Sitting of 10 July 1916

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Saint John's Church, Kingston-upon-Hull, Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Great Central and Sheffield District Rail-ways Bill [Lord],
Read a second time, and committed.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the third time To-morrow.

NEW WRIT.
For the County of Berwick, in the room of the Right Honourable Harold John Tennant, His Majesty's Secretary for Scotland.—[Mr. Gulland.]
MERCANTILE MARINE (EXAMINATIONS FOR CERTIFICATES OF COMPETENCY).
Copy presented of Report on the Examinations of Candidates for Certificates of Competency in the Mercantile Marine and the Sea-Fishing Service for the year 1915 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS, 1894 TO 1906 (DISPENSING POWERS).
Copy presented of Report by the Board of Trade of the Cases in which they have exercised their powers under Section 78 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1906, during the year ended 31st May, 1916 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 92.]
HARWICH HARBOUR.
Copy presented of Abstract of the Accounts of the Receipts and Expenditure of the Harwich Harbour Conservancy Board from the time of their incorporation down to and inclusive of the 31st March, 1916 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (SCOTLAND).
Copy presented of Twenty-first Annual Report of the Local Government Board for Scotland, 1915 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
AGRICULTURE (SCOTLAND).
Copy presented of Fourth Report of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland for the year 1915 [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:—
City of Liverpool
[by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
Copy presented of Order made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee and the Scottish Insurance Commissioners, acting jointly, dated 31st May, 1916, entitled the National Health Insurance (Subsidiary Employments) Order (Scotland), 1916 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
SUEZ CANAL (COMMERCIAL, No. 1, 1915).
Copy presented of Returns of Shipping and Tonnage, 1913, 1914 and 1915 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR.
    Mr. MALCOLMasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will consent to place in the Library of the House at least one copy of such reports as he may receive concerning
    4
    the treatment of British prisoners of war at the same time as such reports are supplied to the Press?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord Robert Cecil): If there is any general desire that this course should be taken, there is no objection to it.
    Mr. MALCOLMasked the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether he as received any reply to his last proposal to the German Government on the question of the treatment of British civilian prisoners at Ruhleben; and whether he can add anything to his last public statement with reference to this matter?
    Sir H. DALZIELasked the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether he is able to communicate the reply of the German Government to the representations and threats of reprisals that have been made by the British Government in reference to the treatment of prisoners in Ruhleben camp; and what action, if any, it is proposed to take in the matter?
    Lord R. CECIL: The Note of the German Government which was despatched within the time limited by our Note has now reached us. It denies that insufficient food is being given to our prisoners, and while rejecting our proposal as to exchange, makes another proposal on the subject. His Majesty's Government are considering what reply should be sent to it, and will communicate the German Note and our reply to this House as soon as possible. In the meantime, we are asking for a further Report on the conditions at Ruhleben.
    Mr. MALCOLM: Can my Noble Friend give us no information as to the contents of the German answer to the ultimatum?
    Lord R. CECIL: I did state very briefly what was contained in it. It denies that insufficient food is being given to our prisoners, and while rejecting our proposal as to exchange makes another proposal in substitution. If my hon. Friend' will repeat his question, I hope to-morrow, or by the latest on Wednesday, I shall be able to give a fuller answer.
    Mr. MALCOLMasked the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether he will make further inquiry into the unfair-rate of exchange for English money given to British prisoners in Germany; and whether, in the meanwhile, he will advise the public to transmit money to Germany in Marks rather than in pounds sterling?
    Lord R. CECIL: Remittances by money order from this country to British prisoners of war in Germany are advised through the Netherlands Post Office in Marks. Messrs. Holt and Company have informed us that they utilise money orders in making the remittances in question, and Messrs. Cox and Company have informed us that the remittances they make are forwarded by their agents in Holland to Germany in Marks. It is, therefore, difficult to understand how the application of a fictitious rate of exchange can account for the deductions which are made. We hope to clear the matter up with the assistance of the United States Ambassador at Berlin, to whom we have explained the position. As it appeared certain that deductions were being made by the German Government, we made a strong protest through the United States representative on the 7th June, but have not yet bad a reply. It follows from what I have already said that there would be no object in advising the public to transmit money to Germany in Marks.
    Colonel Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the absence of co-ordination in the arrangements for sending parcels to prisoners of war, both civil and military, resulting in waste and inequality of distribution, he will, in consultation with the War Office, set up a central department entrusted with the care of prisoners of war and the coordination of the efforts of the charitable associations which are now sending parcels to them?
    Lord R. CECIL: The Prisoners of War Help Committee, 39, Russell Square, W.C., was established early in the War for this purpose. The committee is in close touch with the regimental and other prisoners aid societies. We should be very glad if all prisoners aid societies would act in conjunction with the committee, and thereby obviate the waste and inequality of distribution referred to.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Prime Minister whether the Government is willing to allow British officers and men now prisoners of war in Germany to give their parole that if released they will not again engage in combatant service in this War; whether it would itself be prepared to give an undertaking not to employ such released prisoners of war in combatant
    6
    service in this War; and whether it will be prepared to release reciprocally German prisoners of war on similar conditions?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): No, Sir; I am afraid this is not a practicable suggestion.
    Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the interest taken in the condition of British prisoners at Ruhleben, Germany, he will undertake that before Supply closes the Foreign Office Vote will be put down for discussion?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I doubt if a general discussion on the Foreign Office Vote would be desirable in the public interest. But if there is any desire for a discussion on the condition of British prisoners in Germany, I will see what can be arranged.
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Secretary of State for War whether he can state how many German prisoners of war have been transferred from imprisonment in this country to the French Government for labour purposes; and whether, as an act of retaliation, the German Government has sent British prisoners of war to work in captured territory in Poland, and, if so, how many?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): Two thousand seven hundred German prisoners of war have been transferred to British camps in France, where they are under the same Regulations as prisoners in this country. They have not been handed over to the French Government. Notification has been received that the move of British prisoners, understood to be 2,000 in number, to Poland, was consequent on the dispatch of German prisoners to France.

    POTATO CROP (BELGIUM).
    Mr. PRINGLEasked the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether he can state the average crop of potatoes in Belgium for the years 1911, 1912, and 1913, and the estimated crop of the year 1915?
    Lord R. CECIL: The average potato crop of the whole of Belgium may be taken as a little over 3,000,000 tons. No accurate estimate of the crop of 1915 can be given, as a very large part of the crop is grown in the districts under military administration and in those still held by the Allied

    7
    Armies. The 1915 crop in the so-called "zone of occupation" under German civil administration was probably slightly above normal.

    NEUTRAL RELIEF COMMISSION.
    Mr. PRINGLEasked the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether he can state the total value in Belgium of the foodstuffs imported into that country by the Neutral Relief Commission; and the amount of the contributions made to the Commission by the United States, by other neutrals, by the British Empire, and by the other Allied Governments respectively?
    The hon. Member further asked the Under-Secretary unstarred Questions: (1) Whether he can state, in tons, the monthly importation of lard into Belgium and Northern France by the Neutral Relief Commission; (2) whether he can state, in tons, the monthly importation of foodstuffs into Belgium and Northern France by the Neutral Relief Commission?
    Lord R. CECIL: The answers to this question and to the unstarred questions Nos. 1 and 2 contain a number of figures, and with the permission of the House I propose to have them printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT,
    Mr. WATT: May we take it that, in the opinion of the Department the foodstuffs sent by this Neutral Relief Commission are not being got at by the Germans?
    Lord R. CECIL: That is our opinion,certainly.

    PERSIA.
    Colonel YATEasked the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs why, considering that the Russian railway from Julfa to Tabreez, in the North of Persia, has been completed despite the War and disturbed local conditions, no progress has been made with the British concession for the Mohammerah-Khoramabad railway in South Persia which, at any rate, could have been laid as far as Dizful; and, if the British Government are too much engaged to take the matter up, will the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs hand over the political control of Southern Persia to the Government of India, and permit them to take the matter in hand?
    Lord R. CECIL: The military situation in South-Western Persia has rendered impossible for the time being any further development of the scheme for a railway from Mohammerah to Khoramabad, but when the local situation has improved further steps will be taken in consultation with the Government of India.
    Colonel YATE: Were not military considerations in the North of Persia just as bad as in the South?
    Lord R. CECIL: Apparently not.

    IRISH HARVEST (FALSE STATEMENTS IN AMERICA).
    Major NEWMANasked the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether he has been acquainted by our Legation at Washington of statements made in the United States of America that the military in this country have, by executing, imprisoning, and deporting thousands of Irishmen, left the families of these men without a breadwinner and that in consequence the impending harvest from lack of hands to gather it must be lost; and, if so, will he lay such reports before the House?
    Lord R. CECIL: No such reports have been received, and the alleged statement is entirely untrue.
    Major NEWMAN: Is it not a fact that statements to this effect have been published and printed in the "Times" newspaper actually bearing out the basis of my question?
    Lord R. CECIL: I can only say that, so far as we are concerned, no such reports have been received.

    DESTITUTION IN IRELAND.
    Major NEWMANasked the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that an appeal has recently been issued by the Archbishop of San Francisco for funds to relieve destitution in Ireland and stating that under the presidency of three cardinals of the Catholic Church a nation-wide movement has been started to relieve the misery and destitution that exists to-day in Ireland, and that an American relief committee is proceeding to Ireland to work under the Catholic Archbishop of Dublin; and whether this

    9
    committee will land in Ireland with the sanction of the Government of the United Kingdom?
    Lord R. CECIL: His Majesty's Government have not been approached in connection with this proposal, and can express no opinion upon it until they know more about it.

    BRITISH SUBJECTS IN GERMANY.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information as to whether any British subjects are still residing in Germany without being interned?
    Lord R. CECIL: We do not know the actual number of British subjects permitted to reside in Germany without being interned. There are a number of women and men over fifty-five, also a number of men of military age, most of whom have been released or exempted from internment on account of ill-health or because they are German in sentiment.

    TRADING WITH THE ENEMY (AMENDMENT) ACT,
    Sir CHARLES HENRYasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the number of companies and firms which have been; investigated by the Committee appointed under the provisions of the Trading With the Enemy (Amendment) Act, 1916; how many businesses it is anticipated the Committee will still be called upon to investigate; and, should it be ascertained that there remains a large number to be dealt with, will he consider appointing a further Committee or Committees so that the object of the Act may be attained as promptly as possible?
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Harcourt): The Advisory Committee appointed under the Trading With the Enemy (Amendment) Act, 1916, have investigated the businesses of 415 companies and firms, and it is anticipated that there may be somewhat over 200 additional cases for their consideration. Most of the important cases have already been considered by the Committee, and in view of the progress which has been made and the desirability of uniformity of treatment I do not think it is necessary to appoint any further Committee.

    GOVERNMENT AIRCRAFT (INSURANCE SCHEME).
    Mr. TICKLERasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the hardships suffered by residents on the East Coast, by reason of their having to insure against aircraft raids and bombardment risks; and if he will grant them the privilege of being allowed to pay their insurance premiums by half-yearly or quarterly instalments as the payment of the full yearly premium presses hardly upon the class of people residing in these districts?
    Mr. HARCOURT: While I sympathise with the hon. Member's desire to make the payment of aircraft insurance premiums as easy as possible, I fear that it would not be possible at this stage to arrange for the annual premiums to be paid in instalments. The premiums are very small, and any system of payment by instalments would increase the working expenses out of all proportion.
    Mr. HOGGE: Why does not the Air Risks Insurance give the usual days of grace for the repayment of the premium?
    Mr. HARCOURT: That is rather a complicated question. I have already explained the matter to my hon. Friend.

    MEAT SUPPLIES.
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the President of the Board of Trade the price at which the Board is supplying beef and mutton to public institutions; and the price at which these commodities are being acquired by the War Office?
    Mr. HARCOURT: The Board of Trade purchases frozen meat primarily for military purposes, and the meat so used is transferred to the War Office or to the Allied Governments at the full cost price, including cost of meat, freight, and all other expenses. Such meat as belongs to the Board of Trade and is not required for the Armies (mainly Australasian mutton and lamb) is put on the market for sale to the civilian population of this country; the wholesale price varies, but is kept as steady and moderate as possible. A few public institutions that have had difficulties in covering their requirements from private sources are supplied with moderate quantities of this meat by the Board at the wholesale market price of the date of

    11
    supply, as ascertained by the Board's assessors. The quantity of meat available for sale in this way is, of course, comparatively small.

    CANALS AND WATERWAYS (REPORT OF ROYAL COMMISSION).
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked whether any steps have been taken to consider the advisability of making preparations for carrying out any part of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Canals and Waterways as a matter of national benefit and with a view to mitigating labour difficulties which are likely to arise on demobilisation?
    Mr. HARCOURT: The recommendations of the Royal Commission on Canals and Waterways will be borne in mind in considering the problems of demobilisation And reconstruction.

    DISTURBANCES IN IRELAND.

      "FREEMAN'S JOURNAL" COMPANY (DAMAGE TO PROPERTY).
      Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary to the Treasury the amount of the claim of the "Freeman's Journal" Company, Dublin, in respect of destruction of property, and the amounts under other heads; what the other heads are; and where particulars of the entire claim can be seen?
      The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Herbert Samuel): All such claims are being investigated by Sir William Goulding's Committee, and until the Report of the Committee has been received I shall not be in a position to make any statement on this or any other individual claim.
      Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House whether it is under cover of these claims that the money is to be advanced for forming and running a new paper in Dublin?
      Mr. SAMUEL: No, Sir.

      INTERNED PRISONERS.
      Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department where Miss Howsin and Mr. L. Græme Scott are now detained; how long they have been
      12
      there; whether they are kept solitary; whether allowed to be visited by their respective legal advisers and medical advisers; whether the latter has in either case expressed fears for the health of the prisoner if imprisonment be continued; visers; whether the latter has in either case, why its value has not been tested in a Civil Court; whether in Mr. Scott's case evidence is available to prove his imprisonment to have been compassed by personal malice; how many English women and men are now in prison in this country untried like these two; and when it is proposed to give them the benefit of the law as it existed before the War?
      Mr. SAMUEL: These two persons are interned under Regulation 14B of the Defence of the Realm Regulations—Miss Howsin at Aylesbury since 8th September, and Mr. Scott at Islington since 27th July last. They are not in solitary confinement. Both have been visited by legal advisers, and Scott by a medical adviser, but the medical adviser did not express any opinion which would justify his release. The suggestion that personal malice is responsible for Scott's internment is without foundation. Apart from the recent internment of persons concerned in the insurrection in Ireland, there are fifty-seven other British subjects who have come within the scope of Regulation 14B and are interned there-under.
      Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why Mr. Scott is not allowed to communicate an ordinary letter to his mother, such as this in my hands?
      Mr. SAMUEL: He is subject to the ordinary rules of interned prisoners.
      Mr. GINNELL: Are interned prisoners not allowed to communicate with their mothers?
      Mr. SAMUEL: Yes, Sir, they are allowed to forward proper communications. I do not know what the character of the alleged letter may be. If it has reached the hon. Member apparently he has been allowed to communicate.
      Mr. KING: Has the House received a statement of a hostile association which was promised to be communicated to us by the right hon. Gentleman?
      Mr. SAMUEL: I should like notice of that question.
      Mr. GINNELL: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that this letter in my hand was returned to Mr. Scott and not allowed to go to his mother, and that it is because it was returned it is now in my hand?
      Mr. SAMUEL: I was not aware of that, but I will make inquiry as to the surreptitious means by which the letter has been obtained.
      Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire into the character of the letter itself, and why it has not been allowed to go to the lady to whom it was addressed?
      Mr. SAMUEL: I will make inquiry.
      Mr. GINNELLasked the Prime Minister whether he will have the statement sent to the War Office in March, 1915, by Mr. L. Graeme Scott, and for the writing of which Mr. Scott is now interned, made available for Members of this House to read, to enable them, in the light of events, to compare it with official statements on the same subject?
      Mr. FORSTER: The hon. Member is incorrect in assuming that Scott was interned for writing the statement referred to. The case has been fully considered by the Advisory Committee, who dismissed the appeal against internment. It appears, therefore, that no useful purpose would be served by submitting Scott's statement, which only represents a fraction of the case, and which did not form the grounds for internment as alleged, for the consideration of Members.
      Sir W. BYLESasked the Home Secretary whether, as one result of the recent Irish rising, nearly 2,000 persons have now been interned in this country for many weeks without charge or trial, of which number a large proportion are presumably innocent of any complicity or even sympathy with the rebellion; and seeing that the prolonged investigations of the Advisory Committee have not yet resulted in the release of any of these interned persons, whether a second or third Committee of Inquiry can be set up, or some means of acceleration adopted, so as to obviate the detriment to the British reputation for prompt justice which must otherwise result?
      Mr. LOUGHasked the Home Secretary how many of the cases of Irish prisoners in this country have now been examined by the Committee; in how many
      14
      cases has release been ordered; and what course with regard to trial has been decided upon with regard to those not released?
      Mr. SAMUEL: Between 1,800 and 1,900 persons are interned in connection with the Irish rising; they are interned under the Defence of the Realm Act and not committed for trial. Some hundreds of them have been seen personally by the Committee, and I expect to receive from the Committee at an early date recommendations with regard to a considerable number. So far four have been released on their recommendation. The Advisory Committee are dealing with the cases as rapidly as possible, and I do not think any advantage would be gained by setting up a second or third committee.
      Sir W. BYLES: What is the object of detaining persons who have been adjudicated upon by the Committee and found innocent?
      Mr. SAMUEL: There will be no undue detention after I receive the recommendation of the Committee.
      Mr. OUTHWAITE: Will the right hon. Gentleman expedite the work as much as possible in view of the statement being made in America that the condition of the people in Ireland under General Maxwell is no better than that of Belgium under von Bissing?
      Mr. FLAVIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many interned prisoners the recommendations of the Judicial Committee refer to, and how many of the prisoners have been recommended to be released by the committee?
      Mr. SAMUEL: I have already said that I have so far only received recommendations in four special cases. I am expecting to receive in the course of a very few days recommendations in regard to a considerable number, possibly some hundreds.
      Mr. GINNELL: At the rate of four in a month, how soon does the right hon. Gentleman expect to be able to get through 2,000?

      PRISONERS SENTENCED BY COURT-MARTIAL.
      Mr. BYRNEasked the Prime Minister if he will cause the Irish prisoners who were tried and sentenced by court-martial to be treated as political

      15
      prisoners or released; and if he will submit to the House the evidence for and against the prisoners which was taken at courts-martial?
      The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. With regard to the second part I have already promised that these reports shall be published in due course.

      ALLEGED SHOOTING OF CIVILIANS.
      Mr. BYRNEasked the Prime Minister if he will take steps to find out the verdict of the coroner's jury on the causes of death of the victims of the shootings in North King Street during the rising in Dublin?
      The PRIME MINISTER: I am acquainted with the terms of the verdict referred to. As I informed the hon. Member for North Westmeath on Monday last, Courts of Inquiry have been held in all the cases in question.
      Mr. GINNELL: Are these civil courts or military courts?
      The PRIME MINISTER: Military courts.

      ROYAL COMMISSION (REPORT).
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Prime Minister whether he recognises the right of the House of Commons to express its opinion upon the condemnation of the Government, contained in the Report of the Royal Commission on the Rebellion in Ireland; and, if so, when he will give a day for the purpose?
      Mr. LOUGHasked the Prime Minister whether any action is proposed with reference to the Report of the Royal Commission on the Rebellion in Ireland; and when this House will be given an opportunity to discuss it?
      The PRIME MINISTER: I will answer this question and Question 61 together. I am disposed to deprecate such a discussion at the present moment. But if any specific Motion appears on the Paper I will consult my colleagues on the matter.

      RELIEF OF DEPENDANTS.
      Mr. GINNELLasked by whose direction collectors and organisers of funds for relief of dependants of those killed in the recent insurrection in Dublin are now
      16
      being thwarted and deterred by police-surveillance and annoyance in various parts of Ireland; whether any competent authority has declared such organising and collecting to be illegal; and whether such interference, whether official or officious, will be discontinued?
      Mr. SAMUEL: There has been no police interference with the collection of funds for bonâ fide purposes of relief, but in cases where it appeared that the collection was intended to be accompanied by the sale or distribution of disloyal flags or tokens, the organisers were warned by order of the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief that they would be liable to arrest and prosecution under the Defence of the Realm (Consolidation) Regulations.

      NATIONAL VOLUNTEERS.
      Major NEWMANasked whether, in consonance with the public safety, he can give the House any information with regard to the present strength and efficiency of the National Volunteers; are they fully armed and provided with uniforms; have they taken any oath similar to that taken recently by the Volunteer Force in this country; have they been, or any part of them, inspected by any competent military authority; if so, will he-state the nature of the Report; and does the Irish Government contemplate using them in the event of an invasion of Ireland?
      Mr. SAMUEL: I am unable to add anything to the reply which was given to a similar question of the hon. and gallant Member on the 27th January last.

      DR. RICHARD HAYES.
      Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary of State for War whether the trial of Dr. Richard Hayes, of Lusk, county Dublin, was by secret court-martial; what was the reason for the secrecy; whether counsel on his behalf was allowed to raise the question of the legality of trying by court-martial in secret; whether any evidence was produced that Dr. Hayes had any other connection with the occurrence at Ashbourne than as a medical man giving professional aid to wounded men irrespective of the side to which they belonged; whether the sentence of twenty years' penal servitude for this will be reconsidered; and whether his motor car has yet been restored to those in charge of his property?
      Mr. FORSTER: The procedure at the trial of Dr. Richard Hayes was in no way different to that adopted at the trial of other prisoners tried by Field General Court-Martial. The Court found the prisioner guilty on evidence which convinced them that his actions were not solely confined to giving professional aid to wounded men. Owing to the serious nature of the offence it is not possible, at present, to make any statement regarding a reconsideration of the sentence. Inquiries will be made as to the motor car.
      Mr. GINNELL: Was not this court-martial held in secret?
      Mr. FORSTER: I do not know,
      Mr. GINNELL: It is asked on the Paper?

      ARREST OF SERGEANT CUSACK.
      Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary of State for War the principle on which Sergeant Cusack, of the Royal Irish Rifles, has been arrested, imprisoned for a week in Belfast, and his person and house searched because he has been for some time an instructor of a company of the Irish Volunteers; whether the search revealed anything but papers and a card of membership of the Irish Volunteers, dated March, 1914; whether he was in November, 1914, and is now again, penalised for that connection; whether officers and noncommissioned officers connected with the Ulster Volunteers at that time and since have also been penalised for that connection; and, those two bodies having been declared equal in point of legality, will he explain the difference of treatment and undertake that Sergeant Cusack shall not be penalised for conduct similar to that of the officers and non-commissioned officers?
      Mr. FORSTER: Sergeant Cusack was placed under arrest pending investigation into a charge of a serious breach of King's Regulations, paragraph 449A. A similar charge was brought against him in November, 1914, when he was cautioned. He has not been penalised in either case. No similar breach of discipline has been reported of any other officer or soldier serving in the Irish Command.
      Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the breach of discipline was while instructing the Irish Volunteers, and whether this man will be given permission to change to another regiment?

      DOMICILIARY VISITS.
      Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary of State for War under whose orders the military, in their domiciliary visits after the insurrection, generally smashed the doors of houses instead of waiting for them to be opened; what was the excuse for smashing the door of Daniel Kelly's house at Cashelnagore, county Donegal, on 6th May, when Mrs. Kelly was ill in her confinement; why did the soldiers tell one of Kelly's children that they would shoot his father unless the child told them where the father's rifle was; whether any rifle was found, or any evidence that Kelly ever had a rifle, or had ever learned to use a rifle, or had been absent from his usual business; whether Kelly is now interned; and, seeing that Mrs. Kelly has been left ill, moneyless, and helpless with seven children, the eldest only eight years old, whether representation will be made to have the case investigated without delay and the man released and compensated?
      Mr. FORSTER: Daniel Kerry was arrested by the police, no military being present. He refused admission to the police, who had to force open the door. No threats were made by police to Kelly's, children. One .22 rifle and ammunition and also one bolt of a Lee-Metford rifle were found together with 320 revolver cartridges, some items of Volunteer equipment, and seditious literature. Kelly had been absent for short periods on several occasions. He is interned at Wakefield. Mrs. Kelly had practically recovered and was cared for by her mother, to whom Kelly gave money before leaving.

