which this Bill provides. As regards pension, this Bill will prevent men from being discharged to pension after serving twenty-one years plus the two years' further service provided for in the Act of 1914. If this Bill passes into law they will not be discharged to pension—unless the Board of Admiralty otherwise decide in any case —until the end of the War. This plan of deferring pension in the cases of extended service is already applicable to the Marines themselves for the two years' further service provided for in the Act of 1914, and to the sailors and soldiers. The King's Regulations, I should add, make provision for additions to pension in respect of the extended period of service. There is really nothing controversial in this little measure, which I commend to the House, fully assured that it will at once grant the extended powers now sought.
Commander BELLAIRS: I am rather doubtful as to the powers which exist in respect of this measure. The difficulty which we experience in the House of Commons is that we get a Bill to amend the provisions of the Act of 1914, and, on going back to the previous enactment, we

1547
find nothing in it to explain the position, and we refer further back until we might go back to an Act for building Noah's Ark in order to get what we want before we can begin to interpret what is being proposed. I ventured to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman in his speech because he did not read the w7hole of the Section. According to my reading of Sections 5 and 6—and I call the Attorney-General's attention to this—it is an option, to some extent, on the part of the men whether or not they shall reengage. The latter part of Section 5 of the Act of 1847 deals with the question of notice by the Marines. It is as follows:
"And that any marine who shall give notice to his commanding officer, after completing his second term of limited service, that he is desirous of continuing in Her Majesty's Service as a marine, and being approved by his commanding officer, or other competent authority, may be continued in such service as a marine so long as he shall desire to be so continued, and until the expiration of three calendar months after he shall have given notice to his commanding officer of his wish to be discharged and for that purpose shall be considered in all respects during such time as if his term of service were still unexpired."
Section 6 goes on to say:
"Provided also and be it enacted that if at the expiration of such first or second term of limited service, or of such term of prolonged service, any marine entitled to his discharge being on any foreign station shall not be willing to re-engage, or to continue in Her Majesty's Service, his commanding officer shall, as in the case of marines invalided, take the usual measures with all convenient dispatch for the conveyance of the marine to England, and on the arrival of such marine in England, he shall be finally discharged."
If you want to make your intentions clear you should bring in a Bill declaring your intentions for the War only, instead of referring back to Acts in order to indicate what you want to do. Under the Act of 1847 the marines have certain rights which are not in any way removed by what you did in 1914, or by what you are doing now. I do not for one moment say that the Admiralty are not doing the right thing in claiming the services of these men. It is the right thing. It may
1548
be an injustice, but it is a necessary injustice to which the House is asked to give its assent; at the same time, I should like to say that you are doing this injustice to a corps which is unique almost, and which has never had any blot on it, and which always performed its duty even in the time of the Mutiny, when it succeeded, under Lord St. Vincent, in putting down the Mutiny. In 1755 Lord Anson got the corps established as a permanent force, and that great Admiral Lord St. Vincent said about them half a century later:
"In obtaining for them the distinction Royal, I but inefficiently did my duty. I never knew an appeal to them for honour, courage or loyalty that they did not more than realise my highest expectations. If the hour of real danger should come to England, they will be found the country's sheet anchor."
I think the House ought to see that the Admiralty deals generously with these men who have been, probably, in some cases, twenty-three years in the Service. There is an additional reason why I make this appeal in that the Royal Marines during many years, with the exception of Sir John Colomb who died some years ago, have never had a representative in this House. In asking the House to consider the points I have mentioned, I support the Second Beading of the Bill.
Mr. HOHLER: I think we are justly entitled to consider whether the conditions under which these extensions are made are fair to the Marines. I, for myself, protest against the notion that 2d. per day is adequate extra pay to a man who has served his country either for twelve years or for twenty-one years. In the great majority of cases those affected are married men, and supposing they are killed, as has happened in many cases by virtue of the extensions which have taken place, and as will happen probably again by virtue of the extensions under this Bill, the wives and children receive no benefit whatever, although the men have lost their lives under compulsory extension and with reward merely of 2d. per day. I ask for some undertaking from the Admiralty in respect of this matter, and that they will consider the giving of some greater advantage than that which they are now offering. I believe that the men would prefer that advantage in the form of an increased pension to their widows and children, but I do protest that 2d. per day is quite inadequate for men who are risking their lives, and that something more should be done. It is by no means a fair equivalent to that which

1549
we are giving men who work at home. There is another matter in which a certain number of these men have suffered grievously; I refer to those in the Royal Fleet Reserve who probably joined on the expiration of a first term of a limited engagement, and being called up at the commencement of the War, and having served, have been invalided from the Service with small pensions varying from £10 to £14. Some of those men have been called up again, and have been deprived of their pension, which seems to me to be a great injustice. There are cases where not only have they been deprived of the small pension, but they have been called upon to refund part of that which they have received. I do suggest that when we are proposing to extend the service of the Marines by this Bill, that we ought to see to it that everything that we do is fair and just to the men concerned. There is another class of man, the quartermaster-sergeant pensioner and the quartermaster-sergeant instructor, who have also been called up.
Mr. SPEAKER: Are those Marines?
Mr. HOHLER: Yes, I am strictly confining myself to the Marines. Under Army Orders every man in the equivalent position in the Army gets the position of non-commissioned officer Class 2. For some reason or other the Admiralty refuse to extend that Regulation to quartermaster sergeants and quartermaster -instructors in the Royal Marines. When I tell the House that several of those men have lost their lives on various fronts on which they have been fighting, I do respectfully submit, more especially as it will cost the country nothing, that they ought to extend the benefit of that order to those men, so as to enable them to have the same advantages as are offered to noncommissioned officers in the Army holding similar rank. Let me refer to another very great injustice in regard to the Royal Marines. I doubt if any Members are aware that there are two bodies of the Marines: the Royal Marine Artillery and the Royal Marine Light Infantry. The Royal Marine Artillery is a comparatively small body as compared with that of the Royal Marine Light Infantry. Every first quartermaster in the Royal Marine Artillery has conferred upon him by virtue of power given to the Admiralty the position of honorary major. It can be conferred under Order in Council because the man holds a position of trust
1550
and responsibility. There are only three quartermasters in the Royal Marine Artillery, and the result is that they almost automatically obtain this step in their rank. In the Royal Marine Light Infantry there are three divisions and one depot, and only the first quartermaster in that body gets this step in promotion. There are twelve quartermasters in the Royal Marine Light Infantry as against three in the Royal Marine Artillery, and it seems a great injustice that the first quartermaster of each division and depot in the Royal Marine Light Infantry should not have a like appointment as the quartermaster-sergeant in the Royal Marine Artillery obtains.
4.0.P.M.
I submit that it is most unfair that the Royal Marine Light Infantry should be placed at a great disadvantage as compared with the Royal Marine Artillery. Another matter to which I should like to call attention is the position of the quartermasters. What the Admiralty are now doing will absolutely block promotion in the ranks.
Mr. SPEAKER: These topics are quite outside the Bill. As the hon, and learned Gentleman is aware, this Bill does not deal with any of these matters. It is a very limited Bill.
Mr. HOHLER: I submit that it affects every man retained in the ranks under this Bill if all these matters are blocking promotion. Surely I am entitled on their behalf to argue that if this Bill goes through these matters should be remedied?
Mr. SPEAKER: All I can say is that if I were Chairman of the Committee before which this Bill appeared, and Amendments embodying the proposals of the hon. and learned Gentleman were placed on the Paper, I should rule them all out.
Mr. HOHLER: I quite agree. But I submit that it is pertinent to the question to consider whether we should confer these powers upon the Admiralty in the Bill itself. I admit that I could not possibly raise these points in Committee. As far as I can see, my only method of raising them is as an argument in objection to the principle of the Bill. If you rule me out of order, of course, I will not say anything more on the subject.
Mr. SPEAKER: I will not go so far as to stop the hon. and learned Gentleman. I would only point out that it does

1551
not seem to mc to be using the time of the House to the best advantage to raise a number of points which cannot be dealt with in the Bill.
Mr. HOHLER: I will be very short. The difficulty is to find an opportunity of raising these matters. I can do nothing in Committee, but I think that if the attention of the Admiralty is drawn to these questions now more consideration will be given to them than would otherwise be the ease. With regard to the position of quartermasters, in normal times, under the Admiralty Regulations, quartermasters have to retire at the age of fifty-five. By virtue of the War they are continued in their position. I do not object to that. My point is that they ought to be put on a supernumerary basis so as to permit a steady flow of promotion in the ordinary course of things and the creation of fresh quarter-masters. I ask the Admiralty to consider these points and to do something to I improve the conditions of service under which these men were re-engaged.
Colonel YATE: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us why it is that these Marines who are kept on "are not given a bounty similar to that which is given in the Army? In the Army men who are compulsorily kept on are given bounties ranging from £12 or £15 up to £25. Why should the Marines be treated differently? Surely it is not fair to cut out the Marines from any grant of that sort. Such a bounty would be most welcome to these men, and would be of the greatest help to their wives and families. I should like to support what has been said by the hon. Member for Chatham (Mr. Hohler). I hope that now attention has been called to the matter the pensions of these men will not be touched when they are called up for further service. There is nothing a man dislikes more than any stoppage of his pension. Give him anything extra you like, if he is called up again, but do not touch his pension.
Mr. WING: I should like to associate myself with what has been said by the last two speakers. I hope the Government will deal generously with these men, and by doing something in the way of bounty, pension, or otherwise, soften this enforced service as far as possible.
Mr. SHIRLEY BENN: I wish to call attention to two points. The first is that men who joined the Royal Marines in olden days joined on the understanding that if they remained in the Service twenty-one years they could be kept on for an extra two years if on foreign service. If you keep them longer than two extra years, are' they not entitled to be put in exactly the same position as regards pensions as if the War was not in existence? Keep them on if you need them, but treat them as if they had completed their contract. Secondly, if men have served twelve years and are kept on for more than two years extra, will they have the option of continuing to serve until they have served twenty-one years so as to enable them to get pensions?
Dr. MACNAMARA: I can only speak again by leave of the House, but I shall be glad to reply to the points which have been raised. Naturally, on behalf of the Board of Admiralty, I should like to associate myself most cordially with the very high appreciation of this magnificent old corps expressed by the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Commander Bel-lairs). No words of his, and no words of mine, can adequately measure our indebtedness to this grand old corps. Whether by land or by sea they have always covered themselves with honour. My hon. and gallant Friend used the word "injustice." That is a harsh word. It is not injustice, but a war necessity, and it is borne with equal loyalty and devotion by sailor, by soldier, and by marine. We are asking nothing of the Marines that we have not had to ask from soldiers and sailors. My hon. and gallant Friend also doubted whether we were on safe ground in the method of procedure which we have adopted. There is a great deal to be said for his view that we should not refer back to the beginning of matters—that is, the Act of 1847—we should state all that happens on the face of the Statute itself. As regards the powers we are proposing to take, my hon. and gallant Friend will see that Section 5 of the Act of 1847 provides that if either the first or second term of limited service for which any Marine shall have so engaged shall expire while he is serving on any foreign station he may be kept on for a further two years; and the next Section, to which my hon. and gallant Friend particularly referred as giving the Marine some right or option, contains a phrase

1553
of which I do not think he quite gathered the full significance. It states:
"Provided also … that if at the expiration of such first or second term of limited service, or of such term of prolonged service, any Marine entitled to his discharge being on any foreign station.…"
The Act of 1914 applied that to wherever the man was serving—not only on any foreign station but in home waters if necessary—and this Bill also applies it to wherever a man is serving. Therefore, I think we are on perfectly sound ground. The hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Holder) raised four points, three of which are not affected by this Bill, are not created by this Bill, and are purely matters of administration. Nevertheless, I make no complaint with respect to the questions he put. One of his points—that with regard to pensions—was pressed also by the hon. and gallant Member for the Melton Division (Colonel Yate). It is the same principle that is applied to soldiers and sailors. I must make that clear. There is nothing new in the application of this principle to the Marine. In any case I do not think the injustice is so real as it might seem. Supposing a man dies during the period of his extended service. If his service had not been extended, he would have had his pension. His service is extended, he dies, ho does not get his pension, and my hon. and gallant Friend says that clearly his wife is worsened. It is really not so unjust as it looks. In the one case the man would have had his pension after twenty-one years of service; his wife and he would have shared it. In the other case he and his wife are getting increased pay and she gets a separation allowance during the period. After his death, if the result of war operations, she gets twenty-six weeks' separation allowance and a widow's pension at the end of that period. I think that, in substance, there is really no injustice. With regard to the discontinuance of disability pensions, clearly if a man in receipt of a disability pension is taken on for further service, the reason for the disability pension disappears. We could not very well continue a disability pension to a fit man serving with the Colours. If he seeks to re-enter, we must assume that his disability has disappeared. My hon. Friend has in mind two cases where men in receipt of disability pensions were wrongly called up. It is not our practice to call
1554
up men who are disabled. In two cases men were called up, and, being passed as fit for service, their disability pensions were withdrawn. Since my hon. Friend called attention to the question I have gone into the matter further. We propose that these men should, if they wish, be discharged, and, if they so desire, be resurveyed with a view to resuming their pensions. The other point deals with the grant of warrant officer rank, Class II., to quartermaster-sergeants called up. In a good many cases they are carrying out the duties which carry the rank on active service. However, I will undertake to look into the matter afresh.
Reference was also made to the grant of the honorary rank of major to senior quartermasters. My hon. and learned Friend asks that the rank should be given to the senior quartermaster at each Marine division and depot. The matter has been discussed on more than one occasion, but I will again give an undertaking that it shall be looked into. There is another Department that has to be consulted in this matter. I was also interested to hear the suggestion made that we should get rid of one difficulty in regard to quartermasters, particularly beyond the age of fifty-five, by treating them as supernumerary to the establishment. That is a point that shall be considered. In regard to the question of bounty mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Melton, and what my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Wing) said, it must be remembered that the Regulations affecting the Army and Navy, and Marines, the latter of whom are under the Navy for this purpose, are different. You cannot take out one particular item and say, "Look at this, the soldier has an advantage here, and why should not the Marines and the sailors have the same privileges?" You cannot do that; you must survey the whole field, and look at the matter broadly. There are various considerations which are makeweights, and although I cannot undertake to offer to give what the hon. Members ask, I must not be supposed to allow it to pass for one moment that these men are otherwise than fairly, reasonably, and equitably treated.
Mr. S. BENN: May I inquire if men who are kept on after the fourteen years will be allowed to complete their twenty-one years?
Dr. MACNAMARA: That, is a service matter. What my hon. Friends want to

1555
know is whether men who have engaged for twelve years will be allowed to continue after the War and stay till they have completed their twenty-one years. That would be subject to the exigencies of the Service. Subject to that, I imagine that where the case is a proper one men will be allowed to go forward and obtain a pension, but I am afraid that for the moment I cannot go beyond that.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. Rea.]

DEFENCE OF THE REALM (ACQUISITION OF LAND) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MUNITIONS DEPARTMENT (Dr. Addison): My right hon. Friend the Solicitor-General, who is in charge of this Bill, has asked me to move the Second Reading, in order that he may be able to reply to the various points that may be raised. The House is well aware that large sums of public money have been spent by the Admiralty, by the War Office, and by the Ministry of Munitions in building huts, sheds, factories, and storehouses, and in many other forms, on land for purposes connected with the War. Commonly this work had to be proceeded with rapidly and under emergency conditions. There was no time to investigate separate questions of title, or questions of the purchase price. These things we have had to leave to deal with afterwards. Things have been done at a few moments' notice in the emergencies of the War which in peace time certainly would have involved prolonged and difficult negotiations. The general object of this Bill is to place the State, so far as possible, in a secure position in respect of the expenditure which it has incurred in this work, and to safeguard it against unreasonable and avoidable loss. Millions of money have been spent by the Departments upon the land which they have taken under the Defence of the Realm Act or by virtue of the Royal Prerogative, and it is obviously necessary
1556
in the national interest that there should be power to acquire this land. Often enough the price of the land bears but a very small relation to the total expenditure which has been incurred upon it in factories, buildings, plant, and so on. In some cases that could be mentioned as much as £2,000,000 have been spent upon a relatively small amount of ground taken possession of in this way. It is right to guard ourselves against the contingency which might arise at the end of the War when the Defence of the Realm Acts have lapsed, that these buildings and this plant, which have been provided for at so great a cost, shall be forfeited to the owner of the site.
It will be readily understood that the arrangements which have been made are of a very complex and diverse character. They have been made under all sorts of conditions, in all manner of qualifications, and the agreements and commitments are legion both in their number and in their complexity. Perhaps it may be the most convenient course if I take the scheme of the Bill as printed and comment upon its provisions. The first Clause enables the Crown to continue for a limited time after the War in possession of the land occupied during the War for the purposes of the defence of the realm. This provision is necessary in many cases where it will be neither necessary or desirable to acquire the land, but where it may be desirable to continue in occupation for a short period. For example, at the conclusion of the War, it will not be possible to discharge all the troops immediately. There will be a considerable amount of hut accommodation required, and for a considerable time. Hospitals, stores, and buildings of that kind cannot be cleared rapidly. It will take some time; it may be many months in some cases. Again, there will be cases in which it will be difficult to decide rapidly whether it will or will not be desirable to continue in occupation, or even to acquire the land. One need scarcely point out that the number of cases to be dealt with will be very great, and that they will necessarily require considerable time to be attended to in detail. Again, there will be cases in which, whilst it is not necessary to acquire the land, it may be useful to arrange an extended occupation even beyond the three years. In the first Clause the occupation may be extended to a further term of four years with the consent of the tribunal or commission which

1557
is set up by the Bill. It may, too, be necessary, perhaps, in some cases to erect more huts or to extend the arrangements which are then existing in connection with demobilisation, or for other purposes. So that the continuation of powers exercised during the War is necessary in this connection.
As many representations which have been made to the various Departments indicate—and as I have no doubt will be pointed out in the course of Debate—cases will arise in which some other public interest may be in conflict with the interest of the Government Department concerned, and it is obviously desirable that we should make arrangements, so far as possible, to minimise both the extent and duration of the disturbance. For example, a number of schools have been occupied as hospitals and for other purposes; so have university buildings, workhouses, asylums, and other public or semi-public institutions. We should have wished, so far as possible, that they should revert to their proper use with as little delay as possible, and the Departments have every desire that proper provision should be made for meeting this class of cases. Where land has been offered during the War compensation has been granted under the recommendations of the Defence of the Realm (Losses) Commission, ex gratia; if the occupation is continued after the War a right of compensation is conferred under the Bill. The basis for compensation is direct loss suffered by the claimant by reason of the exercise by the Crown of its powers. Another very necessary provision in this connection is that it should be possible to transfer the powers from one Department to another. The particular cases that we have in our minds, and on account of which this provision is inserted, is that the Ministry of Munitions will, I suppose, cease to exist at the end of the War, and it will be necessary to have power to transfer its undertakings, so far as they are retained, to some other Department—I suppose the War Office.
The Second Clause of the Bill deals with the power to remove buildings, machinery, or plant, which have been erected at the expense of the Department, or with the consent of the Department, at the expense of some person not being a person interested in the land. This provision is necessary, for sometimes it will be required if the Department is to deal equitably in the public interest in cases in which money has been spent on land. Some-
1558
times, of course, it may be necessary and desirable that some or all of the machines should be moved to another factory or some other place, so that this power to remove plant and machinery from land which has not been acquired is essential in the interest of making the best use of what has been provided. We thought it was fair also that this power of removal should be extended to Y.M.C.A. huts, mission huts, shops, and so on, which in many cases have been put up near camps and elsewhere during the War. It is obvious that the removal of buildings and plant, wherever it occurs, may often place the land in a much worse condition than before. Therefore, it is provided that the Government shall either restore the land to its previous condition or pay proper compensation for disturbance. The third Clause will doubtless give rise to considerable discussion, and it is, perhaps, the most necessary Clause in the Bill. It deals with that class of cases in connection with which it will be necessary to acquire land permanently. Sometimes the power to remove buildings will be quite insufficient. In many cases factories of a very modern and well-equipped type have been erected at great cost, and it will be a waste of public money and of our industrial capacity to pull them to pieces. The power of removal will only cover a certain class of cases, and there are many of the kind I have indicated in which it is obviously necessary to safeguard the interests of the State, that power should be taken to acquire the land on which these buildings stand. The power to acquire land under this Clause relates to those cases where land has been taken possession of by the Government, or in cases where it is occupied by some other firm or individual but in which the cost of all the extensions has been defrayed by the State. There are a good many cases in different forms of this kind, and various systems of repayment have been devised in connection with them. Where firms, or others interested in the land, have contributed part of the expenditure upon it, or jointly with the State, then the consent of the tribunal is required before that land can be acquired. Sometimes also, in connection with special types of factories or works, the power of acquiring adjoining land may be necessary. There is for example, a very large air station, and it would be obviously undesirable that tall chimneys, buildings, and so on, should be erected around the

1559
boundary of this very important air station. It is necessary, therefore, that power should be taken to acquire sufficient of the adjoining land as is necessary to protect the interests of the State. This option of purchase may be exercised in the case of land in which possession has been taken during the War, or at any time during that possession. In the other cases it must be either before or within twelve months after the termination of the War, but during that period the Bill provides that buildings, plant, and such-like shall not be removed from the land in question.
Under the provisions of the Bill the power to acquire land does not extend, except by agreement, to public parks, recreation grounds, and so on. I understand, with regard to the case of commons, that agreement means that the Lord of the Manor and the commoners have to be consenting parties, and in the present alert state of public opinion with respect to commons it is very difficult to imagine that agreement would ever be reached. All I can say here is that it is only desired to make reasonable arrangements to meet cases of this kind. There are other cases also which, I am sure, my hon. Friend opposite will say merit special consideration, and I agree with him. For example, in many cases private parks have been given up for camps, parade grounds, and so on, and they have been freely placed at the national disposal without qualification. It would be manifestly unjust to take advantage of the provisions of the Bill in respect of patriotic services of this kind in any arbitrary or unfair manner.
Mr. LOUGH: What about our London parks?
Dr. ADDISON: If the right hon. Gentleman will read the Bill he will see that under Clause 3, Sub-section (7), public parks and public recreation grounds are expressly mentioned. Under Clause 4 the rights of users are acquired. In some cases it must be obvious that what has been done with land for war purposes may have been unfortunate enough to involve a breach of some restrictive covenant or the creation of a nuisance which would entitle the parties to an injunction restraining such user. It is provided that, in determining any compensation which may be payable in respect of these matters, the Commission shall take into account any appreciation of the value of adjoining land as the result of buildings or improve-
1560
ments which have been made upon the land belonging to the owner for war purposes. No compensation will be payable if the; land is used by the Government Department for a purpose for which it could have been used had it been acquired under the Defence Acts or the Military Lands Acts. A similar immunity is conferred upon a purchaser from the Government in such a case if a Government Department certifies that the land is being used in the interests of national defence. It may often happen, where a: nuisance has been created or agreement broken, that the most desirable course to take would be for the Government to buy out the complainant. There is, however, one necessary qualification which, I am sure, should be inserted with regard to these various immunities conferred upon the Government Department, and I will give a case in point. It may easily happen, in consequence of the work carried on in a. Government factory, say, an explosive factory, for an explosion to occur, and damage a considerable part of a surrounding town, and compensation in respect of accidents of that kind is provided for in the Bill.
Then sometimes the best course to take in the interests of national industry would be for the Government to dispose in some way of a part or the whole of the factories which it has created. Therefore it is necessary that there should be a power to sell the property so acquired. Sometimes also such a power may be essential to make the best of some of the very complicated and involved situations which now exist in which a firm has built part of a factory, the Government has added another part, and another part perhaps is jointly provided. Therefore it is necessary in those cases, to consolidate the whole undertaking, that there should be power to sell. There is no desire to make Government Departments into land dealers, but the power to sell is obviously necessary in the class of cases to which I have referred. Sometimes I am afraid it is necessary to do very drastic things and to interfere with the courses of railways, roads, footpaths, and communications of that kind, to make railways in places where otherwise objection would be taken— sidings, and so on—and Clause 6 of the Bill provides for the continuance of the use of light railways, railway sidings, and so on, where it is necessary, subject to appropriate Orders by the Board of Trade.

1561
Then, again, in other cases we have arranged for the supply of water, light, and so on outside the area of the supplying authority. In one case I know of the local authority supplies power and light considerably outside its own proper boundaries. It is obviously necessary that arrangements should be made to secure the continuance of these rights of supply, and that is provided for in Clause 7.
With regard to the Commission which will administer the affairs in the Bill, it has been decided that the Railway and Canal Commission is most suitable for this purpose. It was very undesirable, if we could avoid it, that we should set up another Commission, and I can believe that it might have been assailed with criticism that we were bringing into being another set of officials. Having this Commission available, it was thought most desirable that use should be made of its services. There are, however, a considerable number of qualifications and additions in respect of the powers of this Commission in relation to the particular work of this Bill. It is provided, for example, that, as the Railway and Canal Traffic Acts do not contain a provision that the Commission may have the assistance of assessors the Commission may have such assistance, and it is obviously necessary in cases of this kind that the Commission should have this right. Then the Commission is also authorised to conduct local inquiries by one or two of its members, and it may act by two of its members. The Commission is given a wider discretion in respect of costs than exists under the Railway and Canal Traffic Acts, and in various other matters. The general purpose, so far as possible, is to simplify procedure and to lessen cost. Some time we hope that an equilibrium will be established between income and expenditure, and it may be necessary to provide that the sums required for the purchase of land, being in the nature of capital expenditure, should be raised by borrowing, and with this contingency in view it is provided in the Bill that, until Parliament otherwise determines, the sums shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament. In Clause 10 we have introduced a number of definitions relating to the certificates which may be given by a Government Department, and we have introduced them with the hope that they will avoid a good deal of litigation and dispute in the settlement of cases. Then there are
1562
other provisions in the Bill providing for its application in Scotland and Ireland, and other matters. The Schedule makes various modifications of the Lands Clauses Act.
Sir F. BANBURY: What about Clause 11, and the Central Control Board?
Dr. ADDISON: The right hon. Baronet, knows quite well that the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) was set up in connection with general war purposes, and has felt it necessary in the districts mentioned in the House to-day, and in other places, to acquire land for canteens and so on, and it is necessary that it should have power to hold and purchase land under the general purposes for which Parliament created it.
Sir F. BANBURY: What will happen after the War?
Dr. ADDISON: What will happen after the War I do not know, but the position must be regularised now with respect to the expenditure which has been incurred on the land. In some outlying districts it has been found necessary to put up large buildings for canteen purposes. Otherwise they would not have standing room to get a drink. There will be places in which they can have concerts and entertainments, and this provision is really necessary in these out-of-the-world districts, and we must regularise expenditure incurred in that way. The Schedule provides that the provision of the Land Clauses Act whereby it is made obligatory to sell lands not required for the original purposes of the undertaking shall not apply. In many of these factories—take for example, some of the explosive and aeroplane factories—considerable extensions may be required if the industry is to be carried on, and therefore such extensions must be provided for. Similar power is taken to acquire a portion of a factory if it is found necessary, provided that the Commission is satisfied that this portion can be separated without material detriment to the remainder of the property. Paragraphs (6) and (7) of the Schedule lay down the basis upon which compensation should be paid. The value of the land is taken as being that which the land would have had at the date of the notice to enter if it had remained in the condition in which it was at the commencement of the present War, without regard to any enhancement or depreciation which has arisen during the work of the Government

1563
for war purposes. The general object of that is to secure as far as possible justice, and to provide that the State should not have to pay for any appreciation which its own expenditure has created. It provides the amount of compensation payable and this is an important provision. The Commission is instructed to have regard to the extent to which any adjoining or neighbouring land in which the owner is interested may be benefited by what has been done on the land taken over. In some village districts factories have been built which have cost hundreds of thousands of pounds and it is only reasonable that some regard should be had to the appreciation which this expenditure has brought about. On the other hand, provision is made to respect the agreements, which are very numerous and complex, made either with persons interested in the land or who have contributed towards the erection of works or improvements upon the land. Sections 77 to 85 of the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, contain an elaborate code of provisions with respect to the rights of support which we did not think it necessary to apply in these cases, and we have left the Commission considerable discretion in these matters. With a view to limiting the cost of procedure as far as possible, it is provided that the Commission shall not hear more than one expert witness on either side unless the Commission should otherwise direct, and the Lord Chancellor is empowered to make rules fixing the scales of costs. I think it is clear enough that, having provided the principle upon which compensation should be based, the other provisions in the Schedule are intended to make the procedure of the tribunal as expeditious and as inexpensive as we can. No doubt there will be a good many criticisms on this Bill, and we are anxious to meet all just objections, but obviously those who will look at the situation, in view of the tens of millions of public money which have been spent in this way on the land, will agree that a provision of this kind is essential. I can well believe that the disposition and management of these great properties hereafter will doubtless raise questions of the first importance, upon which there may be material differences of opinion, but it is clear that we should aim, as far as possible, at securing that all this provision of well-equipped establishments, with up-to-date plant and modern and beautiful machinery—arranged, in the main,
1564
according to the advice of the first experts of factory construction and management—should be treated in such a way as to add as much as possible to the enrichment of the manufacturing resources of the country. We shall find hereafter, whatever else we find, that some of the great trades in the country—glass, steel, coal tar by-products, and many chemicals—are equipped with plant and a manufacturing capacity of the most modern type, whilst those in charge of them have called to their aid the best services that science and training can provide. One would like to refer, if the occasion were appropriate, to the immense services which some of these scientific and highly-trained technical men have rendered to the nation in these most vital matters during the War. I am sure the House will agree that it is our duty to take care that all these works of skilled and patriotic effort shall be available for the best uses without embarrassment or delay when the time of peace arrives and the time of that great effort of reconstruction which civilisation will have to make to repair the havoc and ruin of the War.
Mr. MOLTENO: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."
This Bill, as explained by the Under-Secretary, is one of very great importance, and the view from which I approach it is that we have during the course of the War had a great number of things done which, under the stress of a great war, have been accepted by everybody for the time being. But when the War is over it would be a very different matter to perpetuate and continue the various infringements of rights, both public and private, which have necessarily taken place during the course of the War. I am sorry to say that the statement of the Under-Secretary has not removed the principal objections which I entertain to this Bill. There are three main objections to this Bill. In the first place, I regard the tribunal provided as very unsuitable. The Under-Secretary has not given us any reason why that particular Commission should have been selected. He said his object was not to increase the number of the Commission, but he did not once mention the fact that there is at the present time a Royal Commission dealing with these very cases which has dealt with

1565
every kind of interest in regard to this question with the one sole exception of the freehold of the land.
My second objection is that the very cumbrous and out-of-date machinery of the Lands Clauses Act has been introduced into this Bill. I think there is a general consensus of opinion that they are far too cumbrous and involve much expenditure on lawyers and expert witnesses. The Under-Secretary has partly anticipated that, because he has attempted to put in a provision that only one expert witness on each side shall be allowed. I do not know what necessity there was to introduce the Land Clauses Act at all. If the right hon. Gentleman had been upstairs yesterday he would have heard a very interesting deputation from Scotland on this question, and they were unanimous in condemning the method laid down by the Land Clauses Act in regard to acquiring land for public purposes, and I think there should be a much simpler system. It is a very remarkable fact that we have already a most simple process which has been applied hereto to these cases. We have a Commission sitting which has dealt with some of these cases in regard to the very land which is the subject of this Bill, and they have been dealt with most expeditiously, economically, and to the satisfaction of everybody. That is one of the grounds upon which I object to this Bill. My third ground is that there is not adequate provision made for the safeguarding of public rights. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to my Constituency, and that affords a very good illustration of the trouble that will arise if proper provisions are not put into safeguard public rights. Take the question of the pollution of rivers. In the case I have referred to a most serious pollution is taking place now, and I have been told it cannot be avoided.
Dr. ADDISON: I do not accept that as being an accurate statement.
5.0 P.M.
Mr. MOLTENO: I protested against this being done, and I urged that it should not be done, and I was told by those concerned that they hoped it would not do much harm, but that they could not render the fluid innocuous. The Government are acquiring a right to do this, and consequently we may have this public nuisance perpetuated for ever in this locality. The right hon. Gentleman spoke about local control of the buildings erected there. These buildings are being
1566
erected in face of the strongest local opposition, things are being done contrary to the whole policy of Scotland, and it is a policy which has been rejected by the whole of the Scottish Members. I am giving this as an instance where, if proper safeguards are not provided, public rights will suffer. There is the-question of commons—I know other hon. Members will deal with that question, later—where common rights will be lost to the public altogether if this power taken by the Government is exercised. Those are the three grounds on which I object to this Bill. I object to the tribunals, to the introduction of the Land Clauses Act, and to the want of safeguards for public rights and interests. Public interests such as wayleave, highways, locomotion, and so on are put down without the local authorities having any right to say what conditions should be imposed. I do not think, in the public interests, that ought to be continued after the War. Let me say a word or two about the Railway and Canal Commission. It is admitted that it is a very unsuitable Commission. It has no procedure which is suitable to apply to these cases, and that fact is recognised because the Bill gives it power to call in an assessor. What is the Railway and Canal Commission? It is different in Scotland, England, and Ireland. It is composed of High Court judges, with two other permanent members. It has no common, system of procedure, nor any common method of settling matters. It exists for the purpose of settling railway rates and matters of that sort which are entirely foreign to the purpose for which it is now required. We know perfectly well that when the judge sits in Scotland he calla in an assessor. We all know what that means. You have a number of experts giving different views with most unsatisfactory results, as we have seen in the recent well-known Lindean case in Scotland, for the public interest. There is also an appeal to a further Court, and I should like to know whether that appeal is barred in this case, because if it is not we shall have still further delay and expense.
I come now to the tribunal. The House will be surprised to learn that this tribunal, the Defence of the Realm (Losses) Commission, has been sitting for more than a year, and it has dealt with over 1,000 cases of the most complicated and

1567
varied character arising with respect to the very land which is the subject of this Bill. All the circumstances and all the details of these cases are already in the possession of that Commission. Every kind of interest, including the annual value of the land itself, which is now in question, has been ascertained and taken into consideration, and a value has been placed upon it. Nothing would be more simple than to allow this Commission to go on and deal with the freehold interest in the land, and they would be able to tome to a decision with full knowledge. In my own Constituency, where a very large area of land has been taken over, they had the sense and the prescience to have an accurate survey of the land taken before it was touched. There was an exact record made of everything on the land, the rights of the tenant, the buildings and everything, so that it was possible to know precisely what the land was before operations were commenced. How could a new Commission go through that process afresh now that the land has been cut up and divided with roads, railways, and every kind of construction? Why should another Commission go over it all again and ascertain it afresh when the whole thing is known to a body who have proved themselves entirely capable of dealing with the matter? I will give an idea what this Commission has done with this very land. It has already dealt with 1,000 cases. It has dealt with claims for lump sum payments amounting to £500,000. It has dealt with claims for annual payments amounting to £238,000. The Commission, therefore, has the fullest knowledge. It knows the rights of everybody concerned in this very land. No complaint, so far as I have heard, has ever been made against it.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir G. Cave): What is the Commission to which the hon. Gentleman refers?
Mr. MOLTENO: The Defence of the Realm Losses Commission, of which my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Duke) is Chairman. If the matter is handed over to the Railway and Canal Commission, you will have a different body sitting in each country. The procedure will be different, the principles applied may be different, and the decisions may be different. The right hon. Gentleman has said that he is very anxious not to increase expenses, and to simplify procedure. The
1568
Defence of the Realm Losses Commission has simplified the procedure enormously. It has proceeded in such a way as to cut down expenses to a minimum. Every interest in the land with the exception of one has been dealt with by them in the most satisfactory manner. It has done substantial justice to everybody who has suffered, and it has also had a care for the interests of the State by investigating claims which in some cases have naturally been excessive. I do not know why this Commission should now be shelved. Why should this one interest in the land, this freehold interest, be treated on a different footing and a different scale from every other interest? It must give rise to a sense of injustice if you apply to the freehold interest, a wholly different method from that applied to every other interest in the land. I hope the Solicitor-General will tell us why it is necessary to abandon this Commission, which is now doing such good work, which is now in active operation, which has sat for hundreds of days, which is rapidly dealing with the cases coming before it, and which has shown itself so capable. There is no claim, however great, which this Commission has not been able to investigate and to deal with. There is, therefore, no cause for the complicated and expensive and wasteful machinery of the Land Clauses Act which is now introduced. There is no necessity for it. Why, then, whatever Commission deals with it, introduce this antiquated machinery. I suggest, in order to meet these various points, that the tribunal which is now dealing with this very land, should also deal with these interests. I am not averse to acquisition by the State. In many cases the State should acquire the land. I do not know why it could not have done so earlier. I am entirely in support of the Government acquiring the land where they have had an enormous amount of money spent on it altogether out of proportion to the value of the land, a is the case in my own Constituency. I would ask, however, that the public rights should be safeguarded, so that we should not find the Government expropriating public rights and then parting with them again to private interests. If I could get some satisfactory assurance on those three matters, I should certainly be prepared to withdraw my opposition to the Bill.
Mr. RAWLINSON: I beg to second the Amendment. I am afraid my objections to the Bill are more general than those

1569
of the hon. Member who has moved the rejection. I object to it because I do not think it ought to be introduced in its present form. It is called a Defence of the Realm Bill. What possible connection has it got with the defence of the realm? Those hon. Members who were here last night heard an eloquent speech from the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Sir J. H. Yoxall), who said that there was a growing feeling in the country against Departmental Bills and against the Departments which introduced legislation of a highly controversial and objectionable character under the guise of emergency war measures. I rather wish some of the hon. Members on the Front Bench had heard that very eloquent speech last night. I should also like another hon. Member who was here last night to be here to-day. I wish the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Pretyman), who was at one time president of the Land Union, was here to-day. What does he think of this Bill? What would he say if he was in his place to-day and he had to make a speech about this Bill? What would the right hon. Gentleman who is going to reply (Sir G. Cave) have said if this Bill had been introduced when he sat upon this side of the House? He did not open the case for the Government. He allowed his junior to open it, and that hon. Gentleman did it with a courage which I frequently notice is marked among juniors, though leaders do not always have it to the same extent. What would the Solicitor-General have said if he had been standing, as he used to stand not so many years ago, in the place where I am standing now? How I should have cheered his speech when he denounced this Bill in unmeasured terms, as he would have done! What has this got to do with the Defence of the Realm? It is a Bill which is not coming into operation until the War is over.
Sir G. CAVEindicated dissent.
Mr. RAWLINSON: The material and most objectionable parts certainly come into operation after the War. We are asked apparently, as I understood from the hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill, to trust a Government Department. Look at the matter from a concrete point of view. I am not a landowner, and I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman who moved the rejection of the Bill is a landowner or not, but, if he is, no doubt he has granted the use of his park for a particular
1570
purpose. I have known people grant the use, say, of their cricket ground for the purposes of a hospital. Look at their legal rights under this Bill. They have acted from patriotic motives, but how are their rights safeguarded by this Bill? That can be assigned to any other Government Department to which he never intended it to be assigned and then, if the Government like, the whole of it can be taken away from him, and he is to receive compensation. The hon. Gentleman who moved the rejection of the Bill strongly objected to that provision. I also object, but on entirely different grounds. Just read this Departmental Bill: it rather lets the cat out of the bag. According to the Memorandum
"The main object of this Bill is to protect the State, against loss arising from the fact that, in the emergency created by the War, it has been necessary to erect War Office huts, aircraft sheds, munition factories, and other buildings wholly or partly at the expense of the State on land belonging to parties who would, in the absence of special statutory provision, be enabled, at the end of the War, to claim that the buildings belonged to them as having become attached to the freehold."
At whose expense is the State to be protected against loss? Let me take a concrete case. An estate has been taken by the Government for the purposes of an aerodrome. The Government use it during the War, and no one objects to that. But what is intended by this Bill is not that the land or estate shall be handed back to the owner at the end of the War. Instead of that the Government are to be placed in a position to say, "There is now a greater demand for aeronautics, and, therefore, we will sell the estate as a going concern" I wonder what the Solicitor-General is going to say upon one extraordinary Clause—Clause 5—which provides that
"Where any land or any interest therein has, by virtue of this Act, been acquired by any Government Department, the Department may, at any time thereafter, sell, lease, or otherwise dispose of the land or interest"
It will be possible under those circumstances for the land to be sold in the open market with no right of pre-emption for the unfortunate original owner. It is to be sold at whatever profit the Government can make for the purpose of saving

1571
it from loss on this particular matter. I say that the principle underlying the Clause is wrong from beginning to end. There are other provisions which I hold to be equally wrong. The Mover of the rejection of the Bill referred very gently to them. These provisions provide this: The Government have, in certain cases, entered into occupation of what are technically called waste lands, these including most valuable commons in which the public have a deep interest. Let me explain what this Bill does. Up till recent years it has been possible for the lord of the manor and the commoners to agree together to enclose waste land. Technically, they are the only people concerned in this matter. In recent years, however, legislation has been passed preventing the lord of the manor and the commoners agreeing to sell these lands for building purposes and to divide the profits among themselves, because Parliament thought that though, technically, these lands are the property of the lord of the manor and the commoners, yet these beautiful open commons, on some of which there is a large amount of valuable timber, are, in a sense, the property of the nation, and ought not, therefore, to be enclosed or sold with a view to money being made out of them. The Government have necessarily entered into possession of large areas of waste and common lands, and under this Act they take power to agree with the lords of the manor and the commoners. Section 3, Sub-section (7), reads:
"This Section shall not authorise the acquisition otherwise than by agreement of any land subject to any right of common or of any public park or any public recreation ground."
But, of course, the lord of the manor and the commoners will, if they are to get anything out of it, naturally agree to the sale of the land, and the Government will be in a position to sell at any price they choose in order that the State may be protected against loss. Is that a principle which the Solicitor-General can possibly defend in this House? I submit that it is an absolutely indefensible principle, and that there is no proper protection in this Bill against objectionable proceedings of this sort. I am not entering into details now, because if the Government press this Bill further—which I hope they will not do—there will be ample time to deal with them. The only defence to this Bill is the fact that in certain cases the Government
1572
have built huts and other erections on other people's land. But a very different type of measure could be brought in to deal with that difficulty, and certainly a Bill of this character is not necessary at all. If I were to go into detail I should object very strongly to the proposal to entrust the administration of this Bill to the Commission presided over by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Exeter (Mr. Duke). Whatever that Commission was intended to do it certainly was never created to deal with matters of this kind. I have a word to say in favour of the despised Lands Clauses Acts.
There are certain protections under those despised Acts which are very valuable indeed, and this Bill, in introducing the Railway and Canal Commission, is certainly doing a great injustice to people whose land is about to be taken. After all, the Bill really introduces arbitration; but under it the arbitrator is called an "officer appointed by the Railway and Canal Commission." He is to hold an inquiry, one expert witness only is to be heard, certain scales of costs is laid down, and certain economies are insisted upon. Under the Lands Clauses Acts, however, you get a real arbitrator appointed. Surely the landlord should have some voice in the appointment of the arbitrator who is to deal with his property. We are told that certain economies are to be carried out in the usual way and rules are laid down to deprive the applicant of more than a certain amount of costs. That is a very taking proposition to put to the House. No one, of course, has a good word to say for lawyers. But just for one moment put yourselves in the position of a man whose land or property is about to be taken. He wants his case properly put before the tribunal. Is the Government going to economise in this matter? No; the Solicitor-General will appear for them. The economy is only to be enforced on the landowner whose case is about to be heard. We know how these scales of costs work, and I therefore urge the House not to be led away too quickly by this idea of economy. The important thing is that both sides should have a fair hearing—the Government on the one side and the landowner on the other. These are points which will have to be taken into consideration if the Bill is to be made a permanent Bill for dealing with property which is for the time being in the possession of the Government for particular emergency

1573
purposes. I say there is no necessity for a Bill of this kind. It is thoroughly wrong in principle, and all the Government require could easily be secured by a measure on totally different lines. We ought not to give such powers as are contained in this Bill to any Government Department. I am voicing the claims of a class to which I do not belong—the landowners whose land has been taken. There are also those who are interested in the goodwill of businesses. I hope the Government between now and the Committee stage will consider whether it is not desirable to drop this Bill and to substitute for it one of a more moderate character.
Mr. BRUNNER: I do not think the Government quite realise what a big Bill this is. It has been brought in, I suppose, mainly at the instance of the Ministry of Munitions, which has spent many millions of money, either jointly with others or on its own account, in putting up munition factories. They have been put up in a great hurry on sites acquired on uncertain tenures, and it is quite reasonable, to my mind, that the Government should have some means of recovering from the landowners the money which has been spent, and which, without some such Bill as this, would, in the ordinary course, pass to the landowners. But this Bill depends for its success upon the way in which it is administered. The House ought not to put unreasonable powers into the hands of any Government Department, and I certainly do not think a Government Department ought to demand such powers. In many respects this Bill asks for unreasonable powers. The hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson) said that the Bill need not come before us now. I am sorry to say on that point he has made a mistake. It does come before us now, and as far as my information goes, Ministry of Munitions intends to upon it directly it is passed.
A point which I wish to bring most strongly before the House arises on Clause 3, which enables the Government to acquire land permanently. The factories which have been put up by the Ministry of Munitions are now probably turning out a hundredfold the requirements of the Army and Navy in peace time. A great many of the factories will have to be pulled down, others may be turned to other uses. Are the Gover-
1574
ment going to buy the land upon which are built the factories which will have to be pulled down? They do not know at the moment what they will want when the War is over. They do not know what sort of peace is going to be arrived at. They do not know how many men it will be necessary to keep under arms, or what munition factories it may be requisite to retain in working order. I hope the House will say with no uncertain voice that there is to be no hurry in this matter, and that the Government are to wait until after the War. Clauses 1 and 2 give the Government ample powers to safeguard their interests, and until the War is over they have no right to push munition factories and others into litigation. Those who are running munition factories to-day are working day and night. One hon. Member gave us an instance where the manager of a munition factory had put a bed in his office in order to carry on his work. Litigation is, as the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson) knows, an enormous burden on a business man. It will be an enormous burden on the Ministry of Munitions and upon those who manage munition factories, which the Government has no right to put upon them at the present moment.
In Clause 3 there is nothing to safeguard existing agreements. I know that in some cases the Government has agreed to clear out when the War is over. That is one of the terms upon which the work is being done for them. Under this Bill that agreement can be overridden. The Government might buy the factory, having already an agreement to clear out. The Government should put in an Amendment to safeguard existing agreements. Above all, I hope there will be no haste in buying land. That, in many cases, would be throwing good money after bad. I am very glad the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University raised the question of commons. I do not quite know whether I can agree with him on a point of law. Clause 3, Sub-section (7), to which he refers, says that no land shall be acquired otherwise than by agreement. I am advised that that means that if you agree with the lord of the manor the commoners will have to come under the Lands Clauses Acts, so that the commoners will not have any say in the matter. Their rights will be extinguished under the Lands Clauses Acts. I am sorry to say that the representative of the Ministry of Munitions