      PRISONERS IN FRONGOCH.
      Mr. T. M. HEALYasked the Secretary of State for War whether the Irish untried prisoners in Frongoch will be allowed to organise a canteen and name a contractor to supply their wants, or must they be dependent on a contractor named by the Government; and what security will they have for the honesty of such a contractor or the quality of the provisions supplied by a person they cannot dispense with?
      Mr. SAMUEL: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. The arrangements for the canteen at Frongoch are the same as those for the other internment camps. The canteen is managed by a contractor chosen by the military authorities, who undertakes to-give a certain rebate on the purchases

      19
      which is, with the exception of small charges made against it, devoted to the benefit of the prisoners. It is supervised by the commandant, who receives and considers any representation which may be made to him by a small committee of the prisoners appointed for that purpose.
      Mr. HEALYasked the Secretary of State for War whether ,he is aware that the Catholic chaplain at Frongoch is obliged to come from Wrexham on Sundays, a distance of thirty miles, and has then to return to discharge his local duties at Wrexham; whether he is aware that when a much smaller number of Catholic prisoners were in Stafford and Wakefield prisons, the chaplains there were occupied with them for several hours weekly in addition to Sunday duty; are the Government aware that the practices of the Catholic religion are not confined to Sunday observance; and, as the Government have arrested well conducted inhabitants of Ireland without alleging any crime against them, do they intend to inflict religious disabilities upon them in prison, or will they arrange that they shall have as free exercise of their religion as if they were left in local English gaols?
      Mr. SAMUEL: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. I am informed that, at the present time, the -Catholic priest who ministers at Frongoch arrives on Saturday afternoon and stays there until Sunday night or Monday morning. I am making inquiry whether it would be possible to increase the facilities for religious observances.

      MAJOR SIR FRANCIS VANE.
      Mr. HEALYasked the Secretary of State for War whether General Maxwell made any report to the War Office in reference to the part taken by Major Sir Francis Vane after the three murders committed by Captain Colthurst in Portobello Barracks; and was Major Vane's action in informing Lord Kitchener of the murders approved or disapproved of by General Maxwell?
      Mr. FORSTER: The General Officer Commanding-in-Chief the Forces in Ireland has made no report to the War Office in reference to the part taken by Sir Francis Vane after the regrettable incident at Portobello Barracks.
      Mr. HEALY: Is it not the fact that Sir Francis Vane has been called upon by the War Office to resign because of General Maxwell's report?
      Mr. FORSTER: I understand that we have had no report from General Maxwell.
      Mr. HEALY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the War Office has not called on Major Sir Francis Vane to resign within the last week, in consequence of the report of General Maxwell?
      Mr. FORSTER: So far as I am aware, it is not so. Perhaps my hon. and learned Friend will give notice.
      Mr. KING: The hon. Gentleman has given no answer to the last part of the question. It seems to have been overlooked?
      Mr. FORSTER: It was not overlooked. We have had no report from the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief.

      CENSORING LETTERS.
      Mr. BYRNEasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that censoring of Irish prisoners' letters by the military at Frongoch Camp has caused considerable delay in delivery; if he is aware that censored letters take eight or ten days to go to and from Ireland; if he is aware that the usual time for delivery of uncensored letters is twenty-four hours; and if he will take steps to remedy the delay?
      Mr. SAMUEL: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. A certain amount of delay in the censorship of letters has occurred, due to several causes-letters being wrongly or insufficiently addressed, pressure of work on the censors, and especially the movement of these prisoners from one place of detention to another. Steps have now been taken which will reduce the delay to the minimum.

    MUNITIONS.

      FEMALE WORKERS, SCOTLAND.
      Mr. WATTasked the Minister of Munitions whether 3,000 girls working on munitions at a Scotch factory are prevented by the management from forming or joining a union; and whether these girls are worked on munitions during the night without any extra pay?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MUNITIONS DEPARTMENT (Dr. Addison): I am asking my hon. Friend for fuller information on this subject with a view to making full inquiries.

      CONTROLLED ESTABLISHMENTS (INSURANCE POLICIES).
      Commander BELLAIRSasked the Minister of Munitions (1) whether the insurance policies of controlled establishments, and any subsequent sub-letting of those policies, are under the full control of experts in the Ministry of Munitions so that no details of their work can pass through hands liable to be willing to convey the secret information to the enemy; and (2) whether, in the interests of secrecy, the strictest regulations are drawn up limiting the insurance companies which may participate in insuring plant of controlled companies; and whether he will consider a pooling arrangement of the insurance companies for this purpose which will enable these secrets to be absolutely safeguarded?
      Dr. ADDISON: A general notice was issued to the Press on this subject by the Admiralty on 6th December, which expressly stated that the liability of insurance companies to prosecution for communication of information to any firm or person other than a registered British company or a British subject, applied to all work or materials in preparation or in store for any Government Department or Government contractor. The Ministry have not considered it necessary to adopt the particular measures suggested in the two questions.

      WOMEN WORKERS (MESSRS. VICKERS', ERITH).
      Colonel Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Minister of Munitions whether the women workers in Messrs. Vickers' works at Erith are still working on the ten-hour day and night shift system; and whether, in view of the effect on the health of the workers and loss of output involved in this system, he will exercise his powers under the Munitions Act and reduce the length of the shifts?
      Dr. ADDISON: The Department have under consideration the system of two ten-hour shifts on which the women workers at Messrs. Vickers', Erith, are still working, but have not yet arrived at a decision on the question.

    HASLAR NAVAL HOSPITAL.
    Mr. R. GWYNNEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the approximate number of patients at Haslar Naval Hospital; whether there is any recreation room for the men, and, if so, what its accommodation is; whether there is any place where men are allowed to smoke indoors; whether convalescent sailors are allowed to sit or lie on the grass in the grounds; and whether easy chairs are provided for them on the grass in the grounds, and, if so, how many?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): I take the opportunity of giving in some detail the arrangements at the Royal Naval Hospital, Haslar, for the comfort and entertainment of patients. Entertainment performances are given on five afternoons each week in the Erroll Hall. There are two large smoking sheds and six large colonnades where, as well as in the airing grounds, smoking is permitted. It is not permitted in the wards. Patients are allowed to sit and lie on the grass in the grounds, and for them there are available easy chairs, folding chairs of cane and canvas, ordinary bath chairs, Merlin chairs, spinal carriages, etc., as required, as well as numerous ordinary iron garden seats and forms at intervals throughout the grounds.
    Mr. GWYNNE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the approximate number of easy chairs?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I am sure there are plenty of chairs.
    Mr. GWYNNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire and see if there are sufficient chairs?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I have made very careful inquiry.

    ADMIRALTY CONTRACTORS (INSURANCES).
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Admiralty satisfy themselves as to the arrangements made by private establishments in regard to the insurances they effect with fire insurance companies; and whether these inquiries cover all the ramifications of the insurances so as to prevent disclosure of the work being done coming into undesirable hands?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The question referred to has by no means been lost sight of. The Admiralty is satisfied that steps have been taken by every practicable means to prevent the disclosure of important information to the enemy and that these steps are adequate.

    PASSPORT (MISS FRENCH MULLEN).
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can state the reason why Miss French Mullen, of Dublin, was prevented from travelling to Paris; if he is aware that after a strict investigation she obtained a passport and proceeded to Southampton, where she was detained and examined; if he is aware that she was ordered back to London without her luggage, which has not yet been returned to her; if he will say why the passport was issued and then withdrawn; and when she will be allowed to travel?
    Mr. SAMUEL: This lady was refused permission to embark at Southampton because I considered it undesirable on account of her connection with the Sinn Fein movement that she should be allowed to go abroad. A passport had been issued to her before this decision was reached, but a passport confers no right to embark without the leave of the proper authorities. When stopped at Southampton she was recommended to go to London to explain at the Passport Office the difference between her declared intentions when applying for a passport and her statement at Southampton of the objects of her journey. She was at liberty to make her own arrangements in regard to her luggage. I can hold out no hope that this lady will be allowed to go abroad.
    Mr. BYRNE: Who is responsible for the blunder of issuing the passport, and will the lady get her luggage, as she is in London now waiting for it?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I know nothing about the lady's luggage. It has not been detained by any official authority. So I am informed. The passport was issued by the Foreign Office. Afterwards it came to our knowledge that the lady was proposing to leave the country and she was informed that she could not be permitted.

    SCHOOL-LEAVING AGE.
    Colonel Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked whether Mr. Chester Jones has yet made a Report on his inquiry at Bradford on the proposal put forward by the chamber of commerce in favour of the reduction of the school-leaving age to thirteen years as a means of meeting the shortage of labour in the spinning industry; and whether it will be published as a Parliamentary Paper?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Brace): I am informed by Mr. Chester Jones that a settlement has been reached locally, and in the circumstances I do not think it will be necessary to ask him to submit any formal Report.
    Mr. KING: Will Mr. Chester Jones be sent to hold inquiries in other places on the same subject?
    Mr. BRACE: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give notice.

    MILITARY SERVICE.

      CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
      Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he will take action in the case of an applicant for exemption on conscientious grounds who was informed by the chairman of the Glasgow Tribunal that he had proved his claim, but that it must be rejected, as he could not be permitted to set his conscience against the interests of the State?
      The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Munro): If my hon. Friend will furnish me with the name of the applicant and the date of the hearing I will inquire as to the facts.
      Mr. E. HARVEYasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the treatment of Mr. E. Palme Dutt, a senior classical scholar of Balliol College, Oxford, and a conscientious objector to military service, who, while awaiting court-martial at Aldershot contracted a feverish chill and was ordered by the doctor to be taken to hospital; whether he is aware that Mr. Dutt was removed to hut C 7, practically all the occupants of which were Army convicts undergoing sentence and mainly suffering from venereal disease; and, seeing that the

      25
      precautions against contagion were inadequate, whether he will take steps to prevent the recurrence of such treatment of conscientious objectors and to remedy the conditions which make such an occurrence possible in the case of any other soldier?
      Mr. FORSTER: I am obliged to the hon. Member for drawing attention to this state of affairs. Steps are being taken immediately to remedy them.
      Mr. HARVEYasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that in spite of Army Order X. of 25th May conscientious objectors to military service still continue to be sentenced to detention instead of imprisonment, and are therefore sent to detention barracks instead of civil prisons; and whether he is taking any steps to secure that the intention of the Government that such men should be transferred to civil prisons should be generally carried out without the delay caused by sentences of detention?
      Mr. FORSTER: It has been repeatedly pointed out that if soldiers are submitting to the summary award of their commanding officer, instead of claiming trial by court-martial under Section 46 (8) of the Army Act, sentences of detention are no doubt continuing to be inflicted, and it is not possible in law to prevent such procedure. I am not aware, that a single case of detention has been inflicted by a court-martial since the Army Order has had time to be fully circulated. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the intentions of the Army Order are being fully carried out, and the only "delay caused by sentences of detention"arises, if such be the case, through the fault of the men themselves.

      MEN INVALIDED.
      Mr. HOHLERasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware of the considerable number of men invalided from the front who have temporarily lost their mental balance and have been sent to asylums, and that whilst there the local authorities claim and receive their pensions or allowances, leaving their wives and children to exist as best they may; and will he at once take steps, by legislation or otherwise, to ensure that adequate provision be made for the wives and children of these men?
      Mr. FORSTER: I understand that this question relates only to men discharged from the Army. Pensions are granted
      26
      primarily for the maintenance of the pensioner, but any balance is handed over to his family, and I may observe that asylum authorities frequently reduce or forego their claim if the family is in need.
      Mr. HOHLER: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that a great number of men who have been afflicted in this manner are discharged from the Army, and that their wives and families are in absolute want, and will he take steps to remedy this state of things?
      Mr. FORSTER: Certainly. Whenever we have any reason to think that the family is in need we either do, or certainly shall, make strong representations to the asylum authorities.
      Mr. HOHLER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the authorities claim that the Statute law requires some action on the part of the Government?
      Mr. FORSTER: As I pointed out to my hon. and learned Friend the asylum authorities frequently, if not invariably, make either a reduction of, or forego altogether, their claim, when it is seen that the family is in need.

      SOUTHEND TRIBUNAL (ARREST AS ABSENTEE).
      Mr. HARVEYasked the 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 notwithstanding 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. FORSTER: The report which has been called for on this case has not yet been received.

      MEDICAL COURT OF APPEAL.
      Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will appoint a medical court of appeal to consider appeals from medical boards, in view of the number of men who have been passed by these boards who are proving unfit for the service they are called upon to give; and whether he will state the

      27
      number of men belonging to the City of London Territorial regiments who, during the last three months, after being passed as fit by the medical boards have been returned as unfit for training after joining their units?
      Mr. FORSTER: This proposal has been carefully considered on several occasions, but it is not considered desirable. It is not possible to state the number of men asked for in the last part of the question.
      Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the hon. Gentleman give the approximate number? Would he be astonished to know that there are several hundreds?
      Mr. FORSTER: Yes, Sir, very much astonished.
      Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: It is so.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that most of these medical boards are simply a farce?

      ATTESTED YOUTHS.
      Mr. A. WILLIAMSasked the Secretary of State for War whether a youth of eighteen years who has attested under the Derby scheme is still at liberty to remain in civil life until he has attained nineteen years?
      Mr. FORSTER: Yes, Sir.

      MEN MEDICALLY REJECTED.
      Mr. WILLIAMSasked the Secretary of State for War whether men who offered themselves under the Derby scheme and were rejected as medically unfit, but who have since been re-examined and passed, are to be treated as conscripts or as men attested under the Derby scheme with the rights of such attested men?
      Mr. FORSTER: It is open to any such men to be attested and classified in a group up to midnight, 31st August, 1916.
      Mr. HOGGEasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that yellow forms under the Military Service Act, 1916, have been sent out to men holding medical rejection certificates calling upon them to present themselves at their recruiting office for the purpose of joining the Colours at the date prior to 1st September, 1916; whether this practice has been sanctioned by the War Office; and, if so, on what principle is it based?
      Mr. FORSTER: Such forms may inadvertently have been sent, and would only be so in cases where the man's name was not entered in the register as having been rejected. If men who hold rejection certificates return the form to the recruiting officer, the latter would on production of the certificate note the fact against the man's name in the register.

      MEDICAL BOARD EXAMINATION.
      Mr. HOGGEasked the Secretary of State for War whether a man rightfully holding a certificate of medical rejection, and who willingly presents himself by mutual arrangement for re-examination by a medical board prior to 1st September, will subsequent to that examination be entitled to attest under the group system, or whether he must voluntarily attest before the medical board will consent to examine him on a date prior to 1st September?
      Mr. FORSTER: He can attest at any time up to midnight, 31st August, 1916, either before or after being re-examined.

    COURTS-MARTIAL (BRITISH-BORN: SUBJECTS).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Attorney-General when the present practice of trying British-born subjects by court-martial in camera and executing decisions so reached was introduced; whether before those trials or before the executions the legality of that procedure and the law, if any, on which it was supposed to be based were ascertained, and the fiat of any Civil Court, judge, or law officer obtained; how many British-born subjects have been executed and how many are now undergoing penal servitude in pursuance of sentences of courts-martial held in camera, and, seeing that this procedure is not warranted by any law, but only by a Regulation which has never been judicially reviewed, and that its victims are now powerless to have it so reviewed, whether he will take immediate steps to get a decision of a competent Civil Court on the legality or illegality of holding field general courts-martial in camera, in order that Parliament may deal with the matter this Session?
    Mr. FORSTER: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. As far as I am aware, trial in this

    29
    country of British-born subjects by court-martial has only been resorted to by virtue of the powers given by the emergency legislation passed by Parliament to meet the situation caused by the War. During this period the public have been excluded from any trial where the safety of the State requires this to be done. As regards the second and fourth parts of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answers given to him by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on the 3rd July. As regards the third part of the question, I may inform him that the results of all these trials have already appeared in the Press.
    Mr. GINNELL: This question has been postponed at the request of the Attorney-General, and yet he is not here to answer it. What is the Statute law under which persons in this country are denied trial as stated in the question? There is no law, but a Regulation which has never been revised by any Court.
    Mr. FORSTER: I have already answered that question.
    Mr. GINNELL: I must repeat that question to-morrow.

    DEFENCE OF THE REALM ACT.

      DEPORTATION FROM CARDIFF.
      Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMSasked the Attorney-General whether he has inquired into the case of the Cardiff gentleman who was ordered to leave Cardiff and the neighbourhood on 20th June, 1915, under Regulation 14 of the Defence of the Realm Regulations; whether he is aware that no charge has ever been brought against him and that no judicial or other inquiry has been made into his case; whether he is aware that he offered in October of last year to submit himself to cross-examination at the hands of any counsel nominated by the authorities and to pay the costs himself; why that offer, which is still open, has not been accepted or some other means taken to give him an opportunity of meeting any charge or dispelling any suspicion that may be felt against him; and whether, in view of the fact that he has been banished from his home and business without being charged or tried for over a year, he can see his way to advise the authorities to allow this gentleman to return to Cardiff or to try him on a specific charge?
      Mr. SAMUEL: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. This gentleman is the British-born son of a naturalised British subject of German, origin. He is reported to have used on several occasions language of a pro-German character, which inflamed public opinion against him, and led the local police authorities to fear a breach of the peace. An Order was made by the competent military authority requiring him to leave Cardiff and the neighbourhood. After obtaining fresh reports, and having carefully examined all the facts of the case I am clearly of opinion that it is undesirable for this gentleman, in his own interest as well as on other grounds, to-return to Cardiff at present.
      Mr. WILLIAMS: Is this gentleman kept away from Cardiff by the Home Office or the War Office, because I have made inquiries and was told the War Office?
      Mr. SAMUEL: It is through the cooperation of both Departments. The Order was made by the competent military authority on the recommendation of the local police authorities.
      Mr. WILLIAMS: Is there any specific charge against this gentleman as to having used language at all of a provocative character?
      Mr. SAMUEL: No. The case has been thoroughly examined and in our view it is clearly necessary that this gentleman should not return to Cardiff.
      Mr. WILLIAMS: Has this gentleman, been asked a single question either by the Home Office or the War Office?
      Mr. G. FABER: Who is this gentleman?
      Mr. GlNNELL: Will not the Home Secretary consider the advisability of allowing the breach of the peace which is threatened to take place and then dealing with it by law?

    INCOME TAX.

      FURNISHED HOUSES.
      Mr. WATTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that his Department, in dealing with profits from letting of furnished houses in coast and other health resorts, refuses to allow as a deduction for Income Tax the rent of another

      31
      furnished house taken by the lessor while his own house is let; and, if so, whether he can see his way, in view of the hard times suffered by such health resorts since the War, to permit of such rent paid being a deduction on the profits?
      The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. McKenna): I am aware of the practice referred to, which is governed by the Rules of Schedule D of the Income Tax Acts, and which has, moreover, been confirmed by the decision of the Court of Session (Scotland). The circumstances referred to by my hon. Friend would not warrant the treatment of the personal cost of living business expense.

      CODIFICATION OF LAW.
      Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the complication of Income Tax law, and of the fact that many of the older Statutes are out of print, he will publish a cheap official guide containing a reprint of the operative Clauses of the numerous Income Tax and Inhabited House Duties Acts?
      Mr. McKENNA: I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of a reply which I gave on the 21st February last to the hon. Member for East Islington. As he will see from this reply, a Consolidation Bill is in course of preparation.

    WOUNDED OFFICERS (MOTOR AND PETROL TAXATION).
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the possibility of making some concession in regard to motor and petrol taxation for officer owners of cars who have lost their legs or are otherwise permanently unable to walk owing to wounds received in the War?
    Mr. McKENNA: As I explained in reply to a similar question by the hon. Member for the Chippenham Division on the 22nd May, while I have every sympathy with those who have lost their limbs in the service of the country, I am afraid it would not be feasible to recompense them for their sacrifice in the manner suggested in the question.

    DUMA (WAR TAXES).
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the rejection by the Russian Council of the Empire of certain war taxes carried by the Duma; and can he state whether this action will affect the liability of this country in the matter of the provision of loans to Allies?
    Mr. McKENNA: My attention has been drawn to the incident referred to in the first part of my hon. Friend's question, but I am not yet in possession of full information on the matter.

    IMPERIAL CONVENTION.
    Colonel GRIFFITHSasked the Prime Minister (1) whether, in view of the feeling in favour of the inauguration of an Imperial Chamber or Council, he will formally ask the various Dominions to submit their proposals and also appoint a small committee to investigate the matter generally; and (2) if he will consider the advisability of taking steps to arrange for an Imperial Convention by direct request to the Dominions concerned instead of waiting to discuss the matter at the next Imperial Conference, and thus save the delay which would arise by waiting for the next Imperial Conference before coming to a decision in this matter?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Bonar Law): This subject, I need not say, is engaging the serious attention both of His Majesty's Government and of the Dominions, but it it impossible to make any statement on the subject at present.
    Colonel GRIFFITHSasked the Prime Minister, with reference to the intention to summon an Imperial Convention to consider the question of the government of Ireland in relation to the better organisation of the Empire, whether he is aware that if Australia were desirous of electing representatives to such Convention an Act to effect this object must be passed through each of the six State Parliaments, and time allowed to candidates to express their views to the electors; and, in view of this, will he consider the desirability of communicating with the Dominions in order that the necessary preliminaries to the Convention may be taken without

    33
    undue delay, so that the Convention may assemble at as early a date as possible after the conclusion of the War?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am informed that legislation such as my hon. Friend suggests is not necessary.

    IMPERIAL CONFERENCE.
    Colonel GRIFFITHSasked the Prime Minister, in view of the statements made by the Treasury to the effect that an Imperial Conference will be necessary to modify certain Clauses in the Finance Bill, whether he will indicate if there is any possibility of the Government calling such Conference during the course of the next twelve months?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: An Imperial Conference will take place as soon as seems desirable to His Majesty's Government and the Dominions, but I should not contemplate summoning one for this special purpose.

    RECONSTRUCTION COMMITTEE.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSEasked who are the members of the Reconstruction Committee; and what is the procedure adopted with regard to the receipt of suggestions and evidence?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Reconstruction Committee is a Committee of the Cabinet, and, as my hon. Friend is probably aware, it is not the practice to give the names of the members of such Committees. In reply to the second part of the question, I may say that communications are referred in suitable cases to the Departments concerned or to the subcommittees of the Reconstruction Committee inquiring into the subjects to which they refer.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked whether it is proposed to constitute a special sub-committee of the Reconstruction Committee to deal with the subject of afforestation; whether any members of this Committee have yet been appointed; and what will be the specific duties assigned to the Committee?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think that it would be convenient at the present stage to make any announcement as to the character of the inquiries which are being undertaken by the Reconstruction Committee. The Government are making every
    34
    effort to deal with the whole range of questions which in their judgment will call for immediate treatment at the close of the War. I can assure my hon. Friend that the subject of afforestation will be brought under review.

    SHORTAGE OF AGRICULTURAL LABOUR (IRELAND).
    Major NEWMANasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether he has seen an appeal issued by the Archbishop of San Francisco for funds to relieve the destitution in Ireland which the loss of the harvest owing to lack of hands to gather it will cause; whether, in view of the exemption of Ireland from compulsory service in the Army, he has been able to ascertain if the shortage of agricultural labour is greater in Great Britain than in Ireland; and whether he will take an early opportunity of laying upon the Table of the House a report on the present condition and outlook of Irish agriculture?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The reply to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the present condition of agriculture in Ireland, reports on the state of the crops are issued periodically by the Department. The figures as to live stock will be published as soon as possible after the conclusion of the census which is being taken at present. There is nothing in the reports so far to warrant any apprehension as to the harvest.
    Major NEWMAN: Has this report been seen by the President of the Board of Agriculture? Is the answer in the affirmative?
    Mr. SAMUEL: Yes, Sir, so I am informed.
    Major NEWMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Foreign Office differ from the Home Office, and that the Foreign Office have not seen it?
    Mr. SAMUEL: Possibly the Foreign Office may not have seen it, but the Vice-President of the Department may have.

    MOLD DETENTION BARRACKS (PRIVATE DAVIES).
    Mr. WILLIAMSasked the Secretary of State for War whether in

    35
    view of the fact that the visiting officer who was sent to make an independent investigation into the complaints of brutal treatment made by Private Ithel Davies at the Mold Detention Barracks, where he was detained as a conscientious objector to militarism, never examined Private Davies himself on the complaints made on his behalf in this House, he will now direct some investigator to see and examine Private Davies with reference to the said complaints; whether he will take the evidence of Sergeant-Major Binmore, the commandant of the said detention barracks, who rescued Private Davies from the treatment which he received during the first three days of his detention at the hands of a staff-sergeant and other non-commissioned officers; whether he will direct the investigator to examine Private E. Jones, No. 8108, 4th Royal Welsh Fusiliers, and Private Turner Williams, No. 7332, 4th Royal Welsh Fusiliers, who were eye-witnesses of the brutality suffered by Private Davies, and who will bear out the statement made on behalf of Private Davies as to the treatment which he received; and whether, if further investigations show him to have been misled, he will take steps to punish the persons responsible for Private Davies's treatment?
    Mr. FORSTER: I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by pursuing this matter further in view of the fact that Private Davies has not preferred any complaint himself, although he has had ample opportunity. In this connection I desire to draw the hon. Member's attention to Section 43 of the Army Act and the "Rules for Military Detention Barracks and Military Prisons. "I would also remind the hon. Member that it is not the duty of a prison visitor to examine soldiers under sentence in regard to complaints made on their behalf. It is his duty to examine complaints made by the man concerned, and ample provision is made under the above quoted rules and Section of the Army Act.

    VOLUNTARY AMBULANCE COLUMN (LONDON DISTRICT).
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Secretary of State for War whether the Voluntary Ambulance Column attached to the London district has dealt with over
    36
    100,000 cases at no cost to the State; whether such organisation is now on the verge of collapse owing to the drivers being conscripted; and what steps he proposes to take to ensure the safe moving of the wounded?
    Mr. FORSTER: I believe that this organisation has carried a large number of wounded at no cost to the State, but I am not informed as to the exact number. I was not aware that the organisation was on the verge of collapse. In answer to the last part of the question, I would suggest that those who control the organisation should submit a list of the drivers who are employed on the work of the ambulance column. I cannot, however, undertake that this organisation shall be treated any differently from the British Red Cross Society or the Royal Army Medical Corps as regards the enforcement of the liability to general service.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Having regard to the important work done by this organisation, would the hon. Gentleman see those in control and go into the matter himself, and may I bring the people to him?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am quite sure my Noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State will go very closely into it.

    WOOL.
    Mr. CLANCYasked the Secretary of State for War whether, before a price or prices for wool of the 1916 clip are fixed, the Army Council will take into consideration the fact that, if the prices so fixed are lower than last year's prices, such persons as have last year's clip to sell will be unable to sell except at a serious loss, which will affect wool merchants and many farmers alike; whether adequate inquiry will be made as to the value of this year's clip before any conclusion is arrived at; and whether the price will be fixed lower than the prevailing figure?
    Mr. THORNEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he will explain why it is proposed to pay 30 per cent, above the 1914 prices for this year's wool clip; whether in fixing the price regard has been had to the exceptional treatment accorded to farmers as compared with other employers of labour in the exemption both of themselves and of their employes from military service,

    37
    and the freedom of their profits from special war taxation; and whether, if the present proposal is carried out, he will take steps for the application of the Excess Profits Tax to profits derived from farming above those of the years precedent to the War?
    Mr. FORSTER: As I said in answer to a question recently, I should prefer not to answer questions as to the proposed price of wool till after I have seen the deputation on Wednesday next, but I can assure my hon. Friends that all relevant considerations have been or will be taken into account.
    Mr. JOYCE: May I ask if Irish wool merchants over here from Ireland can attend the deputation, or will he receive them by themselves?
    Mr. FORSTER: The details of the deputation are left in the hands of the Central Chamber of Agriculture. If the representatives of any considerable body wish to be present at the deputation, perhaps they would confer with the secretary of the Central Chamber.
    Sir J. SPEAR: May I ask if it is not the fact that farmers have contributed a larger sum to the expenses of the Red Cross than any others in the country?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman must give notice of that.

    KUT-EL-AMARA.
    Mr. PETOasked the Secretary of State for War when the dispatches relating to the expedition for the relief of Kut, and particularly the action fought under General Aylmer on 8th March, will be published?
    Mr. FORSTER: These dispatches have not yet reached the War Office.

    NERVE-SHAKEN SOLDIERS.
    Colonel Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Secretary of State for War if he will explain why uncertifiable soldiers are being treated in annexes to asylums and under asylum management, in view of his statement of 11th March, 1915, that no soldier should be placed while in the Army under asylum administration?
    Mr. FORSTER: No uncertifiable soldiers suffering from nerve strain are treated in
    38
    any other institutions than military war hospitals under the control of the War Office.
    Colonel Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Secretary of State for War how many uncertifiable nerve-shaken soldiers are at present located in that block of the Wandsworth County Asylum called a military hospital situated within the precincts of the asylum and under the same management as the rest of the institution; and whether he proposes to place more uncertifiable soldiers under the control of the lunacy authorities?
    Mr. FORSTER: There are 229 cases in the Springfield War Hospital. It is proposed to continue the present system, which is not correctly represented by the Noble Lord as placing soldiers under the control of the lunacy authorities. They are isolated from rest of institution and treated by officers in employ of Army Medical Service.
    Colonel Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK:Are not all those in charge of these soldiers officials of the Lunacy Commissioners?
    Mr. FORSTER: I cannot say whether that is so in every case, but I have no doubt that a considerable number of them are.
    Colonel Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked how many certifiable soldiers are now in a block of the Middle-sex County Asylum, at Napsbury, St. Albans; and whether any uncertifiable nerve-shaken soldiers have been sent there?
    Mr. FORSTER: There are now 320 soldiers in the County of Middlesex War Hospital, Napsbury, all of whom were certifiable when sent there.
    Colonel Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked whether any soldiers invalided through loss of mental balance have been discharged from the Army to asylums other than the three classes which he gave notice that he intended to discharge, namely, cases of general paralysis of the insane, chronic epilepsy, and nervous disturbance occurring in soldiers who had been in asylums before they joined the Army; and, if so, how many?
    Mr. FORSTER: A limited number of cases which, after a period of from four to six months' observation and treatment, are considered to be incurable, have been discharged to asylums. The number is 198.

    ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS (CLERKS).
    Mr. E. HARVEYasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is yet in a position to state if the pay of a sergeant clerk in the Royal Army Medical Corps, Regular Force, is higher than that of one in the Territorial Force when serving abroad and doing exactly similar work; and whether he has been able to take any steps to equalise the position of the Territorial Force with that of the Regular Army in this respect?
    Mr. FORSTER: The special rates which are given to certain clerks who belong to the peace establishment here have not been extended to clerks of the Territorial Force. The question as to how many clerks should receive these special rates is still under consideration.
    Mr. HARVEY: Are there not a number of cases where the men are doing exactly the same work as clerks in the Regular Force, and can they not get the same pay in France?
    Mr. FORSTER: As I have said in the reply, the question as to how many clerks are to get these special rates is still under consideration.

    COST OF LIVING (SPECIAL TRADES UNION CONGRESS).
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether his attention has been called to the proceedings of a special trades union congress, representative of 3,000,000 work people, held in London recently to protest against the increase in the cost of living; and whether, since farmers admit having already made considerable profits out of the increased prices due to the War, he will take steps to requisition the wool clip at the level of its price in 1914?
    Mr. FORSTER: My attention has been drawn to the resolutions passed at the congress referred to. The object of controlling the British wool clip is to secure full supplies for the needs of the Armies in the field, and so far as possible to prevent undue inflation of the prices charged to the Government. I fear the proposal made by the hon. Member in the second part of the question would hardly recompense the patriotic efforts made by the agricultural interests to increase production during the War.

    AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that agricultural labourers in many parts of the country are still in receipt of wages of much less than £1 per week; and whether, in the event of paying farmers for the wool clip anything: beyond the prices ruling in 1914, he will consider the advisability of a condition being attached to the purchase providing for a substantial increase in the wages of the farmers' adult employés?
    Mr. FORSTER: The hon. Member's, suggestion will be borne in mind, but I am doubtful whether it will be found practicable to act upon it.

    AFFORESTATION (SCOTLAND).
    Mr. WATTasked the Secretary to-the Treasury whether all replanting of trees in Scotland, after the Government has purchased and removed the most of the woods, is to be left to private enterprise, or whether there is any contemplation of assisting in any way such replanting?
    Mr. McKENNA: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to him on the 6th instant.

    PRIZE COURT DECISION ("POONA" CASE).
    Mr. PETOasked the Attorney-General whether, in view of the fact that the judgment of the President of the Prize Court in the "Poona" case, on 4th May, 1915, was given against the Crown and in favour of the claim of Isaria, Limited, a German-owned company, and of the fact that the president stated that he decided in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Appeal in the Continental Tyre Company case out of respect to that Court, he intends, now that that judgment has been reversed by the House of Lords, to advise an appeal by the Crown to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the "Poona" case?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Frederick Smith): I originally advised an appeal in this case for the purpose of obtaining a decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on the question ultimately decided in the Continental

    41
    Tyre Company case. When it became known that an appeal was to be taken to the House of Lords in the latter case, no further action in the "Poona"case was thought desirable. Having regard to the small value of the goods seized, and to the fact that they have been released, an .appeal cannot now be recommended.

    GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND.
    Mr. MALCOLMasked the Prime Minister (1) whether the proposals for a settlement of the Irish difficulties suggested by the Minister of Munitions to the senior Member for Dublin University and to the Member for Waterford had previously been presented to or sanctioned by the Cabinet; and (2) whether the exclusion of six Ulster counties from the operation of a Home Rule Parliament was suggested by the Minister of Munitions as a permanent factor in his proposed scheme for a settlement of the Irish question or as a temporary expedient pending the introduction of the Home Rule Act?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I propose to make a statement at the end of Questions.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: Does the Prime Minister propose to conclude his statement with the Motion, "That this House do now Adjourn"?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I propose that my statement should be in answer to various questions which have been postponed, and to which I want now to give an answer.
    Lord H. CECIL: Mr. Speaker, will an opportunity be given to put supplementary questions to the Prime Minister after he has made his statement, to clear up any ambiguity or doubt?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I understand that the Prime Minister is going to reply to certain questions which have been postponed; therefore, naturally a limited number of supplementary questions will be admissible.

    Anthrax (Southwark Inquest).
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Home Secretary if he is aware that, at an inquest held at Southwark Court on 29th June, 1916, upon the body of Henry Benjamin Morgan, aged 51 years, a waterside
    42
    labourer, who died in Guy's Hospital from cutaneous anthrax contracted during his work at the New Hibernia (or Hayes) Wharf, Southwark, while handling infected Persian or China wool in bales, the jury unanimously passed a rider to the effect that the provisions of the Factory and Workshps Act should be extended or enlarged so as to apply to the wharves and warehouses and other places where foreign or suspect wool, hides, skins, horse and goat hair, pigs' bristles, and other material liable to be infected with anthrax are handled and dealt with, and that the preventive regulations, including placards in picture form, issued by the Home Office, should be compulsorily exhibited and enforced for the information and well-being of workers in such wharves and warehouses; if he is aware that the medical experts, His Majesty's medical inspector, of the Home Office, Dr. Spilsbury, pathologist, medical officer of health, factory surgeon, and house surgeon at Guy's Hospital, in their evidence at the inquest on Morgan, expressed the opinion that it would be in the public interest, notwithstanding the War, if the recommendations made in the rider referred to were, without further delay, adopted by the authorities and made legal by Order or Statute; and if he intends to take any action in the matter?
    Mr. BRACE: The Home Office has received a letter from the coroner drawing attention to the proceedings at the inquest on this case. The danger of anthrax in connection with the handling of wool bales at wharves and warehouses has recently come into prominence, and the question of the steps to be taken to protect persons employed in such premises has been under the consideration of the Department. I propose asking the Departmental Committee which is now considering the question of anthrax in the wool industry to make an inquiry into this subject, and, pending the receipt of a report from them, I am arranging for a circular to be issued to the occupiers of such premises calling their attention to the danger and recommending the adoption of certain precautionary measures which will include the posting and exhibition of the picture placard to which the hon. Member refers. In a number of instances the placard in question has already been issued to the occupiers of wharves and warehouses.
    Mr. THORNEasked the Home Secretary if he is aware that at an inquest held in Southwark Court on the body of a butcher, named Tarrant, of Mitcham, who died from cutaneous anthrax in Guy's Hospital in December, the jury unanimously passed a rider to the effect that anthrax should be universally (not only in London, but at Croydon, Mitcham, and many other districts throughout the country, including Bradford and the West Riding of Yorkshire, the chief seat of the wool trade) placed on the list of dangerous infectious diseases compulsorily notifiable by medical men in attendance on such cases to the medical officer of health of the district in which the patient was under treatment; and, secondly, that all deaths from anthrax should be reported compulsorily to the coroner in whose district the body lies; and if he intends taking any action in the matter?
    The PRESIDENT Of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Long): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. My attention has been called to the facts stated, and the question of issuing an Order making all cases of anthrax compulsorily notifiable is under consideration.

    Deer Poisoning (Crieff).
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been draw", to the poisoning of cattle in Drum-mond Castle deer park, near Crieff; whether the public analyst has reported that the stomach contents of the animals contained arsenic; and whether he has any further information regarding this incident?
    Mr. MUNRO: The matter referred to in this question is at present the subject of inquiry by the police. I shall communicate the result of the inquiry to my hon. Friend.

    Education.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSEasked the Prime Minister if he has decided not to appoint a Royal Commission on Education; and, if so, what other course he proposes to adopt?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I do not propose to advise the appointment of a Royal Commission. The Government are themselves engaged in a comprehensive review of the system of education as a whole.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND.
    PROPOSED SETTLEMENT.

      PRIME MINISTER'S STATEMENT.
      The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I have during the last fortnight asked many hon. Members to postpone questions in regard to the proposed Irish settlement, and what I am now about to say will, I hope, be taken to be a comprehensive reply to those inquiries. The House will, I am sure, excuse me if it is a reply which exceeds the dimensions of an ordinary answer.
      On the 25th May I informed the House that I had come back from Ireland impressed not only with the breakdown of the existing machinery of Irish government, but with the strength and depth, and I think I said even the universality of the feeling that we had now a unique opportunity for a joint effort to attain agreement as to the way in which the government of Ireland is in the future to be carried on. I said that His Majesty's Government were anxious to do everything in their power to facilitate that result, and I added that with that object my right hon Friend, then Minister of Munitions (Mr. Lloyd George), at the unanimous request of his colleagues, had undertaken what I described as a mission of peace and reconciliation and of possible unity. I think I indicated with clearness what was the scope and character of my right hon. Friend's effort. It was not to invite the assent of the various parties and sections of opinion in Ireland to proposals put forward by or on behalf of His Majesty's Government. It was, upon the assumption that the Government of Ireland Act is on the Statute Book, though its operation is, for the time being, suspended, to see whether, under the existing conditions, they might not be disposed, by a process of give-and-take, to come to an agreed settlement. Such an agreement, if and when arrived at, would, of course, have to be submitted to the Cabinet, and, if approved by them, to Parliament.
      58
      In pursuance of that purpose my right hon. Friend proceeded at once to make himself an intermediary between the different sections of Irish opinion. I think there is no section representing any substantial body of opinion whose view he did not invite and receive. I may say—and I am glad to say—that at every step in the negotiations my right hon. Friend was in close consultation with me. He very soon discovered that, as between the leaders of the Nationalist party and of the Ulster Unionists there was one basis, and only one, upon which a settlement was possible. It involved, on the one side, the bringing into operation, as soon as possible after Parliamentary sanction had been given to the new arrangement, of the Government of Ireland Act as so modified. It involved, on the other side, the exclusion from the operation of that Act of an area consisting of the six counties, Antrim, Armagh, Down, Fermanagh, Londonderry, and Tyrone, and the three Parliamentary boroughs, Belfast, Londonderry, and Newry. The negotiations proceeding upon that basis developed agreement on a number of other important but relatively subsidiary points, and in the end the rough heads of a settlement were drawn up. I think it right to observe at this point that none of the parties to the agreement was in the position of a plenipotentiary with power to bind those for whom he was-acting. It was, with all of them, an arrangement ad referendum—in the case of the right hon. and learned Member for Dublin University (Sir E. Carson), to the Unionists of Ulster; in the case of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. J. Redmond), to the Nationalists of Ulster and subsequently of the rest of Ireland; and in the case of my right hon. Friend and colleague, to the Cabinet. That assent was secured by both the Irish leaders. It is only fair to some of my colleagues in the Cabinet to say that, owing to reasons for which I think we all of us here agree, none of us was to blame, there was some misunderstanding as to the point in the negotiations when they should have come under Cabinet review. But, in view of the agreements which had been publicly come to in Ireland, and of the supreme importance of preserving the unity of the Government in this great crisis of our history, we are all willing to share the responsibility of now submitting them to this House and recommending their acceptance by Parliament.

      59
      Let me say here at once—and most emphatically—there has been one dominating factor which has induced—or, if you like, compelled—acquiescence at the present juncture of men who have fought against one another upon this domestic battlefield for the lifetime of a generation, and have never yet laid down their arms. There are features in the proposed settlement which hone of us, voluntarily, would have chosen; one or another of which, for different reasons, all of us dislike. That was inevitable in any arrangement which did not involve the complete triumph of one set of ideas over another. It was this fact which hitherto, and notably at the Buckingham Palace Conference on the eve of the War, baffled and frustrated every effort at accommodation. What is it, then, that has made Irishmen of the most divergent views, and members of the Cabinet itself-none of whom, in either section of the Coalition, has surrendered his convictions in this matter-what is it that has made them willing to become parties to, or sponsors of, this new experiment? There is one simple and, I think, sufficient answer—it is the War! If i may for a moment digress—I hope the House will pardon me—from my theme to look at what, at this time, is going on in the region of the Somme, where the gallant Ulster Division has covered itself with undying fame, and Irish regiments from every province are vieing with one another in a splendid rivalry and devotion to the Empire and the cause of the Allies—which we all alike know and feel is the cause of justice and freedom—there is not a patriotic Irishman, I do not care to what section of Irish opinion he belongs, who does not feel that these common sacrifices and glories in themselves create a new bond between themselves and between them and ourselves.
      This, then, is the moment to remove, if we can, the future peril of domestic strife, that we may be free in every part of the United Kingdom to concentrate our whole thoughts and energies upon the achievement of victory. It is in that spirit that both Ulstermen and Nationalists have conducted and continued these negotiations, and that we as a Government are going to offer to the House proposals embodying in substance the heads of their agreement. Those proposals, of course, must take the form of a Bill, which will in due course be introduced. Therefore it would be in the highest degree in-
      60
      convenient if I were at this stage to anticipate its detailed provisions, for which at the proper time there will be abundant; opportunity both for explanation and debate. I will only indicate in the broadest terms that the main changes contemplated in the existing Act, apart from those which are consequential upon the exclusion of the six counties, are that the Irish House of Commons is to consist of persons who, for the time being, are Members returned by the same constituencies in Ireland to serve in this Parliament, and that the Appeal Court in Dublin is to consist of judges appointed by the Imperial Executive. Up till now we have not received any specific proposals from the Unionists of the South and West of Ireland, though they have been invited by my right hon. Friend—and by me—to make them. Any such proposals will, of course, receive our most careful and sympathetic consideration.
      Finally, there are two points which, before I conclude, seem to deserve special mention. The first relates to the powers of the Imperial Government in Ireland during the continuance of the present War. The Government of Ireland Act was drawn, and its Clauses were framed and passed, without any reference to the struggle in which we are now engaged. The Act contains a general provision which reserves for the exclusive authority of the Imperial Government and Parliament, not only the Navy and the Army, but all matters arising out of war. I myself believe—I speak my own personal opinion—that that general enactment would suffice to cover the exigencies of the case. I am certain it is not the intention or desire of any of those who can conceivably be members of the Irish Executive during the currency of the War to encroach in any way upon the undivided power and responsibility, in all that appertains directly or indirectly to its successful prosecution and conduct, of the Imperial authority. To avoid, however, any possible doubt, words will be proposed—in my opinion they are a mere exposition of what is already implied, if not expressed, in the Government of Ireland Act—to make this abundantly clear, especially with reference to emergency legislation which Parliament has found it necessary to pass in the Defence of the Realm Acts and other Statutes in temporary operation, which arise out of the state of war, and are needed thereunder for the defence and safety of the Kingdom. The other point

      61
      to which I think it right to refer before I sit down is that, under these heads of agreement, it is provided that the Bill is to remain in force during the continuance of the War and for a period of twelve months thereafter; but that, if Parliament has not by that time made a further and permanent provision for the government of Ireland, the period for which the measure remains in force is to be extended by an Order in Council for such time as may be necessary to enable Parliament to make this provision. In other words, in a sense and in a very true sense, the Bill is a provisional measure. But I see all sorts of possibilities of misapprehension in the use of the term. To relieve any possible doubt oi that point, let me say, speaking for those who, like myself, look forward to and are anxious for a united Ireland, "we recognise and agree in the fullest and sincerest sense that such union can only be brought about with, and can never be brought about without, the free will and assent of the excluded area.
      4.0 P.M.
      I believe I have been engaged in this controversy myself, like some of those who sit here, for nearly thirty years, and I have never altered my view. I believe we have now the golden opportunity, brought upon us by circumstances which we could not have foreseen—urged upon us by the exigencies of the War—to arrive at an arrangement already approved by the representatives of the two leading Irish parties, though in many of its features it is distasteful to both of them, and in some of its features, I know, distasteful to my colleagues, and, I will add, to myself—we have here an arrangement such as would never have been possible before. Though, of course, I am not now dealing with the Bill to be introduced, or inviting debate, I venture to make one more appeal to the House and to the country to take advantage of an opportunity which may never recur to provide, at any rate, the seed and germs of a lasting settlement of this question.
      Sir EDWARD CARSON: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman two questions. He talked of the arrangement as a "provisional arrangement,"I understand. I also understand, from what he said, that the six counties will be definitely struck out of the Act of 1914. Of course, at any time afterwards they could be included by a Bill?
      The PRIME MINISTER: They could not be included without a Bill.
      Sir E. CARSON: Another thing I should like to ask is, I assume that the Bill to be brought in will contain the provisions with reference to the future government of the six counties, or, at all events, we will have, before the Bill goes through the House, the provision for the government of the six counties laid before the House?
      The PRIME MINISTER: The machinery will be suggested.
      Sir E. CARSON: I am obliged.
      Mr. W. O'BRIEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how soon the provisions of this Bill will be laid before the House?
      The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot give a date, but, of course, there will be no avoidable delay.
      Mr. W. O'BRIEN: This week or next week?
      The PRIME MINISTER: I should not like to give an exact date.
      Lord HUGH CECIL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say at all in detail what will be the authority in Ireland which will have the administration of the Defence of the eRalm Act and the other emergency laws to which he refers?
      The PRIME MINISTER: The representative of the Imperial Executive.
      Lord H. CECIL: Who will that be I do not mean what individual, but what office he will hold?
      The PRIME MINISTER: I should like to consider that.
      Major GUINNESS: May I ask whether any provision will be made to resolve differences which may arise between the British authority controlling the Defence of the Realm Act and the Irish Executive as to the enforcement of those Acts; and, further, whether there is any proposal to disarm the rival Volunteers in Ireland?
      The PRIME MINISTER: That is rather a matter of Executive action, and I would appeal to hon. Members not to ask me for details. These matters are still being most carefully considered, and I think it would be very foolish of me to commit myself or the Government to specify proposals at this moment.
      Lord CLAUD HAMILTON: Might I ask a general question? Will the

      63
      Nationalist Members continue to vote in this House after the Parliament in Dublin is set up?
      The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir, under the provisions of the Home Rule Act.
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman what will be the effect as regards finance upon the United Kingdom—whether the point of finance will be considered?
      The PRIME MINISTER: I deprecate a question of that kind at this time. The hon. Member will have a most ample opportunity of considering that later on.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the provisions in the existing Act in relation to the powers over Customs and Post Office are to continue?
      The PRIME MINISTER: There again I must deprecate these questions.
      Mr. HOGGE: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it would be better to give Members of the House an opportunity to discuss them before the Cabinet matures its proposals in a Bill, so that we may not have division at a time when he wants unity; and may I also ask him if he will not, after the differences the Colonial Secretary found in his own party, call a meeting of his own party, and see if we are united?
      The PRIME MINISTER: I am always glad to meet my own party. If they wish to see me, I will see them, but I have no reason to think any such need has arisen. I would once more, if the House will allow me, ask hon. Members to postpone these questions. A Bill will be brought in, and there will be every opportunity of discussion.
      Lord H. CECIL: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an opportunity of discussing Lord Hardinge's Report?
      The PRIME MINISTER: I have answered that question already.
      Lord H. CECIL: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that he would, if a sufficient number wished it?
      The PRIME MINISTER: If the Noble Lord looks at my answer, he will find that I did not say that. What I said was, if a specific Motion were put down with regard to the Report, I would consult my colleagues.
      Mr. PETO: I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman, not a question of detail but with regard to something I took down when he was speaking. I understood all members of the Cabinet share the responsibility of recommending this proposal to Parliament. Later on, in pointing out the difference of views of one section of the Cabinet, he said they were all sponsors of this new experiment. Do I rightly understand that the Cabinet as a whole are jointly and severally responsible?
      The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. Gentleman did not do me the compliment of listening to the statement I made, and if he will read it to-morrow he will see what I said.
      Mr. GINNELL: As my questions were postponed for this occasion, and yet have not been answered, perhaps the Prime Miniser will be good enough to answer me now on a very definite point. He has said that he desires this settlement to be arrived at by the free will and consent of the Irish people. Will he explain how it is that martial law and the Defence of the Realm Act have been used to suppress a meeting in opposition to his present proposal, and to facilitate a meeting in support of that proposal; and will he inform the House whether he has received from any statutory elected body in Ireland a request for such a Bill as this for the partition of Ireland, and whether all the elected bodies that have voted at all on the subject have not voted directly against partition?
      Mr. GWYNNE: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose at once to set up two Houses of Parliament in Dublin, and, if so, how will the second House be nominated?
      The PRIME MINISTER: When the hon. Member sees the Bill he will find that question will be answered.
      Colonel YATE: The right hon. Gentleman spoke of "the Irish House of Commons."May I ask if he will give an Irish name to the Irish House of Commons?