1575
did not give me any satisfaction in what he said in regard to common land. If it is a fact that under this Bill commoners' rights can be extinguished under the Lands Clauses Acts, an Amendment must be made in Clause 3, Sub-section (7). Everybody knows that if the commoners' rights are taken away from them the holding becomes practically valueless. Against the wishes of a commoner you may take away his rights and leave him with his small holding, which will then be of no value. I hope we shall have from the Solicitor-General an assurance that the Government are not going to take any commons. If my advisers are right, it is impossible under the Lands Clauses Acts to ascertain who are commoners. Moreover, the rights of the public are absolutely ignored.
Mr. RAWLINSON: Hear, hear! That is the point.
Mr. BRUNNER: Therefore the Government—the War Office, or any other Department—can take away commons, extinguish the commoners' rights, and sell the land for building purposes. I am afraid we cannot quite trust a Government Department in this matter, because I find that already the War Office has seized part of a common.
Mr. J. M. HENDERSONmade an observation which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
Mr. BRUNNER: It is permanently in this one case I am going to bring to the notice of the House. They have taken four acres of Horsell Common for a Mahomedan cemetery. It is obvious that, having buried there some of our Indian friends who have fought with us in France, it is impossible to acquire this piece of common for the public again. The War Office have taken a piece of the common and paid £20 for four acres—I suppose because it was cheap. I cannot see any other excuse for it, except that they got a cheap piece of land. From answers given in the House yesterday in regard to two commons, I see that the War Office have no intention of taking common land. I hope we may get a definite assurance from the Solicitor-General when he replies that that is the case; otherwise I am afraid I shall have to register my vote against the Second Reading.
Sir F. BANBURY: I read the Memorandum to this Bill a day or two ago and
1576
thought there was not very much harm in it. The first part of the Memorandum says that the Government desire to have power to acquire certain buildings which they have erected and which otherwise might be claimed by those on whose land they were erected. That seemed to be a most reasonable proposal, and I did not read the Bill any more. I trusted to my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, and thought it was unnecessary to trouble any more about the matter. But I have had one or two communications made to me, and I read the Bill this morning and have completely altered my opinion. The Memorandum does not correctly state what is in the Bill. The Bill goes very much further than what is in the Memorandum. Anyone reading the Memorandum would hardly come to the conclusion that the Bill enacts what it does. Fortunately, the Bill seems to have-offended everybody. I have a memorandum, here from the Association of Municipal Corporations, who are very strongly opposed to the Bill. There is also a very large number of members from all quarters of the House who have put down their names to move the rejection of the Bill. I have also had communications from other people and other societies objecting to the Bill.
First of all, I would like to point out to the House, and to the country, that this has nothing whatever to do with the War. The War will not be advanced an iota if this Bill is passed or if it is rejected. In fact, it is a distinct breach of the truce, because it introduces all sorts of things which have nothing whatever to do with the War, and which are very objectionable. I will give the Government at once an instance of that sort. I know there is a certain number of Members who quite sincerely, and probably rightly, advocate the view that betterment is a good principle and should become the law of the land. On the other hand, there are some Members who hold that that idea is wrong—that betterment is unjust, and that it should not be the law of the land. We have had great controversy on that subject. It is a controversial question, yet this Bill introduces betterment pure and simple, and a very bad form of betterment.
Sir G. CAVE: Where?
Sir F. BANBURY: In paragraph 7 of the Schedule and in Clause 4.
Sir G. CAVE: That is not betterment.
Sir F. BANBURY: That is only another case of how controversial this subject is, because there was always a doubt as to what was betterment. The supporters of it said that this or that was not betterment, and those opposed to it entertained the opposite view. There can be no doubt that what this Bill, when it says that the tribunal in considering the compensation to be paid to the owner of the land is to consider what advantage the erection of certain buildings has given to the owner of land and are to deduct that advantage from the price, does introduce betterment. If that is not betterment, so far as I am concerned I do not know what it is. It may be right or wrong, but it is a controversial matter and should not be introduced now. There has always been an old-established law that if a person, even the Government, erected buildings which caused a nuisance to his neighbours and depreciated their property he should have to pay. This Bill does away with that. The Government may erect buildings which are a nuisance. They may erect them during the War, when everybody has to submit to nuisances. This Bill perpetuates the nuisance. All the emergency legislation we have had during the War bas dealt with the period of the War or a year after its conclusion. This Bill deals with a period of three years after the War, which can be extended to another four years, making it seven years, and in some cases it is permanent and deals with the matters concerned for all time.
On what earthly ground is the Liquor Control Board introduced into this Bill? What on earth has the Liquor Control Board to do with the defence of the realm? It may be quite necessary at the moment that the people engaged upon munitions and, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions told us, the workers in munition factories should be able to have, I think he said, "a glass." I am glad the hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division (Mr. Leif Jones) was not here, because he would at once have disagreed with him. With that I agree, but because that is necessary why should the Liquor Control Board—about whose proceedings there has been a great difference of opinion in all quarters of the House, and especially among certain Members below the Gangway opposite, as to whether or not they were doing what they ought to do—why should the Liquor Control Board be deemed to be a Govern-
1578
ment Department? That is a new thing altogether. We thought that the Liquor Control Board was started in order to do certain things for the War, and that it was a special body, like one of the numerous committees, set up for the period of the War, to deal with things during the War. Now we are told it is to be deemed to be a Government Department, and as such it can buy and sell land and buildings. What on earth has that to do with the defence of the realm, or with the War? Surely anything dealing with temperance or the acquisition of public-house property is a controversial subject which ought not to be introduced now. It should be deferred and introduced when the War is over and when the House has got back to the state it was in before the War.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson) gave the case of an aerodrome. It has been brought to my notice that there is an aerodrome, possession of which has been taken by the Government. I believe they have not at present paid anything for it. There is one other case, if not several cases in a similar position. Under this Bill the Government may, at the end of the War, when there may be a very great boom in aeronautics, take possession of this aerodrome, and having got possession of it, they may sell it to a rival. People may have let the Government take property during the War for which they have not been paid, yet at the end of the War they may have the property taken away from them, and find that a rival is installed in their place.
I have a case with which the City Corporation are concerned. I will not go into it at great length, because it is more or less a Committee point. The corporation, having entered into negotiations with the War Office before the War and having practically come to an agreement that they should receive a rental of £10,000 a year for the Deptford Market, have, since the War broke out, very patriotically said, "Our market is at your disposal." The War Office took it over and spent considerable sums of money on it, but they have never paid a single farthing to the Corporation, which has to pay charges on it. They have never paid the £10,000 a year which they agreed to pay, and when they have been pressed for the agreement all they have done is to bring in this Bill. There was no written agreement, but there was an understanding.
Sir G. CAVE: My right hon. Friend is aware, as I am, that there was no agreement entered into to pay £10,000 a year or any other sum. The matter is still under negotiation. I hope it will be concluded very soon.
Sir F. BANBURY: There was no agreement, of course, but my information is that there was a verbal understanding which would have been carried out if the War had not broken out, and then the Corporation at once, without proceeding any further, handed over the market. I am sure my right hon. Friend agrees with me that they have behaved well. I only instance this as one of many cases under which hardship has occurred, and which ought to be met. Then Clause 6 takes very great powers. By it it is proposed that where any railway or tramway has been made along any public highway for purposes connected with the War it may continue to be used and maintained after the War subject to such conditions as the Board of Trade may prescribe. That is a very serious thing. A large number of light railways have been made along the public highway to the great inconvenience of many people, who naturally have said nothing. They are willing to submit to any inconvenience during the War, but why should all this be perpetuated after the War? I really cannot conceive how the Government can have imagined that any House of Commons would consent to this Bill. If I may give some little advice to the Government, might I suggest that their best course would be to withdraw the Bill, and then if they brought in a short Bill to carry out the first part of the Memorandum and to give them power to remove buildings which they have erected, and which, under the ordinary law of the land, would become the property of the landlord, they would have all the powers for compulsory purchase, under the ordinary law of the land, which they need at the moment, and they might so draw the Bill that in case of their acquiring any land it should be understood that they were not to pay for the buildings which they themselves had erected. That would, I think, be a reasonable course. It would meet all the requirements of the Government, at any rate for the present, and would enable this House to consider, when the War is over, what the real requirements of the Government are. We do not know what is going to happen after the War, and we certainly should not have controversial legislation
1580
of this kind introduced during the War. I do not know whether the Government will later on give any indication that they are prepared to accept such a course, but I hope if they do not that the House will divide against the Bill and reject it.
Sir RYLAND ADKINS: The Government will well understand the gravity and temper with which this Bill has been received in all parts of the House, for this, as far as I know, is the first Bill which has been brought in to deal with the period after the War, the period of transition. It is very difficult to secure legislation which shall be fair to all parties and interests and at the same time which shall not give undue powers to a Government Department over that which they had before the War. During the period of the War everyone in this House, and I think everyone in the country, is perfectly willing to give the Government as a whole, or to any Department of the Government, anything which we are told is necessary for the Defence of the Realm. In ordinary times of peace there will arise again a feeling, which has been growing for a number of years, and growing on very good ground, against the tendency of Government Departments to acquire powers, which Parliament can to a very limited extent control, and put those Departments into a position not in accord with the best traditions of our Constitution. It is obvious that between the time of war and the time of peace and resettlement there must be a transitional period. The powers properly given to the Government during time of war are powers which may be exercised to some extent during the immediate period after the War. When the first Bill comes before the House which does deal with that transitional period, it surely demands the most careful inquiry from all parts of the House, and there is a very great responsibility upon the Government that there snail be nothing in such a Bill which shall reawaken this jealousy of Departmental power, or which will have even the appearance of trying to prolong into the peace period powers granted only for the war period under war conditions.
I am only concerned now with one aspect of this Bill, and that is the attitude which it takes up with regard to local authorities. Throughout the whole of this Bill, as far as I can judge, with the exception of a couple of lines which deal, with parks, there is no reference to the fact that there are such things as local

1581
authorities who own land and buildings of all kinds, and own them for different reasons, and are in a different position from ordinary private owners. They are held by public authorities in the public interest and for the discharge of statutory duties. I conceive it to be a very unwise and disastrous thing if the provisions of this Bill, as they stand, are to be applied to the property of local authorities without great amendment and modification brought into the Bill. Local authorities have allowed their schools and playgrounds, and all kinds of property belonging to them, to be used by the Government during the time of the War for any purpose the Government desires, and quite properly so, but it is a very serious thing indeed if any such property is to be taken by a Government Department for use after the War on anything but the most rigid terms, and without any specific enactment that the necessary uses of such property by a local authority shall be preserved at all costs. In other words it seems to me that it is not right that a Government Department, in disposing of some business which it has very properly set up during the War, should interfere a day longer than is imperatively necessary with the natural use of such property by a local authority. This has been discussed both by the Municipal Corporations Association and by the County Councils Association, and there will be a considerable number of Amendments put down if the Bill passes Second Reading. I desire to take the first opportunity to enter this caveat, and to say I hope my right hon. Friend will tell us that the duties of local authorities are to be studied as carefully as the duties placed upon the Government for gradually getting out of these undertakings and commitments into which they have entered during the period of the War. The Bill as it stands does not secure that, but if my right hon. Friend will give assurances they will be welcome. We hold that the very initial power contained in this Bill shall only be given, if it is given—and I attach great weight to the criticisms which have been delivered against the principle of the Bill in different parts of the House—subject to the provision that no land or property belonging to a local authority shall be subject to this Bill if required by the local authority to carry out efficiently its statutory duties, or unless proper substituted provision is made
1582
by the Government Departments concerned for that purpose.
One other thing I should like to say which bears especially upon local authorities—that is, the provision in this Bill by which if a Government Department, having bought land or property of this kind, finds it does not want it, it may pass it on to another Government Department. Whatever happens to the rest of the Bill, that Clause must go. It is intolerable that powers given in war time for war purposes should be used to get hold of property, whether public or private, and should be handed about from one Government Department to another, entirely detached from all the securities and procedure which are proper in peace time. I hope my right hon. Friend will make it clear that that particular Clause is not of the essence of the Bill which he and his advisers have presented to the House. There will be a disposition to watch very closely legislation with regard to the transitional period. There will also, I am confident, be a disposition to meet the Government as far as possible, but that disposition will be checked and not helped if there is the slightest indication of any attempt to get fresh permanent powers for the Department, or if there is any indication of a desire to get powers in connection with one specific enterprise used by other Departments for other matters not foreshadowed in the Bill itself.
6.0 P.M.
Mr. L. HARDY: I think the criticisms against the Bill are rather infectious, and I am afraid I must fall in with the general stream. I certainly object to the Bill on three grounds. First, it gives to a Government Department powers which I do not think the House has ever yielded before, and which I do not think it ought to yield. I think it also has taken no consideration for the public authorities and it omits all consideration for private owners, who certainly ought to be considered in connection with this matter. So far as the Department is concerned, I think we find in every Clause and in almost every line of the Bill the determination—the right hon. Gentleman said he wanted to make the procedure easy and cheap—to make it easy and cheap by deciding the matter beforehand and by securing in the Clauses of the Bill that in any settlement that is come to it is almost impossible for anyone to raise anything afterwards. The very first words of Clause 1 read: "During the course of the

1583
present War any land in the possession of any Government Department." The fourth Clause says any Government Department may pass to any other Government Department any land it is in possession of. The War is continuing and may continue for a considerable time. The Government desires to get a Bill of this nature first, and then to buy any land they want and to transfer it between themselves for any purpose which may come into their mind hereafter. I think it has been a standing rule that the House has not granted powers to a Government when the Government cannot say what it is going to vise those powers for. The Government has to explain what it wants powers for, and then Parliament grants the powers. In this case that is not so. The Government is asking for powers which it will not describe the use of. It is going to reserve to itself the power to make up its mind later how to deal with the land which it may take after the passing of the Act and, in fact, to give itself a perfectly free hand to deal with the matter entirely according to its own sweet will. That is a power which I do not think this House has granted in the past. I do not think it ought to grant it in the present or in the future. I certainly consider that in this Bill all through there is too much tendency to get a decision in favour of the Government and to take every power in order that they may override public and private rights. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) alluded to the Memorandum. I would like to give one instance from the Memorandum which seems to me not to be at all a fair thing to put before the House of Commons. Paragraph (4) says:
"‖The Lands Clauses Acts will apply, but modifications are introduced to prevent holders of land acquired and of neighbouring lands benefiting by the improvement in value of their lands."
That is the description in the Memorandum, but when we get to the Schedule, where the Lands Clauses Acts are modified, the 6th Rule says:
"In determining the amount of compensation the value of the land shall be taken to be the value … without regard to any enhancement or depreciation in the value."
1584
Therefore, while they say in the Memorandum that they are only modifying the Lands Clauses Acts to prevent the owners of the land acquired from benefiting by the improvement in value in connection with the buildings they put up, when we get to the Schedule they add depreciation, so as to prevent any holder, whether public or private, obtaining any compensation whatsoever for the very great depreciation which may take place in connection with his land through the works having been put upon it.
Sir G. CAVE: I think the right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the meaning of that Clause. The reference in the Memorandum is to Rule 7 of the Schedule.
Mr. HARDY: It alludes to the Schedule and the modifications and undoubtedly depreciation do come in under Rule 6 of the Schedule. I am not a lawyer and, therefore, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is better able to give an opinion, but it certainly reads very much as I put it. I do not think the Memorandum is full enough if it is intended to apply only to Rule 7 of the Schedule. In regard to public authorities under Clause 1 of the Bill there is really no provision for giving them any rent during the years that the Government may require their land, nor does it provide for what the public authorities should do during that interval in order to carry out the Statutory duties that are thrown upon them. There is the case of a workhouse which has been taken and where temporary arrangements have been made during the War in order to avoid difficulty and to cover emergencies. What help are the Government going to give to that public authority during the War in order that they may be able to carry out their Statutory duties in that respect? The same remarks apply to a lunatic asylum, or any institution of the same kind. The public authorities are naturally very anxious upon that subject, but on this and on other subjects they find the Bill is drafted entirely against them. Take the question of roads. The Government are to be given absolute power for the use in future of any tramway which has been laid over any public highway. It may very possibly happen that the Government desire subsequently to sell the factory with the road and tramway leading to it, and they might set up a private concern to compete with other private concerns, and give most valuable rights over the road which were only granted purely for emergency purposes.

1585
Take the case of water. During the War great demands have been made upon the smaller water companies. I know of an instance myself where they have had to supply camps, and the consequence of supplying the camps is that the ordinary users of water have had to go without, or to have small quantities. They are compelled to continue to supply the authorities which lie outside their area, a supply which may cause great shortage to those who before the War had the right not only to water, but gas, or lighting of that sort. Clause 4 seems to me to be an extraordinary strong Clause, such as we have not seen before. That Clause perpetuates any nuisance that may have been caused in consequence of emergency during the War. I have been on the Parliamentary Committee of my county council, and I have a case in mind which I know very well, because it comes from my district, so that I am personally connected with it in a double way. At a certain camp there has been no provision made up to this moment for properly dealing with the sewage of the camp. They have contributed nuisance after nuisance upon the land. They have polluted every source of water, and we have been unable—either the county council or any sanitary body—to obtain up to the present any proper dealing with this matter. Is this nuisance to be continued and to be allowed to be carried on under this Bill? Is that one of the rights of user or casements which is to be connected with these camps, which may be sold to anybody? It seems to me to be a most extraordinary power to grant, and one which the House ought to be very reluctant to grant. I think that Clause 4 should come out altogether; it goes far beyond anything we have been asked to do in other times, and may cause very great difficulties in future. There has been some reference to the question of commons. Sub-section (2) of Clause 2 seems to be a rather dangerous one in connection with commons. In many cases commons have been used in connection with camps, and there has been a, good deal of work done in the making of trenches and other things connected with the exercise and training of troops. I think in the case of commons it should be insisted upon that all that sort of work should be made right and that the Government should not be allowed to pay compensation and leave the commons to their present condition. It would not be a very serious matter to put them right. I think we ought to insist
1586
that all the commons which have been used for this purpose should be put practically in the state they were in before the War, otherwise almost in every case of the commons, the value of the land being small, it would probably be decided that compensation should be paid instead of restoring the land to its condition before the War. That is a matter which the Government should consider in order that we may have our commons restored to us as they were before.
It seems to me that the suggestion made by my right hon. Friend below me is the only one that ought to be followed in connection with this Bill. The actual needs of the case are met by the powers which are included in Clauses 1 and 2; and others go far beyond the necessities of the case at the moment. They are powers which I do not think this House has granted in the past, and which I do not think it ought to grant in the immediate future. You are dealing with a number of different things which do not want the same treatment. There is not the same treatment required for the great munition works as for the hut camps which are scattered over the country, which come under an entirely different category. The same treatment is not required for these two classes of subjects. It is quite right for the Government to safeguard their rights, but I do not think they need to have gone further than in the early stages of the Bill. What do the Government intend to do with the agreements that have been entered into with private persons when they have taken over these lands for camps, or otherwise? Private persons allowed them to go on their property, and they took the land and entered into an agreement which had the authority of the Compensation and Losses Committee, and was eventually carried through under their sanction. These agreements are in force at the present time. Is it the intention of the Government that this Bill shall upset every condition laid down in those agreements, and that there is to be a rending asunder of all these contracts that have been made?
Mr. HENDERSON: I do think that this Bill is an attempt to get power under the pressure of the War which I do not think the Government would ever dare to come to the House and ask for after the War. I think it is very necessary that for the purpose of munitions they should be able to acquire land for their factories, so that the factories may

1587
be their own freehold after the War. I agree with that, but they have done it already under agreement. I can point to one agreement where they have built a factory and furnished the machinery on land belonging to the owners of a factory, and they have undertaken by agreement that they are to purchase that land by agreement or arbitration. Therefore they have got power already. This Bill gives the Government enormous powers in the same way as the Munitions of War Acts give the Government enormous powers; powers of such tyranny that no King in the most perilous times of our history would have dared to apply. Of course, we have agreed to them because of the necessities of the War, but this sort of thing must not be carried too far. I have in my mind the case of a common which lies between a village and a township. The War Office have taken this common and have cut it up and made it into a shooting range, where they have erected sixty or severity shooting butts, with the result that the road which lies between the township and the village is shut up to the villagers, except for two hours per day, one in the morning and one in the afternoon, because shooting takes place across this road. What happens? The military say, "We are going to have this as a permanent shooting range. It is a good shooting range, and we are going to keep it." The lord of the manor is in the Government, and they go to the lord of the manor, and this common is to be shut up, and these villagers, whose only road this is to the township or into the country, will be effectually shut out from communication with the township except for two hours a day. That is a monstrous thing. The road was made at great expense.
This Bill gives the Government power to acquire and make perpetual railway roads across roads. In one place I know, there is a railway which runs across a main road towards a cliff. I went there one day and found that they had taken a bit of my land, without saying, "By your leave." I went to the War Office and said, "You have taken something from me without saying a word about it. If it is only for the duration of the War, you are welcome to it; but I am not going to have it after the War. It spoils my amenities". What I object to is anything which gives them power for acquiring land which they would not come to this House to ask for
1588
if there was not a war on. By all means let them have whatever is absolutely necessary for the War. The House will grant that very freely, and all who have land which is required will give it freely. But to force the purchase of land like commons, which would not be agreed to by this House, should not be attempted. Therefore, so far as that is concerned, this Bill will have to be cut down before it will pass or ought to pass. The House would not for a moment object to give power for acquiring what is really necessary, but to give powers to shut up roadways and apply to the Board of Trade to fix the compensation to be given, and to make arrangements for bridges and these abominable things called level crossings, is something to which this House would not agree. I have found that if you give these Departments powers they use them in a very arbitrary manner. There is a pliability on the Front Bench during the progress of a Bill through the House; but when a Bill is on the Statute Book you have got a hard taskmaster to deal with. This Bill, if it is to pass, will have to be radically altered.
Sir G. CAVE: I have listened with very great attention to the Debate, and I think that the House will be disposed to agree with me that in asking my right hon. Friend to introduce the Bill and in reserving my remarks I exercised a wise discretion, for there is a noticeable number of critictisms on the Bill—mainly, I think, raising Committee points, but points, I agree, of great importance—which require consideration. I think that I shall save the time of the House by saying what I have to say at once, so that we may not rediscuss matters.
Just a few general words. First we are told that this is not a Bill connected with the War. That is only partly true. To some extent it will come into operation at once. In the main I agree that it is a Bill brought in in contemplation of peace—that is, a Bill which refers to what will happen immediately the War ceases. But suppose we had brought in no such Bill as this, and that peace had come with no provision at all as to what will happen to these properties upon which public money has been spent? The effect would have been that all this enormous expenditure by the Government on these many properties, amounting to many millions of pounds, would have passed, or might have passed, to the owners of the