      SMALL HOLDING COLONIES BILL [Lords].
      Order for Second Reading read.
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Acland): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

      65
      This is a Bill which reaches us from the House of Lords to enable the State to use 6,000 acres of agricultural land in England and Wales, and 2,000 acres in Scotland, for settling ex-Service men on the land in colonies of small holders. It does not mark the beginning of any large new departure in State policy; it is only an experiment. It does not mean that the State will find small holdings for all ex-Service men, or that all such men have a right to have land found for them. It will, of course, if passed, have the advantage of finding land for a certain number of such men, but its main object is not that, but to try an experiment on a sufficiently large scale that its results shall be decisive with regard to certain questions as to which at present we have not enough knowledge. Personally, perhaps I may be allowed to say, I hope it will be the first of many experiments by the State devised with the object of proving to landowners and farmers that our land can be used to produce more food and support more men, women, and children than it does now. But I am not at present authorised to say anything of that kind on behalf of the Government, and the Bill must be considered simply for what it is. The object of the experiment, stated in its simplest form, is to test whether by settling ex-Service men, in the main hitherto untrained, on land in colonies, and employing co-operative methods, we cannot make such colonies an economic success, as well as a success from the point of view of increased production of food and increased nurture of good citizens. I hope the House may consider that an experiment well worth trying.
      The Bill, as the House knows, is the outcome of a Report of a Committee appointed to consider how to promote the settlement and employment on the land in England and Wales of sailors and soldiers on discharge, whether disabled or otherwise. It takes its rise from the first part of the Report of the Committee on Settlement, and during the consideration of this question the Committee was presided over by the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for North Buckinghamshire (Sir Harry Verney), and he had the assistance of the hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mr. Leslie Scott) and the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. G. H. Roberts), and of several other gentlemen equally qualified to help in working out the problem.
      66
      Whatever the views of the House may be of this Bill, I think there can be only one opinion of the Report, namely, that it is an extremely thorough and interesting and practical piece of work upon which the Committee are to be very heartily congratulated. It has also the great and rather rare merit of being unanimous and of having no Minority Reports or reservations. I will assume, if I may, that hon. Members have read the Report and will not wish me to describe it at all in detail, but I ought to mention certain points in order to indicate the policy upon which the Bill is based. The Committee found that small holdings meant increased productivity, and a substantial increase in the population engaged on the land; land settlement for ex-Service men must in the main be undertaken by the State acting through the Board of Agriculture; and that if untrained men were to be settled in small holdings with the best chance of success it must be in communities provided both with expert agricultural advice and business organisation. They further recommended that each community should number about 100 families, and that the settlements should be of from 1,000 to 2,000 or 2,500 acres, according to the type of cultivation for which the land was most suited, and that the land must be good land easily worked. The Committee went into the vexed question of ownership as against tenancy very thoroughly by practical inspection and investigation of existing land, as well as by hearing-evidence, and they came to certain conclusions. I do not think, however, that this question should arise on the Bill, because this measure makes either system of the ultimate disposal of the land to the settlers equally possible, and I do not think that anyone will dispute at first, at any rate, tenancy and not ownership must be the basis. The Committee recommend that the men should be trained by being employed on the land which is acquired in the ordinary way until their means and experience entitle them to take up holdings for themselves, and that as their capacity increases their holdings should be enlarged; that there should be a central farm at first large and then gradually decreasing, which would after it had served its purpose as a training ground probably remain, though perhaps on a smaller scale, as an example of cultivation, and of the best systems of trading, management, and accountancy, and

      67
      as a demonstration centre. The Committee hold that co-operative organisation by the tenants is absolutely essential, not only in the more obvious directions of marketing and sale of produce, and providing machinery, implements, and other agricultural requirements, but also, and this is equally essential, to provide the credit which the holders will require when they settle on their own holdings. They recommend also that there should be a director for each colony to supervise the farming of the land, the training of the men, and the business organisation of the whole settlement, assisted by specialist instructors where necessary. They thought it necessary that there should be a central depot for trading purposes, and other central buildings for social purposes, and they hope that village industries, subsidiary to agriculture, would develop, and that provisions should be made for these things in each colony. They concluded by pointing out the urgency of taking action even during the War to establish these three typical pioneer colonies. They estimated the cost of these three colonies at a maximum of £334,000, if the land had to be bought, and a minimum of £120,000 to cover equipment, tenant right, and farm capital, if none of the land had to be bought to start with.
      Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I think the right hon. Gentleman will find that the Report does not make that statement.
      Mr. ACLAND: The statement that the cost would be £334,000, if the land had to be bought, and £120,000 to cover equipment, tenant right, and farm capital is made in the Report, if the hon Member will refer to the passage. They believe that if properly administered, this expenditure should be recouped to the State by the rents charged and the profits made, the State bearing only the expenses of organisation and instruction, as it does with other classes of small holdings at the present time. So far I think I may say that the policy of the Government in the acquisition and development of these colonies will be exactly the same as that of the Committee, though in carrying out this policy this House would wish those who will be responsible should have a wide liberty of action as they learn by experience of actual founding and developing of the settlements. But the Committee went beyond anything which is contained in the
      68
      Bill or is at present the accepted policy of the Government in recommending the-appropriation of £2,000,000 for the purpose-of these colonies. That, of course, is a fact which I do not pretend to conceal, and it suggests a very obvious method of criticism of the Bill. There are hon. Members of this House who do not want the State to do anything in connection with land. They may think that an experiment involving a possible maximum cost of one-third of a million a most unwise and extravagant proposal. There are others who-wish that the Government are going at least the whole length recommended by the Committee and possibly beyond it. I would fain hope that they will turn their criticisms upon one another rather than upon the Bill; and that those who would prefer that nothing should be done will support the Bill because they are thankful that it is no worse, while those who would' like more will also support it because it is better than nothing.
      A more helpful line of criticism and one-of which the Board are fully aware would;. I think, be on the lines of pointing out the-difficulty of working out even for three colonies the scheme upon which we hope to proceed. Much will depend upon the selection of the land, and the terms upon which it can be obtained. Much will depend upon the right selection of the-men, and upon the weight which should be given to previous experience of work on the land by the applicant and his wife, in comparison with the possession of intelligence, industry, capacity, initiative, and good will, which may often in themselves lead to success without previous experience. Much will depend upon the selection of directors for the colonies, upon the cost of building houses for the settlers, and the necessary central buildings being kept reasonably low, which is no easy thing at the present time. Finally, much will depend upon the terms upon which money can be found by the Treasury for these buildings, for stocking the holdings, and for the purchase of land, if purchase be necessary. I can make no prophecy with regard to these difficult matters, but I think it is right to tell the House that a good deal of preliminary work has already been done, though naturally no final commitments have been made or will be made until the Bill passes. This work has been done under excellent auspices, for the hon. and gallant Member for the Wilton Division (Captain Bathurst) has taken charge of it as a piece of unpaid war work. I am

      69
      not going to say anything about the value of his work or the gratitude of the Board to him for it. It would be presumptuous for me to do so, and as he is present I am sure he would rather I did not; but I think I ought, in justice to him, to make it clear that the responsibility for success or failure of this scheme will not rest upon him. He is not responsible for the Report or for the Bill, or for the financial basis upon which the colonies will be started. He is doing his utmost with the limitations imposed by the Government plan, and by the necessities of the case, to make the scheme a success, but he must not be taken to be responsible for the conditions under which he is working.
      The House will now wish me to describe rather more clearly what is in the Bill, for it contains certain provisions that I have not yet referred to. First of all, if hon. Members will look at the Bill, they will see that the power of acquiring land for experimental small-holding colonies is limited to the continuance of the War or twelve months thereafter; that it can only be exercised with the consent of the Treasury; and that it applies only to acquiring land by agreement, and not by compulsion. The area is limited, as I have stated, to 6,000 acres in England and Wales, and 2,000 in Scotland. Provisions are made in Clause 1 for giving compensation to any farmers or labourers who may be displaced by incorporating the relevant Clauses from the Small Holdings Acts of 1908 and 1910. These provisions were inserted in another place, and were, of course, willingly accepted by the Government. It had seemed to us so much a matter of course that proper compensation would be given in accordance with existing Statutes, that it seemed unnecessary to repeat Clauses from these Statutes in the Bill, but it is no doubt better to have them in black-and-white. I ought to add, of course, every endeavour is being made, and will be made, to find land which will involve the very minimum of displacement or disturbance to anybody. There is a further point upon which I shall move an Amendment in this Clause-namely, to make it clear that we shall not take common land. That is almost unnecessary to state, but there will be no harm in having that in the Bill in black-and-white. The Board of Agriculture know too much about the difficulties of taking common land to have any idea of doing so. In Clause 2 proper provision is made for aiding cooperative societies for credit and other
      70
      purposes. This Clause is taken from the existing Small Holdings Act. Clause 3 has nothing to do with these colonies at all. I ask the House to look at this Clause. It is covered by the Title of the Bill, which includes the phrase "to extend the powers of acquisition and management of land … under the Development and Roads Improvement Funds Act, 1909."That is Clause 3.
      Sir F. BANBURY: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain that proposal?
      Mr. ACLAND: At present land may be bought under the Development and Roads Improvement Funds Act, but it cannot be taken on lease, nor can an option be taken for purchase or leasing. It is proposed to give to the Government those two powers, the power of purchase and leasing the land, as well as taking an option of either purchasing or leasing. I believe these new powers will be very useful to the Government for the purposes of afforestation and reclamation when those questions have been further considered. This is a slight extension of the present powers of obtaining land under the Development Act.
      Sir F. BANBURY: I do not quite understand by the Clause whether the powers of the Development and Roads Improvement Funds Act with regard to the purchase of land are conferred upon the people who will administer this Bill by the way in which the Clause is drawn.
      Mr. ACLAND: I do not think it is proposed to empower any new body to do anything, but only the body or bodies that are empowered to purchase land under the Development and Roads Improvement Funds Act, and they are to be empowered to lease land, and obtain options either for-purchase or leasing as well as the present limited power, which extends to purchase only. If this is not so, I will make it quite clear in Committee. Clause 4 gives power to lease, sell, manage, and enfranchise. Clause 5 in the present Bill I shall move to omit. Naturally it is inserted in this form in a Bill coming from the Upper House to avoid any encroachment upon the privileges of the House in regard to finance, and I shall at the proper time move to substitute a simpler Clause providing that the expenses of exercising the powers conferred by the Act under the Development and Roads Improvement Funds Act shall be charged to the Development Fund, and that the powers with regard to colonies shall be

      71
      charged on the Small Holdings Account. Clause 6 gives landowners power to let land for the purpose of the Act under long lease subject to the proper consents being obtained. Clause 8 empowers the present legal adviser of the Board to act as a solicitor for the purpose of the Bill. Clause 9 provides for the presentation to Parliament of an annual report and statement of the financial position of each colony. Clause 10 applies the Act to Scotland, and Clause 11 does not apply it to Ireland. I think it would be right to ask the House to agree that the Bill should be taken in Committee by the Whole House. If the House will give it a Second Reading this evening, though there is nothing at all new or revolutionary in the Bill—if its principles be accepted—I shall propose not to proceed further with it until next week, so as to give ample time for putting down and considering Amendments. I hope we may then be able to proceed with it and finish it fairly rapidly.
      I want to conclude by answering one or two questions which have been put to me about the Bill. First of all, I have been asked to say what, if any, provision will be made under the Bill for disabled soldiers. The Board have been in communication with the Committee over which Mr. Cyril Jackson presides on that subject, and I think no one would desire, certainly not that Committee, that there should be a colony wholly composed of disabled men. Disabled men, if they are still sufficiently able-bodied to be able to do work, might be properly mixed up with the rest of the population and given opportunities of doing what they can, but, if they are not-sufficiently able-bodied to do work, they are not, of course, fit to be settled on colonies of this kind. It is hoped that it may be possible to absorb a certain, though not a large, proportion of partly disabled men among the able-bodied holders. The Committee will keep in consultation with the Board on the subject, and will help the Board in the selection of men who, though technically disabled, might make very useful and efficient colonists. Another question that has been raised is: What will the Bill do for reclamation? The answer is, "nothing,"and I hope the House will agree that is perfectly right. It is perfectly right that this Bill should be limited to a totally different thing. Reclamation, of course, is a most important problem—
      72
      one which I am glad to say is now being pretty actively investigated—but it is full of difficulties of its own. Personally I do not think that very much can be done by the State in the direction of reclamation without compulsory powers of purchase, and without exercising such powers on a basis which would not be quite the basis usually followed under the Land Clauses Acts. We have to recognise that reclamation is primarily, at any rate, a problem of employment, and not of settlement at all. If one really contemplates any practical proposition with regard to reclamation, one sees that not until a great number of men have been employed for some time on the rough work of reclaiming can anything be done to settle the very much smaller number of men who may be able to live by cultivating the land that is reclaimed. I personally hope that there may be a very great future before reclamation in this country, but this Bill arises only out of that part of this Report dealing with settlement, and not out of that part dealing with employment. Reclamation is a problem chiefly, of employment rather than of settlement. Therefore, this Bill deals with none of the problems of employment which are dealt with in Part II. of the Report of the Committee which has recently been published.
      Finally, I should like to make clear why it is that I commend the Bill to the House—though I confess frankly that it is framed in no heroic mould—as a very important step forward, well worthy of our favourable consideration for what it is. I believe that men at present inexperienced can be settled on land successfully. We do not know that for a fact, but this Bill will prove it. I believe the best chance of so settling them is in communities which also possess the requisite social life. This Bill will test the question also. I believe that if such community settlements are to be a success they must be nurtured upon co-operative principles, both as to production and credit. The Bill will test that also and show us the best way of developing cooperative and credit societies. I believe that these communities of men, associating together co-operatively, can be made independent and self-supporting economic units. This Bill will show us whether or not that is true. We have still much to learn as to the type of land most suitable for the settlements that are contemplated. Under this Bill, if it is passed, we intend to start three colonies

      73
      of different types in different parts of the country. If we proceed in this way we shall learn much as to the conditions which promise the greatest amount of success. I believe that landowners, holding as they do their land in trust for the people, have still much to learn and a long way to go in securing that their land shall maintain the largest population and produce the greatest supply of food. I hope that these pioneer experimental colonies may be so successful that they will be widely studied and imitated by private landowners. I hope, if this does not happen to a sufficient extent, that the State may, after no long interval, emboldened by its own success, consider whether it ought not to go further than it is proposing to go to-day, or, if by chance there be failure, then learn by failure a better way of progress. This Bill will settle upon the land some of the men who have fought for us. It will settle them in a manner well calculated to command success. It will shed light upon questions which are now the subject of doubt or controversy, and thus make the path of future progress more easy. For these reasons, I have the honour of moving that it be read a second time.
      Mr. JESSE COLLINGS: The right hon. Gentleman has truly said that this Bill does not proceed on heroic grounds. I would venture to add that unless it is largely amended in Committee, as it is capable of being amended, it will fail in its object. I shall support the Second Reading of the Bill for several reasons. It proposes the colony system, which is the only system that is effectual. In it the State recognises its responsibility for the employment of ex-service men. Thirdly, and more important, the State by acquiring land and cultivating it ceases to rely solely on farmers for the increase of produce. The ex-President of the Board of Agriculture during the whole time of his office used every endeavour to get the farmers to carry out the objects which he had in view, but he completely failed, and the production of the land now is as bad as or worse than it was before the beginning of the War. The right hon. Gentleman opposite in his speech on the Vote for the Board of Agriculture said:
      "It is clear that the danger point of gravely decreased production has already been reached. Even as things are now we cannot. I fear, maintain production at the level of last year."
      That is a serious statement looking at the perilous position we are in with regard to food supply. Imports are increase-
      74
      ing yearly. In 1914 we imported food to the value of £283,000,000, and last year that had increased to £367,000.000. That is a position in which no other country in the world has ever been placed. We are subject to perils on that account. Should our food-laden ships be interrupted, even for a few weeks, either by shortage of transports, by the action of the enemy, or by any other cause, this country would be reduced to a state of famine. The right hon. Gentleman opposite stated that wheat last year had increased 20 per cent. That is satisfactory as far as it goes, but that increase was made at the expense of other crops. In the Report of the Board of Agriculture for England and Wales, we find that there are nineteen different articles of food raised on arable land. Of these only four have increased in the area of land on which they are grown. They are wheat, barley, potatoes, and kohlrabi. The remainder of the nineteen show very serious decreases. The increase in wheat is readily accounted for. Fortunately we have in this country some of the finest farmers in the world, and it is to their patriotism and skill that the increase is due, but that class of farmer is in the minority. The ordinary farmers are men who have little enterprise and little scientific knowledge. They are content with high prices and the low production which usually accompanies low rents. They have shown that no reliance is to be laid upon that class of farmers for the supply of food. No doubt they have had difficulties in the shortage of labour, and other difficulties, which they have not tried to overcome. We have seen by some of the reports that in many parts they have declined the services of women. We see they are reported in many parts to have declined the assistance of soldiers on the ground that the rate of wages required is too high. Now with wheat at 60s. per quarter, and hay at £8 per ton, the farmers can well afford to pay any reasonable wage. But instead of that they prefer to put the land down into grass to save labour. And they do save in that way, because one hundred acres of grass land require only one man, while a hundred acres of arable land require five or six men. Laying down land into grass accounts for the decline in the arable land. Last year we saw by the Report that there were 300,000 acres less arable land than there were before.
      The right hon. Gentleman said that these are experiments which are to be

      75
      made in the Bill. Well, experiments are very good in a time of peace, but seeing that we are at war and the present necessity that exists I think that there is no time whatever for more experiments. I would earnestly appeal, therefore, to the Government that they should extend the scope of this Bill, as can readily be done, so that it should include in its operations some of the waste land and some of the large area which is in poor grass. That, after all, is the solution of the food question. If that were consented to by the Government and the work were to begin at once, large areas would be ready for the spring sowing of 1917 and a substantial increase of the food supply would be secured in that way. We have immense areas of alluvial land on the banks of our rivers and estuaries, which by draining and embankment, could be brought into cultivation and could produce enormous crops. I have a typical instance in my mind which I know well, having visited it on several occasions. Nearly opposite Devonport Dockyard there are about 1,000 acres of such land, and with no heavy expenditure that could be made to produce large crops. If that were done, no less than 4,000 quarters of wheat could be produced upon that area, which would be sufficient to keep 5,000 persons for one year. Or, seeing its neighbourhood to three large and populous towns, it could be devoted to market gardening, and the Government would recoup itself fully five times for the expense. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the opinions of Mr. A. D. Hall. He is the highest authority on land reclamation, and in his Presidential Address before the British Association he strongly advocated that and gave estimates to show that from £20 to £25 profit could be made out of every acre of land reclaimed. He concluded his suggestions by saying that: "The reclamation of such land is a long-sighted policy and a sound commercial venture."The Government are urging the public to retrench their domestic expenditure and practise economy. But here we have a Government voluntarily allowing a preventible expenditure to an enormous extent.
      5.0 P.M.
      The right hon. Gentleman said that the Bill was based on the Report of the Departmental Committee. No doubt there are good recommendations in the Report of the Committee, some of which are adopted in this Bill; but, in my opinion,
      76
      they are all vitiated by insisting upon tenancies instead of ownership. The Committee are loud in their praise of the soldiers who have risked their lives for their native land, but they are rigidly opposed in the Report to their possessing a single acre of it. I do not know whether hon. Members present heard the speech delivered by the hon. and gallant Member for East Clare (Captain W. Redmond) a short time ago. What he says is worthy of attention. He said that
      "During the past three months he had exceptional opportunities for seeing the spirit and the work of the men at the front, and he wished to tell the House and the public that they ought to be exceedingly proud or the work they were doing, not only on account of their hard and laborious lives, but because of the splendid spirit they displayed,"
      "Nothing,"he said, "is too good for him."That may be regarded as a matter of sentiment, but sentiment is a ruling factor in human affairs, and I think that legislation when it is framed should not lose sight of it. The right hon. Gentleman said the Report of the Committee drew its opinions against ownership from the evidence and from the example of existing estates where ownership prevailed. I think he is in error. There is one estate which I have known from its foundation in 1892. I allude to the colony of Catshill, near Bromsgrove. In the Report of the Committee it is represented as a dead failure, and that there are only so many of the original holders living on the holdings and that the land is badly cultivated. I think these are like most of the other statements in the Report. Many of them are contrary to the facts. I have visited that colony periodically and I was there about three weeks ago. If the right hon. Gentleman will go himself he will find that there is not a word of fact in the Report with regard to that colony. J hope he will do so, because it is important just now when we are making experiments. Here is an experiment, which I ask the right hon. Gentleman to see—that experiment at Catshill which has stood the test of twenty-five years, a quarter of a century, and has stood the test of population, seeing that it was originally a small area of 150 acres and was farmed by one man, who with his family made up about a dozen persons. Now he will find and hon. Members will find—I hope they will go there—a beautiful place occupied by thirty-two small holders, who, with their families, perhaps number 150 people. Therefore I repudiate with some indignation the aspersions upon this great experiment. If the Government were going in

      77
      this Bill to create a large number of such occupiers it would simply be another means of settling the question of food supply and population. The food supply at Catshill at this moment is at least ten times more in value than it was when the 150 acres were cultivated by one man. Why is it we are in this difficulty about tenancies and ownerships? We know that the Unionist party throughout the country and in the House are in favour of ownerships. The First Lord of the Admiralty stated:
      "I earnestly hope for my part that whenever it is possible we shall adopt this system of ownerships, which is the true root and secret of any successful system of small cultivation."
      In the same strain Lord Selborne, addressing a public meeting of agriculturists, expressed his belief that:
      "Ownership was the only principle on which the land question could be settled,"
      but, he added,
      "other members of the Government have pinned their faith to tenancies."
      We have in that utterance the secret of the antagonism to ownerships on the part of the Government. We have a Coalition Government which evidently contains elements that will not coalesce, and on this land question, as on every other disputed question, the Unionists have to go to the wall; therefore those who have pinned their faith to tenancies have had their way. It is a strange change. I remember the days when the Liberal party made ownerships the first plank in their platform. They probably found that the creation of peasant proprietors and yeoman farmers was not in their party interests. Hence this change! I implore them to sink party considerations for the good of the nation. Clause (1) of the Bill aims at the employment of ex-Service men on the land. It does not say in what capacity, whether as tenants or as prospective owners.
      Mr. ACLAND: That is open.
      Mr. COLLINGS: That is left to the House to decide. I would point out that there will be a great difficulty in getting ex-Service men, after their experience abroad, to work on the land as mere wage earners with no prospect of owning the land. On the other hand, there is no difficulty whatever, under any scheme of land cultivation, in getting any number of willing workers, provided always that the men have the prospect of owning some of
      78
      the land they have cultivated, and of experiencing what the First Lord of the Admiralty called
      "the joy of possession."
      At the present moment there are thousands of men discharged from the' Army as medically unfit for further active service. These men would be quite fit to be employed, under the conditions I have mentioned, on the land. During the training to which the right hon. Gentleman alluded they would succeed in getting the training to befit them to become small owners. There are other sources from which labour might be obtained. It was officially stated in this House that there are about 50,000 Austrian and German prisoners in this country. They could be put to the work. Then there is the suggestion of the hon. Member for Oxford University (Mr. Prothero), that the great army of conscientious objectors should be employed on the land. There is another important reason why this Bill should be extended in the way in which I have suggested to the right hon. Gentleman: At the close of the War several millions of soldiers will be disbanded and thrown on the community, mostly in towns. What is to become of them? After being accustomed to military life and outdoor work they would not return to their civil occupations, even if such occupation were open to them. Added to these, there are probably a million or more persons who will be discharged from the munition works, making a tremendous unemployed population, who, if they are not dealt with and supplied with employment, will be liable to create labour and social trouble of which we cannot see the extent. Mr. Hughes, the Australian Premier, made a speech the other day at the Mansion House, which probably hon. Members have read. He used these emphatic words:
      "Are you going to turn adrift the men who fought and the men who worked to save the Empire and find no place for them? This is a tremendous complex problem, and at all hazards we must find a solution to it or face a situation not less disastrous than the War itself."
      Mr. Hughes asked for but one solution and that might be contained in this Bill. The solution is to be found by so enlarging this Bill as to place the men on the land where there is room for most of them. If that is to be done the proceeding cannot be improvised. It must be done before the end of the War. If left until the end of the War it will be too late. The Final Report to which the right hon. Gentleman alluded has just been