1589
lands without any right whatever to the Government at all to retrieve their expenditure, and we should have been told at once that we had neglected our duty in not looking forward and making a provision of this kind. It is a Bill that must be brought in, I think, during war time. At the same time, I do not at all dispute that it must receive the full consideration of the House, and that the points which have been referred to should be very carefully considered, not wholly upon a war footing, but upon a footing which would be wise in time of peace.
The second point is this. The main purposes of the Bill have not been attacked at all. They are these: First, the Defence Departments, which are mainly concerned with the Bill, desire to make sure that whereas in war time we have made provision for the manufacture of material necessary in time of war, these arrangements shall not be at once closed down. The Departments want to look forward and be able to say, "True, we have peace, but for some purposes this work must go on." They want to be able to keep their hand on these lands and, if need be, to buy them and to make provision for continuing these operations. Further, I do not think it unfair to suggest that, having spent these very large sums of public money on the lands of other people in time of war when no permanent arrangement could be fairly made, we should be able now or in peace time to say, "We want to save our expenditure; we want to keep this land, and we ask for the right to continue the user of it for a certain time, or, if need be, to buy the land." On the other hand, I quite accept the view that in dealing with these matters we must act carefully and fairly. We must deal with the difficult task of reconciling public necessity and private interests. We have to face cases like that referred to by my hon. Friend who has just spoken. There are some who have personal interests in the matter which enable them to be acute critics of the Bill, but they are not going to put their personal interests first. We are dealing with the matter on public grounds. Surely this is right. In considering how the Bill affects public interests we must give them the fullest protection, and on the other hand, in dealing with private claims, we ought to give full and fair compensation. Subject to that, I do not think that private interests
1590
ought to stand in the way. With that preface, I will deal with the several points which have been raised.
I will take the question of commons, first because I know that it arouses very wide interest, and I share in that interest myself. I have noticed with the greatest satisfaction with how much willingness the public and those who have the use of common lands have stood by and assented while their common lands were used for war purposes. They have shown the greatest consideration to the Government and the greatest patience in seeing these operations going on. I agree that we ought not to take an unfair advantage of a spirit of that kind shown in this country in time of war, and I have very much sympathy with what has been said about commons from all parts of the House. The object of Sub-section (7) of Clause 3 of the Bill was that no common land should be taken without the consent of all parties interested in the commons, including the commoners. That may or may not be the effect of the Bill, but that was the intention. So far we are almost all at one, but some hon. Members, including my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cambridge University, have gone further and have said that, even though we get the consent of the owner of the land and of all the commoners, they object to any taking of commons. I have a great deal of sympathy with that view. Some of us have been a little reluctant to go so far as to prohibit entirely the taking of commons, because there are cases in which such a principle would carry you very far. You may have cases where there has been, say, a camp established on common lands, where a community has grown up, where shops have been opened, and there has been a regular settlement in consequence of the establishment of this war camp. The camp itself has been built, and a water supply and everything else have been provided at very great expense. In such a case it may be that everybody in the place would say, we would rather have the camp with all these accompaniments than have our peaceful common back. There may be some cases where the local people would say that. I am only explaining why this matter does require very careful consideration. Still, I quite see that there may be interests greater than the local interests. I think that the House takes the view that we shall not purchase commons under this Bill at all,

1591
and I am willing to accept that. That is, we will extend Sub-section (7) of Clause 3 either by leaving out the words "otherwise than by agreement," or in some other way, so that we cannot under this Bill take common lands by purchase. In that way I think we shall satisfy even the most vigorous critics of this part of the Bill. At the same time, everybody recognises that we cannot give away the existing powers under the Defence Acts and the Military Lands Acts. All we can do is to exempt commons from this Bill.
Then there is the question of lands held by municipalities mentioned by some hon. Member, which it is said ought not to be purchased. This is a much more difficult point to deal with, because there you have to balance one public purpose—that is the military needs of the country—against another public purpose—that is the local requirements of a particular district. You have to do what is fair and right between the two. I am not satisfied that we ought to exempt entirely from the Bill the lands of municipal corporations and other local authorities. But I am quite willing to say that they should get some kind of special protection which will insure that they shall not be taken unless the general interests counterbalance the local interests and unless the local interests can be otherwise provided for. What would be the right way of dealing with it can no doubt be considered in Committee. One way might be to require the consent of some Government Department specially concerned to defend and protect municipal interests. I do not want to prejudice the matter now, but I say quite frankly that I do desire to meet that point.
I come to the question of parks, and so on. That is again a Committee point. I agree that it is very hard that where a man has lent his park for military purposes during the War it should be now taken from him against his will. I think that the whole House would like to consider a case of that kind and to safeguard it by proper conditions in the Committee stage. Then there is the question of the pollution of rivers. I do not want to do anything in the least unfair or ungenerous to the public, and desire to do what is possible to meet that point. Coming to the next point, it is objected that the Bill would authorise the passing on of land purchased by one Department for one purpose to another Department
1592
for another purpose. That was not at all the intention of the Bill. The meaning of the words is this: that, as my right hon. Friend anticipates, his Department will disappear at the end of the War, and its duties will revert to the War Office or some other Department. It is no good saying that the Munitions Department may take land in their own possession unless you provide that they may hand it on to the War Department—their successor.
Mr. COWAN: Can we not confine it to that?
Sir G. CAVE: That is the kind of case which they have in mind. I should not like to confine it to that case, because there may be others. But that is the kind of case which we desire to meet. I want to say a word or two upon one or two other points. My hon. Friend who moved the rejection of the Bill objected to the tribunal, and he suggests that the duty of fixing compensation might be left to the existing Commission, sometimes called "The Losses Commission." I do not know whether anybody in the House knows that Commission so well from the outside as I do, and nobody could desire to speak more highly of the way in which that Commission does its work than I do. It does very great service to the country, and we are all very grateful to it. But we ought not to forget that the Commission was appointed for a temporary purpose, that is to award compensation for losses occasioned to individuals by the exercise of the powers of the Crown for the defence of the realm. It is confined to the War, and to the occupation and use of property for war purposes, and when the War comes to an end, this Commission which has undertaken this very arduous work for the War only will not continue. It would not be right or fair to ask that Commission to go on indefinitely year after year after the War, as they have been going on hitherto. My right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter was consulted on the terms of this Bill, and we ascertained from him that he took the same view as we do, namely, that the Commission is not the most suitable body to discharge the duty and that they should not be asked to undertake it.
Mr. MOLTENO: Was the same question put to the Railway and Canal Commission?
Sir G. CAVE: I cannot say that. I was going to add that there was an objection on the part of the Treasury and a very

1593
common objection on the part of the House to creating any more new Commissions, and the suggestion came from Scotland that the work should be done by the Railway and Canal Commission. That body consists of three judges and two appointed members. Each judge represents one country—one England, one Scotland, and one Ireland. Whichever country is concerned, a judge representing that country sits on the Commission, and the two appointed members sit with him. The Commission has offices, staff, machinery, and everything necessary for the purpose, and it was thought that it would not only be economical but wise to entrust these powers to that Commission. We shall see in Committee whether any better suggestion can be made. One point which arises is that a surveyor should be appointed to the tribunal, as its duty will be to value property. It is very desirable to have such an officer, and for that reason we propose to authorise the Commission to appoint an assessor or to depute an officer to make inquiries. With regard to the objection taken to the Lands Clauses Act, the answer is that we propose to use machinery which is complete and settled, because it would be very burdensome to have to frame new machinery for the purpose. The machinery to be used has existed for many years, and it has been found useful. In some respects we propose to introduce modifications, but generally speaking I think that we should stick to well-known machinery rather than endeavour to mend it in a hurry. In reference to the objection taken to authorising the purchase of land by compulsion, there is no doubt a good deal to be said for the view that when you are empowering the Government to buy land by compulsion, and afterwards to sell it, the owner ought to have the first right to buy; but in regard to matters which arise under this Bill there are some special considerations to be borne in mind. You may have land upon which have been erected buildings and plant of enormous value. I think amounts spent rise to £100,000, £200,000, and, in one case, £2,000,000. Take a case of that kind. The desire of the Government may be that the work shall not cease, but go on for the national benefit. They have erected works of the greatest value which they may desire to see used for the manufacture of articles useful in war, or otherwise of national importance in view of the possibility of a future war. I think the House must admit that we
1594
are not going to be so shortsighted as to lose sight of the possibility that war might come upon us again. In view of those considerations, surely it is right that power should be given to the Government to let or sell the property to those willing to bind themselves to carry out the work which has hitherto been carried on. But if we had the suggestion advanced as asked by the right hon. Gentleman, as to a right of pre-emption being adopted as a universal arrangement, it would stand in the way of anything of that kind. I hope the House will consider that point.
It seems to be thought by my hon. Friend the Member for Northwich that under this Clause 3, the Purchasing Clause, the Government are going to buy up everything at once. That is quite a mistaken view. The Government would be very foolish to buy property before they know that they will want it in peace time. I can assure my hon. Friend that there need be no fear of anything of the kind suggested that the Government are going to buy up a lot of land in haste. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford made a point which I regretted to hear, because he seemed to think that the Memorandum did not fairly represent the Bill. He misunderstood the Memorandum, and he misunderstood the Bill. The Clause of the Memorandum of which he spoke refers only to Rule 7 in the Schedule, and the effect of that rule is that in compensating a man for taking, his land you are not to lose sight of the fact that his adjoining land has profited. It is simply common fairness to make that provision.
Mr. HARDY: In defence of myself I wish to say a word. It is provided that the Lands Clauses Acts shall apply "with such adaptations and modifications as may be introduced," and the modifications are in the Schedules.
Sir G. CAVE: As I understand the provision, you are to take the full facts into account in compensating a man. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Laurence Hardy) referred to Rule 6, but I think he misunderstood that rule. That rule provides that compensation shall be fixed not only without regard to the advancement in the value of land, but without regard to its depreciation. I think he complains of that, but this is entirely for the benefit of the owner. It means that if, because of the Government expenditure, his land is depreciated in

1595
value, he is not to lose anything, and he will get the pre-war value. The rule as to depreciation is entirely for the owner's benefit, and it does not in the least operate against him.
In regard to the point raised by the right hon. Member the Member for the City of London as to taking Deptford Market, I entirely accept his view that the City of London, as one would have expected, has behaved extremely well. It did not make the least difficulty about giving up possession of the market. At the same time, as my right hon. Friend knows, there is no agreement with the City. I desire, and we all desire, that there shall be an agreement at the earliest possible moment. I have already spoken to my colleagues on this matter, and a promise has been made that it should be hurried up, so that I hope long before the Bill is through the House it will be settled.
Mr. MORTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman say there is no verbal agreement between the corporation, that £10,000 is the minimum to be paid, and am I to consider in the future that the Government's word is not its bond?
Sir G. CAVE: I do not profess to be familiar with all the facts, but I understand that there was no agreement.
Mr. MORTON: I can tell you differently from the inside.
Sir G. CAVE: With regard to the Central Control Board, the points are these: The Board have, in the first place, made a number of purchases in the exercise of their functions, and at present I am told that they have no power to sell properties; and, secondly, they do desire to have power to take land necessary for canteen or other purposes. There are cases in which they want to set up canteens where there is not land available by agreement, and they desire to have power to take land compulsorily, where necessary, for munition workers and others engaged on war work. Lastly, it is said that we ought to be content with taking power to carry on for three years, or if necessary for seven years, but that we ought not to take powers to purchase. I think that would be very unwise. These large sums have been spent, and taking power for three years or for seven years only postpones the difficulty, as at the end of either term the same point would arise. Surely it is much
1596
better that a Government Department should have power to buy the land subject to the payment of proper compensation to those concerned. I have dealt, I think, with all the points except one. It is said that there is no provision as to agreements. I think if there is any agreement it must be observed. I think nearly every point that has been raised is a Committee point, and may be met by Amendments in Committee and fairly discussed in Committee. We are quite willing to discuss them. When you have swept away all the points of that description there remains very little. We must have a Bill of this description during war time for peace time, and it would be very unwise to allow this matter to go on without making some provision for it. I repeat that we are most desirous to meet any fair criticism from any Member of the House, and to do only what is right in the national interest. We are equally desirous of paying fair compensation in every case where private interests are injured. If those two principles are observed, I do not see how any Hon. Member can rightly object to the Second Reading of this Bill.
Mr. HOBHOUSE: The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken was congratulated on the fact that he had reserved his right to reply until a good many of the objections to the Bill had been stated. I think he was right, because there is nobody on the Front Bench who is more skilful or more conciliatory in the exposition of a difficult Bill of this sort. The right hon. Gentleman said, both at the beginning and at the end of his speech, that the objections taken to the Bill so far were Committee points, and it is quite clear that his line of defence for this very remarkable Bill, introduced in a very remarkable manner, is going to be and in fact has been that it is really so insignificant that the House may pass quite easily from the consideration of the principle and merely occupy its attention upon the details of the Bill. If that were so it is not a little remarkable that of the eight or nine speakers who addressed the House in the course of the last three hours there has not been found one Member in the House, apart from the Government Bench, to say a single, solitary word in support of this measure. Just let the House consider what the position of the Government is at this time, because it really has a great deal of relation to this Bill. The Government is composed at present of representatives of all parties in this House,

1597
and they sit upon that Front Bench opposite, not because they are in agreement with any political party, but because all parties in the House have sunk their differences for the period of the War, and all legislation up to the time of the production of this Bill has been by common consent in all parts of the House confined to measures which have their termination as soon as the War is over. This is the first Bill that I know of in this House in which it is proposed to continue for a long period after the termination of the War, a measure introduced by a coalition Government.
Sir G. CAVE: The right hon. Gentleman says that this is the first Bill to continue after the War. There was a Bill before the House yesterday which is to continue for five years after the War.
Mr. HOBHOUSE: This then is the second Bill of that kind introduced in this House. It only shows how very quickly it is possible to descend to Avernus. What are the principles contained in this Bill? The main object of the Bill, the Solicitor-General told us, is to protect the State against loss arising from the erection of public buildings upon private owners' land. That is done by a Clause, and if that were the only Clause in this Bill I do not think there would have been a murmur of objection from any part of the House. Everybody is agreed, most of us thought so all the time, and all Members of the House think so at present, that where public buildings are put up on privately owned land the private owner should not make any pecuniary advantage out of the expenditure of State money. If that were the only principle in the Bill I think it would pass sub silentio; but there are a great number of other principles involved in this Bill. I think it is really worth noting that the Solicitor-General throughout the whole of the defence of the Bill practically took the Bill, Clause by Clause, and with the exception of one part as to purchase, said, "I will make almost any concession or alteration you like to get the Bill through the House." If that is the attitude, why not throw away this objectionable Bill and bring in a new Bill which will satisfy the House and which would occupy no time.
Sir G. CAVEexpressed dissent.
Mr. HOBHOUSE: If that was not the tenor of the speech of the right hon. and
1598
learned Gentleman, I am afraid I entirely misunderstood him. He promised to make a concession with regard to the taking over of commons. He was going to make a special provision in respect of lands owned by municipalities. He promised my right hon. Friend here that he would deal specially with the question of pollution. He promised the Member for Dumfriesshire (Mr. Molteno) that he would alter the composition of the Railways and Canals Commission, or that he would modify it. At all events, he said he would consider the matter very carefully, and if he does not consider it for the purpose of modifying it, what is the use of considering it at all? The question of the Central Control Board was also to be considerably modified. If you take point after point all through this Bill upon every single point of what we regard as principle, the Solicitor-General is prepared to give way. If he does, all I say is that he might just as well bring in anew Bill which will satisfy all parties, and get rid of this Bill, which is held to be objectionable by every party in the House. Let us see where the objectionable parts of the Bill are. You are going to protect the State against excessive compensation or excessive claims on the part of private owners, and in order to do that you propose to take power to purchase land right and left against the wishes of the owner, and, having acquired it, you are going to take the further power to sell it again if you so desire. If that were brought in as a separate Bill in the House of Commons, in ordinary times, I can conceive a Bill for that purpose taking a very long period to get through this House. Why try to rush it through in war-time? You would not attempt to do such a thing except as the principal Bill in an ordinary Session in ordinary times. It really is not fair to the House to bring in the Bill under the title of "Defence of the Realm," and to put into it subjects which have nothing on the face of the earth to do with the defence of the realm, but which are subjects which, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman says, must be considered before the termination of the War. If they are to be produced by a Coalition Government, they must meet the principles of all parties in the House, and not of one party or of a small section of the House. You are not only going to take power under this Bill to purchase land on which you have put buildlings, and also to deal with the question of compensation, but you also propose to

1599
take power to purchase land on either side, north or south, east or west, just as you like. What on earth has that got to do with the defence of the realm or the prevention of the payment of excessive compensation to the individual.
Take again Clause 3 (4) (b), and in that you propose to take power of acquisition which may be exercised "in the case of other lands or rights by any Government Department at any time during the present War or within twelve months after the termination thereof." Is that merely a Committee point of small detail to be disposed of in the course of a ten minutes' discussion in the House of Commons? If those principles, for which there is a great deal to be said, are to be established, let them be established in a Bill which deals ad hoc with those matters, and on which we can all state our opinions perfectly freely, and let them not be wrapped up in a measure of this sort. I think I have supported, with one exception the Registration Bill, every Bill that has come before the House of Commons since the Coalition was created, by voice and vote; but you have got here wrapped up in this measure a new departure, permanent legislation, by a Government which is here for one single purpose, and one purpose only, and I think if this Bill goes to a Division it ought to be rejected.
Mr. DICKINSON: My hon. Friend the Member for Northwich (Mr. Brunner) and I have put down notice of an Amendment to the effect "That the House declines to pass a Bill which gives power to the Government to enclose permanently land which is subject to rights of common without submitting each case to Parliament, as provided by the Inclosure Acts."
7.0 P.M.
I do not propose to argue in favour of my Amendment, because the right hon. and learned Gentleman has practically accepted it. As I understand it, he has declared that the Government is ready to exempt commons entirely from the operation of the Bill. That being so, I need say no more upon the merits, but I confess to feeling that it is rather regrettable that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech was not made before the drafting of the Bill, because the wording of the Bill was very dangerous, and I can hardly believe that the Government Department who drafted this Bill did so with such absolute innocence and ignorance as he
1600
has asked us to believe. After years and years of public and Parliamentary action the principle was accepted that no commons should be enclosed, either by agreement with the lord of the manor or the commoners themselves, unless it had the approval of this House; but under these proposals a Government Department would be entitled to close a common without the approval of this House, so that one can hardly imagine that any Government Department could have put forward this proposal in ignorance. I do not wish to say any more about that subject, but I want to ask the Solicitor-General whether it would not be possible for him to extend or change the procedure with regard to the operation of the Bill in respect to the principle that commons should not be taken. The same objection applies with regard to private property and other land, and we have adhered closely to the principle that no land shall be taken compulsorily unless reason for it shall be shown—reasons of State, of benefit to the public, or to the nation—and shown to the satisfaction of a Committee of the House of Commons. While, personally, I am quite in favour of seeing the State become the owner of land to a much greater extent than at the present time, I believe that all schemes by which the State should become the owner of land should have the definite approval of the House of Commons of the exact suggestions or proposals that are made. This Bill sins against that principle in the most extraordinary way.
So far as I can understand Clause 3, it is only necessary for a Government Department—and what a Government Department is is not defined in the Bill; one does not know what the exact authority would be—it is only necessary for the Government Department to say, "We have been in possession of this particular land. We want it, and we want to make it Government property" in any circumstances whatever, and there would be no authority, no approval of the House of Commons to regulate that. The only question would be as to what amount the private person was to be paid. And so far has that idea of the infallibility of a Government Department gone in this Bill that I notice— I do not know whether other hon. Members have noticed—that in order for a Government Department, which has been in possession of certain land, to get it, all they have to do under Clause 10 is for that Government Department to give a certificate that it has been in possession for a