      79
      issued. The Report itself contains little else than repetitions of the statements and recommendations in the introduction. There is a strong Minority Report, in which the chairman of the Committee practically agreed, and perhaps I may be permitted to read one or two paragraphs, because they are very instructive and bear directly on this Bill. In paragraph 38 the Committee state:
      "We are glad to see a start being made with the three pioneer colonies provided for by the Government Bill recently introduced in the House of Lords."
      Speaking of the thousands that ought to be placed on the land, they say:
      "If this is to be done the land should be acquired, and the colonies equipped when they are wanted before demobilisation takes place."
      They think that the Government should forthwith extend the operations on the lines of the present Bill, and amend the Small Holdings Act of 1908. They say:
      "But to many we think that employment in agriculture will be unattractive to many of the men unless they see a chance of ultimately becoming small holders."
      Every man who emigrates to the Dominions knows that his holding is certain if he works hard and fast, and it is just this certainty of independence which is the great attraction of the small holdings in our agricultural economy here at home. In paragraph 56 the Committee state:
      "We think it is of the first importance, if the objects of our Report are to be attained, that the State should secure the breaking up of a large proportion of the land which has been allowed to go down to grass during the last forty years. Each million acres broken up would provide employment for an additional 40.000 men and, of course, the families of the men would mean a very large increase in the rural population."
      In paragraph 54 they say:
      "Speaking broadly, the money value of the produce of arable land is, in normal times more than twice as great as the produce of grass land, and the food value which, in time of war, may be a matter of serious importance, is from three to five times as great."
      Then again:
      "We suggest that reclamation work should be undertaken to whatever extent is necessary to ensure the retention of the men. Military hutments could no doubt, be used for the purpose."
      They say:
      "We realise that our proposals are drastic, but the opportunity we repeat is unique, it will never recur and the time which will be available for seizing it will be short-just as long as it takes to discharge men at the end of the War. It is the exigency of the occasion which necessitates such rapidity of action."
      There is one other quotation which I recommend to my right hon. Friend as a member of the Government:
      "If the Government realises what a tremendous opportunity the end of the War will present of achieving the twin objects of an increase in our rural
      80
      population and in our home-grown food and how essential these two things are to the national welfare, then the thing can be done, because it must be done, and if it is to be done it must be done at once."
      The Chairman of the Committee, Mr. Henry Hobhouse, who was formerly a member of this House, said:
      "I have signed the Report as Chairman in deference to the opinion of the majority of my colleagues, and because I am in substantial agreement with them as far as it goes, but it does seem to me not to emphasise sufficiently the magnitude and urgency of the opportunity now for combining the development of British, agriculture with the employment of ex-soldiers. From inquiries we have made it is clear to me that a very considerable acreage, say, at least a million acres, or a third of the land which has been allowed to go down to grass during thirty years, might be brought again under the plough, to the advantage of the nation."
      I would ask the Government if they are ready to reject the overwhelming evidence placed before them by men who are entitled to give it. If they stick to the Bill as it stands it is better to withdraw it, because it is like trying to put out a burning building by means of a hand-pump.
      Sir R. WINFREY: I am sure we congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on being amongst us again. It is some thirty years since I stood on the same platform with him, and although we speak now from different sides of the House, I have always retained my admiration for the way in which he has worked for the labourer in; this country. I am sure we all appreciate the speech he has delivered this afternoon. I am not going to follow him into the vexed question of tenancy versus ownership, because he knows we differ on that point I speak from some practical experience when I say I have tried tenancies and have succeeded in making small holdings a success for the last twenty-five years, and I am in the proud position this year of being able to say that some of my small holders have been able to retire on a competency and pass on their tenancies to their sons. But, at the same time, I have always recognised the case which the right hon. Gentleman makes out for ownership, so that I think we may say we have agreed that both schemes might run side by side. There is no reason why they should not. Then, of course, the fittest will survive. There are districts where ownership will succeed and tenancy will not, and vice versa. We need not have any conflict with regard to that. With regard to the Bill itself, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that unless drastic Amendments and improvements are made in it we need not waste-much breath about it, for it is hardly worth the paper it is written upon as it appears before us. Clause 1 talks about providing

      81
      experimental small-holding colonies. For heaven's sake, how many more experiments do we want? We have been experimenting for thirty years, and we have found that they can be made a success. The right hon. Gentleman has quoted Catshill in support of ownership. Some of us, sitting on both sides of the House, can give plenty of evidence that other forms of small holdings are a success. This Departmental Committee which has reported to us came down to a colony in which I am interested, where we have 1,000 acres of Crown land and where the Crown has built twenty new houses—there were ten or a dozen before—and where we have thirty or forty families who 'have been farming there for seven or eight years, and all are doing remarkably well off it and producing a great deal more than the land produced when it was occupied as one large farm. That is an experiment which the members of the Committee saw for themselves, and I believe they have been to other parts of the country as well. Yet when we come to frame Bills we have always got a Department that begins by talking about providing experiments. I should have thought the Board of Agriculture must have known by this that we have got much beyond the experimental stage so far as small holdings are concerned.
      Not only have some of us demonstrated this in our private capacity, but we have now had five years' working of the Small Holdings Act. This Bill only provides for a paltry 6,000 acres of land in this country, and 2,000 acres in Scotland. We could mop up the whole of that in my Constituency alone. Of the young men who have gone to the War from my Constituency, I trust enough will return for me to guarantee to find enough eligible men to take the whole of the 6,000 acres in my Constituency alone, and mine is only one agricultural constituency out of many. We want a colony like this in every county constituency in England and not three miserable colonies. One, I believe, is to be placed somewhere near the Humber. I do not know where the second and third are to be, but I expect the Welshmen will get one. They will try I have no doubt. But we poor fellows in the Eastern Counties look as if we are not going to get a colony at all as far as I can see, and yet what has been the result of the Small Holdings Act? Here are some figures given me by one of the Small Holdings Commissioners the other day. We have now been working this Act for
      82
      six years, this is our seventh year. In Norfolk we obtained 15,850 acres under the Act, and we have put 1,382 tenants upon the land. In Cambridgeshire we have 10,000 acres and have put 1,438 tenants upon the land, and in Lincolnshire we have done about the same as in Norfolk. In the three Eastern Counties of which I have some knowledge, we have secured between 30,000 and 40,000 acres of land. Then the Government come with a piffling Bill like this. Really it is ludicrous. They have set up machinery in the Bill to provide colonies for 300 soldiers. If it were not so laughable it would be deplorable. Even under the Small Holdings Act we-have got six Small Holdings Commissions spread about over the country—one in the Eastern Counties, one in the North, one in the West. At present they are kicking up their heels doing very little.
      Mr. ACLANDmade an observation which was not audible in the Reporters' Gallery.
      Sir R. WINFREY: They are attending War Agricultural Committees, I know, and are not doing very much good. I have watched them very carefully—quite as carefully as my right hon. Friend (Mr. Acland)—and they would be much better employed at their work. Their work was to look after the Small Holdings Act, and they are the men you ought to put in control of these colonies. But to bring a Bill forward for three of these colonies? I hope we shall laugh it out of court altogether. Although I shall vote for the' Second Beading, I hardly think it is worth while giving to the country.
      Mr. ANDERSON: I wish to associate myself with what has been said by the last two speakers. The Bill seems to me to be wholly inadequate to the circumstances it is intended to meet. We have believed that the War, among other things, was going to teach us some lessons in regard to the use and the development of land in this country. It seems as if these lessons have not yet reached the Government if they hope that anything is going to be done by mere experiment that is going to deal with some 6,000 acres of land and 2,000 in Scotland on which they propose to settle some 300 able or partially disabled soldiers. That is really toying with the whole question, and if anything is going to be done it has got to be done on much bigger and much bolder lines. I believe that is not in the least a party point of view, but will

      83
      appeal to hon. Members of all parties who feel that this is a serious matter from the standpoint of the future of the land and of food production in this country. The Government must show that it is going to tackle the problem in earnest and not in this tinkering fashion. I believe broadly in the principles which underlie the proposed experiment. I believe in the colony system. I believe it will do a great deal. I believe it will do away with the isolation and the monotony that sometimes prevails in regard to agricultural life, and I believe also in bringing the little communities together, where men can not only have the healthy occupation of agricultural work, but also have more outdoor life and enjoyment than they very often can under present conditions. I believe that is wholly a gain, and I believe entirely—though I do not pretend to be an expert like hon. Members who are now present—in the introduction of the co-operative principle into this work. It seems to me that we have been taught, or we ought to have been taught, during the last two years especially, how much more of the food supplies of this country we ought to be able to produce under some better land system than we have got. I believe that we could not only produce far more food than we now do by cultivating the land and putting it to better use, but that we Could build up a strong, healthy population that never will be built up under present conditions. I am sure that we can have more healthy children in the country districts than can ever be brought up under the crowded conditions that obtain in many large towns. Therefore from every point of view, it is of enormous importance that this problem should be tackled in the right way and in the right spirit. I do not mean to enter into any discussion with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Jesse Collings), whose appearance in this House we are so pleased to note, but I would say this to him, that even if these land changes do not wholly go along the lines that he advocates or would desire, I think there are very few men who have done more to arouse interest in the land question than he, and to see that necessary changes are brought about. I agree with him that this is a very important matter.
      I am very sorry that the Government have not been able to cast this Bill in a more heroic mould, because I do think
      84
      that the times demand not little, small tinkering changes, but big changes, and that the Government would have had the House of Commons behind it in making big and brave experiments along the right lines. I hope it is not too late to change very vitally the character of this Bill. The principle which underlies the Bill is, I think, on the whole on right lines, but the measure must be reshaped entirely, and the Government must be prepared to launch out on much bigger lines. You are not going to solve the problem of your soldiers by an experiment of this kind. We have had any number of experiments, and the Board of Agriculture ought to know by this time whether this is going to be a successful experiment or not. In its various forms, either of tenancy or of ownership, there have been any number of experiments in this country. The Small Holdings Act was very largely in the nature of an experiment, and we have had all the accumulated experience that comes from agriculture and the various methods of dealing with the land. I believe, on the whole, in tenancy, under public ownership, but that is a matter that can very easily be tested. I believe that what the great bulk of people are craving for is not what you call the joy of possession, but some sense of security and independence in regard to the land; some feeling, for instance, that if they do their best and put their best work into the land, that some private owner is not going to immediately penalise them by raising their rent as a result of what they have done. I believe that there ought to be independence and security in that way, and that if that were done the people would not worry very much about the exact method as to ownership or tenancy of the land, provided that they were safeguarded against that sort of thing.
      Mr. JESSE COLLINGS: There is no real security except in ownership.
      Mr. ANDERSON: That is a debatable point. I think we might have a good deal to say if the land were publicly owned and we found that some pressing abuses were going on there would be far more opportunity for this House and local administrative bodies to assert themselves in regard to that matter than they have now. This is one of the many problems that we have been speaking about as an after-the-War problem. We have been trying to visualise the conditions that are going to obtain after the War. We have

      85
      been trying to realise that we ought to make the most of our country and that there will be, possibly in this direction and that, unemployment after the War, and that the Government ought to prepare to cope with these difficult problems. One of the very best ways in which that can be done is to establish this land-colony system and put the land to its most fruitful use, but that is not going to be done by a Bill like this. This Bill is a mere drop in the ocean. Therefore, I hope before it leaves this House, during its Committee and subsequent stages, we will set to work in earnest to make it a bigger and a better Bill than it is. I believe that the land question lies at the root of many of our social and economic problems and that with wise treatment on the part of the Government many of these problems will yield to treatment in a way that they have not done before.
      Mr. G. LAMBERT: The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Acland) has not had very much encouragement from the House in regard to this Bill. No one who expected a large and comprehensive scheme of land settlement could be satisfied with it. A Bill that simply proposes to take 6,000 acres in England and Wales, and 2,000 acres in Scotland, simply means that if you divide the land it provides in 20 acre holdings it will only give employment to 400 men. Of course, that is ridiculous. To describe a measure of this—I will not say magnitude—limited kind as one to promote land settlement, is entirely out of the question. I desire to say a few words about this measure, rather from the economic point of view. After all, this Bill must depend largely upon finance, and no one is going to engage in agriculture or take a small holding unless he thinks he can make a .good living from it. That is the real point. One never knows how many soldiers now fighting at the front will desire to go back upon the land. Some 320,000 have gone. Whether our young labourers who have left the land and joined the Colours will care to go back to agricultural pursuits one never knows, but I sincerely hope that conditions may be so favourable that they will. However, that is a matter for the future. Whether we shall get the urban dweller to turn to the land is quite another matter. If he does so, it will be a revolution in our national habits, because we have always been complaining of the superior attraction of the town to that of the country to men, and especially to
      86
      women, who flock to the town rather than remain upon the land. It all depends upon the future of agricultural prices. That is the real point, as to whether these colonies will be a success or not. There are very divergent views as to what the future of agriculture will be after the War. We can depend upon it that it will not be the same as it was before the War. Some people think that prices will be higher; that after the hundreds of millions of pounds that this and other countries have spent in developing Colonies, Argentina, and other countries, the food supply from those countries will decrease. There are others who say that the thousands of millions that have been squandered by Europe in this War will so reduce the purchasing power of the people in the purchase of food, that prices of agricultural produce will go down. No one can prophecy; it is absolutely impossible.
      I find that this Bill is founded on the Report of the Committee. It is a very able Committee. My hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Leslie Scott) and others were appointed in July last year, and they appear to have solved all the agricultural difficulties by their Report. I shall have to point out one or two factors which may give the House to pause in regard to the finance of these colonies. The Committee is bold. It proposes that there shall be a minimum wage for agricultural labour. The Minority Report—
      Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman is now going into the second Report. I understood from Mr. Speaker that we should not discuss the policy outlined in that second Report. If that is to be the case, the Debate may possibly go on for two days.
      Mr. LAMBERT: I merely made reference to it. I propose to pass entirely from that point and to deal with the first part of the Committee's Report. I simply made the reference to show how the Committee deal with this matter as a whole.
      Mr. LESLIE SCOTT: I submit very strongly that it is quite impossible to consider this first proposal of the Government with a view to the reconstruction of our agricultural community after the War, and to do what is just by our soldiers, except as a part of the whole. It is ridiculous to suppose that you can consider whether this is an adequate or inadequate Bill without considering it in

      87
      relation to what problems the Bill has been brought forward. I submit that some latitude in discussion on the general subject must inevitably be allowed on the Second Reading of the Bill.
      Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): The hon. Member has correctly stated what would be the scope of the Debate. Any discussion of the Report of the Committee must be relevant to the Bill now before the House. In so far as it is relevant to the Bill it is permissible.
      Mr. LAMBERT: The Committee is very bold and comprehensive in its proposals. It proposes a minimum wage for agricultural labourers, and stable prices for agricultural produce. These are two very debatable propositions, but I shall not enter upon them now. I can quite understand that they would give rise to much debate. If you fix, say, 42s. a quarter for wheat as a minimum price, you give rise to a great deal of discussion both here and in the country. I will deal with the Bill itself and the Report of the Committee, upon which the Bill is founded. There is no doubt that this proposal for the Board of Agriculture to provide agricultural colonies must be in the nature of an experiment. I do not think it has been done before. Whether it is going to be a successful experiment is naturally going to depend on how the experiment is worked. I do not know, but if the figures that I am going to quote are to be the basis of the rents charged for these small holdings, these small holders will be rented out of existence. They cannot pay such rents. I fancy that the Committee have rather underrated the difficulties of fruit farming, and small holders generally. The Committee state in regard to a fruit market garden colony it should be possible for an intelligent man, even without any previous experience, to acquire sufficient knowledge on the cultivation of the principal crops in the course of one year's training, and that in special cases a shorter period might suffice. I have been brought up all my life amongst agriculturists, and in Devonshire we grow a good deal of fruit, but I candidly confess that I should hesitate very much about taking a small holding for the purpose of growing fruit with only one year's experience. I do not wish to discourage the Board of Agriculture, but they must realise that a man, to be a successful small holder on those lines, must
      88
      have had a great deal more than one year's experience. In fact, he almost wants a lifetime at it. The Committee have suggested and worked out a scheme with the' cost. My right hon. Friend who introduced the Bill gave the cost, and I think it runs for 1,000 acres to £82,000. That is an enormous sum of money, You will not be able to borrow it now for less than about 5 per cent., and you have got, therefore, to provide, if it is to be an economic experiment, for £4,000 a year in rent for 1,000 acres. All these things which are suggested now depend on finance. The Committee suggest that the land will cost £40,000, and the equipment will cost £42,000 for 1,000 acres. To give anything like an economic return you will have to rent these small holders so high that it will be impossible for them to pay the rent unless you have a very large increase in agricultural prices. The Committee state:
      "We estimate that the rent of a small fruit and market garden holding of 4 acres, provided with cottage, pigsty, fowl-house and tool-shed, with 1½ acres planted with fruit trees and bushes, would be about £24 a year."
      To pay £24 a year for that would be simply impossible.
      We are told that this is an urgent question. If you plant your fruit trees, say, in the coming October or November, you would be very lucky if you got a paying crop from them in three years' time. I do not want to discourage the Board of Agriculture about the principle, but this a matter of detail, and I am quite certain that it is impossible for any small holder to pay £24 a year for 4 acres of land unless it is in an exceptionally favoured position. Then the rates, I presume, would not be less than £6 a year. That is £30 which this poor man would have to pay for a cottage with only 2½ acres of land which he can cultivate while the 1½acres are coming to fruit bearing. If the Board of Agriculture are going to conduct their farm colonies upon these lines, I am afraid that I must prophesy failure. They cannot help failing. I am not sure that in these matters Government Departments are the best body to carry out an experiment of this kind. I have had a great deal of experience in Government Departments. They do their work extremely well, but economy is not one of their attributes. But though they generally do the work very well, it is done on a very expensive scale. If you are to get economic results from these colonies you must keep down the cost to the very lowest possible limits. I assume that the Board of Agriculture will have inspectors

      89
      to go down and inspect the land. I believe that my hon. Friend (Colonel Bathurst), who is a great authority, is dealing with this matter. But I doubt very much if among all the Board of Agriculture inspectors there is even one who has lived the life of a successful small holder. And I would like to suggest that if the Board are going to lay out these colonies they should let the laying out be done by two or three men who actually know what small holdings can do, what they can grow, and what they can pay.
      Sir R. WINFREY: You have got the Small Holdings Commissioners.
      Mr. LAMBERT: Have any of these Commissioners ever made small holdings pay?
      Sir R. WINFREY: Yes.
      Mr. LAMBERT: I am glad to hear it. I do not wish in the least to disparage the Board of Agriculture in its work, but I do suggest that none of the Small Holdings Commissioners whom I know of have been engaged in the cultivation of small holdings.
      Sir R. WINFREY: You have in your part of the country one who is a tenant farmer himself.
      Mr. LAMBERT: A tenant farmer but not a small holder. To my mind the Committee have gone upon lines which will not give a rapid opportunity for settlers upon the land. Take this question of time. Assume that the Board of Agriculture have bought their land or will have bought it by Michaelmas next, they will have to give twelve months' notice in order to clear the present tenant. That is to say, they cannot begin operations until Michaelmas, 1917.
      Mr. ACLAND(was understood to say) They can start next April.
      Mr. LAMBERT: I might suggest to the right hon. Gentleman and the Board of Agriculture an alternative scheme. Before the War—and the question will be equally acute after the War, or probably more so—the real problem was housing in the rural districts. We could not get houses for men. We made all sorts of inquiries. The House remembers that the present Minister for War was engaged in an inquiry, in an electoral campaign, before the War. It was very difficult to get houses. I am afraid that it will be more difficult after the War. The Committee in their Report recommend that some £2,000,000
      90
      should be spent. I very much prefer that you should spend the money in providing houses in rural localities, and I think that if you had £2,000,000 probably you would be able to build 10,000 houses—at any rate, it could be done before the War—at £200 a piece. That would give an opportunity for these men to go down to country districts and settle there. You could dot these houses all over the country. The Small Holdings Commissioners could carve out pieces of land for these men to cultivate later on. But if you are to provide holdings for soldiers who have fought across in Flanders I would not mind, and I am sure the House would not mind, if you let them have the houses for the first year rent free until they could see their way as to how they could make a living and get on. I am quite certain that the housing problem is at the bottom of all this. If you could put a man into a cottage in the country he would like it. There is plenty of employment to be had in the country. There are all sorts of postal arrangements, road work, and other employment. These men would be enabled to build up a small industry, with the advantage of a cottage and a piece of land. For £2,000,000, which is only about three times as much as you are going to spend on these colonies, you would be able to provide 10,000 houses for soldiers returning from France and elsewhere. I cannot help thinking that that would be a much more feasible scheme, and a scheme that would put larger numbers of men on the land. This Bill cannot put on more than about 400 men. For three times the cost you could put on 10,000 men. That would really be to some extent grappling with the problem.
      Mr. ACLANDmade an observation which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
      Mr. LAMBERT: At any rate, my figures are unaffected. You are only going to provide for 400 men at a cost of £300,000, while you could provide for 10,000 men at a cost of £2,000,000. I wish success for this scheme, but unless it is conducted upon lines which are very much less limited, the rent which the small holder will have to pay will inevitably ruin them, and bring the whole scheme to an end. I support the Bill, but am sorry to say that I have not much hope of its success.
      Mr. PROTHERO: On the whole, I approve of the experiment that is being tried under this Bill. Though the Bill

      91
      has been attacked because it does not do enough yet, as I look upon this as an experiment, I think that on the whole the caution of the Government is wise, and I say this as a firm friend of small holdings. Both before and after the passing of the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1908, both outside its provisions and within them, I have had a hand in creating a very considerable number of small holdings, and my experience convinces me that they are a very valuable part of the community, and especially on the social side. Small holders, I believe, work harder than agricultural labourers, and in many cases their income is not larger, and it is often more precarious. For all that, they are happier and more contented, because they are on their own and call no man "master."As to the question which has been raised only to be dismissed by the right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill, that for ownership or tenancy, I quite agree with him that it does not arise on the present occasion. This is an experiment, and though I am a great supporter of ownership generally, I should by no means put it forward in this experimental Bill. Therefore I think that we may leave that fruitful subject of discussion aside this afternoon. Small holdings seem to me to be so valuable on the social side that they are worth this experiment. They foster self-reliance, independence, and initiative among men who probably would not develop those faculties if they spent their lives in obeying orders. They train up children to make themselves generally useful, and they train them in habits of thrift and industry. They are the means of putting a larger rural population upon the land. All those are great advantages.
      6.0 P.M.
      I do not know any class of men in which you are more likely to find the right material for small holders than the men who have shown that they have got the requisite grit in them, by fighting our battles by sea and by land; but there is one danger which anyone who has had any experience in rural districts can confirm. The passion for independence does drive men who have got a small occupation of their own to excessive labour, which they also impose on their dependants—which is very often physically mischievous. Apart from that, on the social side they are invaluable to the community. But when you come to the
      92
      economical side, I think there is a great deal of need for caution. It is just there that I agree with the Government Bill, that it does not go-too far; I am glad that it does not go further than it does. In the first place, let me say this: You cannot generalise about small holdings with any degree of safety. It is not enough to say because they have succeeded sometimes and somewhere, that they are going to succeeed always and everywhere. Neither is it any good to point to a man who has prospered in one parish, and say another may prosper there, too; it is just as likely that they would cut one another's throat. Therefore, you cannot generalise upon this subject with any degree of safety. The right man, the right produce, and the right situation, and the small holding will probably succeed. I confess, however, that the man is almost more important, to say nothing of his wife. Then, again, I think the produce that can be raised on a small holding is very limited in its range. You will not find that the small holder is likely to succeed except where the form of agriculture which he adopts gives a large return per acre, and also is a form in which manual labour is a very large proportion of the cost of production. If that is the case, then the man has a chance of success, but that limits him—and this is the point I want to drive home to the House—to the production of vegetables, fruit, and flowers. If a man is in the happy position of being able to form a milk round of his own he is likely to be successful, but those cases are in the minority, and the wholesale milk is-better produced in a large farm. But now, with the limited range of production, vegetables, fruit and flowers, is there not a very great risk, if you increase the number of small holdings very largely, that the competition will so affect them that they will cease to be remunerative. Further than that, is there not the risk, to which the right hon. Gentleman in front of me has already alluded, that, after the War, the demand for this particular class of commodities will be decreased by the general poverty which will necessarily result from the War. On that ground again, there is need for caution.
      But the greatest need for caution comes from the fact that we have not yet decided as to the national policy—whether we are going to make ourselves more independent of the foreigner in the

      93
      production of essential articles of our food supply; that is to say, are we going to grow more beef and more bread in this country, or are we going to remain dependent upon the foreigner for these essential supplies? If you are going to change your policy, if you are going to aim at feeding yourselves more than you have hitherto done, then you cannot destroy the large farms, which are the economic factories of beef and mutton. Against them the small holder is as a hand loom against the factory in that range of produce. Therefore, the first question you have got to settle is, what are you going to do with regard to national policy? If you decide to grow more beef and more bread and more wholesome milk, then you cannot afford to cut up much more of your land in order to create small holdings, which are limited to vegetables, flowers, and fruit. That is an important point we have to consider. And here is the interesting side of the present Bill—it introduces the principle of co-operation on new lines. If, as an experiment, the Act, when it is put into operation, can show to us that a group of small holders, united under one head, can be a good economic unit for the production of beef and bread, then a strong and, to my mind, an invincible objection to a large extension of small holdings will be removed. That is the experiment which I hope will be tried by the Government under this scheme, and it is for the trial of that experiment that I support the Second Reading of this Bill.
      I think there are many other points which will have to be considered by the Government before they can make the state of the small holder in this country more tolerable than it is at present. One great point is a preferential rate upon the carriage of this class of produce. I speak on that subject with some diffidence, for I am a member of the Royal Commission on railways, which is now in "cold storage,"but which may have to report upon this and other subjects. I should like to point out, however, that our railway system is designed to help large wholesale import trades, and is not adapted for the small local trades, which we have to foster for the benefit of the small holders. That is an important point which must be noticed by the Government, and care must be taken to meet it. There is one other small point in the Bill, and that is as to the credit facilities
      94
      which are offered. I did hope that the Government would bring forward some-large scheme of credit facilities. It seems to me an astonishing thing that England, Scotland, and Wales are the only parts of the British Empire which have not got an elaborate system of State assistance to the land—literally the only country. Throughout the civilised world you will find credit fonciers, in some form or another, which have been efficacious for the encouragement of small holders, and I am sure the hon. Member who described the Bill as a "piffling"Bill will agree with me that one of the things to be desired for the benefit of the small holders is the means of obtaining credit. That is a thing which the Government should seriously think over before they start in the colonies; and on those lines that I have indicated, and within those limits, I support the Second Reading of the Bill.
      Colonel Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Whether this Bill is adequate or inadequate, no doubt there are some very sound provisions in it. First of all, you have the director or instructor, and secondly, the co-operative principle is to be introduced among the tenants, and each worker is to prove his working: capacity as a wage-earner before he is admitted as a tenant. But perhaps the best thing in connection with the Bill is that my hon. Friend the Member for Wilton (Captain Bathurst) has been given the management of the matter, and he brings to it not only his great knowledge, but his great sympathy. I am sure that if the Treasury and the Board of Agriculture do not bind him too tightly round with red tape, he will do his best to make the whole thing a success. With all due respect to what has fallen from my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Prothero), I cannot help thinking that this Bill, as a means of meeting what will surely arise on the return of our soldiers from the War, is not adequate. It was stated in another place the other day that Sir Douglas Haig had caused inquiries to be made as to how many of our soldiers would like to go upon the land after the War, and I am told that about half a million gave in their names. When you have sifted all these names, I think you may be quite certain that there will be many thousands who will wish to be put upon the land, but it must be in such a way that it will offer to them a life which is independent.

      95
      What answer does the Government give to this? The Bill provides that at no time is much more that 6,000 acres to be acquired by the Board of Agriculture; but why should the operation of this Act cease with the lapse of a year after the War? It seems to me very difficult to understand the attitude of the Government towards the British soldier when he has done fighting. They would appear to say, "We were very grateful to you while fighting, and we are very grateful to you after the War, but when a year has elapsed you need not bother us any more."Lord Selborne, speaking in another place, said that small holdings had proved uniformly successful, and that the amount of rent owing is infinitesimal. Why, under these circumstances, should this Bill be so very experimental? What is going to happen to the soldier, who has probably been an agricultural labourer before he went to the War, who has only served a year and a half with the Colours? Is he to be put in a glass case and made a subject of experiment? What will happen, if these conditions are imposed, is that you will find the returning soldiers drifting to the Colonies, to Canada and Australia, instead of coming to this country. I am not in the least bit jealous of the Colonies getting our good men; but I do submit that if we do have a scheme for a country the size of this, we should be put on something like equality with the Colonies. But we are to have a sum of something like £2,000,000 for this country, while in Australia they are providing £16,000,000.
      This is a reform which for a great many years has been an urgent necessity, and it is a reform which has been long overdue. It has been due ever since the In-closure Act robbed the labourer of his independence and of his hope of rising in life, and made him a mere wage earner at a pitiful wage. What happened before the war is somewhat ancient history, but I may remind the House that the Unionist Social Reform Committee, of which I am a humble Member, in its scheme for agricultural reform made a very prominent feature of a scheme exactly similar to this. It recognised that the only way of bringing hope to the agricultural labourer was to give him a chance of rising, and the opportunity of some day becoming a farmer. We often hear that we cannot take up things exactly after the War as they were before I believe that is profoundly true, and even we Members of the
      96
      House of Commons may possibly suffer some change. I fear very much that that portion of our social life, agriculture, where change is most needed is that portion which is likely to experience the very least change. As everybody knows, there is a very strong body of opinion in another place voiced by a Noble Lord who not many years ago was a prominent Member of the Benches opposite which maintains that the present system of land tenure is something too ideal, too sacred to be touched at all. There are others who consider that farming should be carried on, on a much more extensive system than it is at present, that fences should be broken down and that fields should be laid to each other, and that farming should be carried on with all improvements of the most up-to-date character, a maximum of capital, and maximum of science and a minimum of labour. On the other hand, there is another school which says that the land should be cut up into small holdings. There is nothing antagonistic in those two schools.
      A very large portion of the land in England is utterly unsuitable for cultivation as small holdings, but which no doubt could be cultivated very profitably more so than at present, if taken up by men of large capital and large ideas. But there is a very large area in this country which is suitable for small holdings and which I should like to see scheduled, and to see the Government make a determined attempt to develop that area as thickly as it could be cultivated. I think it would be the best investment that the State could possibly make if they helped forward a generous scheme of that kind. What we want is a definite national policy to bring back more people on the land. It is really quite beside the mark to say that small holdings will not produce a certain amount of beef and a certain amount of corn. We must depend in the long run ultimately on our imports of corn from abroad. There is a great deal of produce which can be produced on small holdings. Unfortunately a policy, a definite policy, for repeopling this country of ours has never had the serious attention of any of our prominent statesmen with the exception of the present Minister for War, and as far as I can make out all that he has done is to talk a great deal about it. What we have, unfortunately, considered more important is the accumulation of capital rather than the welfare of the individual. Let me give an instance. A Scotsman has succeeded in

      97
      turning everybody off the land in a very large area in Wiltshire, which is surrounded with barbed wire and wire netting, and whereas it used to maintain 100 or 200 agricultural labourers, it now produces a tremendous lot of sheep looked after by one or two Scottish shepherds. That is what I mean. What is needed is not that we should regard so much the accumulation of capital as the welfare, the physical welfare, of the individual.
      I am afraid we are not going to get very much on by the help of this Bill. From what I can make out of it I am afraid it is far too bound up with red tape. For instance, I understood, reading Lord .Selborne's speeches, that it is essential that is shall be made an economic success. I understand also that those who are responsible for this Bill are not to have from the Treasury any facilities for cheap credit. They are not to be allowed to have the use of the wooden huts which the War Office are now utilising. Building material, as everybody knows, is up from 30 to 50 per cent. What that means is that in order to make the holdings economic they must be a considerable size, from 30 to 40 acres; or, in other words, the soldier must have a holding greatly too large for him if he is to have any at all. If he does have a small holding he has it with a staggering weight of charges. I should like to see the Government come forward and treat this subject generously, not with the idea of producing food or anything else, but with the idea of getting soldiers back on the land, and of getting this country better populated and better peopled. I should like to see a large scheme for handing over a large block Grant for the Treasury in order that the tenants might have a really good chance of making the thing a success. If the Government are too timid to go on with a comprehensive scheme I should like to see them encouraging voluntary associations, which I believe could do a very large amount of this work. At the beginning of the War there was a very useful Bill to enable public utility societies to have cheap credit and to enable them to borrow from the Public Works Loans Commissioners up to eight-ninths of the necessary capital. That measure unfortunately lapsed, as it was considered there was no necessity for it. I would ask, Is the Government ready to renew that Act and to give facilities to public utility societies? A Central Society has already been formed and is
      98
      of a very representative character—the Agricultural Organisation Society, the Fisheries Organisation Society, the Central Land Association, and also the Statutory Committee. That association is willing and only too eager to acquire land and to parcel it out not only among discharged soldiers, but also among disabled soldiers. That society and others like it ought to have the right, if they are willing to undertake this work, to be liberally and generously treated by the Government. I do consider, from the point of view of the gratitude of this country to our soldiers and sailors, that this Bill is an inadequate measure. It is due to their hardihood, bravery, and self-sacrifice that we owe the fact that the land of this country is ours at all, and the least we can do is to give to those who want it as many opportunities as we can of living an independent life on the land.
      Sir F. BANBURY: I am very glad that the Government have made this a small measure, because though we are spending very large sums of money at present and though it may not matter very much whether we waste another million or two still I think it is advisable that we should know what we are doing and what prospect we have of success before we begin to spend large sums of money on what I think would prove to be a disastrous failure. I listened with very great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Oxford University (Mr. Prothero), which was, if I may venture to say so, was damning the Bill with faint praise. He said-that no doubt small holdings were possible and even successful if you produced fruit, vegetables and flowers, but he also pointed out, which to my mind is unanswerable, that there is only a limited market for those articles, and that if you produce a very large supply you depress the price by having a glut, and you will not be able to make the small holding successful. My experience for what it is worth, and I can only speak of my own district, is that small holdings are not a success. In 1908 there was a considerable demand for land in my district for small holdings, but I never hear of such a thing now. Though I cannot state what the condition of small-holdings is in other parts of the country, in my own part they are certainly not very satisfactory. The holder leads a most arduous life, and has to work far and away harder than any

      99
      agricultural labourer. To say that what he produces from the land is anything like as good as the produce of the large farmer, or anything like the same proportion to the acre, is perfectly ludicrous, for it is nothing of the sort. The good crops and the great centage per acre are grown by the large farmer, and not by the small farmer, who finds it very difficult to cultivate or till. I remember about seven or eight years ago we used to have articles every day in the "Daily Mail"describing a small holding which they had set up and which was started with the plea that it was going to be a great success. I used to read with interest how the small holder started with a heavy horse and ploughed a quarter of an acre, and how his son went to the market with a light horse and milk cart, and all sorts of beautiful phraseology, written in that wonderful way which the "Daily Mail ' always uses when it writes articles, and which filled everybody who read those and did not know anything about the country with an eager desire to have a small holding. We never saw any accounts, and finally the whole thing disappeared, and we have never heard from that day to this what happened to that small holding. It would be very interesting if at some time when there is not a very entrancing subject before the public the "Daily Mail"would give us an account of this farm, and I make this suggestion to my hon. Friend so that he may use his influence with the "Daily Mail"to publish an accurate account.
      Mr. C. HARMSWORTH: I hope the hon. Baronet does not refer to me. It might be possible for him to get it done; I am sure he has far more influence there than I have.
      Sir F. BANBURY: It would be extremely interesting to see what happened to that small holding, whether it is still in existence and whether it issues a balance sheet.
      Colonel C. BATHURST: Perhaps I may be forgiven for interposing, but I happen to know the "Daily Mail"holding very well. It is probably the most successful in England.
      Sir F. BANBURY: That does not answer my question. It is quite likely the most successful in England, but that is a very cryptic way of putting it. Perhaps all the others are absolute failures, and
      100
      that this is not such a great failure as the others. What I want to see is a balance sheet.
      Mr. L. SCOTT: I have seen it.
      Sir F. BANBURY: Will my hon. Friend produce it and inform us whether the farm is in operation at the present moment and whether it is successful?
      Mr. SCOTT: It would make your mouth water as a farmer.
      Sir F. BANBURY: That is a very easy thing to do. The right hon. Gentleman who sits opposite me said this was very largely a question of finance. I think he is perfectly correct. At the present moment the Government have to pay 5 per cent. for money, speaking in round figures. I find in the Report that it is stated that there was in view the buying of 1,000 acres at £40 an acre. That comes to £40,000. Then £40,000 will have to be spent upon buildings. That comes to £80,000. If the Government had to borrow that money at 5 per cent, it means an interest of £4,000 a year to be found. I do not say there is not some land in England worth £40 an acre, but as far as we know there are few of the grasping landlords in England who are getting anything like £40 an acre for their land. Under this scheme the Board of Agriculture will start at the rentals of £4 a year. Then there is tithe to be paid, unless the land happens to be tithe free, and there are, I suppose, expenses of management and a variety of other charges. I do not know whether the rates would be paid by the small holder or by the Board of Agriculture, but the rates are founded upon the rental of the land, and if the land is going to be rated at £4 an acre the rates will be very heavy, and that, added to the £4,000 a year, will put such a charge upon the land that I do not believe it is possible for anybody, whoever he is, to make any profit out of it. When you could borrow money at 3 per cent, it was a, different thing. In that case the interest alone would be £2,400 a year, or a little over £2 an acre, which would have made a very considerable difference indeed. The rate of interest has increased so much that it does make an enormous difference to the State-aided enterprises which are now apparently to be approved by our present guiders. I did not say leaders—I said guiders, purposely—because I really do nob know who are our leaders.

      101
      The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Acland) said that he was going to place men on the land who were mostly untrained. Well, it seems to me to be rather a handicap to start with an enormous rental and to put upon the land men who are mostly untrained. I must say that the more I hear of this measure the greater joy I feel that it is only a small one, because it seems to me if it was a large one we might find ourselves involved in an enormous loss of public money at a time when we ought to husband all our resources and not fritter them away upon experiments. After all, nobody has a greater admiration for our soldiers and sailors than I have, but I do not quite know why we have to put them on the land. Why should we not start them as butchers or bakers, or in other trades?
      Mr. C. HARMSWORTH: There is room for them on the land.
      Sir F. BANBURY: My hon. Friend says there is room for them on the land. There is plenty of room for them as labourers on the land, but there is also room for them in all kinds of businesses. We shall require people to work at other businesses besides cultivating the land, and if they are all to be started in business, I do not myself see why land should be particularly chosen for them, especially if you are going to put untrained men upon the land. It seems to me this scheme is absolutely doomed to failure. I myself do a little work on the land sometimes. I use a scythe and try to do a little hoeing, and it is very hard work. It is all very well to say, "We will put these untrained men on the land; they are sure to like it."I am not at all sure they will like it when they come to try it and see what it is. If they had to try and get their hay in under the conditions which obtain at the present moment they would find that there are none of the joys and glory of working a small holding which they had been led to expect; their enthusiasm might fade very quickly when they came to understand what the hard details of an agricultural life are and the dangers to which it is subjected from our very fickle weather. I think they would find their ideas very much changed and that they would have preferred to have gone into a comfortable shop and sold something over a counter rather than indulge in the doubtful pleasure of farming a small holding. It is not really worth while endeavouring to oppose the Bill, because it is such a very little one and because we
      102
      do waste so much money now. If we do waste a little more on this and have proper accounts shown to us, I think it will do something to destroy illusion, which is deep rooted in people who have not to get a living from the land.
      Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: In introducing the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Acland) referred to provisions made for Scotland and England, but I am sorry to say that so far as I heard he made no reference to any provisions for Wales, notwithstanding the representations that have been made to him on the subject. I hope, in the course of the discussion, we shall be told that one of the colonies is to be established in Wales. Failing that, the right hon. Gentleman will have in Committee to meet a request that one should be established in Wales. I am not quite sure as to the objects of this Bill. I have read both of these Reports on the subject in which I take some considerable interest; and I have also listened to all the speeches that have been made, but I cannot quite make up my mind for what object the Bill is brought in and for what purpose the land is to be acquired. Is it so that we can have experience of small holdings in this country? Is it for the purpose of training men who are later to be put on holdings of their own? Or is it to provide employment for soldiers when they come back from the War? The newspapers have apparently suggested the latter. I can find no provision in the Bill which is to provide employment for any but a very small number indeed of those who come back. One might imagine from what has been said that the only object was to establish colonies with a view to obtaining experience of small holdings under the most favourable conditions. I would like to call attention to the fact that we already have small holdings in this country. Two-thirds of the farms in this country are of less than fifty acres in extent, and if the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Acland) would only go down to the county I have the honour to represent he will find that nearly 80 per cent. of the holdings are under fifty acres. If he, or any Member of this House, desires to have knowledge of the economical position of the small holder he has only to make inquiry into the condition of the small holder in Wales. The latter is hardworking, thrifty and industrious—I know no one who is more industrious or thrifty—and yet he is a notoriously poor man with it all. If the object was to obtain

      103
      information as to the working of small holdings that could have been got from the experience in Belgium there before the War. The small holders there enjoyed the advantages of co-operation, transit facilities, instruction, in fact, upon all the points upon which information could be required it might have been got from the experience of Belgium. What is the position? There is no doubt the small holding both in Denmark and Belgium and also in Wales as well as in some parts of England has increased the capital value of the food produced. I may say I agree with the hon. Member for Oxford University that from the social standpoint as well as the financial small holdings have been a success, but when it is suggested that small holdings are to be the means by which later on the men who have been fighting are to earn their living, I think the House might well pause to ask what the position of the small holder is? There is a book on Belgium edited by Mr. Rown-tree, who says:
      "There are advantages of cheap and rapid transit, a good system of agricultural education, co-operative societies for all kinds of purposes, including the provision of capital and the insurance of stock. What is the result? A closer acquaintance with the small holder shows us that although he seldom, perhaps never, suffers from want he generally lives roughly, and, except in winter, works unreasonably long hours for low pay."
      If it is thought that it is due to the fact that the holder is a tenant, I would point out that Mr. Rowntree further on states that owners work extremely hard to make a living, and that the improvement is not nearly so great as might have been expected from the extraordinary developments in the organisation and science of agriculture during recent years. If the Government want to know what the small holdings are under the most favourable conditions, they have that information already available in the case of Belgium. I can only conclude that there must be some other object in bringing forward this proposal than to gain experience. Is it going to be a question of training men to become small holders? If that is to be the object, all I can say is that it seems to me that the Government's proposals are exceedingly ungenerous. One hon. Gentleman who preceded me pointed out what the soldiers are doing for the protection of the country, and for the protection of our food. Let us see what the Committee proposes. If these soldiers are to be taken to colonies for periods of training, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it
      104
      is intended to supply them with small holdings later on, and whether the Government is prepared to advance them the necessary money to take possession of a holding and stock it, and more particularly to enable them to live for the first year of their tenancy? What is the proposal of the Committee? Here is what they say:
      "We anticipate, further, that among the applicants there will be a substantial number who have been able to save a certain amount of money during their service or who possess some capital."
      These are the only people to whom this Committee recommend the provision of small holdings! The man who has lost a limb, the man who has been maimed, the man who comes back to this colony, as he thinks, for training, is to get no assistance from the State; no capital is to be advanced for purposes of stock or otherwise. These are the men who are given to understand that if they are to be trained the Government in their Bill, and the Committee in their Report, hold out no hope of any financial assistance. Will these men even become tenants, let alone, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, owners of the holdings which they desire? What is the alternative? It seems to me that the alternative is that this Bill must be either amended or withdrawn. If we are going to deal with this question it must be done on very much broader and much more general lines, and we must realise that the question of success in small farming is a question of economics. It is not merely a question of hard work and thrift. We have any number of men who are hard working and thrifty and still remain very poor notwithstanding the fact that they have got holdings. I do appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to consider between now and the Committee stage of this Bill whether he cannot draft on this Bill the proposal of Mr. Hall for the reclamation of waste land, and whether he cannot appeal to the Treasury to make the necessary advances to county councils to enable them, having a knowledge and experience of small holdings and of their working, who know what are the present demands, and whether or not land is obtainable and where, to obtain the necessary land and adapt it for the purpose of small holdings by the time the soldiers return. Over and above this, may I emphasise another point to the Government? That is that underlying the whole question is the question of capital. It is utterly useless to put a tenant in possession of 4, 10, or 20 acres of

      105
      land unless he has the necessary capital to make it a success. I appeal to the Government to discard the Report of the Committee which suggests that these holdings should be an economic success, and, on the other hand, to feel that we have a moral, nay, a legal obligation to give whatever assistance may be required to these men on their return to civil life, both by way of capital and by stocking their farms, so that they may carry their business to a successful issue.
      Mr. AINSWORTH: Doubtless the Second Reading of this Bill will be got, whilst the right hon. Gentleman in charge of it will get all the assistance he requires afterwards, though I should hope he will be compelled to make the Bill a good deal larger than it is at the present time. The Bill at present only applies to an acreage of 2,000 in Scotland. Many of those who know Scotland, who go there for shooting and other purposes, know that there are a great many farms of that acreage in Scotland, and more flexibility is needed in dealing with this question of acreage. J hope, however, in the discussion on this Bill we shall not discuss, except where absolutely necessary, questions of purchase or rent. We may all agree, I think, that whatever other things are needed, it is most desirable that we should obtain an ever-increasing food production in this country, and other means to enable the people to return to occupation on the land. I hope, also, that we shall not hear of those comparisons between large farms and small farms that we have had on previous occasions. In the United Kingdom are both large and small farms at present. I hope we shall continue to have them in all varieties and shapes unto the end of the chapter. All who know anything about land know that some of the largest farmers of the present day began on very small farms. In the end they become occupants of the largest farms in the county. Let us, therefore, by all means approve and assist in the acquisition of farms of all sizes for those who need them, and give every opportunity for agricultural pursuits in any way that we can do it. We are most obliged to the Noble Lord the Member for South Nottingham, who, if he will allow me to say so, brought the Debate to a higher level altogether. We have to deal, as the Noble Lord has told us, with two very big questions. One is increasing the food supply of the country, and the other increasing the population of the country. We require
      106
      more soldiers and sailors. We require more population. That seems to me to be at the bottom of the whole question, and I sincerely trust my right hon. Friend will join in making this Bill an immensely larger Bill. The Government propose in this Bill to deal with two great needs of the country—more food and more men. I should like to refer to one thing which I think has not hitherto been referred to. I should like to quote one of the poets, who said:
      "Wherever I see the smoke of a cottage I know there is room for all the virtues of domestic life "
      I should like to see an ideal of that kind before us. I should like it to sink into the hearts of every Member of this House. We shall be able to increase the population of our country by increasing and improving the cottages and the houses of the country. The War may in every way improve the moral forces of civilisation, the courage of the country, and the health of the country. If one by the wave of a fairy's wand could make every cottage and farmhouse in this country 10 per cent, more sanitary, and better, and healthier than it is to-day, such an one would be doing an enormous benefit to the country at large. I hope hon. Members will rise to this appeal. Although the Bill before us now is apparently small, I would like just to make it into a thoroughly good Bill—into such a Bill as will develop the productivity, the health, and the morality of the country. In some little way by so doing we shall be strengthening the country and also the Empire. We are surely strengthening the Empire by sending out good, healthy, well brought up and well educated young men and young women.
      It must not be forgotten that some look forward to what the British Empire is going to be. We talk about the end of the War. There is one thing certain to happen. After the War is happily over the British Empire is going to be bigger in every sense—commercially, in productivity, and in strength of population, conjoined with certain large ideals and certain objects. The British Empire is going to be larger than it has ever been before. People who are able to remember, as I can, the British Empire fifty years ago will remember its size, and the general feeling concerning it. I am always inclined in this connection to tell a story. It is told that when one of Lord Palmerston's ministries was being formed and the question came of the fitness or otherwise of a certain man