1601
number of years. These are matters which are subject to debate and difference of opinion, and yet once that Government Department gives that certificate it is to be conclusive evidence of the facts therein stated. I have not so great a trust in the Government Departments as the Government have, nor am I ready to give them this enormous power. They have not always shown themselves to be entitled to such powers in matters of importance such as this, and the Solicitor-General having already gone so far in promises of amendment, I suggest that he might go further and introduce some other procedure in this matter, and it might be possible to have a procedure which would be shorter and less expensive than actually submitting it to a Select Committee of the House of Commons. It might follow the procedure of a Provisional Order. Some of the proposals covered by this Bill are of enormous importance for the country, and a change should be made by which these proposals could be placed before some authority of a representative character, such as a Committee of the House of Commons. If that were done I do not think there would be the same objection to the Bill and we should have a system of compulsory purchase by the State which would be accepted as just by the great majority of the people.
Mr. NEWDEGATE: I only intervene because I would like to ask the Solicitor-General whether he would be willing to put in a Clause allowing municipalities who have in the past given their land free for military purposes to charge rent for it after three or four years. I have in my mind the municipality of Sutton Cold-field, which owns a large park of 1,000 acres. They have most willingly, like other municipalities, done all they could to give facilities for the training of troops and the erection of hutments in the park. I have a letter in my hand from the municipality saying that if this is to go on for some years to come they think they ought to have a right to be able to charge rent.
Sir G. CAVE: That is the effect of the Bill.
Mr. NEWDEGATE: I am glad to hear that. It surely is a great disadvantage, not being a lawyer, when one Cannot find such things in a Bill. I have not been able to find it. I have had a letter placed in my hands, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman has it also, with a memorandum from the Association of Municipal Corporations,
1602
and on page 2, Clause 5, of that memorandum they draw particular attention to the absence from this Clause—Clause 3, I think—of any provision for the payment of rent or other consideration for the use of land, and they say, "The Clause merely provides for the payment of compensation equal to the amount of any direct loss or damage that may be sustained." I suggest with all respect to the Solicitor-General that if this Bill is to go through the House of Commons he should consult everybody and extend the provisions of the Bill to make them more clear in that respect than they are at the present time. I am glad to have it categorically from him that the corporations shall be able, if they wish to charge rent, to do so after the War is over.
Sir G. CAVE: I was not referring to that Sub-section. The Clause has the effect that they may make a charge. I think it does effect that. If not, I shall see that it does.
Mr. NEWDEGATE: This particular corporation wishes to do everything it possibly can to assist the military, and of course to a great extent the municipalities have allowed the use of the public parks where a number of huts have been erected and a large number of soldiers accommodated, and it is only fair that they should be able to charge rent. This particular park is the most important lung of the city of Birmingham. Another point I want to make—I hope he will forgive me if he thinks it is a Committee point, but it has not been touched upon this afternoon— there is an allusion in one Clause, Subsection (3), to the acquisition of minerals. I do not know whether he considers what a serious thing it would be for a public body or any other body to take away a certain amount of minerals when a mine is being worked—what is called severance. It means great difficulty to people who are working minerals if a part is severed from them and they cannot work it, and I cannot see that any compensation for that is given in the Bill as it stands at the present time. The compensation Clause, I take it, is at the end of the Bill, and it says in this Schedule, paragraph 4, "No allowance shall be made on account of an acquisition being compulsory." That applies, I suppose, to the whole of the Bill. Supposing the surface and the minerals are taken by compulsory purchase in any part of the country, it makes it much more difficult for the persons who have been working the minerals to continue to work

1603
those minerals, and I therefore suggest that proper compensation ought to be granted to the people who have been put to this disadvantage by the Bill. That is the question I wish to ask, Whether it might not have that effect? It is an important point which I think deserves an answer. One other point, and I happen to know this case: In the Midlands a house which was once occupied by a respected Member of this House was sold after his death, and the present owner has with it two or three hundred acres. At present he is doing military service. This property, so situated, has been taken by the Government for aeronautical purposes. A number of tin sheds have been erected, and from an aesthetic point of view the amenities of the place are very much destroyed. To make it much worse, there is the perpetual noise connected with the practising of the aeroplanes in this particular locality. The present owner bought this place and paid a good sum for it, and it has lost its advantage as a residential property. Is there anything in this Bill which will compensate this gentleman, who is now doing military service, for the fact that his house is practically made uninhabitable, because some of his land has been taken over as suitable for aeronautical purposes? There may be many cases like that all over the country. Knowing the Solicitor-General as I do, and having sat beside him for so many years when similar questions have come forward in the House, I cannot help thinking that if this Bill is to go forward under his auspices it will receive good consideration from him in cases such as I have mentioned. I do hope, with all my heart, that the Solicitor-General will adopt the recommendations of my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), and get rid of this Bill entirely, and have a much less contentious measure in its place, something we could all agree upon, doing justice to the Government and to the taxpayers. Whether the property is private property, or the property of a municipality or a corporation, that has to be taken, let it be taken in a straightforward manner, and not by means of the Bill which is now before us.
Mr. A. WILLIAMS: It has been said this afternoon that no one has supported this Bill except those on the Government Bench. If that had not been said, I do not know that I should have ventured to
1604
take part in the discussion; but I do feel very strongly that this Bill is one that needed to be introduced, and which, in principle, ought to be supported, whatever changes in detail there may be when the Bill comes into Committee. I ask myself: What is the principle of the Bill? I do not think it will be found in Clauses 1 and 2—at any rate, there is no principle there that, I think, is very much objected to. It is when you come to the third Clause that you come to the real principle of the Bill, so far as the principle of the Bill has been attacked this afternoon. It is, in fact, absolutely necessary that we should prepare for the period at the end of the War, when these properties which have been built up by the Government at such an enormous expense will be in great danger, if we do not provide beforehand some machinery by which they may be retained on just terms, and the interests, both of the State, and the owners of the land shall be fairly treated. I know of no way in which that can be done except by giving the Government power to purchase the land upon which those buildings have been put, and upon which that expenditure has been incurred.
We are told that this is a very controversial matter and that it ought not to have been introduced in time of war. I say, however, that you cannot do justice to the State without introducing it. Therefore, I do not think it ought to be treated as a controversial matter. I believe that the owners of land, as well as the owners of the other property, ought to regard it as one of the necessary incidents of property—in the hands of a private individual—that it is liable to be taken by the Government when the interests of the State demand it, subject always to proper compensation. It is really a question of compensation and of justice to both sides; of the adjustment of the interests of the individual from whom the property has been taken and the State, which has expended such a large amount of money; and there are, I agree, very important points which arise. There is the question of the commons, upon which I feel very strongly. There is the question of the rights of municipalities. There is the question of the interference with the highways, and so on. But surely all these are points that can be adjusted in Committee. There is another point on which I am rather sorry the Bill takes the line it does, but I am not going to oppose it on that ground: I am sorry the procedure of the Lands Clauses (Consolidation) Acts

1605
is followed. I know that the Solicitor-General has, on the whole, spoken highly of that procedure. My own impression is that that procedure is unnecessarily expensive, and that by reason of its great expense it does in many cases do injustice. There are Amendments proposed to be introduced into that procedure by Bill. I hope that when we come to consider the Bill in detail it may be shown that some of the objections to that Land Clauses procedure have been done away with; and in Committee perhaps we shall be able to do away with the remaining difficulties. The Solicitor-General has certainly met the criticisms this afternoon in a very conciliatory spirit, and I hope that that spirit will be continued in Committee. As to withdrawing the Bill, I certainly hope the Government will do nothing of the sort. They were asked to do so and to bring in a Bill upon which we should all be agreed. I see no prospect of our being agreed so long as hon. Gentlemen interested in land approach the subject in the way in which it has been approached this afternoon. If these hon. Gentlemen will consider who constitute the Government, I think they ought to approach a Bill of this sort with, at any rate, the presumption in their minds that they are going to be fairly dealt with. The principle, I say, ought to stand, and in my opinion it must stand. That principle is that you must prepare for the state of things which will take place immediately after this War comes to an end, and you cannot justly prepare for that state of things without giving the Government some such power to acquire land as is contained in the Bill.
Mr. COWAN: When I gave notice of my intention to move the rejection of this measure on Second Beading, I imagined I 'was doing a venturesome thing. I shuddered at my own temerity. To-day, however, I am surrounded by friends. I think, even after the learned Solicitor-General made his tactful and conciliatory speech, the; Bill had not many friends in the House. It is no use thrashing a dead horse; therefore I shall not make the speech which I had intended to make, because, while I may leave it to others to kill or cure the Bill as a whole, the Clause to which I object, and upon which I founded my proposal to move the rejection of the Bill, has disappeared. The learned Solicitor-General has told us that he will not take common lands under the Bill. He has told us that he is prepared to amend
1606
Sub-section (7), Clause 3, by deleting the words he has specified, or that he is prepared in some other way to achieve the same object. Representing, as I do with my hon. Friend the Member for Northwich, the Commons Preservation Society in this House, I am satisfied with that concession. I think the Bill and this Sub-section were unfortunately drawn, but I am quite sure it has never been the intention of the Government to interfere with, or to attempt to appropriate for any purpose, our common lands. That being so, accepting that assurance, I withdraw my objection to the Bill, and shall not move the Motion standing in my name. At the same time, I may be allowed to say that I think it is very unfortunate that such a measure should have been introduced. Much hostile criticism has been aroused. Most of the criticism has been effective; all of it has been damaging, and it has taken all the tact and diplomacy of perhaps the most conciliatory speaker in this House, the learned Solicitor-General, to put the Bill on its legs again. It is shaky on its legs, and even now I am not sure whether we are not attending the funeral of the Bill. I hope the suggestion that has been made from many quarters of the House to the Government, that they should withdraw this Bill and introduce another which should do what they want, and not do more than they want, and which shall be in harmony with the feeling of the House, is one which they ought seriously to consider—and adopt. A Bill entitled the Defence of the Realm Bill is not lightly to be rejected, and by labelling any Bill by this particular title the Government are certainly to that extent protecting it. I do not know whether the emergency is such that that title was necessary; if it was not necessary it was hardly fair. I think this Bill might very well stand its chance under its proper title, that is Acquisition of Land Bill. In any case I hope the Government will not proceed to force this most unpopular measure upon the House, but will withdraw it and substitute for it a Bill which will achieve all the legitimate objects they have, and so meet our desire to give a measure introduced by the Coalition every consideration.
Mr. HORNE: I am grateful to the Solicitor-General for the concession he has made. I venture to question the assertion that he made that those in the neighbourhood of commons were anxious to retain the buildings and the military camps put up.
Sir G. CAVE: I did not say that. I said we might hear of some attempts in that direction.
Mr. HORNE: I only carried a little further this point of the case. There are commons in my Constituency where places have been built, where an enormous number of huts have been put up, where water supplies have been laid on, and where electric lighting, drainage, and sewerage have been provided, and we want to know that these commons are coming back to us when they are done with by the Government, not with all these modern improvements upon them, but that they shall be taken away and we shall be allowed once more to gather the bracken to which we have been accustomed. I hope I may receive some assurance that all these improvements will be taken away at the expense of the Government, and that the Government will, so far as possible, try to restore the commons in Surrey to the pre-war condition. As to this Bill, I imagine that if time had not been important that what would have been done, or might have been done, would have been that the Government, wanting to put up factories and other war establishments, would have scheduled land for that purpose, and then have applied for compulsory powers. If they had obtained those compulsory powers they would have put up the necessary buildings they required. Here, however, time has not been given, and buildings have had to be put up, and now the Government asks for that which they would have asked for in other circumstances in the first place. There is, no doubt, I think, that they have shown a good case, and that the buildings were required, that this country wanted the work done, and that the Government would have been given compulsory powers. I do not understand that at the present time those powers should be denied only because they have come for them in the second, and not in the first place. There is one point as to the constitution of the tribunal which is to be set up. I would suggest that it would be found more competent, and quicker in its decisions, if some arrangement can be made by which a barrister, a business man, and a surveyor form the tribunal. With these three justice would be done. There are many other points in the Bill to which I think attention needs to be drawn, but I thoroughly agree with the Solicitor-General that those are Committee points.
Sir WILLIAM BEALE: I do not propose to say anything at all to discourage the Government from taking the advice offered by many hon. Members, to withdraw the Bill and to substitute another which would be more likely to meet the wishes of all, and would be more easily explained. But it is really only a question of expediency. If the Solicitor-General puts this Bill into a form to meet the points which he is willing to meet, I do not think it becomes any Member to oppose the Second Reading. I cannot agree with the suggestion that this Bill has nothing to do with the present War. It seems to me that if every one of the Clauses in this Bill had been moved in the original Defence of the Realm Act that they would have been in somewhat different form, but would have provided for the acquisition of land, even land temporarily held, just as this Bill provides. It has been said that this Bill has nothing to do with the defence of the realm. I look upon it as a corollary— rather, perhaps, a little prematurely—but a still necessary thing for cleaning up this port of thing, when the provisions, methods, and necessary measures for the defence of the realm were resolved upon. The point I would urge is with regard to commons. I do not think it has been properly explained even now. I do not think the framers of the Bill can have read the provisions of the Lands Clauses Acts, or they would see that the mere exclusion of two or three Clauses, if introduced in the Schedule, would probably have met the point. Still, I am always in favour of maintaining these public rights, and I quite agree with the broad way in which the Solicitor-General has met that particular question. I do not like this jumbling-up of the method of assessing the compensation by the Railway and Canal Commission with the Lands Clauses Acts. I have seen where it has miscarried; I have seen where it has been abused to pile up costs, and also where it has led to agreement between the parties, and I do object to this attempt to try to curtail the right of any landowner to have his case properly put and considered.
I do not object to these fancy Clauses,, but I must say I do not think this Schedule is framed with any very clear appreciation of the Lands Clauses Acts. It says, first of all, that the provisions in respect of superfluous land shall not apply. How could they apply to a case where there is no definite undertaking as to what you

1609
want the lands for? Then it goes on to say that no allowance shall be made on account of the acquisition being compulsory. There is nothing in the Lands Clauses Acts to permit of any such allowance whatever. The hon. Member opposite who smiles knows that that principle was manufactured in Great George Street by the gentlemen who are appointed as arbitrators. They always add something in respect of compulsory purchase. They say that, because you take the land compulsorily, it may be some time before a man has an equally favourable investment. So prevalent has this been that I do not wonder draftsmen thinking it was the law that you must add 10 per cent, under compulsory purchase. But to my knowledge it has no authority in any enactment. It is a matter of curious history that when the original Compulsory Clause was framed, which afterwards took form in the Lands Clauses Act, the House of Lords did put in that you must add 50 per cent, for compulsory purchase, but that was rejected. That by the way. Then it is provided that the Commission shall not hear more than one expert witness unless the Commission otherwise direct, which merely amounts to saying that the Commission shall do as they like. The thing is inconsistent. I think a very much simpler process would be better. I regret that the suggestion of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Molteno) cannot be adopted, and that we cannot have such a body as the present Commission on Losses to decide this question. But I think they might be decided, and should be decided, in the simplest possible manner analogous to the simple arbitration under the Lands Clauses Acts. I hope the learned Solicitor-General will see his way to make it as simple as possible.
Then I come to one of the main things and most difficult things—namely, whether the powers of the Act should not be applied to cases such as that where a man has allowed his park or cricket ground to be used. The Bill refers to public parks and public recreation grounds, but says nothing about grounds in public ownership. I do not think they should in a sweeping way be made subject to these compulsory powers without something in the nature of a safeguard. I cannot find an analogy to that in the Lands Clauses Act. Under that Act land can only be acquired for the purpose of a definite undertaking. An hon. Member suggested there should be Provisional Orders. That
1610
is one way; but short of that it might be possible, in some form or other, to get the approval of this House or of some competent body that the thing was a public necessity, and required for a definite purpose, before putting in force the compulsory powers. I think it should not be beyond the ingenuity of the learned legal adviser of the Government to find some way of safeguarding against all the cases that have been suggested, where it would be unfair to put in operation the compulsory powers in this Bill. Subject to that, and in the hope that such methods will be found, I do not propose to support those who would throw this Bill out altogether on Second Beading.
Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: The Government is indeed fortunate in being able, by the skill of such an admirable and a conciliatory champion as the learned Solicitor-General, to recommend to a suspicious and alarmed House of Commons what may eventually, so to speak, become a retreat on its lines of communication. One wonders at what stage he came into this thing, which bears all the marks of having been rushed forward by an enthusiastic bureaucrat intoxicated with the exercise of long continued emergency executive powers. I rise to make a suggestion so as to arrive at a more comforting result this afternoon. My right hon. and learned Friend must see that what annoys the House most is the attempt to get the adoption under war circumstances, and under the plea of emergency, things that could only be applied as nostrums which in times of peace are always controversial, and which may or may not be good for general adoption in every case to which they might be applied, but which those who do not openly seek to apply them all round would always be the subject of rather bitter controversy. Take the case of what is called betterment. Betterment is in this Bill, notwithstanding what the learned Solicitor-General said. What causes the betterment to arouse such a feeling of injustice in the minds of those to whom it is to be applied is the consideration that under your betterment Clauses you are making a levy upon one man, when you are not making any similar levy upon the lands of other persons who may be benefited by the same scheme. So long as that is the case you must produce a sense of injustice. You are applying your principle, which ought to be applied all round, to

1611
the one man with whom, by reason of the chance circumstances of the case, you happen to be in the relation of purchaser. Take the question of percentage for compulsory purchase. I doubt whether there is any precedent for negativing that, except in the case of undertakings where they have been set going on the distinct undertaking ab initio that they would be purchased by public authority. Then as regards the private parks, I think it would be fair in the case of some private parks which many of us have in mind, where, although only of grace, but de facto, there has been a general admission of the public to the enjoyment of those parks— and there must be very few where that is not the case—there should be some more tender way of treating them than is made possible by this Bill. I understood my right hon. and learned Friend only referred to public parks.
Sir G. CAVE: No.
Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: I wish to make a suggestion. The right hon. and learned Gentleman must see that this Bill still excites some amount of apprehension and dislike. It is possible to adjourn discussion, and sometimes, when a discussion is adjourned and we get our blue papers, we receive a Bill with a little endorsement in dark type, "To be substituted for the Bill previously circulated." I think there are some less exacerbating methods that can be employed, and more comforting to those who wish to give the Government all due support in time of war than is attained under the circumstances in which any decision could be taken this afternoon.
Mr. LEIF JONES: I do not rise to oppose the suggestion put forward by the right hon. Gentleman opposite if it commends itself to the Government; but I must say that, considering we are living under a Coalition Government which is supposed to enjoy the confidence of every section of the House, the speeches in this Debate have revealed a most amazing attitude to the Government from beginning to end. I rise, therefore, for the purpose of saying to the Government that they ought not to be misled, because of the fact that most of the speeches made to-day have been in strong opposition, or have contained very strong criticism of the Bill, that therefore there is no body of support in the House behind this
1612
measure. For myself I regard this as a purely war measure, and I understand it is so regarded by the Government. In so far as the Bill goes beyond the circumstances of the War and the situation arising out of the War, I take it the Government will be ready to accept Amendments to their Bill. But I put this to the House, that had these powers been asked for at the beginning of the War by the Government which had to deal with the War, there would have been very little opposition in any section of this House to such powers being granted to the Government. There was no time at the beginning of the War to foresee every situation. It was necessary that the Government should act quickly without considering private rights and without safeguarding the real interests of the people of this country. They had to get their factories built; they had to take their lands; they had to act always on the spur of the moment to meet the immediate necessities of the case, and they were not able to safeguard the interests of the country. As a matter of fact, they have not safeguarded the interests of the country, and, unless they take some such powers as are given in this Bill, at the end of the War the country will find itself at the mercy of private interests, always very strong in this country, and, therefore, as a measure of safeguard to the people, I think some such Bill as this is absolutely necessary. What I observe in the Debate, to which I have listened very carefully, is a certain fear that the Bill is not solely for the safeguarding of the interests of the people of this country, but that it is to be used by the Government to make experiment in various directions. That is a fear which certainly has rooted hold of some hon. Members of this House, and it is based upon experience. In regard to previous Bills brought in during the War we have had assurances that the powers given would only be used strictly for limited purposes in connection with the War, but the speeches in which those assurances were given were not part of those Bills. Very wide powers have been conferred upon the Government, and those full powers have been made use of as if those assurances had not been given. I have in mind assurances given in the case of the Defence of the Realm (No. 3) Act in regard to the Local Control Board. Some of those who are well acquainted with the subject elicited from Ministers very strong assurances, as

1613
strong and explicit as assurances could be, that the purchase power was not to be used except for the definite purpose of preventing financial loss to the people of this country, and they were only to purchase in the last resort. It is evident that we have going on now experiments under that Act which the House did not contemplate when it gave those powers to the Government. In the interests of this Bill, I put it to the Solicitor-General that safeguards must be put into the Bill, and that it is not enough for the Government to say that they do not intend to use these powers only for emergency purposes. Those assurances must find their place in the Clauses of the Bill, and then there will be no disposition to quarrel with the powers given which are necessary for the purpose of preventing financial loss to the people of this country. In that hope I shall support the Second Beading of the Bill.
Mr. RUTHERFORD: No Bill has ever been defended by a Minister in this House with greater courtesy or ability, going more fully into the details in answering every objection made, than in the speech we were so glad to listen to by the Solicitor-General; in fact, he went so far as to apologise almost for every Clause in the Bill one after the other, and he met at the same time almost all the criticisms effectually which had been brought forward. We have heard from the hon. Member who last spoke the suggestion that because this Bill has been brought forward with a Coalition Government in power any opposition to it is wrong or misplaced. From the point of view of a private Member, I think the exact converse is the case. There is not sitting here any regular properly constituted Opposition which looks at these measures in advance and arranges for a riddling criticism of anything that may be objectionable. Therefore it is obligatory upon hon. Members to give a little patient study to measures of this very important description. At the present moment when this terrible War is going on, we are all willing in almost every capacity which we occupy in society to help. The Mersey Docks and Harbour Board of Liverpool have done their best to help by placing at the disposal of the military authorities a considerable portion of the valuable property which they hold and which they are not using at the present time for the purposes of the dock, but which they have bought as reserve
1614
land for the almost certain increase in the traffic of the port. Do I understand that, because the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board have been generous to-day, the Government is going by this Bill to help itself to any of their property which the military authorities occupy to-day? And not only that, but any of the land adjoining it. I cannot read the Bill through without seeing that it does give those powers.
The Corporation of Liverpool, for which city I am one of the representatives, have bought large portions of land which are now occupied for military purposes. They are getting no fee or reward for it, and are those lands to be liable to be taken at the will of the Department and without the authority of this House under the powers of a general Bill like this? All over the country private owners entirely actuated by patriotic motives have placed their grounds, parks, large pieces of valuable land and buildings of various descriptions at the disposal of the War Office and the Minister of Munitions. Is this Bill to give power to some Government Department when this War is over, and for seven years after that, to help themselves to these properties and to any land which adjoins them, whether the owners want them or not, with power to sell those properties to somebody else? It seems to me that the way this Bill is going to work out will simply mean penalising people who to-day are patriotic and generous, and penalise them exactly in proportion to the generosity and patriotism they are showing to-day. I think we are all agreed that such a Bill would be a mistake. The Solicitor-General has assured us that some of these evils are not going to happen. At the same time, so far as we1 can see the Bill and read it for ourselves, it does give those powers and would involve those difficulties which I have mentioned. Is it fair to the rest of the Departments of the Government that the War Office should seek to have those powers to-day? The Post Office, which, I suppose, is the greatest Department of public utility in the Kingdom, has to come here year by year when it wants to take property in Chester or Worcester, or anywhere round about the country, for the purposes of a post office. It has to come to this House and get powers to take that property. Why should some Department, the management of which and the exact arrangements for which we do not know, be endowed with