      107
      to take the post of the representative of the Colonies, that the man to whom the offer was made declined it on the ground that he knew nothing about the Colonies. One of those who had been discussing the matter said, when the meeting was separating, "Come up to my room and I will show you on a map where these damned places are, and then you will know."Things are different to-day, and what we want to do is to see that we have men and women properly brought up and well-educated who are able, to take possession of the land and know what is to be done with it.
      7.0 P.M.
      Mr. L. SCOTT: As a member of the Committee whose Report is a basis of the present Bill I wish, if I may, to say a word or two upon the point of view from which the Committee have approached the subject. We were all of the opinion on the Committee that the demobilisation of our forces at the end of the War would confer a great opportunity which the nation had never had before, and which it will never have again, to develop our agricultural population, increae its numbers, add to its prosperity and happiness, and to increase the home-grown food supplies. The place of this little Bill in that vast programme is necessarily a very small one; but its relation to the whole programme is, in my humble judgment, important in order that one may form a just opinion as to the right way to treat this Bill. It is quite obvious that at the outset of the inquiry the questions must be: How many men will have left agriculture during the War, how many of those have failed to come back to it from death, emigration, or other reasons, and what, also, will the gap be in the old agricultural world? The second question must necessarily be: How many of those who were in urban occupations before the War is it likely will want to live on the land? According to the answer to that question must be our answer to the inquiry, What can we do with the opportunity that demobilisation will offer us? The opinion was formed that about 320,000 rural workers out of some 750,000 had left the land and joined the forces during the War period. We argued that at the end of the War there would be a gap of not less than 80,000 that would have to be filled. That gap could only be filled ex-hypothesi from men whose lives before the War had not been upon the countryside, but in towns. It was necessary to attract them to the
      108
      land. The same answer applied to the other, additional men, that it is hoped to attract to the ranks of agriculture over and above the number that were employed in agriculture before the War. Logically the next question to ask is, what offer will attract those men who were in urban occupations before the War? What offer will be sufficient to bring back to the land as many as possible of those who have left it? The first and obvious thing is that our armies of to-day will not look at the conditions of the rural worker's life as they were before the War, and if any hon. Member of this House got up to say that they ought to put up with it Le would be howled down. If there is one thing that this country has made up its mind to, it is that our soldiers shall be treated rightly and generously after this War. I am glad that that should be so, because I am certain that if the nation did not do it we should have to face something in the nature of a revolution, so profoundly and justly angry would our returning armies be. It is quite obvious, I think, that settlement in the sense of having men on the land in holdings of their own, whether as tenants or proprietors, is a process which cannot be applied immediately after the War to a very large number of men. It is clear that demobilisation is a process that cannot take long. The troops must be discharged rapidly as regards the great bulk of them. How many then will have to be discharged at the end of the War, of course, one cannot say exactly. Conditions at the end of the War, armies of occupation and so on may affect it greatly. But I imagine something in the neighbourhood of 4,000,000 men will be discharged from the Army and Navy within, say, twelve months after peace is declared. That is a very large number. Of that total number I, for one, believe that some substantial percentage will say, "We will have an open-air life." Others will say, "We will go back to our old urban life," but, after getting back, they will find the stifling atmosphere intolerable, and will say, "We cannot stand it," and will go out. Others will find their places filled. Dilution of labour and better organisation of labour are processes which once carried through will never be undone. Many will find less room for them in their old occupations than there was before the War.
      For all those reasons, I believe there will be a really substantial number of

      109
      men who were in urban occupations before the War who will insist on an open-air life, either in this country or in the Dominions. I, for one, hold that the conditions of agricultural life in this country ought to be made good enough for all those men who want an open-air life to stay in the Old Country if they prefer it. Many of the more adventurous will go undoubtedly to the Dominions, and we shall gladly see them go in that sense. We want to help the Dominions, but equally the Dominions want us to increase our agricultural population, in order that year by year we may be able to supply them with a steady stream of suitable immigrants. Does one really think that there will be less than 5 or 10 per cent, of the 4,000,000? Ten per cent. is 400,000. I believe an inquiry has been made of the forces recently which goes to show that that estimate is by no means above the mark. If you get a number, I will assume for the moment, of 300,000 or 400,000 men, who were in urban occupations before the War, after the War wanting an open-air life, then it is patent that settlement in small holdings as proposed by this Bill can only be provided for a comparatively small proportion of those. Let us have that clearly in mind, as it seems to me it is a cardinal factor in the situation. The conditions of agricultural life generally will have to be dealt with as a whole, in order to make room for the great additional numbers of men. For that purpose, for reasons which are explained certainly in the Minority Report of Part II., which has been recently published, of the Departmental Committee, it is clear that certain very drastic big measures will have to be taken with regard to agriculture as a whole. You must have wide reclamation of waste land, you must have afforestation, and you must break up the large portion of the poorer land which has been put down to grass in the last forty years. Four million acres have gone to grass in this country during the last forty years. Every 100 acres of grass employs, say, one man; every 100 acres of arable employs, say, four to five men, and in some cases six men. There you get the means of employing more. Every 100 acres of arable produces the same quantity of beef or milk as the same land in grass, and, in addition, its arable crops produce twice the value and about five times the food value of human nourishment. That is a great reform.
      If those things are to be done, it is perfectly plain. I submit, that agriculture
      110
      must be made a proposition in a business sense that can be regarded as a safe investment of adequate working capital. Unless you give security to the industry as a whole, you cannot get the big reforms that are necessary to raise the wages to improve the houses, to give the social life that the men will insist upon when they come back from this War if they go upon the land. What is the place in that scheme of agricultural economy which is properly taken by small holdings? My own view is that the small-holding system of the country should be, what the hon. Member for Oxford University said, an essential step in the ladder of advancing from dependence to independence, and, if possible, affluence, which every labourer starting at the bottom knows that there is a chance of his reaching by industry, thrift, and intelligent learning of his business. That is the place for small holdings. That is the place that we intended on our Committee should be filled by the colonies we advised. Now why do we advise colonies? Not, as said the Member for the City of London, whose very temporary absence I regret, because small holdings in this country have not been a success He had the hardihood to say the small holdings near him had been a failure, and he did not know anything about any other small holdings in England. The Committee, of which I had the honour of being a member, went right round the small holdings of the country last summer, and small holdings in this country are an established success. Go to the Vale of Evesham when land is on offer. I saw land that was rushed at 60s. an acre. Take the land just north of Cambridge, or the southern end of Lincolnshire, or the north-western end of Norfolk, hundreds and hundreds of small holders are succeeding and making a good living. One man to whom I talked near Cambridge had 1 acre of land, and I said to him, "Which would you rather have? If I could offer you permanent employment week in and week out all through the year at £1 a week, would you rather have it or your holding of 1 acre?" in which he was growing small fruit and vegetables. He thought for a moment, and said, "I think I would rather keep my acre, Sir." That is the spirit.
      The reason why we propose our colony system is that the success of small holdings in this country has been, not in con-sequence of the system we have introduced

      111
      in this House, but in spite of it. It is the only country where small holders are left to shift for themselves on the individual principle. In every other country it is recognised that small holdings can only be made the success of which they are capable if small holders are combined together, and this for about five different reasons. You combine them together in order that they may buy collectively at a cheaper rate; in order that they may have a common stock of agricultural machinery and horses which they can hire out, instead of buying the machinery or the horses, which they want only a few days in the year; in order that they may carry the produce to market on an economical system of transport, either by motor or large loads on the railways, where they get the cheapest rates; and in order that their produce may be offered to the best market, upon which an enormous lot depends. Any big grower of small fruit every morning in the fruit season will ring up London, Liverpool, Manchester, Yorkshire towns and Bristol, and find out which of those markets is offering the best price that day. His orders go accordingly. In order to do that you must be able to bulk your produce. It is the essence of it.
      Then take the fundamental thing in our proposal. We said not less than a hundred families and a central farm for three purposes-in order that the man who runs it may be sure to give direction and expert guidance to every one of the holders both in the methods of growing things and in the methods of business marking, and so on; secondly, in order that he may run demonstration farms, plots, or holdings of precisely the same type of cultivation as the tenants themselves are cultivating; and, thirdly, that he may be sure to keep a hand on the whole settlement from start to finish. That central farm ought to be, and I am perfectly certain will be, run at a substantial profit. There is no earthly reason why it should not. With good management and good choice of men there is no reason why that central farm should not make a handsome profit. Then that central farm will be able to supply certain things to the small holders that they want. Another advantage of having a hundred families together is that a number of small trades grow up, and they become a little market of their own. All those conditions are essential. Take
      112
      another thing. Agricultural credit, a central bank—all the advantages of State credit can be given to a colony of that kind to every one of the holders. It simplifies matters. Co-operation with all its true spirit can gradually be learned through the collective buying and selling done through the manager as an agent for them all. All these advantages will be present, and, in fact, have been present in Denmark, where, during the period of the great tragedy of English agriculture, Danish agriculture increased in prosperity year by year.
      Why is this Bill called an experimental Bill? I think there is no justification at all for calling it an experimental Bill, except the single one which the hon. Member for Oxford University pointed out, that, in regard to what we know as large farming, ordinary wheat growing, for instance, and large stock-raising farms, there has never been an experiment in this country of that being successful by small holders in combination. I concede at once if that is the experiment which is to be tried it is wise to call it an experiment, but as regards vegetable and fruit growing and the cultivation of small or mixed farms, I repudiate the view altogether that there is any ground for saying that that is in the experimental stage. One speaker pointed out that if yon grow vegetables or fruit too largely you will make a glut, but tell us something we do not know. Everybody knows that. We know there is a limit to the possible production of fruit and vegetables, and if you are going to have a very large number of small holders, some of them must be employed in producing other kinds of farm produce. The Committee reported that they thought it might be possible by colonies of this type to settle upon them something like 5,000 men. The Government proposes to deal with only 300 men. If the small-holding system of the country is to be something which every soldier who takes up an agricultural life in this country in the first instance as a labourer, knows that he can look forward to reaching later on, I say strongly to the Government you must have a bigger proposition than the present one in active operation at the end of the War.
      We pointed out in the Report that if steps were taken this spring, it would not be possible to get vacant possession until Michaelmas, 1917, or a year later, if you do not pay compensation. If you paid

      113
      compensation for disturbance to the sitting tenant, you add of course to the cost of the scheme. I agree that the present conditions do make a difference to the finance of the scheme in regard to the cost of buildings and interest on money. Personally, I am inclined to take the view that the nation ought to put its hand into its own pocket and not debit our soldiers, whom we invite upon the land at the end of the War, with the cost of buildings, or the cost of money at a higher rate than what you regard as the normal cost. I do not think they ought to be asked to bear what you may call a war burden in perpetuity. I put that consideration before the Government as consistent entirely with the view we submitted in our Report, that these colonies ought to be run on an economical and not upon a philanthropic or charitable basis. That is only doing justice if the small holder holdings are to take their place in our agricultural economy, and if we are therefore, through having them as a working system, to be in a position to say to the soldiers on demobilisation or before: "Come on the land as a labourer; you will have good wages, good houses, and we will see to it that you have a decent village life worth having, and you can look forward to a small holding later on." If that is the position we must put ourselves in—and I believe we must or we shall fail—then I say to the Government, you have to get a very much longer way towards your small holdings than these three colonies.
      I very humbly and respectfully ask hon. Members to read rather carefully the Committee's Report, because we did take a great deal of trouble over it. We pointed out that, with some amendments of the existing Small Holdings Acts, the county councils might be put in a position themselves to do the same sort of thing as the State is proposing by this Bill. This Bill is to start colonies, employ directors, and give expert guidance and so on. That would be a great advantage from the point of view of the regimental units which are local in character. I think many regiments might be glad to have their county councils, and develop settlements of men from the same regiments, who would have the esprit de corps of local sentiment to combine them together. There is nothing in this Bill of that type, and I respectfully suggest that that should either be added by amendment or else incorporated in
      114
      another Bill at the earliest possible moment. If that is done there is no reason why the Government should not accommodate 5,000 men, and the county councils another 5,000 men. As regards the time to do it, I recognise at once that it would not be possible to get ready for as many as 10,000 by the time this Bill comes into operation, but if this Bill is on its way, I do not think the men would mind waiting a year or two working as labourers, if they knew that there would be a chance of getting a holding-within a reasonable time, if they should prove suitable for the work. Although I urge strongly a very great increase of the number provided by this Bill, both directly for State settlement and county council settlement, I do recognise that the suggestion of the Committee of 10,000. may not be possible before the end of the War.
      In that connection I very much desire to emphasise the criticism that has fallen from the hon. Member for Oxford University to-day and in other places at considerably greater length on the proposal to take existing cultivated land. There is no doubt that the expense of taking existing cultivated land is great, even if it is leased at a cheap rent, because you would have to deal with the sitting tenants, the sitting farmers, and the sitting labourers, and it is a great drawback to have to turn out either farmers or labourers, whereas, if you adopt the suggestion of Mr. A. D. Hall and the hon. Member for Oxford University of reclaiming waste land, you can get land suitable for small holdings where there is not a man on the soil at the present time. There is a great area of such land on the shores of the Wash, on the East Coast, and in North Wales, and there is also a large area of inland waste land of gorse and heather in the Southern counties, where, by the expenditure of a small amount on artificial manure you could bring the land rapidly into profitable cultivation. I urge that that proposal should be taken in hand at once, and that German prisoners, conscientious objectors, and other gentlemen who are not doing other war work might be very satisfactorily utilised for reclaiming that land, That could be done now, and when peace comes, you could make a settlement at once there. I apologise to the House for taking up so much time. I very much welcome this Bill, but I hope it will be largely extended in its operation.
      Mr. HARRY HOPE: This Bill is one-which deserves more than the sympathetic .attention of this House. It is because of that that I welcome the introduction of this measure. Perhaps it is possible to expect too much from this Bill, but I have no doubt that when soldiers know that if after working upon the land there is a chance and a prospect of them becoming small holders themselves, I think they will have more incentive to take up country work again. I think the Government are wise in adopting the colony system, because by this procedure the produce can be marketed upon the best possible terms. By this means you are able to give instruction in technical subjects which is so essential to success. I think there is nothing of greater importance than giving small holders technical instruction in the various kinds of work which they are going to undertake. When you come to the subject which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Jesse Collings) touched upon as to what conditions of tenure those men should be placed upon, I think there should be something of a flexible procedure adopted. Certainly I shall support money being advanced, not upon the high war rate of interest at the present time, but rather than the present high price I think the money should be got at peace rates. Some men might choose to do this work as tenants on that system, and some might prefer to be occupying owners, and if money was provided it could be advanced on the same conditions paying a small percentage towards a sinking fund, and then all the incentive of ownership would be applied to them. When you study small holdings, you see that it is by ownership that small holdings have been such a success in Denmark where 90 per cent, of them own their own land. When that is the fact, is it not right that an opportunity should be given to these men who have done so much for their country to get a chance of being occupying owners? A good deal has been said about small holdings not being a success. Some hon. Members ridiculed the idea of creating small holdings, while others have held up small holdings as being the salvation of the agriculture of this country. I think a middle course is the wisest. There is room both for the small holder and the large farmer. Some parts of the country are better adapted for small holders than others, and undoubtedly more produce can be raised by farming on a large scale, where machinery can be
      116
      utilised to the greatest extent and where science can be adopted, than by having small holdings, but then we have to consider the social welfare of the community, and we are thus led to see how valuable small holdings can be.
      We know that if small holdings are available men may be encouraged to stay on a farm knowing that by the exercise of a little thrift they may become farmers themselves and so have an opportunity of rising in the scale of life. I know in Scotland that many men place a very great regard indeed upon the opportunity of small holdings being available. I therefore support this Bill, not because I think it is anything like a comprehensive measure of land reform—it merely touches the very fringe of land reform—but because I think, by giving an incentive to men to remain in country districts in the hope of becoming their own masters, it will do good work. It is not well, however, that we should be carried away by thinking that if we create any number of small holdings we are going to bring about a new state of affairs. The matter of housing has not been touched upon. No subject of greater importance could be brought forward. Men are discouraged because many of our houses are bad, and they are driven away from country districts. That is very bad indeed, because there are too few of them. If we had a housing scheme brought forward, added to a comprehensive measure of land reform, we should be doing something. We recognise, of course, that this Bill is not that, but because it moves in the right direction of doing something for our brave men who have done so much for us this House can wisely support its Second Reading, and I can only hope that some of the Amendments suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bordesley Division (Mr. Collings) will be made to give an opportunity to men who wish to become occupying owners of their land.
      Mr. C. HARMSWORTH: I desire to say a few words about this Bill, because it has been my good fortune to represent in succession two agricultural constituencies which are conspicuous for their devotion to small holdings. I am very familiar with the famous group of small holdings referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for the Bordesley Division (Mr. Collings). I shall not go into the very

      117
      vexed and contentious question of purchase and tenancy, because I have an absolutely open mind on the subject, but I would like to remind my right hon. Friend that in the immedate neighbourhood of the famous colony at Catshill is another colony at Belbroughton, where the conditions are those of tenancy, and where the prosperity is at least as great, if not greater. I am afraid I must say with regard to this Bill that there are only two features in it that attract me. One is that for the first time it confers upon the Board of Agriculture the power to acquire agricultural land, and the second is that the destinies of these experimental colonies are to be presided over by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Wilton Division (Captain Bathurst). If they can be made a success, and I am bound to say that I feel very doubtful about it, my hon. and gallant Friend is the man to make them successful. Anybody who has read the Report of the Verney Committee and the Minority Report of the same Committee, second part, must have perused this Bill with a sense of the keenest disappointment, unless this is intended as one of a series of Bills. Th hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mr. Leslie Scott) dwelt on the larger aspects of this question, and for a moment I had some hope that he was in possession of private information and that we were to regard this Bill as only one and perhaps the smallest of a series of Bills dealing with this very important matter. If my right hon. Friend makes any speech in reply, I should be very glad if he could give me an answer to that question.
      What was the problem confronted by the Departmental Committee I It was the largest and one of the most urgent problems that we have to deal with or shall have to deal with in the immediate future. It was nothing less than the putting on the land of a large number of our demobilised soldiers and sailors. The Verney Committee went into those other great problems of the national physique, of the development of our agriculture, and perhaps the most urgently important of all of the increase of our home-grown food supply. In return for those Reports—and unless we have assurances from my right hon. Friend, the sole return—we get a Bill which proposes to establish 300 families on the land in England and Scotland. Many of those who have addressed the House to-day have spoken of the tremendous debt
      118
      of gratitude we owe to our soldiers and sailors. Most of us are aware that in the self-governing Colonies very large arrangements are being made for the settlement of our discharged soldiers and sailors. I would not suggest for a moment that our opportunities here are equal to those to be found in some of the self-governing Colonies, but I venture to suggest with great respect that we might do better than in the whole of Great Britain devote 8,000 acres, and that merely for experimental purposes.
      It seems to be supposed that only people who have had experience of large farming are capable of considering a small holding. There is a very large fringe of population about our towns that, with a little instruction, might well be entrusted with a small intensive holding. I need not dwell on the very great importance of increasing our supply of home-grown food. I dare say it is a matter which, perhaps, we ought not to discuss very much in public, but it is known to every Member of this House, and it is realised by every one of us now that our dependence on foreign supplies is the weakest feature in the whole of our national position. A very distinguished witness who appeared before the Verney Committee very aptly described our dependence on foreign-grown food as the Achilles' heel on the British national position. This problem was discussed at great length, and with great wisdom, by the Verney Committee, but no effort is made in this Bill on anything but an infinitesimal scale to deal with a question that may become the most important question of all immediately after the War. We are to devote these 8,000 acres to experiments. Why experiments? A dozen speakers this afternoon have pointed out that small holdings in this country are many years beyond the experimental stage. With all respect to my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), I have never yet seen an unsuccessful group of small holdings. I am familiar, as I say, with small holdings in two counties. In connection with the Departmental Committee two or three years ago I visited a great number of them, and I really would be obliged to my right hon. Friend if he would put the House in some way or-another in possession of the financial details of these unsuccessful small holdings with which he is acquainted.
      Sir F. BANBURY: There is one at Boxted, in Essex, run by the Salvation Army.
      Mr. HARMSWORTH: My right hon. Friend might give some of us an opportunity of visiting one or other of these unsuccessful groups, because it is well known to every Member of the House that the percentage of failures among the county council small holdings, which now run to an aggregate of 200,000 acres, is less than 1 per cent.—a smaller ratio of unsuccess than in any other industry in the Kingdom. These colonies are to be experimental. Why experimental? Everything that is to be known about small holdings under our present very uneconomic method of conducting them is known. We have not tried co-operation, but we can try that with the existing colonies belonging to the county councils. What is to happen to our soldiers and sailors while we are attending on the result of this experiment—an experiment which in an agricultural matter must take at least two or three years before it can be proved to be good or bad? I shall reluctantly, very reluctantly, support the Second Reading of this Bill. Unless my right hon. Friend has something further to tell us about it, I scarcely think it a Bill worth supporting. It will not even approach the remotest fringe of the enormous problems that confront us now and will confront us after the War.
      The House will not fail to observe that there is a certain danger in passing a limited Bill, because it comes to be regarded as the measure that occupies the ground. We shall be in danger, if this Bill passes in its present limited condition, of being told by the Government afterwards that after all there is a great experiment taking place, and we must wait for the results before we can hope for any further legislation. I must say, and I say it with great regret, that after the hopes held out to us, first of all by the appointment of the Verney Committee and then by the immensely able Report of that Committee dealing with the broad, national issues that this question involves, I am bitterly disappointed at the Bill which the right hon. Gentleman has introduced into the House to-day.
      Mr. DUNDAS WHITE: In supporting the Second Reading of this Bill I sympathise very much with what has just been said by the hon. Gentleman opposite.
      120
      The Bill admittedly is in the nature of an experiment, but the House will realise that the experiment does not go very far. We have been told that we have something like 5,000,000 men under arms just now. The vast bulk of these will be disbanded when they come home, and this Bill proposes to make an experiment in providing for about 300 of them and their-families. In other words, if you put down the number that will be disbanded as 3,000,000, and that is much lower than it will be, you find that the Bill proposes to make provision for about one in 10,000. In these circumstances, I think that if the thing comes to a practical issue the country will see that the House of Commons has not gone very far in that direction. It may be necessary to be very careful in these experiments at first on account of their nature and the amount of expenditure involved. I am glad that in some ways that expenditure may not be as great as it might otherwise have-been, because of the way in which several landowners who have the interest of the country at heart are freely offering their help. I need hardly mention the name of Lord Lucas and several others, and I am sure this House appreciates what they are doing in this respect. At the same time we must remember that the amount of the land which is being gifted will probably be very small in proportion; to the total of land used, and that the great proportion of that land will have-to be purchased. Certain provisions are made for purchase, and I venture to suggest to my right hon. Friend that the question of the price or the rent to be paid is the most important element. In the-case of the holdings that have been: started in various parts of the country under the Small Holdings Acts, and other measures, the price that has been paid has been too high, and the rent has been too high, and when I say too high I do not mean absolutely, but as compared with the price charged for the same land to the occupiers of those farms. It has been too high, and the result has been, in a large number of cases, that these small holdings have been waterlogged at the outset by excessive rents. That is a very important fact. If the-price is moderate and fair, then the surplus produce is over in the hands of the small holder; he can use it as capital for next year's produce, and so on; but if the rent is too high it absorbs far more than it should, and the man has not what might

      121
      be called the natural capital to work with. He has to borrow money, and whether you have land banks or anything else I believe in the adage that "borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry." Whatever it may be in the hands of large cultivators used to finance and the ways of finance, I feel certain that many of the inducements and temptations to the poor man to borrow will only land him in trouble. I do not say that there is no need for agricultural banks. There is a great deal to be said for them, but before they can be put in their right place the rent and price of the land ought to be reduced to its natural level. On that point I would remind the House that some months before the beginning of the War, in answer to a question by myself, in which a good many of my colleagues were interested, the Prime Minister gave a promise that wherever land was purchased or assisted to be purchased by moneys provided by Parliament, a record would be kept of its approximate acreage, its valuation as taken for rating purposes at that time, and various other particulars. It is very important that we should have that, and it is very important that in the land that is thus taken the authorities who take the land should make a note of what its valuation for rating and other purposes is at the time they get it. I would appeal to my right hon. Friend to see that in the reports that are to be annually issued under this Bill there may be in each case a record of the price and the rent paid for the land, and also a record of what its valuation for rating was at the time it was purchased or leased.
      In looking through the measure I see that the Lands Clauses Acts are brought in, not on the point of compulsory purchase, because there are no compulsory powers in this Bill, but on certain other points. One would not say that these Acts should not apply, but I would remind the House that we were considering, only the other day, these Acts in relation to the Defence of the Realm (Acquisition of Land) Bill. They have been modified in the Schedule to that Bill in various ways. I know that some of these modifications refer to the case of compulsory purchase, but I do suggest that all the modifications adopted for the purposes of the Acquisition of Land Bill, in so far as they apply to matters in the Lands Clauses Acts which apply to this Bill, ought to be adopted in this Bill as well. The Lands Clauses Acts are a very unsatisfactory kind of legisla-
      122
      tion. They have not been fair to the people. These modifications, we all agreed, were necessary in the Acquisition of Land Bill, and I suggest, as I have said, that they should also be made applicable to this Bill so far as the matters referred to are within the scope of this Bill. I have spoken about the necessity of not paying excessive prices for the land, and not water-logging 'an undertaking from the outset. There was another point I should like to mention, because it goes to the root also of these small holdings, and it has been one of the defects of Scottish and English development. We have tried in many cases to support small holdings on land which was poor, or remote from markets, and have found that it is very difficult to make anything of the land. Indeed, we have been tied on poor land instead of on better land. Every farmer, and everyone who works on the land, knows how important it is to get fairly good land on which to start, and I venture to hope that my right hon. Friend will see that we do not merely try to get the land that is not being used on the margin of cultivation, but that we try to get at a fair rate the very best land we can. There has been far too much holding out of hopes that you can settle people on land that is intrinsically incapable of supporting it. I know it may be said that that may mean higher rents. It ought not to mean higher rents, and it will not do so if we go about this problem in the right way. I may say that this danger cropped up in several speeches we have heard where recommendations have been made as to the reclamation of land. As those who have had anything to do with reclaiming land know, reclamation is experimental, and the experiment in reclamation, even as regards the Wash, which was one of the districts mentioned, have in many cases absorbed a great deal of money and have yielded a comparatively small result.
      Mr. SCOTT: I do not agree at all that it is an experiment to-day. Mr. Hall and others would say that it is very far from the experimental stage now
      8.0 P.M.
      Mr. WHITE: I agree that some has been successful, but my point is that there are a good many where it has not been successful, and the point to which I want to lead up is this: That we should not try to reclaim land or to take what is merely available on the margin of cultivation, but that we ought to begin with better land instead of with poorer. There is