1615
powers to take all sorts of property, powers which public Departments like the Post Office to-day have not got, and would never dream of asking for, and which, I believe, no Department would ask for except under the plea of it being for the defence of the Realm, which this is not?
I have taken the trouble since this Bill was printed to go carefully through it, and to endeavour to fit in Amendments that would meet the difficulties. I have drawn up a number of Amendments to try and carry out some of the changes which, I think, ought to go into the Bill to carry out what has been indicated in the speech of the Solicitor-General. I find that the result would be that the Bill would require to be amended line by line, and certainly numerous Amendments would be required in every Clause and on every page. [An HON. MEMBER: "No!"] Yes; this would be necessary in order to carry out what the Solicitor-General has indicated he would be willing to accept. I think I may claim to have had a little experience in drawing up Amendments to Bills in Committee and what would be required to carry them out. I think the trouble and the time which would be occupied by Parliament in amending the Bill on the lines which have been conceded, and on which it ought to be amended, would be such that, having regard to the concessions that have been suggested on almost every Clause, the simplest thing would be to withdraw the Bill in its present form and bring in another measure on the lines which the Solicitor-General himself would be willing to accept. He has told us already that in no less than five main particulars he does not agree with the Bill himself. The powers which are most objectionable in this Bill need not be exercised until seven years after peace. The generous and patriotic landlord who has been doing his best to assist by putting his property at the disposal of the country is to have that property hung up for six or seven years without knowing whether the Government is going to buy it in order to put munition factories on it, or whether it is going to be sold to Messrs. Vickers r some other firms of that kind. I cannot understand what the object of the Bill is in those respects. Does the Government seriously say that they are going to acquire hundreds of pieces of land all over the country for the purpose of permanent munition works? I cannot believe it.
1616
Surely when we get peace—and peace will arrive some day, the sooner the better —some reasonable measure will be taken of the amount of munition works that are wanted in the country. We shall not want thousands of pieces of land and public commons for munition works, because the works that are of very great importance will have been erected long before the conclusion of the War, and those will be the pieces of land the Government will want to buy. Why should they want a roving power to purchase for seven years every bit of private park, cricket ground or golfing club ground which has been to-day generously placed at their disposal for the purposes of the military authorities? The two things are inconsistent. The Bill is not one to secure the permanent purchase of pieces of land, because they will not be wanted. When you ask for a power of that enormous description touching all these pieces of land all over the country, and to last for seven years, it seems to me that it is not wanted, and the Bill ought to be withdrawn. We ought to give the War Office the power to buy the sites of munition factories and things which they are building on properties which they have not yet bought, but what more is wanted under a Bill of this kind for the life of me I cannot understand!
8.0.P.M.
Sir GEORGE TOULMIN: The House has been spoken of as being in a very suspicious and alarmed mood, but I do not think the suspicious and alarming speeches that have been made are entirely representative of the feeling of the whole of the House of Commons. Certain Members have had their consciences disturbed, but I have noticed that the consciences of landowners are very easily disturbed when the subject of land is touched. Those consciences should find means of expression on the floor of this House, and when the Clauses of this Bill come to be examined the House will be very willing to see that they are not very deeply seared. Some such provisions as those which are contained in this Bill are absolutely necessary for winding up the immense undertakings which have had to be entered into suddenly in an emergency without proper provision by the various Departments of the Government. The Departments have not been endowed in advance, as the hon. Member who has just sat down said, with these provisions. They had to do the things which were necessary without these provisions, and

1617
they are necessary for securing, when the emergency is over, a settlement which is just between the private individual and the State. The hon. Member spoke about property being "hung up" for six or seven years, but what would be the condition of any Ministry which adopted such a policy? What a grand opportunity it would be for any Opposition if the Government were to take the course which the hon. Member has suggested! It is absolutely unimaginable that any Government would do the things which he suggests. I very much doubt whether the provisions in the Bill would enable any Government to do what he suggests, and, if they did, then it would be for the House of Commons to see that there were proper safeguards inserted. I have no doubt that the amount of trespass upon private rights which has had to take place during the course of this War is very great, and those questions have to be resolved, and they ought to be resolved justly. I do not think the Government desire to do anything else, but they ought not to be in the position of having to pay through the nose after the War.
In my opinion it would be very absurd to withdraw the Bill and to try and present to this House an absolutely perfect and agreed Bill. This House would be abrogating its functions if it refused to take the trouble to amend the Bill. I do not suppose that those who have drawn it up could possibly be aware of the whole of the circumstances. I have no doubt that the hon. Member who has just spoken will be able to plead the case of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board and see that justice is done them. It will be a very proper function for him to undertake. I agree that under these circumstances the private Member ought to exercise his right of criticism. This is particularly one of those Bills in which he ought to undertake that right of criticism. My hon. Friend below me has indicated a way in which he would be able to assist the Bill in repard to the Lands Clauses Act and other matters in which he is so well versed. It appears to me that without this Bill landowners would be in a position to extort from the Government terms which they ought not to be able to extort. They would be able to extort compensation in peace terms for seizure and occupation and use of land which are really war measures. If we could only begin to think in terms of Belgium and France we should see that this
1618
Bill does not do any injustice at all. If we could only think of the way in which individuals, either volunteers or conscripts, have risked, not merely their livelihood, but also their lives, we should not look too closely at the Clauses of such a Bill as this. The proper thing for the House to do is to give the Bill a Second Beading, and then to closely and carefully examine each of its Clauses in order that a settlement may be arrived at.
Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: I have been struck with one or two things in the course of this Debate. The first thing was the remarkable interest professed to be taken in the commons. I have no doubt that interest is genuine, but during the ten years that I have been a Member of this House I have not known a single provision or Order dealing with the commons contested in any shape or form on the floor of this House. After to-day I have no doubt that more regard will be paid in the future to the public interests so far as the commons are concerned. Another thing which has struck me has been the objection raised to the Government having any power of compulsion. A few weeks ago, against my own vote and against the votes of my Friends, we compelled individuals not only to give up their businesses and not only to ruin their prospects and those of their children, but also to risk their lives in the defence of the country. Last week we had capitalists claiming a right to excess profits, and this week we have landowners telling the Government that they ought not to be allowed to compulsorily acquire, not all land, but merely that land which is at present occupied by the Government. The criticism of the Bill has been of two kinds. First of all, we had an attack on the details, but no one really has ventured to attack the principle. I should like to ask whether we are to understand that this House, whilst deliberately voting for compulsory military service, will not grant to this Government, representative of all parties, the power to acquire land for its own and national purposes? It has been suggested that the power given under this Bill is a power to acquire land for all purposes in all places, but the provisions are confined to land which is now in the possession of the Government. Hon. Members dispute that, but if they will kindly read Clause 3 they will find that my statement is correct. Clause 3 reads as follows:
"It shall be lawful to acquire, by agreement or compulsorily, on behalf

1619
of His Majesty (a) any land* in the possession of an occupying Department, or any interest in such land; (b) any land on, over, or under which any buildings, works, or improvements have, for purposes connected with the present War, been erected,
and with the consent of the Commission, and not without it, land specified in Subsection (c)."
It is perfectly obvious that the object of this Bill, as has been defined by the Solicitor-General, is to enable the Government to acquire land which is at present in the possession of some Government Department. What possible objection can there be to that course? What is the alternative? If we do not pass this Bill, then, at the expiration of the War, when peace is declared, the owners of that property will be in a position to insist upon whatever price they like.
Sir G. YOUNGER: No.
Mr. E. DAVIES: Will the hon. Member explain why not? If you are not going to give the Government power to compulsorily acquire the land, it is perfectly obvious that the price must be fixed by voluntary agreement, and I want to know from hon. Members opposite, and from some on this side of the House, whether we are to understand it is their view that in the interests of national economy, about which we hear so much the Government Department must at the close of the War enter into voluntary agreement if they desire to acquire the land. With regard to the criticisms that have been passed upon the Land Clauses Act, I will point out that while one hon. Member—I think the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Molteno)—objected to that Act and opposed the Bill, another hon. Member, the hon. and learned Member for I Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson), praised the Land Clauses Act and still opposed the Bill. I am very pleased that the Government have gone so far as to modify the provisions of the Land Clauses Act. I am speaking here as a lawyer, and there is no lawyer in the House who will contradict me when I say that the exorbitant costs under the Lands Clauses Acts compel people to pay a much higher price than they otherwise would do in order to avoid arbitration. Surely if the adjoining land has benefited by the action of the Government and the expenditure of public
1620
money, the improvement in the price of that land should be set off against any compensation to which the owner is entitled. I am very much disturbed by the tone and course of the present discussion. I should be very sorry indeed to think it was to go out to the public to-morrow that when the Government come here united and ask for compulsory powers in the interests of the public, their Bill finds no-support, and so far as this House is concerned they cannot obtain the necessary powers.
Mr. DUNDAS WHITE: The first time I saw this Bill I admit that I regarded it with very great suspicion. I really think, with its title, "Defence of the Realm," its provisions ought to be limited to those strictly within the scope of the defence of the realm and emergency legislation. There would have been no objection whatever in this House if it had been limited to the fundamental proposal of seeing that emergency work which has been put down on private land with public money was not to be treated as the property of the landlord. Where land is in the possession of the Government for a certain period and that period is to be extended for three or four years, as proposed by the Bill, those powers should be rightly acquired. The Government should have the power to act and there should be a fair way of assessing the compensation. I venture to suggest that compensation has, been assessed in a very fair and satisfactory way by the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission, over which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Exeter (Mr. Duke) has presided. I have two principal objections to this measure. It seems to me to bring in powers of compulsory purchase rather unnecessarily, and the rights of the public are not sufficiently safeguarded in the provisions that are made as to compensation. I must disagree on that point from my hon. Friend who has just spoken, because in considering a measure of this sort you have not only to consider the general plan, but you have also to consider how that plan will work out and the principles on which compensation is payable. The Duke Commission, to give it its popular title, has been carrying out this work most satisfactorily. Why, particularly when there is merely an extension of the existing term, should not the same machinery be used? I may be told that the right hon. Gentleman and his Commission have been very full indeed of work. I quite

1621
agree, but I see no reason why a second body of a similar character should not be set up, and, if personnel be wanted, those gentlemen who would otherwise be employed under this measure might with considerable advantage to the public be used. One does not like this complicated machinery which brings in the costly and cumbrous procedure of the Railway and Canal Commission and the Land Clauses Act. I was surprised that the Solicitor General should speak with a considerable amount of appreciation of those Clauses. Surely, everyone who has had to do with them realises that it is a most complex, difficult, and costly procedure.
If you take the case of London, those Acts are not utilised, but the London County Council falls back on what is known as the Michael-Angelo Taylor Act, which provides a simple and direct way of assessing compensation on the very lines we should like to see to-day, a simple and direct procedure. It is a marvel that the Government should resort to this old complicated procedure, for this reason: We had a Government Bill which came from the other House to this House to-day, with regard to Small Holding Colonies. There it is necessary to acquire land on precisely similar principles, and there a totally different principle is employed. A good many hon. Gentlemen who spoke from the other side of the House seemed to think that the provision by which the Land Clauses Act is proposed to be modified by the Schedule of this Bill would have the effect of not being sufficiently generous to those whose land is taken. I say frankly that my own view is entirely the contrary. The conditions of the Land Clauses Act, and the work of the Railway and Canal Commission in the administration of this Act, are such that I believe in practical working under this Bill the public will have to pay far too high a price for the land acquired, and that the qualifications in the Schedule would not afford them sufficient protection. If this goes forward, there is another danger I see in front, and that is that those hon. Gentlemen, who have been taking up that view will urge the Government at every turn to weaken the provisions of the Schedule which are for the benefit of the public, and will drive a coach and six through the whole thing. That being so, I cannot regard these provisions as satisfactory for the purpose of purchase. They are unsatisfactory for another reason. There are some of us who think that there ought to
1622
be some fair proportion between the valuation of the land on the basis on which the landowner contributes to the public need, and the valuation on the basis on which the public can purchase from the landowner, where land is taken for national purposes. There is no safeguard for that whatever in this measure, and if it goes to a Second Beading and if the Government proposes to proceed with these later Clauses, and with this Schedule, I certainly would propose to put in some Clause providing, for instance, that the purchase price shall not exceed, say, twenty-five years' purchase of the value of the property which is taken on its valuation for rating and taxation, and for the contribution of the landowner to the public. I say in regard to the rights of the public that far from giving them too many, this Bill gives them too few, and places them far too much at the mercy of the State, and of Acts which have proved inimical to the public interest for a very long time. In view o£ these circumstances, if my hon. Friend takes this to a Division I shall have, on general principles, to vote against the Second Beading, and I can only regret that the Coalition Government has not sounded better the feeling of the House on these questions before bringing in a: Bill for which scarcely anybody has been able to say a good word, except as regards two particular Clauses. The question we have to consider now is not these two Clauses, but whether the Bill as a whole is to go forward and to become law substantially in its present state. That is the Second Reading question, and on the basis of that if my hon. Friend goes to a Division I shall support him.
Mr. KING: I have observed lately that the Government has got a great deal of praise from all sides of the House just for those things which seem to me most questionable, and now to-day they have apparently from both sides of the House got a great deal of criticism and opposition for a Bill the object of which is certainly most laudable. On first looking at this Bill it struck me as rather difficult to understand, but when I was assisted by a friend in understanding the provisions of it, and since then have been enlightened by the course of this Debate, I have come to believe that this, after all, is a very good Bill, especially in view of the very large concessions which will no doubt be made, larger still when we come to the Committee stage, and which have

1623
been already announced from the Treasury Bench. I am particularly interested in common lands myself. Common lands are not to come under the purview of this Bill, as I understood the announcement of the Solicitor-General. I am inclined to think that common lands are safe, but nobody protects the common in the country, and a common is much more likely to be grabbed than the land of any landlord. I am, therefore, inclined to think that if commons can get these concessions, when we come to the Committee stage the rights of landlords will be very largely safeguarded too; in fact, that is the danger I foresee for a Bill of this character. I foresee a real danger, for when the Government get in what I may almost call a melting mood they are inclined to give concessions right and left in order to save their Bill. They may go too far in that. The object of this Bill is certainly a very good one, and is announced in the first words of the Memorandum. It is nothing else than this: "To protect the State against loss arising from the fact that in the emergency created by the War it has been necessary to erect War Office huts," etc., etc. It is perfectly obvious that an enormous amount of loss, because an enormous amount of waste, has occurred in these -camps. I live close to a very large camp, and it is impossible to preach economy to anyone who has worked on one of these camps, or lived near one of them, or has anybody connected in any way with them; in fact, the waste in connection with the huts and camps has been simply colossal. It is, therefore, a very laudable object indeed to try to protect the State from eventual loss. I look upon this Bill as perhaps the first step in a course of sweeping State Socialism. After the War, I believe the financial condition of every country will be very serious indeed, and that the only way of getting round it, and getting a contented and prosperous society, will be to abolish rich men altogether, and in some way or other to have State Socialism. I welcome this Bill as a great advance towards State Socialism, and I think that it shows in its obvious Socialistic tendency a very great insight and foresight on the part of the Government which I have not observed before. Although, therefore, I might say a great deal more on the subject, and I may do so later on, I will content myself now with
1624
saying that whatever may be the course of this Bill I shall certainly vote for it on Second Reading, and I hope that whatever the concessions that will be given by the Government, they will not be such great concessions that nothing will be left of the Bill. That is my fear at the present time. I strongly support the Government in bringing in this most courageous method of State Socialism, and I hope they will persist in it.
Mr. OUTHWAITE: I was very much attracted by the views expressed by the hon. Member who has just spoken, and to a certain extent I agree with him. I am, however, much more interested in, and I desire to support, the views put forward particularly by the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury). The ground of his opposition, and of that of other hon. Members, was that this Bill was not only for the term of the War, or to deal with war measures. They objected to a Bill, the objects of which could be extended beyond the term of the War, and extended for purposes which are not war purposes. I support that view, but from a rather different standpoint. This is a very bad time for the Government to embark upon any large scheme for the purchase of land. It is a mistake to give them the power to do so, in case they should be tempted to purchase land to a large extent for the purposes suggested by the hon. Member for North Somerset (Mr. King), namely, State Socialism. It would be bad business, for this reason: If we look at the conditions that are likely to arise after the War which he indicated it is obvious that very different regard will be had to the rights of property in land. Many millions of men have been sent to the front who have enlisted for the purpose of fighting for their country. I am quite confident that when they come back they will regard it very much more as their country and not as the country of a few privileged individuals. When any question arises of the acquisition of land for the national interest far more drastic methods will be adopted than could be adopted at the present time, when party controversial issues are considered to be in abeyance. This Bill suggests the setting up of some modified form of the old methods of compensation by way of the Lands Clauses Acts and the administration of the Railway and Canal Commission.

1625
We know perfectly well that in the past these methods have led to extortionate prices being paid for land, and it seems probable that, continuing the old method, the same thing will occur again. It is for the reason that I believe the amount of land purchased under present conditions should be limited as much as possible that I take the view expressed from the other side, that we should not give power to the Government to purchase in excess of immediate needs.
It is very obvious, as was suggested by the hon. Member for North Somerset, that the War is going to lead to an enormous increase of taxation. That must result in taxation which will lower the value of land. Again, the State will be well advised not to purchase one acre in excess of the needs, but to await the conditions that will arise later on. It is quite clear that by the introduction of the principle of Conscription, the taking from men of the most precious possession there is—the right of a man over his own life and limb —must create a new outlook on all questions of property. It is quite evident that men who have been conscripted and those
who have been forced in various ways or induced to make a sacrifice of or to endanger their lives will, in after days, have no, or very little, regard for any contention that there is some sacred right in property or land. There will undoubtedly be a sentiment throughout the masses of the people that the land for which they have fought is virtually national property which belongs by right to all the people; therefore, if the State and the nation needs land, it shall have the right virtually to take it free of charge, or, at any rate, if it comes to compensation, a very different estimate will be held of the owner's right and title therein. For these reasons I hope that in any measure the Government may find it necessary to take for the acquisition of land it will not be acquired in excess of present needs, because I think that later on this conclusion will be brought about of very different estimates from those likely to be maintained to-day.
Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
The House divided: Ayes, 99; Noes, 24.

Division No. 31.]

AYES.

[8.30 p.m.

Adamson, William

Goldstone, Frank

Prothero, Rowland Edmund

Astor, Hon. Waldorf

Greenwood, Sir G. G. (Peterborough)

Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

Baird, John Lawrence

Hancock, John George

Radford, Sir George Heynes

Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Luton, Beds.)

Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

Barnes, Rt. Hon. George N.

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

Haslam, Lewis

Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

Beale, Sir William Phipson

Henry, Sir Charles

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

Beck, Arthur Cecil

Hogge, James Myles

Robertson, Rt. Hon. John M.

Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Robinson, Sidney

Boland, John Plus

Horne, Edgar

Roe, Sir Thomas

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Rowlands, James

Brace, William

Hudson, Walter

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Bridgeman, William Clive

John, Edward Thomas

Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

Butcher, John George

Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

Shortt, Edward

Cave, Rt. Hon. Sir George

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

Jones, Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

Spear, Sir John Ward

Chancellor, Henry George

Kenyon, Barnet

Steel-Maitland, A. D.

Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

King, Joseph

Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

Cory, James Herbert (Cardiff)

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

Larmor, Sir J.

Tootill, Robert

Crooks, Rt. Hon. William

Levy, Sir Maurice

Toulmin, Sir George

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

Davies, Ellis William (Eiffon)

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

Watt, Henry A.

Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughby H.

Middlebrook, Sir William

Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir J. B.

Millar, James Duncan

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

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Morgan, George Hay

Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

Edge, Captain William

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Needham, Christopher T.

Wing, Thomas Edward

Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

Nolan, Joseph

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

Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Yeo, Alfred William

Finney, Samuel

Parker, James (Halifax)

Young, William (Perthshire, East)

Forster, Henry William

Pratt, J. W.

Galbraith, Samuel

Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Lord

Glanville, Harold James

Pringle, William M. R.

E. Talbot and Mr. Gulland

NOES.

Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

Bull, Sir William James

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

Byles, Sir William Pollard

Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

Boyton, James

Cator, John

Coats, Sir Stuart A. (Wimbledon)

Cory, Sir Clifford John (St. Ives)

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Walker, Colonel William Hall

Dalrymple, Hon. H. H.

Molloy, Michael

White, J, Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

Fletcher, John Samuel

Perkins, Walter Frank

Younger, Sir George

Gretten, John

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Remnant, James Farquharson

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Malcolm, Ian

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

Sir F. Banbury and Mr. Rawlinson.

Meysey-Thompson, Major E. C.

Question put, and agreed to.

MARRIAGE OF BRITISH SUBJECTS (FACILITIES) BILL.
Read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Tomorrow.—[Mr. James Hope.]

NATIONAL INSURANCE (PART II. —MUNITION WORKERS)— [EXPENSES],
Considered in Committee.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it is expedient to authorise 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."
Mr. KING: I think that we ought to know what the amount of this expenditure is likely to be. We are constantly-voting large sums of a perfectly indefinite character. They may be hundreds, they may be thousands, or they may be millions. Absolutely no trouble is taken to enlighten the House and no information is given as to the expenditure which we are incurring. I suppose I am a purist, but I must, even if I am alone, protest against this sort of thing and ask for some sort of explanation.
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Pretyman): I am afraid, although I sympathise very much with the general proposition put forward by my hon. Friend, in this case I cannot satisfy him, and I am bound to tell him it is absolutely impossible to say even approximately or to give the faintest notion what the amount may be, but I think when he
1628
hears what the object is, he will agree that from the national standpoint it is a desirable one. It is this: It is perfectly clear that there will be a transition stage after the War when there will be great disturbance of labour, and that that may, and I fear must, result in a considerable amount of unemployment. That would certainly entail two things upon the State: one a demand for relief of people who, through no fault of their own, find themselves in that position, and the other some organisation through which any such relief which the State decided to be necessary ought to be given. What this Bill does is to add a very large number of people engaged in trades which are now occupied in munition work to the trades scheduled under Part II. of the Insurance Act, and thereby to apply what is known as unemployment insurance to these trades. By that means we are now, during the War, and when the Government is sharing the profits with the employer, and therefore when the conditions are particularly favourable, undertaking a form of war saving to provide for a serious emergency which all of us foresee as probable after the War, and I think it is a matter which is frequently urged upon the Government, from many points of view, that it is our duty now, during the War, to prepare for circumstances of difficulty which we are likely to meet with when the War is over, and from that point of view this Bill is introduced. I need not explain it further than that at this stage. I am sure the hon. Member has read the Bill, and probably appreciates as well as I do what its main object is, and I am sure he sympathises with it. He will see that what the Treasury has to undertake to do under the Bill is to make good any deficit which there may be at the end of the period to which the Bill applies.
It is obviously impossible under the circumstances to forecast whether there will be a deficit or not. We hope there will not be, and the Bill is framed particularly with a view to avoiding that. We are taking these steps during a period when wages are high and when war savings are possible. The Bill carries on for three years after the War or for a period of five

1629
years, whichever is the shorter. We hope to carry the Bill on long enough. If the requirements arising after the War in the manner I have suggested are greater than the provision which will be accumulated during the War we hope, with the improved period of trade, when things have settled down, that there will have been sufficient time under the Bill to accumulate enough to cover any possible deficiency. I am sure the hon. Member will agree that it is absolutely impossible for us to foresee now the full circumstances that will arise after the War, and it is impossible to estimate what may be needed. The hon. Member cannot expect me to do that, and the Committee would think me extremely foolish if I attempted in any shape or form to mention any sum of money or to say whether the amount we might require would be large or small.
What this Bill does is to reduce, as far as possible, the liability which the country may have to undertake, and it is seeking to do that by providing for war savings and self-help. We hope that there will be no liability, but if there is, the hon. Member will agree that it must be met. All that the House is asked to do now is to pass the Resolution, and the House will subsequently have absolute control as to what Grants should or should not be made. Under the Rules of the House we cannot pass a Bill in any form which may involve a possible liability on the State without having, first of all, the Money Resolution upon which the Bill is founded. We cannot take the Committee stage of the Bill to-morrow unless we have this Money Resolution. I hope the House, therefore, will agree to pass the Resolution now. It is very important that this Bill should be passed with the least possible delay. The Committee will understand that a considerable amount of organisation will be necessary to bring the Bill into full effect, and in order that we may have arrangements made for the proper carrying out of the necessary insurance. About one and a half millions of additional workmen will be insured under this Act. The earliest date at which we can hope to bring the Act into operation is the beginning of September. Obviously, the longer time we have available during which to accumulate war savings against the pinch which we foresee the better it will be for everybody concerned. It is, therefore, a matter of urgency to get this Bill passed as soon as possible.
Mr. KING: I should like to thank the hon. Member for his extremely lucid and satisfactory explanation of this Resolution and also of the Bill, of which, I think, he got a Second Reading yesterday without any discussion. Therefore, his speech tonight is all the more helpful. There are, however, two observations I must make. One is, that in passing indefinite Resolutions like this we are pursuing a very wrong policy. If it is going to be a very large sum that is involved, the Government ought to come to the House again. I would like to see some limit fixed in regard to Money Resolutions of this kind. Fix it high if you like. If you ask for £2,000,000 I will not object, but to give absolute carte blanche to sign a cheque, and let the Government fill in at any time any sum they like, is not financial control by this House as it ought to be. The other observation I have to make is that we have brought before us now, as far as I know for the first time, the anticipation of the Government that after the War there may be a period of very grave lack of employment and distress. That has never been definitely stated or provided for by the Government, so far as I know. We have had many Debates and statements in the House in a directly opposite direction. We only have to listen to speeches of the hon. Member for the Wellingborough Division of Northamptonshire (Sir L. Chiozza Money), who has lately been honoured by a title, to know that in his opinion we are going to have such a state of prosperity immediately after the War that it is quite unnecessary to proceed with relief measures at this early date. If we go to another authority of a very different class, we cannot read the speeches of Sir George Paish, a very great authority, without being informed that immediately after the War there will be any amount of work to be done, and any amount of capital available, and that we need not anticipate any really serious unemployment after the War. Beyond that, we have the Allies deciding at Paris that the Allies are to have all the trade of Germany and Austria, so that they will do very well after the War.
The CHAIRMAN The CHAIRMAN rose—
Mr. KING: I know I am going beyond my subject, Sir, and I will not proceed further.
Resolution to be reported to-morrow (Thursday).

DEFENCE OF THE EEALM (ACQUISITION OF LAND)— [EXPENSES].
Committee to consider of authorising the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of the Compensation and Purchase Money payable by any Government Department under any Act of the present Session to make provision with respect to the possession or acquisition of land occupied or used for the defence of the realm in connection with the present War, and of all other
1632
Expenses incurred by any Government Department thereunder. [King's Recommendation signified.] To-morrow.—[Mr. Gulland.]
Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 22nd February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
Adjourned accordingly at Six minutes before Nine o'clock.

WAR.
  BRITISH SHIPS (TRANSFER, SALE, OR MORTGAGE).
  BRITISH SHIPS (TRANSFER, SALE, OR MORTGAGE).
  PRISON WARDERS (PAY).
  PRISON WARDERS (PAY).
DISTURBANCES IN IRELAND.
  CASES UNDER INQUIRY.
  CASES UNDER INQUIRY.
  TRIAL OF PRISONERS.
  TRIAL OF PRISONERS.
MILITARY SERVICE.
  BADGES.
  BADGES.
  TIME-EX PIRIUI WARRANT OFFICERS AND MEN.
  TIME-EX PIRIUI WARRANT OFFICERS AND MEN.
  ARMY SERVICE CORPS (OPERATION ON PRIVATE).
  ARMY SERVICE CORPS (OPERATION ON PRIVATE).
  SCOTTISH HORSE BRIGADE.
  SCOTTISH HORSE BRIGADE.
  RECEIVING DEPOT, DUBLIN.
  RECEIVING DEPOT, DUBLIN.
  RETURNED SOLDIERS (UNSETTLED ACCOUNTS).
  RETURNED SOLDIERS (UNSETTLED ACCOUNTS).
MUNITIONS.
  WOMEN WORKERS (OVERTIME).
  WOMEN WORKERS (OVERTIME).
  TRAVANCORE STATE (TEA PLANTERS).
  TRAVANCORE STATE (TEA PLANTERS).
  NATURAL INDIGO (SCIENTIFIC CULTIVATION).
  NATURAL INDIGO (SCIENTIFIC CULTIVATION).
  IRISH VOLUNTEERS (GOVERNMENT EMPLOYES).
  IRISH VOLUNTEERS (GOVERNMENT EMPLOYES).
  SUGAR SUPPLY (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  SUGAR SUPPLY (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  COAL PRICES (MERCHANTS' CHARGES).
  COAL PRICES (MERCHANTS' CHARGES).
  TRAFFIC BETWEEN LONDON AND DUBLIN.
  TRAFFIC BETWEEN LONDON AND DUBLIN.
  Port Veterinary Department (Ireland).
  Port Veterinary Department (Ireland).
  Small Holders (Scotland).
  Small Holders (Scotland).

Preamble
TYNEMOUTH CORPORATION BILL.
MARRIAGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
HALIFAX CORPORATION PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 6) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (GAS) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
Committee to meet on Tuesday next.

WAKEFIELD CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments: A further Amendment made: Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
METROPOLITAN ELECTRIC TRAMWAYS BILL.
PLYMOUTH AND STONEHOUSE GAS BILL.
UXBRIDGE GAS BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.

LECKY'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Message from the Commons for copy of the Minutes of Evidence taken before this House, together with the proceedings and documents deposited in the case: Ordered to be communicated with a request that they may be returned.

RETURNS, REPORTS, & c.
National Portrait Gallery—Fifty-ninth Annual Report of the Trustees of the National Portrait Gallery, 1915–1916: Presented (by command) and ordered to lie on the Table.
Diseases of Animals Acts, 1894 to 1914—Order, No. 9767, dated 29th June, 1916, postponing the operation of the Two Orders described in the Schedule thereto until 1st August, 1916:
India (Progress and Condition)—Statement exhibiting the moral and material progress and condition of India during the year 1914–1915. Fifty-first Number:
Shops Act, 1912—Order made by the Council of the County of Somerset and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, affecting certain classes of shops in the Parish of Dulverton:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act and ordered to lie on the Table.

CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES.
The Lord BALFOUR appointed to take the Chair in Committees of the Whole House this day.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment, and to be read 3a To-morrow.

NAVAL ASSISTANT PAYMASTERS.
LORD BERESFORD LORD BERESFORD had the following Questions on the Paper—
To ask His Majesty's Government how many Commissions as assistant paymaster, Royal Naval Reserve, have been granted to civilians since the outbreak of war, and the number of commissions, Royal Navy, granted to writer ranks and ratings during the same period; the number of chief writers, Royal Navy, now recommended for promotion, and their average length of service; what number of years an accountant officer on the permanent list of the Navy has to serve before drawing the same rate of pay as a new entry assistant paymaster, Royal Naval Reserve; whether men from the shore are still being entered as assistant paymasters, Royal Naval Reserve; why such inexperienced men have been and are being entered in preference to promoting chief and warrant writers who are more competent to fill their positions; and whether future requirements for accountant officers will be met by promotion from writers.
The noble and gallant Lord said: My Lords, anything that concerns the welfare of the Royal Navy naturally provokes

573
great sympathy in this House, more especially where any injustice can be shown to be done to any department of that Service. The Service, to be thoroughly efficient, should have contentment and comfort in all its branches, and no semblance of injustice. Late efforts have shown that the Admiralty are desirous of recognising the claims of all the different departments on the lower deck, and of giving them, where they are so qualified, commissioned rank. But there is no commissioned rank for writers, and, if your Lordships will permit me, I will endeavour to show the injustice under which these men labour.
Commissioned rank is open to all seamen in the gunnery, torpedo, signalling, and wireless telegraphy ratings. Commissioned rank is also open to engine-room artificers, carpenter ratings, and Royal Marines. Writers occupy most responsible positions of trust and are deserving and hardworking, and I do not think the Admiralty have given them that consideration which I maintain is their due. For instance, candidates for gunner, torpedo gunner, boatswain, and warrant telegraphist have to serve only seven years to qualify them for the warrant. Thus a boy can join the Navy between the age of 15 and 16 and become a warrant officer between the age of 22 and 23. The selection of petty officers for warrant, officers, and of warrant officers to mate for promotion to lieutenant, is made from candidates not over 25. Shipwrights are eligible for promotion to carpenter after twelve months' service. The unfairness to the writer class is shown when you make these comparisons. The writer has to have a minimum service of seventeen years and he must be 35 years of age before he is eligible for warrant writer. That compares very unfavourably with the other classes and departments on board ship. The average age of the first twelve writers promoted to warrant rank in 1910 is over 50; the average age of I warrant writers now serving is 44; and the average age of the five chief warrant writers at present in the Service is over 51. These men have had years of service in all branches of work, such as pay accounts, ledger, secretarial, drafting, and mobilisation. They also have charge of all the accounts, and all the matters relating thereto, of the gunnery, torpedo, and destroyer flotillas. In fact, their work is immense in every ship in the Service.
574
All Commanders-in-Chief, I believe without exception, are in favour of these men's promotion, and of commissioned rank being given. Most of the chiefs of the accountant branch in the Service—that is their own branch—have also, knowing the worth of these men, recommended that they should be qualified for commissioned rank.
Where the writers feel injustice in the present war is this. Assistant paymasters, Royal Naval Reserve, when they are appointed straight from the shore, are senior to and in control of all writer ratings, but the curious thing is that the writer class have to instruct these senior officers in the work, of which they know nothing whatever. But an assistant paymaster, owing to his commissioned rank, is senior to all these writers and gets considerably higher pay. I will give your Lordships some cases, but will refrain from mentioning names. The first is the case of an assistant paymaster who was brought in from shore to the Royal Naval Reserve. He was before this a first grade clerk in a gas office, receiving £2 a week; he has now commissioned rank over all the writers in the service, and is receiving £219 a year. Another assistant paymaster, Royal Naval Reserve, was previously a counter clerk to a tourist agent, and knew nothing whatever about ships' accounts; he now gets £219 a year. Another Royal Naval Reserve assistant paymaster was lately a tramway employee; he has come in over the heads of these writers and gets this high rate of pay. Another man appointed assistant paymaster was a penny-in-the-slot gas-meter collector; he entered the Royal Navy with commissioned rank, and is over the heads of these well-tried men who know their work. Another man who received a commission as assistant paymaster was a junior clerk in an office receiving £70 a year; he now gets this £219 a year. As I say, all these men who come into the Navy with commissioned rank are put over all the writers, and they have to be taught their work by these men who have put in long years of continual service. At present promotions to warrant rank are very few, and they are deferred so long and so late in life that the men are not as useful as they would have been earlier.
With your Lordships' permission, I wish to make a few suggestions to my noble

575
friend opposite. We should have early promotion to warrant rank, and it should be by selection and not by seniority. The men should be promoted who have recognised ability. I would propose that the number of warrant writers should be increased. There are 270 chief writers available for promotion to warrant writers, and they are all strongly recommended. There is at present very little chance of any of them being promoted; at any rate, very few have got promoted. I would further propose that the number of chief warrant writers should be increased, and that commissions should be granted to the writer branch. I think I have said enough to show your Lordships that these men are justified in thinking that they are not treated fairly. They see every other branch of the Service, with three or four exceptions, allowed to obtain commissioned rank. The work of these men is immense; they are in positions of great responsibility and trust, and I can confidently say that the whole Naval Service regard the present position of these men as an injustice. I therefore hope that my noble friend will give some sort of encouragement that these men will receive that recognition of their services to which they are justly entitled.
THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, the numbers of civilians granted commissions as assistant paymasters, Royal Naval Reserve, since the outbreak of war are as follows:—Permanent commissions in the Royal Naval Reserve, 68; temporary commissions in the Royal Naval Reserve for general service, 551; temporary commissions in the Royal Naval Reserve for service in auxiliaries, 255. The officers in the third category are not entered for general service, but are signed on under an agreement which may be terminated at any time. The totals given above are those actually entered, and include officers killed in action, died or discharged, since the outbreak of war. Five warrant writers have been promoted to commissioned warrant rank during the same period, such rank having been introduced in October last.
LORD BERESFORD: As the noble Duke's statement might mislead the House, I would point out that promotion to commissioned warrant rank does not give a man a commission.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: The total number of chief writers recommended for warrant rank is 213, but this figure includes some who have been killed or invalided. The average service as chief writer of those recommended is from five to seven years. The number of years an accountant officer on the permanent list of the Navy has to serve before drawing the same rate of pay as an assistant paymaster, Royal Naval Reserve, is 7½ years, or, if the messing allowance of the assistant paymaster, Royal Naval Reserve, is taken into account, 13½ years from date of entry, but it must be remembered that the men on the permanent list have constant employment and certainty of pension on retirement. A few entries of assistant paymasters, Royal Naval Reserve, from the shore are still being made. These officers have been, and are being, entered in order to meet the temporary requirements of the Naval Service during war, and they will revert to civil life at the termination of hostilities. Care is being taken to select men unfit for military service. Promoted chief and warrant writers, on the other hand, can only be utilised to fill permanent requirements still existing after hostilities. Chief writers have been, and still are being, promoted to warrant rank to meet present and future requirements of accountant officers, and since war broke out the number of promoted chief writers has been increased from 15 to 52.
I hope I have now dealt categorically with the Questions on the Paper, but there are some general considerations which the House must keep in mind. In the first place, we have, in the case which my noble friend has brought forward, to face the same problems which are continually arising in nearly all branches of the Public Service. The nature of this service, like many others, entails the employment of a large number of men in the lower ranks and relatively few in the higher posts. The object to be kept in view is to make the prospects of promotion as fair as possible all round, to give an equal opportunity to all to rise in the Service, and to maintain an even flow of promotions.
To turn to the question immediately before the House, I understand the main criticism is that men have been brought in from outside in preference to promoting chief writers. I must remind the House that the number of warrant writers before

577
the war was 15, and there are now five commissioned writers and 47 warrant writers, and I think I am justified in saying that the branch has been fairly treated. From practical experience difficulty has been found in providing relief for the writers who have been promoted, and if the promotion of this class had been substantially increased the difficulty would also be increased to a considerable extent. Moreover, it must be remembered that the number of assistant paymasters has necessarily been increased to meet the demand of the Service during the war, and the Board were and are still of opinion that the best method of dealing with the immediate situation and the state of affairs which is expected to prevail after the war was to obtain the services of a number of qualified men for temporary purposes. When these men can be released they will return to civil employment. The employment of officers of the accountant branch was the subject of inquiry by a Departmental Committee which reported on March 31, 1914. Effect has already been given to some of the recommendations, but no doubt the position will again have to be reviewed in the light of the experience gained during the war. I need hardly say that the policy of the Board will be, as it has always been, to see that all branches should as far as possible be treated on equal terms, and that all men in whatever branch they may be serving should have equal opportunities.
LORD BERESFORD: My Lords, with the permission of the House I should like to make this remark, that my noble friend has not answered the question as to whether the Admiralty are going to give writers the same privilege as other branches of the Service have—that is as regards commissioned rank. A commissioned chief writer is not a man with a commission the same as an assistant paymaster or a lieutenant. What I want to get at definitely is this. Do the Admiralty refuse the same privilege to the writers in His Majesty's Navy as they give to every other class, with the exception of three or four, in all departments?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I am sure that the wish of the Admiralty is to treat all men, in whatever branch they may be serving, as fairly as possible; but if the noble and gallant Lord will put another Question on the Paper dealing with this point I shall be glad to make further inquiries.

BRITISH PRISONERS AT RUHLEBEN.
LORD DEVONPORT LORD DEVONPORT rose to call attention to the condition of civilian prisoners interned at Ruhleben, and to ask what steps His Majesty's Government are taking, or have in contemplation, to mitigate the treatment they are suffering.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in rising to ask the Question which I have on the Paper, perhaps I may recall to your Lordships' memory that immediately prior to the adjournment at Whitsuntide we had a discussion in this House relating to the treatment, of prisoners, both civilian and military, interned in Germany. I think that debate was initiated by a Question placed on the Paper by my noble friend Lord Beresford. On that occasion I took the opportunity of presenting to your Lordships information that was in my possession with regard to the treatment of civilian prisoners in the Ruhleben camp, and I should not have attempted to raise the question again at so early a date were it not for the fact that the Government themselves have made public later information than we then had in our possession, and information that is grave, disconcerting, and alarming, not only to those who have an interest in the prisoners at Ruhleben, but to the country at large. They view with the greatest amount of apprehension the condition of these unfortunate prisoners, who are not in a position to help themselves, and in view of these circumstances I thought it was obviously desirable that we should take the earliest opportunity of discussing the situation in its latest phases.
There was circulated to your Lordships not long ago, in the form of a White Paper, the first Report from Dr. A.E. Taylor, who had been making investigations of an exhaustive character on the spot at Ruhleben. He had been visiting the camp day after day. Indeed, I think that he went there on ten consecutive days, and in addition to that he had been paying intermittent visits. Therefore his investigation has been exhaustive, and is consequently entitled to the greatest amount of respect at our hands. Had his visits been merely of a perfunctory character, any criticisms made by him might have been subject to criticism of another kind. But that is not the character of Dr. Taylor's Reports. He points out in his first Report that during these visits he studied, first of all, the diet both

579
quantitatively and qualitatively. He inspected the food supplied; he tested it, and took notice of the weighings of the quantities allotted to each man; and, what is important, he contemplated the dietary from the view-point of what is necessary in quantity and quality to sustain a human being in proper health and nourishment. He sets forth very clearly in this document that in his judgment the food provided was not sufficient in any direction to provide nourishment for the 3,700 prisoners interned in the camp at Ruhleben. And this confirms the statement that was made in another place by Mr. Tennant, following upon a statement which he made earlier which he wished to correct, that the prisoners at Ruhleben were entirely dependent upon the parcels which they received from this side, and that were it not for the receipt of those parcels they would be in a state of starvation. Those are Mr. Tennant's words; and Dr. Taylor, in effect, confirms them.
Dr. Taylor deals with the question of the food supplies that reach the prisoners from this country, and of the relation they have to the maintenance of the prisoners themselves. He computes in food values that the food sent from England represented from one-half to two-thirds of the food value supplied by the camp authorities. I need not elaborate that. The statement is so clear that your Lordships will grasp its full meaning without any elaboration on my part. As regards the quality of the food, I think it only fair to point out that in some particulars Dr. Taylor declared the food to be of a satisfactory quality. Of course, when he uses the terms "satisfactory" or "good quality," they are relative. I do not suppose, if any of us had to make a meal off this food, we should consider the quality very good. But for what it is worth, I state that. But he pointed out at the same time that some of the food which he personally inspected was in a state of putrefaction. It had been served up for the prisoners' dietary; it was tinned food, I think, and in his presence it was examined and found in a state of putrefaction. Then as regards bread, the prisoners are receiving what he calls "K" bread—I suppose that means war bread—and they cannot eat it; they do not attempt to eat it. The bulk of the prisoners do not take up the ration at
580
all. Many of them have been receiving from Berne, from an organisation there, bread that I have always heard, until these recent Reports, arrived in a satisfactory condition. But from the Reports of Dr. Taylor, for what reason I cannot fathom, the bread from Berne, on which the prisoners rely, had been arriving lately in a mouldy condition. I can only assume that this has proceeded from delay on the railways, though I cannot understand why the bread, having been good for so long, suddenly becomes bad.
Now, to go on with Dr. Taylor's criticisms. The effect of the shortness of the food supplied to the prisoners was, he states, perfectly obvious to him. Walking about the camp day after day he met a considerable number of men who, he says, appeared under-nourished. That is not to be wondered at when we find, further in his Report, the statement that as many as 700 of these prisoners are receiving no parcels at all from this country. That arises from their circumstances. They have no friends here. Consequently up to the time of this Report, nobody taking an interest in them, they were subsisting, and were bound to subsist, on this ration about which I shall have a good deal more to say later.
Since his first Report Dr. Taylor has written two more Reports, and these are contained in the White Paper [Cd. 8262] just circulated, which no doubt has been read by many of your Lordships this morning. The first Report was grave, but these two later Reports are much more serious. Dr. Taylor points out, in the first of the two Reports contained in the recently-published White Paper—the first Report is dated May 24 last and the second June 14—that since he wrote his first Report the amount of food has been greatly reduced and a fresh scale of dietary has been put in force. Then he draws a comparison between this fresh scale of dietary in force in the civilian camp of Ruhleben and the dietary current at this moment among the combatant prisoners of war in Germany, and he comes to this conclusion—that the civilian prisoners are receiving only a little more than one-third of the protein-carrying foods allowed to combatant prisoners of war. I will trouble your Lordships for a moment with one or two paragraphs from the Report of May 24. Dr. Taylor says—
"In the Report presented a few weeks ago a detailed statement was offered of the amount of

581
foodstuffs devoted to subsistence during that time. Since then a sharp reduction has been made in the amount of foodstuff allotted to the camp. In order to illustrate the present state of affairs, the ration provided by the authorities for the camp in Ruhleben may be contrasted with the ration for military prisoners promulgated in the latest food programme of the Kriegsministerium. The differences are concerned largely with the allowances of meat and fish. There is also a difference in the potato ration."
Then Dr. Taylor goes on to draw a comparison between the scale of dietary allotted to combatant prisoners and the reduced scale now in force at Ruhleben. He says this—
"Viewing the protein content of the sausage and fish as equal in both estimates, it is apparent that the military prisoner of war is allotted per week 1,150 grammes of these protein-carrying foods, while the civil prisoner of war in Ruhleben is allotted 100 grammes of the same articles, a little more than one-third the amount allotted to the military prisoner of war. The potato ration of the civil prisoner is less than half that of the military prisoner."
Yesterday afternoon I had the opportunity of a conversation with a gentleman—I think he is known to the Foreign Office—who was interned in Ruhleben camp until a month or six: weeks ago, and who held there the position of second captain in the camp. I may mention that the camp itself is run under English control as regards discipline, the cooking of the food, the apportionment of the food, and so on. The quantity and the quality, of course, are fixed by the German Government. This gentleman told me that he viewed with the greatest apprehension this diminution of the potato ration. He said that many of the prisoners there would take up no part of the official ration except the potato ration. He said that the potatoes were good and that it was a stand-by of a most important character, and they always took up the potato ration. This is the particular ration which has been reduced by one half since Dr. Taylor wrote his first Report, and I take the liberty of referring to it because the information which was given to me yesterday by this gentleman impressed me very much. So much for the first supplementary Report of Dr. Taylor.
I now pass, my Lords, to the second Report, dated June 14, contained in the White Paper published this morning. I regret to say that this Report is still more unfavourable. It appears from it that the Germans have deliberately reduced the official rations, not only in quantity but in
582
character, so as to eliminate from them their nutrimentary qualities. This is a display of what I call scientific cruelty, and I should be loth to use such a term as that did not the document itself prove it up to the hilt. Take, for instance, the fat properties in food. We know, from information coming from Germany itself, that it is the absence of fat above all things that is causing them so much discomfiture; and as regards this particular necessity, Dr. Taylor points out that the revised scale of diet is as fat-free as it is practically possible for a diet to be.
Then in this June 14 Report Dr. Taylor sets out a table showing the yield of foodstuffs supplied to prisoners per man in units of protein, fat, carbohydrate, and calories. I will only deal with two—protein and fat. Dr. Taylor takes the percentages of these essentials in the rations supplied to the combatant prisoner—that is to say, the prisoner of war—and contrasts them with the percentages in the rations supplied to the civilian prisoners in Ruhleben. He takes two stages in the Ruhleben supplies—the earlier stage, to which he referred in his first Report, and the later stage (June), to which he refers in this Report. The unit of protein per man, as regards the prisoner of war ration, is 80; as regards fat, it is 29. Taking the Ruhleben camp in its first stage, as against 80 in the case of prisoners of war, it is 59 as regards protein; and 12, as against 29, as regards fat. But consider this in its latest stage and see what a terrible indication there is here of what is going on. In the later stage, as regards protein, as against 80 of the prisoner of war ration Ruhleben has dropped to 39; and as regards fat Ruhleben has dropped down to 6, as against the 29 of the prisoner of war ration. Dr. Taylor further states that the food supply during the week ended June 14, if applied to all interned, represents less than one-half of the requisite food units. Then he draws attention to another thing, which I think is most discreditable on the part of any nation. When the diet of the interned civilians in Ruhleben was worked out, the sum of 66 pfennigs per man per day was allotted for the purchase of foodstuffs, etc.; but lately the authorities have not been spending anything like that sum, but have allowed the money to accumulate until there is now an unexpended balance of between £3,000 and £10,000, which should have been spent on the food of these prisoners but has not been so spent.
Now I come to the question, What is to be done to deal with the situation as we have it before us? I have no complaint to make about the action of our Government except in one particular, to which I will refer in a moment. The Government, through Sir Edward Grey, communicated with the American Embassy here and asked them to convey to the German Government their strong protest. They pointed out, in tie first place, that if the German Government were unable to feed these prisoners properly their obvious duty was to release them; at the same time they took the opportunity of reminding them that, so far from doing that, they were not observing honourable agreements that they had entered into as long ago as last September. In September, there was a compact arrived at, through the intermediary of the American Embassy, between the British Government and the German Government to the effect that all unfit prisoners should be released. I believe it was left to each country to form its own conclusion as to what constituted an unfit prisoner, but of course it was to be subject to medical inspection, and one would naturally have anticipated that the inspection would be carried out on fair and honourable lines. The German Government are not observing this agreement, at all events to the full, because, as Lord Robert Cecil pointed out last week in the House of Commons, they are detaining civilian prisoners who are thoroughly entitled to repatriation on the ground of ill-health.
Perhaps the House will allow me to give an illustration within my own knowledge of how dishonourably the Germans are observing this compact. I know of a young man in the Ruhleben camp who was captured whilst spending his vacation in Bavaria. He developed serious heart trouble in the camp; so much so that the Germans sent him to Bad Nauheim on a month's leave for treatment. He was so bad that they extended this to two months, and again to three months, and then he returned to the camp. But what happened to him when he returned? He went straight to the sanatorium, and there he remains to this day. Is not that a case of a man suffering ill-health? On the one hand, in England we repatriate hundreds of prisoners under this compact; on the other hand, the Germans are not observing it at all. Another instalment of their cruelty in this particular is this. I know as a fact that
584
this young fellow has been on the list for weeks and months. I sent to Tilbury last February to welcome him. But though he has been on the list a long time and is eligible for repatriation he has never arrived. I should like to invite the attention of Lord Newton to that aspect of the case, and I expect he will have something to say that will confirm what I have already pointed out.
To continue Sir Edward Grey's communication to the German Government. He finally proposed to the Germans that all civilians at Ruhleben should be exchanged for a similar number of German civilians, but he accompanied that, I think most unfortunately, with what can only be considered as a veiled threat or as an ultimatum. He said that should the German Government not accept this proposal within a week, we should be compelled to consider what course to adopt with regard to the rations of German civilians interned here. The week has now elapsed, and I am desirous of ascertaining from the Government what steps they are going to take. What are they going to do? What is going to happen? Was this intended as an ultimatum? If so, and if at the moment they select the Government are going to adopt some sort of retaliation, I think they will find that this is not a policy which the country is inclined to support. I have never heard any—shall I say?—decent-minded person in this country express himself in favour of retaliation. We are what we are. Our national spirit does not tend in that direction; and, indeed, retaliation would be disastrous to those in whose interests it is presumed it would be adopted.
We have had a bitter experience in the past of what retaliation means. We resorted to a system of differential treatment with regard to the German submarine officers who were captured. I think there were 39 of them, and the then First Lord of the Admiralty, Mr. Churchill, gave it out that these submarine officers were outside the pale, that they were not to be allowed to consort with other officers taken in honourable warfare, but were to have different treatment. We know perfectly well what happened. Instantly the Germans took a corresponding number of British officers and put them into solitary confinement. I remember the debate in this House, initiated, I think, by Lord

585
Albemarle, who properly protested against procedure of this kind. And, finally, when Mr. Balfour went to the Admiralty he cancelled this manifesto, and the thing has resumed its normal position.
One other illustration of what proceeds from indiscreet actions in dealing with Germany. We sent 2,000 German prisoners to Havre the other day. It seemed a harmless thing to do, but the Germans instantly retaliated and took 2,000 of our prisoners out of their own country and sent them to Russian Poland, very much to their discomfort and unhappiness. Therefore I hope myself that no principle of retaliation will be indulged in, however shocking and inhuman the treatment of the Germans may be of those civilian prisoners of ours. It would he far better to endure it than endeavour to cure it by a system of retaliation. It would intensify and worsen the condition of our men and make their lot still harder than it is now. If it is to be a competition, it means that it is to be a competition in brutality. I am sure the nation will not support anything of that sort being attempted, and we ought not to countenance it at all. So much for retaliation.
What is there remaining that can be done or tried? The only course is to work for the repatriation of the whole of these prisoners, and if repatriation is not acceptable, then to work for the transfer of these prisoners either to Holland, to Switzerland, or to Denmark. Sir Edward Grey has endeavoured to bring that about, and he has proposed to the German Government—as I think I mentioned earlier in my observations—that the whole of the British civilians at Ruhleben should be released in exchange for a similar number of German civilians in this country. I would like to say a word or two on the basis of equality of numbers in exchange. Of course, we hold very many more Germans than the Germans hold English—I am speaking of civilians. We hold in our internment camps 26,000 German civilians, and they hold of ours only 3,700. The basis of equality of exchange has not been maintained in the exchanges that have taken place in regard to unfit prisoners. I referred just now to the agreement of September of last year, and to the way in which it had been adhered to on either side. Sir Edward Grey told us the other day, in another place, that of the entire body of civilians interned respectively in
586
Germany and in England, Germany had been allowed to repatriate 1½ per cent. of their total, whereas we have only received in exchange ½ per cent. of ours; and taking the last four months, from February to the end of May, whereas 375 unfit Germans have been repatriated, we have received in exchange only 22 unfit English. Therefore if there is to be any argument in support of an absolute equality of exchange, I say that hitherto this basis has not been worked to.
Is it any great advantage to us to continue to keep in this country these 26,000 Germans whom we have interned? I suggest that it would be far wiser to get rid of them altogether, and to exchange them for our 3,700 civilian prisoners interned in Germany. Of course, they would have to leave the country. I am told that there are many interned Germans who under no circumstances would desire to leave this country. They would be given the option of going back to Germany or remaining where they are. But if we were to say to Germany," In return for the 3,700 civilian prisoners you hold we offer you your civilian prisoners." and they did not agree to that, then it would be obvious that they would not agree to anything, and we should have to reconsider the position entirely anew.
I hope the noble Lord will tell us definitely whether the Government have in contemplation any scheme of retaliation. It would be well that we should know this at the earliest moment. It would be a most disastrous scheme, in my judgment, and I do not think I stand alone in your Lordships' House in holding that opinion. As I mentioned just now, I have no complaint to make with regard to the communication of our Government to Germany, except that I think it would have been better had they omitted the tail end of it where they said that if they did not get a reply in a week they would have to consider what they would do with regard to the rations of German prisoners interned here.
I should like to say, in conclusion, that in my opinion it is very necessary to delegate this question of dealing with prisoners of war as well as civilians to a single Department. At the present moment it is not confined to a single Department by any means. The Foreign Office has to do with it; the War Office has more to do with it; and the Home

587
Office also has something to do with it. We know from past experience that when three or four Departments are taking part in a thing of this kind there is bound to be a conflict of opinion which does not produce the very best results. I think that if this matter could be delegated to a single Department with a strong and sympathetic head responsible for all questions affecting prisoners, we should do better in the future than we have done in the past; at all events, we should get what we have not got now—uniformity of action. I beg to ask the Question standing in my name.
THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies I should like to make a few remarks with regard to this subject. There is no doubt that all the British prisoners in Germany, civilian or war, do not get enough to eat; and the only reason, to put it plainly, why they are alive in many cases is that they get parcels from this country. I wish to draw the noble Lord's attention to the last Report that came into our hands this morning. It is there stated—
"…the Prisoners of War Help Committee, at the instance of the Foreign Office, constituted in May, 1915, a civilian sub-committee, which has registered the names and addresses of the civilian prisoners at Ruhleben, so far as it has been possible to ascertain them, and has endeavoured to meet the need of those who have applied for relief, or on whose behalf application has been made, either by sending parcels themselves or through the medium of other relief committees."
That sounds as if everybody at Ruhleben got parcels. Since then the German ration has been much reduced. In his Report of June 14 Dr. Taylor says—
"At least one-half of the food parcels coming into the camp proceed from sources outside of the lists. About 2,000 names are upon these various lists; some of these 2,000 receive private packages from their own families. These pack ages, together with those sent to the remaining 1,200 men, who subsist largely upon private packages, make up at least half of the total number—"
Now this is the points—
"Two hundred and fifty men are known to receive practically no aid whatever from the outside, and 500 more receive packages so rarely that the contents are of little material aid."
I cannot understand why, since May, 1915, the rest of the men in the camp have not been able to receive parcels, because there has been ample time for organising and making arrangements with the numberless concerns that are sending parcels.
588
Practically these 750 men have been, according to this Report, almost in a state of starvation—at all events, in want of food. With regard to military prisoners in Germany, we have, in the case of one regiment of which I am thinking, found out exactly the men who want parcels, and they have received their parcels and have thus been saved from starvation. I hope there will be an answer to the question why these 750 civilian prisoners in Ruhleben have not been as well looked after as the 2,000 since May, 1915.
I agree with Lord Devonport in the hope that there will be no retaliation, because if we adopt that policy here the Germans will only retaliate there five times as badly. We have had experience of that before. With regard to repatriation, I do not know that the Germans will play fair about that. I concur in what Lord Devonport said about that matter, and I agree that it would be much better if we could get these men transferred to neutral countries where they would be properly taken care of in regard to food, medical attendance, and so on. But there is one thing on which I do not agree with Lord Devonport. He suggested that we should offer a large number of the German civilian prisoners here in exchange for our civilian prisoners in Germany. That is all very well, but German civilian prisoners in this country who are of military age ought to be kept here. Otherwise they would soon be fighting against us, and that would not be a businesslike way of dealing with the matter. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to say that some measures have been taken to deal with the 750 men at Ruhleben who, as far as I can understand, are not getting parcels.
LORD GRENFELL: My Lords, I am fully aware that the question before the House is confined to the internment camp at Ruhleben, but there was a part of the speech of Lord Devonport which I am anxious to support, namely, the setting up of a separate bureau instead of the organisation which is now shared by several Departments—a bureau giving easy access to the public, where questions might be asked with regard to these prisoners. The duty of the bureau would no doubt be to collect all the evidence possible, which I am aware is now done in the Foreign Office, and also to obtain what I do not think we have at present—nominal

589
rolls of all the prisoners. Chiefly it should be a bureau to which, as I have said, the public could have easy access and where they would be able to find out what they are so anxious to discover—namely, where their relatives are, and, as regards the parcels, whether or not they get them, or whether they are at Ruhleben in a state of semi-starvation.
We have already in the Red Cross two departments which I believe have greatly assisted the Government in finding out various matters regarding these prisoners. There is another department whose duty it is to forward the parcels. There is also in Switzerland the wife of the Minister, who is very active and has a large establishment there, whence these parcels are distributed. There are regimental societies, and a great many private societies; very often they are unable to find out when prisoners are removed, and parcels consequently go astray. Parcels, too, are duplicated, and there is a great deal of overlapping. The removal of the 2,000 unfortunate British prisoners from Germany to Russian Poland has, of course, changed the situation to a certain extent, and I believe that at present there is no nominal roll of those men. They have been taken from various parts, and the various societies who forward parcels have received letters pointing out the misery in which these men are living. We do not know yet whether it is possible to send out parcels to these unfortunate people in Poland. I am quite certain that if a bureau such as is suggested could be established it would assist these various societies, and I am confident that it would be of very great advantage.
LORD BERESFORD: My Lords, I should like to support Lord Devonport's statement that were it not for the provisions sent out from this country and from Switzerland our prisoners in Germany would starve—that is, both the civilian prisoners and the prisoners of war. Lord Robert Cecil said in the other House, I think it must be six weeks ago, that he was getting very anxious as to the future. There is no doubt that, owing to the blockade, the Germans will shortly be much more short of food than they are at this moment. They are not a chivalrous race. They will repay what they call our starving of them by starving our prisoners, and the position is most serious.
590
I know that the Government recognise this, and the only reason why I have risen is to say that I think the more we discuss this brutality, for we can call it nothing else—it is barbarous—the more we discuss it in both Houses the more will attention be called to the matter amongst the neutrals and perhaps in Germany itself. But the thing cannot go on. I agree entirely with Lord Devonport and Lord Mayo that retaliation is the last thing we should attempt. We could not do it at all. It is opposed to our sentiments. And it would not achieve the object, because the Germans would not care one fig if we starved the whole lot of their prisoners over here. But we should care if they proceeded to starve our prisoners over there.
I want to mention the case of the Gütersloh prison. There are prisoners of war there, principally British. The noble Lord must know something about it, because there was a full Report sent in as to that prison in July, 1915, and I should like to narrate some of the horrors that go on there. But perhaps the noble Lord would prefer that I should not bring that subject forward at the moment.
LORD NEWTON: We are discussing a civilian prison, Ruhleben.
LORD BERESFORD: Very well; I will refer to the subject on another occasion.
LORD SOUTHWARK: My Lords, I should like to deal with an observation which came from Lord Mayo—that he hoped German civilian prisoners of military age would be retained here. For my part I sincerely hope we shall have a general exchange and get rid of all civilian prisoners on both sides. I hope that this question will not be affected by the fact that we happen to have more German civilian prisoners in this country than there are British civilian prisoners in Germany. After all, there is a comparatively small number of such prisoners in either country, and it would make very little difference in the fighting if we sent back to Germany all the German civilian prisoners in this country in exchange for ours now interned there. I hope that we shall not allow the question of numbers to stand in the way of a general exchange if it can be brought about.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD NEWTON): My Lords, all the circum stances connected with Ruhleben and the whole of the facts have been made public. So far as I am aware, not one single fact has been suppressed. Therefore I have very little to add to the general information. I have no fault to find with the speech with which this debate was in augurated by the noble Lord behind me. There is only one portion of his remarks which I would venture to criticise adversely, and that is in regard to his proposal—favourably received, apparently, by the House—that the various Departments concerned in the administration of the prisoners question should be superseded and a single Department created to deal with the whole question. The noble Lord behind me asks for a strong and sym pathetic head. I think I recognise in that remark the opinion expressed in so many organs of the Press which are clamouring for a single man, I suppose of the strong and silent type, who will take up this question and resolve the whole of its difficulties at once. What I would like to point out is that the immediate question before us is the condition of our prisoners in Germany. I want to know, How is the question of the exchange of our prisoners in Germany going to be facilitated by the supersession of the various Departments—my own included—and the placing of somebody at the bead of a new Department? I think my noble and gallant friend Lord Grenfell made the suggestion that the whole question should be handed over to the Red Cross Society. Well, I rather think—
LORD GRENFELL: I did not mean to suggest that at all. I suggested the formation of a single bureau to deal with the work done at present by the various Government Departments.
LORD NEWTON: That a new Government Department should be created?
LORD GRENFELL: A bureau.
LORD NEWTON: It comes to very much the same thing. Evidently my noble and gallant friend advocates that the various Departments concerned should be superseded. But how is that feasible? It sounds somewhat of an ideal proposal that there should be one autocratic Department dealing with the whole of these questions.
592
But is it proposed that a new Department should be created which is going to carry on, for instance, diplomatic negotiations with a foreign Government, and that the Foreign Office should be superseded? Is it suggested that the War Office is to have no voice in these questions, and that the Home Office also is to be superseded, not to mention the Colonial Office and the India Office, which are also concerned? I confess that I cannot for myself imagine the existence of any individual or combination of individuals sufficiently powerful to override the wishes and the interests of the various Departments concerned, or to dictate at once to the Admiralty, to the War Office, to the Home Office, and to the Foreign Office the line which ought to be pursued. But I repeat most emphatically that I cannot conceive that the establishment of such a Department would have the smallest effect, beneficial or otherwise, upon the condition of the British prisoners in Germany, which is really the point at issue. I do not think that anybody is inclined to assert that the question of the prisoners has been mismanaged in this country. Even the Germans do not say that.
There is no occasion for me to recapitulate the whole miserable story of Ruhleben, because everybody is familiar with it by this time; and I will not go over again the White Paper which has been so copiously alluded to. I have myself expressed the opinion, and I remain of the opinion, that the civilians interned at Ruhleben are more to be pitied than the military prisoners in Germany at this moment, although I believe there are certain persons who hold a different opinion. But the condition of civilians in these circumstances always seems to me to be harder than that of the military, because they have taken no part in the struggle. In many cases they have committed no sort or kind of offence. They belong to all classes of society, and they live in a perpetual state of uncertainty and suspense, which has a most deplorable effect not only upon their physical but also upon their mental condition. It is a melancholy fact—I have alluded to it before—that there are at Ruhleben at least some hundreds whose mental condition is no longer normal, and a large number of other men whose moral condition has been greatly impaired since their confinement. These circumstances

593
are, of course, due to the monotony of their existence, to the want of any real employment, and to uncertainty as to their fate, to which I have already alluded. A prisoner serving an ordinary sentence knows, at all events, when his release is due. As for these unfortunate men, as was pointed out by my noble friend behind me, they have no indication at all as to when they are likely to be let out, and for all they know they may remain there indefinitely until the war comes to an end.
Lord Devonport was quite justified in what he said with regard to the way in which the exchanges have been carried out. These exchanges, I say most emphatically, have not been carried out by the German Government in a fair and honourable manner, because in many instances they have deliberately retained the men who were entitled to be released and have sent home men with much less title to repatriation or exchange. They have kept, for instance, unfortunate men there past fifty years of age who are practically useless from the military point of view; and, on the other hand, they have liberated men of much younger age who are in a comparatively sound state of health. They have taken great care to liberate persons in some instances who were of somewhat doubtful nationality, and they have even gone so far as to liberate and send back to this country men who were of suspicious character, and whose reputation and antecedents were such that they actually had to be interned here on their arrival from Ruhleben. That is a sample of the way in which we have been treated by the German Government. I do not think that the German Government; can contend for a single instant that we have not behaved in a perfectly straightforward and honourable way as far as these exchanges are concerned.
What is the position at the present moment? There are something like 4,000 of these unfortunate men at Ruhleben in the deplorable condition which I have described whom the German Government refuse to supply with adequate rations. And for this treatment there can be no sort of excuse, because the German Government know perfectly well, not only from official reports but from private information which the public does not know about, that the treatment of German civilians in this country is absolutely unimpeachable, and that they have no legitimate cause of complaint whatsoever. There are these
594
4,000 men in this deplorable condition in Germany. In this country we have something like 26,000 or 27,000 German civilians interned. In view of what has passed, it is perfectly obvious that had we chosen to do so we might have retaliated without any difficulty at all, and with absolute justice, upon these men. Take the case of the Germans who are interned here. Without any injustice at all, we could have abolished the privileges which so many of these men enjoy; reduced them to the position of ordinary interned aliens—in which they would be better treated than the British prisoners are in Germany; and also interned the remaining 10,000 or 12,000 German men who are uninterned in this country at the present time. We should have been amply justified by what the German, Government have done had we adopted this course. But we have done nothing of the kind.
We have been working to secure the liberation of as many of our people as possible. That seems to me to be the only practical course to pursue. To this end we first of all proposed that every man over 50 should be repatriated, and, further, that every man over 45 should be repatriated if he was unfit for service in the field. We made these proposals something like two months ago, but up till to-day we have received no answer whatsoever. As the House is well aware from what is narrated in the White Paper, we have been obliged to take further steps, and we put forward a proposal that in view of the new hardships inflicted upon the unfortunate men at Ruhleben there should be a general exchange by which neither side would profit. Up till a short time ago no answer to that had been received. But since I came down to the House this afternoon I have been informed that the reply has arrived, and that it is now being studied at the American Embassy. I am informed that the reply is very long and involved; I do not know the exact purport of it, but this I do know—it is not a categorical refusal. That being so, perhaps from motives of prudence it would be well if I made no further observations upon the question. I think that enough has been said this afternoon, and I would therefore venture to suggest to noble Lords that for the present the subject might be allowed to drop, and if necessary it could be renewed when we know the precise terms of the answer which has been received.
LORD GRENFELL: I trust the noble Lord will excuse me if I explain further what I meant. I had not the slightest notion of taking away the functions of these great Offices. What I asked for was a bureau, say occupying one room, in which the information received about the prisoners could be collected, and to which the societies who are making inquiries and also the public should be able to go, without worrying the Home Office, or the War
596
Office, or any of the other Departments concerned.
LORD NEWTON: I can assure my noble and gallant friend that any questions he may put to me in connection with prisoners I shall be very happy to answer to the best of my ability.
House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.