      123
      to-day a vast rumour of good land in the country, in great parks, in private possession, and which is used not for economic production at all, but a great deal of which might be used and ought to be used. That is the land to which we should give the preference. I know we may have to pay too much rent, or might have to do so under existing circumstances, but I quote an observation my right hon. Friend made in introducing the Bill. He spoke of the landowners holding the land in trust for the people. I hope that he in his responsible position in this House will remember that that is not merely a metaphor, but that he will try to turn that metaphor into a fact. Those associated with me have always held that land should be considered as a trust for the people, that the people have the right to the land, and we have proposed that, the more because under the conditions of this War there is the great need of raising money and the greater need still of promoting production. We have urged that those who hold the natural resources of the country ought to be called upon to pay for its defence. If we were to do that, and to call on those who hold the land to pay according to its market value if it were taken, whether they use it or do not use it, a great deal of that land would be brought into the market, and we should have plenty of good land on which to settle our men and to start them at a fair rate, instead of thinking of bad land, and reclamation and all that. I do not say you ought not to cultivate bad land or to reclaim land. Those are two questions in the economic development of the country, but I do say that you ought to begin small holdings, and their extension and cultivation, on that land which will yield the best results. We shall never be able to do that until we fundamentally recognise the right of the people to the land. I speak of Scotland because I know the conditions better, but I know it is the case in England that attempts have been made to settle people on doubtful land where nature has put plenty of good land which is not being used for production, but would be so used if you could get it at a fair rent or fair price. Everyone knows that its rent or price, like that of any other commodity, depends upon the available supply in relation to the effective demand. At present the supply is kept back unduly. Look at our
      124
      towns. Look round any one of them, and you see on every side a vast amount of land that might be used for market gardening and other purposes. You see land that might be built upon, but if you try to build upon it or to take it on terms that would make it worth while, you find that you have to pay a far higher price than the agricultural rate at which it is being, rated and let. It ought to be taxed at its-market value, and then around our towns-land would be available for market gardens. Then the resources of the country would be more open. We should improve conditions, and instead of trying to set up here and there an artificial scheme-and making some artificial experiment and wondering whether it will work, we should improve conditions, and things would go-forward naturally without artificial experiments and Government support. There may be a case for Government support, but what I would urge upon the House is the necessity of increasing the fundamental conditions. There is another matter with regard to the fundamental conditions which I should like to impress upon the House. Everyone who is acquainted with farming, particularly with intensive cultivation for market gardening, which is one of the most paying purposes to which land can be put just now, knows that for that purpose it is necessary to develop land by building houses, by putting up farm buildings and by putting up glass houses. Look at what our system does for farming. No sooner do you put up houses for labourers, or a farm-steading—
      Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think that any discussion of the old Land Values question would be relevant to this Bill. The hon. Member must reserve that until another occasion.
      Mr. WHITE: I bow, of course, to your ruling, Sir, but I want, in speaking of the fundamental conditions to suggest to my right hon. Friend that if these holdings or any other holdings are to be a success, it might be well to have some provision inserted in this Bill by which the public money, which to a great extent is to be used, and which is put into the development of the land by way of glass houses and other things, ought at least to be relieved from the burden of rating—I do not want to put it higher than that, but I hope I may be allowed to put it as high as that—also for the reason that the House will remember that in the Scottish Small Landholders Act, which was passed

      125
      some time back, a special provision was inserted which had the effect of relieving from rating those improvements which were necessary to the character of a small holding. I know it may be said that works an injustice, because it is unjust that the small landholder should have his improvement free, and that the large landowner should not. But the proof of development lies in extending the benefit to all. There is another point to which I would call the attention of the House on this Bill. Although my right hon. Friend passed it over very lightly, he himself, I am sure, realises its significance. In Clause 6 of the Bill special provision is made for perpetual leases, the provision being that where a person has power to sell land he should also have power to let it on long lease and on a perpetual lease. That is a most desirable development and one which I particularly value. What the small holder wants is secure possession. The best term upon which he can get secure possession is that he should pay an annual rent with secure possession. A good deal has been said about capital purchase by my right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. G. Lambert). As regards capital purchase the verdict of the small holders has been final. Only a few months ago I asked a question in this House, and my right hon. Friend gave me the answer that less than 2 per cent, of the small holders who had obtained land had asked for purchase. That is a final verdict on that point. What the small landholder wants is not ownership of the land but the use of the land. He is a small man, he has very little money and he has no money to purchase an ownership. Even if he had, he would find himself in a bad position, because after he had the ownership, if he wanted to dispose of it, how many other small holders are there who could buy it of him? What he wants is possession of the land with absolute security. That is what a perpetual lease gives him. One of the greatest of English agriculturists—Arthur Young—in a well-known passage, said:
      "Give a man the secure possession of a bleak rock and he will turn it into a garden; give him nine years' lease of a garden and he will convert it into a desert."
      We want to give him that secure possession, and this Bill by introducing the possibility of perpetual tenancy brings in that in the best way possible. It raises rather an important point, because-my right hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong—since the Statute of Quia Emptores, passed in 1290, it has been impossible in
      126
      this country to let land on perpetual tenancy. I know very well that the Conveyancing Act, 1881, made certain provisions for securing rent charges on land, and that was still further developed by the Small Holdings Act, 1908, which allowed a quarter of the purchase money, when a holding was purchased from the county council, to remain as a perpetual' rent charge. This Bill goes further and enables land to be let on perpetual terms and, still more, provides that where land is let on perpetual terms the right of reentry on the non-payment of that rent may be exercised—a most important feature, which makes the whole system practicable. I should like to say how much I welcome this development. I regard it as; a great and important development, and would like to see it applied not only to agricultural land, but to other land as well, for round our towns and in our towns I know there is no better system than the system of perpetual lease, for it fixes rent—
      Mr. SPEAKER: What has this to do with labour colonies? The hon. Gentleman is getting rather far from the subject.
      Mr. WHITE: I feel sure these are the best conditions upon which these labour colonies can hold the land. In these various respects the Bill makes a very important development. It lays tae foundation of certain further action. I know it is small; I know it is merely experimental; but I venture to commend it, and at the same time to bring to the notice of my right hon. Friend the various points I have raised in connection with it.
      Captain C. BATHURST: I hesitate to take part in this Debate after the perfectly admirable and exhaustive speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mr. Leslie Scott), with every word of which I most cordially agree. The right hon. Gentleman is to be congratulated, on the whole, upon the tenour of the speeches which have been made in this House in respect of his proposals, a somewhat different tone to that which greeted the Bill from rather unexpected sources in another place. In passing, may I say we must all feel gratitude to Lord Lucas for the generous offer he made some months ago of a portion of his estate in Bedfordshire for the purposes of one of these colonies, and also for an offer made recently by the hon. and gallant Member for Montgomeryshire (Colonel Pryce-Jones), which was an

      127
      offer of a very generous kind. I should like to express regret that it has been found impossible to accept either of those offers, because in certain respects, upon which I need not dilate, each property is not fully suited to the purposes of this Bill. The main criticism in this House of this Bill is that it is not sufficiently heroic. I entirely endorse that criticism. I should like to see a very much more heroic measure than this Bill is; in fact, I go further and say that, as far as my present duties are concerned, I should feel much greater satisfaction were I put in charge of a far more extended and far more generous scheme than that for which this Bill provides.
      Some hon. Members have suggested that no experiment is necessary, in view of past experience in connection with small holdings since the passing of the Small Holdings Act, 1908. I submit that experiment is eminently desirable and an experiment along certain lines which have not hitherto been attempted under the existing Small Holdings Acts. In the first place, we set up here, for the first time, small holders on a colony system. In the second place, we provide the assistance of co-operative machinery in every possible direction, in the way of the purchase of requisites and the sale and distribution of produce. Also, we have not hitherto tried the effect of the previous instruction and the subsequent supervision of those we have placed or desired to place upon our Statutory small holdings. Last, but not least, we have not sufficiently provided, as a condition precedent to the occupancy of a small holder, for the competency of his wife or his other women kind to assist in the processes which will be carried on upon that holding. These are of importance in respect of an experiment. I think a very useful experiment will be made under this Bill. For my part, I have not expressed very much sympathy either inside or outside this House with previous Small Holdings Acts, largely because these provisions have not been made, and also because, at any rate, when Statutory small holdings were first attempted, there was not sufficient protection provided against an injustice being done to sitting tenants. The eyes have been taken out of a farm, rendering it an uneconomic unit in certain cases, and insufficient protection has been provided for the labourers employed on those farms. These possible injustices under the original Acts are provided for
      128
      in this Bill, therefore there is not likely to be any serious criticism on those grounds. There are hon. and right hon. Gentlemen in this House who speak with considerable authority on agricultural matters. One of them is certainly the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the South Molton Division (Mr. G. Lambert). He rather surprised me by saying, as an argument against this Bill, that you cannot get profit from land where fruit is produced in under three years, regardless of the fact that in every one of the fruit-growing colonies there are bound to be market garden and other crops cultivated between the fruit, providing, of course, a very much earlier return than fruit would do if the small holder subsisted wholly upon the produce of such fruit. He went on to say that no market garden colony could possibly succeed, because a man cannot grow fruit with only one year's experience. I think he failed to remember that not only would there be one year's useful training by an expert, but after he had settled in his holding there would be the direction and the guidance of that expert in his future operations.
      The hon. Member (Mr. Prothero), to whom we always listen with great respect on any agricultural question in this House, I think went a little wrong when he suggested that a small holder is limited in his activities to vegetables, fruit, and flowers. I should be very sorry if that was the case. When looking for land suitable for small holdings I always take the opportunity of inquiring how the small holders in the locality are succeeding with their holdings, and in connection with an estate which I have every reason to believe is likely to be taken for this purpose in the north of England I found a small holder on a contiguous plot of ground of no more than thirty-eight acres carrying on farming on ordinary extensive lines, growing quite abnormal crops of wheat, oats, clover hay, mangolds and potatoes, and I found in his little yard no less than £300 worth of pigs. It was perfectly evident to me that it is not necessary on land such as that and with markets which were available to such a man as that, and with energy which such a man is prepared to put into his holding to confine yourself to vegetables, fruit, and flowers. There are other small products in the absence of these somewhat exceptional conditions which can perfectly well be grown at a profit on small holdings, such as eggs, poultry, milk, butter,

      129
      cheese, honey and last, but not least—and I fancy we shall see a good deal of it in after war days—sugar beet, for I feel confident that we are not going to allow ourselves to depend in the future, as we have in the past, for over 50 per cent. of the sugar that we require for our domestic consumption upon the products of Germany.
      The hon. Member (Mr. Prothero) also said that if there is an increase of food as the result of the establishment of such holdings it will involve a competition which will drive down the prices. My answer to that would be, in the first place, that we already import a very large quantity of food, and particularly the sort of food which can well be grown upon a small holding, from foreign countries, and if it is found that there is a glut of any particular product it is perfectly easy for the small holder, guided by the wise direction which we propose to provide, to turn to some other product of which there is not the same glut. He rather surprised me, with all his great knowledge and experience, by saying that you cannot afford to cut up much more land without reducing the output of beef and bread. My hon. and learned Friend gave a very good answer to that by reminding the House of what is going on in Denmark, Belgium, and other countries where the produce in considerably greater per cultivated acre than it is in this country, and where it has not been thought necessary to maintain a large area of grass land in order to keep up the output of milk and of meat. The average output in bushels per acre of wheat in Denmark has been raised from 34.6 in 1888 to 42 in 1912, compared with a difference in England of 29.4 in 1888 and 31.6 in 1912.
      Mr. SCOTT: Over an average of years.
      Captain BATHURST: Yes, but at present I am inclined to think the average of bushels of wheat per acre in England would be rather larger than that, mainly owing to the fact that we employ wheats of much greater productive capacity than those that we were using about ten or twenty years ago. My further reply to my hon. Friend (Mr. Prothero) would be that if it is possible to obtain an average food output of £20 per acre in Belgium from agricultural land, £4 is too small a return to obtain from land in Great Britain. I know I am right in saying that, whereas our return per acre is only £4, there is a much higher figure obtain-
      130
      able in Belgium, in Denmark, in Germany, and also in France. That shows that our English land is capable of producing a larger output of food for its population than it does at present, if we go the right way about it. The truth, of course, is that there is not merely a large amount of land in this country which requires reclamation and improvement, but there is a large amount—one is sorry to have to confess it—of under-cultivated land, and there is a very large amount of under-capitalised land. There is not the least doubt that there are some large farmers to be found in this country who are trying to farm a far larger area of land than their capital will enable them to farm either with profit to themselves^ or with advantage to the nation. Germany has 60 per cent, more under cultivation than there is in this country, and produces three times as much food. Moreover, Germany has no fewer than 22,000,000 persons dependent upon agricultural land. We at the outside have no more than about 4,000,000 all told, while France has 18,000,000. Whichever way you look at it, if the Government of this country goes the right way about it, supported, as I believe it will be, by public opinion, it is possible to grow more on British soil, it is possible to put a much larger population on to British soil, and it is possible to a much greater extent to feed our population than we do at present.
      Of all the speeches which have been made this afternoon, that of the hon. Member (Mr. Ellis Davies) has surprised me the most. I am not quite sure whether he intended to commend the Bill or to condemn it, but coming from such a keen Welsh Nationalist as himself, I was surprised to hear the criticisms, on principle, of small holdings as compared with other kinds of farming, because I should have thought if there was one thing that the Welshman is keen about more than another it is the occupation and, if possible, the ownership of a small holding in the Principality. He quoted Belgium in favour of his view. With all respect to Mr. Rowntree's excellent book, there is probably no book on any agricultural matter that has been more severely criticised. I, myself, have visited Belgium, and although I am quite prepared to agree with the sentence which the hon. Member quoted from that book, that the Belgian small holder lives a rough life and works very long hours, a happier lot of people engaged in agricultural employment I

      131
      have never found in any country than those I found in Belgium, and although their hours are long, and although they live a rough life, they certainly do derive a very much greater profit out of the holdings that they cultivate than anyone in this country or, as I believe, in any other country in the world can claim to obtain, and although they live a more simple life—and I am not sure they are not all the better for that—than many of our country folk do at present, I believe their life is a happy one, and certainly on the whole it is a prosperous one. I found, for instance, when I was in Belgium studying this very subject only three years ago, it was no uncommon case to see a small holder, with the advantageous assistance of his wife, obtaining on his little agricultural capital no less than from 25 per cent, to 35 per cent, a year.
      I want to state what I believe is the real difficulty in this scheme. The difficulty, I believe, is not agricultural. It is financial. I sympathise with all those speeches which have been made asking the Treasury to approach this scheme in a generous frame of mind. After all it is an experiment, and if we are going to obtain its full value as an experiment surely it must be started under natural and not under artificial conditions. The monetary conditions, and the conditions of the labour market and of the cost of materials, are very abnormal at present, and if the Treasury is going to charge us interest based on conditions which may be transient, and charge it, not for the next two or three years but for sixty years to come, it seems to me that they will be placing upon this scheme a burden which it ought not to have to bear. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman, and through him to the Treasury, that it will not be a true experiment if either the land or the necessary structures are purchased at an abnormally enhanced price. It may be said, whenever one asks for anything in the nature of a financial concession, "you are rendering this scheme a philanthropic and not an economic scheme." I think the economic aspect was somewhat overstated in the House of Lords. Are you going to direct a sort of meticulous investigation as to whether the State has returned to it every single penny that it expends in these interesting experiments and, as I believe, in this great effort to repopulate the countryside, and to do what is bare justice to those whose self-sacrifice has enabled us to
      132
      carry on our agricultural and other operations in this country? Surely it is only due to these men that, without calling it philanthropic, at any rate a measure of ordinary justice in the matter of finance shall be introduced into this scheme rather than burden them, as a result of these high rates for money, with an additional onus which may in the long run prove their economic undoing.
      I suggest that, as the cost of providing equipment has risen by at least one-third, during the War—some put it higher than that figure—that that consideration should be taken into account, and also the fact that money that is lent at 5 per cent., apart from sinking fund or depreciation, is too high a rate to add to the small holder's rent, if you are going to have a fair experiment based upon normal conditions. I did hope that it might be possible to avoid a large outlay for stone or brick structures by obtaining some of those very commodious and well-constructed hutments that are to be found in our various military camps. I understand, however, that there may be some difficulty about that, because those huts, not only will not be available until the War is over, but very likely may not be available after the War is over, owing to the long time demobilisation may take and the necessity for finding accommodation for our soldiers in process of demobilisation before they are absorbed into the various industries of the country. I think I am right in saying that when cottages had to be provided for munition workers at Coventry and Dudley, on the initiative of the Ministry of Munitions, a 25 per cent, abatement was allowed in respect of their cost, or rather 25 per cent, was deducted from the actual amount upon which future interest would have to be paid. I think the same thing was done on the initiative of the Office of Works in the case of similar cottages constructed for the workers in the Arsenal at Woolwich. Surely these are precedents which might be followed with advantage in the case of this scheme. Possibly also the Treasury might help to initiate a system of agricultural co-operative credit, which is also by way of experiment, and which it may be difficult to establish without some help from the Government.
      It is too late to enter into the old controversies as between ownership and tenancy, but I would like to suggest that there is a possible compromise in this matter of ownership versus tenancy,

      133
      with which probably no hon. Member will find any serious fault-the hon. Member for the Tradeston Division of Glasgow (Mr. Dundas White) incidentally referred to it—and that is that the ordinary requirements of the small holder who wants absolute security of tenure for the cultivation of what he may regard as his own land can well be provided for by very long leases, for something like 999 years. The possible advantage of having a lease is that you are able by the insertion of covenants to secure to some extent good husbandry, and also to prevent these small holdings being merged, as they very often have been in the past, in larger holdings and so defeating the object that you originally had in view. There is also the advantage that you do maintain some sort of control in the event of the small holder desiring to encumber his holding. A good deal has been said about reclamation. For my own part I would not take the responsibility of suggesting to the Board of Agriculture that any ex-service small holder shall be turned on to reclaim land and then be asked to cultivate it at a profit to himself. Nor would I suggest that he be put on newly reclaimed land and asked to make a living out of it. So far from settling him on land of that character I have been asking the Board of Agriculture to provide the best land that can be found in the country for these prospective settlers, and I hope and believe that we shall find land of this character and of sufficient extent. Reference has been made to the Boxted Salvation Army Settlement as a dangerous precedent. My observations about that settlement, which I have very carefully investigated quite recently, is that neither the land nor the settlers were of the right kind, and both of them militated against its economic success. We are going to find not merely the best land, but by careful selection we hope to be able to find some of the best men as settlers that have yet been put on British soil. One very important matter to which reference has not been made to any extent in this House, but which the Board certainly has in mind, is the provision, wherever possible, of subsidiary industries to which either the holder or his wife or other member of his family can turn their hands at times when they are not actually busy upon the cultivation of the holding itself. A number of these industries are referred to in the Departmental Committee
      134
      Report—such as afforestation, basket making and jam making. I had expected to hear certain Members professing to speak on behalf of more extensive farms, and referring to the very interesting portion of a book by Mr. Hall, to which allusion has been made in this Debate, in favour of the greater industrialisation of our farms as opposed to putting small holders in increasing numbers upon the land. In case the criticism is made, all I will say is that the greater industrialisation of farming may be sound economically, but that politically and socially it is most unsound, and indeed pernicious, and in the long run would promote such a feeling of unrest and condemnation of farming methods among the community generally that it would be ultimately destructive of those very methods which these gentlemen may be inclined to advocate.
      I believe that what the agricultural community require more than anything else is greater security, and I cannot believe that you will get any large measure of greater security unless and until there is a far larger number of men, preferably small men, both occupying and owning British agricultural land-until, in fact, the political power of agriculture is far greater then it is to-day, and a far larger proportion of the whole population has some well-instructed interest in the prosperity of our oldest and greatest industry. The country will be governed, as I believe, after the War, by those who reflect the opinion of the men now in the trenches, and those who criticise this Bill as being legislation along unfortunate and uneconomic lines should, I think, bear in mind what is likely to be the view of those who will speak for the English public of after-war days, and I am inclined to think, whatever may be the constitution of this House when this War is over, that it will not be possible, in this place at any rate, to level against this Bill the sort of criticism that was levelled against it in another place without those who so criticised it being regarded as unpatriotic and unjust to those who are so gallantly fighting our battles overseas for the protection of that very land upon which we seek to establish a comparatively small proportion of that great force. Reference has been made to Sir Douglas Haig's inquiry. I am not at liberty to state what the result is, but I can repeat what Lord Selborne said in another place, that inquiry among soldiers now serving at

      135
      the front has demonstrated a desire on the part of a far larger proportion of our overseas soldiers to take to agricultural pursuits, preferably in their own homeland, than those of us who have previously discussed the matter had contemplated or anticipated, and when those men come back and ask as the reward for their services to be given an opportunity to cultivate a small portion of British soil are we going to refuse them that benefit? Surely, on the other hand, we ought to approach them in the most generous possible spirit, and by a recognition of their services and in gratitude for their great self-sacrifice we ought to be able to meet their views at least as well as other countries are doing, and, so far as the area permits, at least as well as our patriotic Dominions overseas.
      Mr. PETO: I agree very largely with the speech which the hon. Member for Wilton has just delivered. I quite agree with him that it is perfectly idle, as has been done in some of the speeches, to say to the right hon. Gentleman who represents the Board of Agriculture in this House that it is not a hopeful thing to introduce legislation with regard to small holdings because small holdings have not been proved to be a success. Even if that were true, which I do not admit, there are things in this Bill which render the experiment, if it is to be termed an experiment, one which is on quite different lines altogether from the small-holdings efforts which we have made in the past. Like my hon. Friend I have condemned small holdings, as they are carried out at present, on one or two main grounds, and the principal one is that I have always thought it a foolish proposition to scatter small holders broadcast all over the country, by counties, and without any instruction or any co-operation among them, I never could understand how they could be expected really to succeed in those conditions, but there is another factor to be taken into consideration. The cultivation of the country is not going to be the same after the War as before it. We are certainly going to introduce industry into our countryside particularly in connection with beet sugar, to which the hon. Member referred, which demands immense labour, and which it is practically impossible to carry out successfully unless we also have a system of some kind of planting a very much larger population in our agricultural districts. Therefore I
      136
      look to that as being a subsidiary employment which will be immensely helped by the development of the system that is now proposed under this Bill.
      But I do think that this is an extraordinarily modest attempt. We are only going to deal with 6,000 acres. I hope that it may be enlarged. In one direction I think it must be enlarged. The maximum area of one colony for fruit growing and market gardening is taken to be a thousand acres. I do not want to set up my opinion against the opinion come to by the Committee, but I do ask, would it not be wiser to make that a minimum and not a maximum, and to make an arrangement that you do not take any area of a thousand acres where there are grave difficulties of enlarging it, but mat you should take as an area, say, 5,000 acres, 1,000 acres of which the Government would buy, say, for cash down, with the option of taking up further plots of 1,000 acres adjoining when the experiment had got a little beyond its first experimental stage? I believe if you buy land for the accommodation of 100 families, and you get going the cooperative side of the experiment, which would be increasingly profitable and useful, more room might be found in the same area round the instruction farm and in the neighbourhood of the small industries, and all the rest of it, for another 100 or 200 families, and so on. I feel quite sure that if the experiment were worked on the right lines it would have assured success; but I do look with a little apprehension at one remark which I find in the second Report, on page 145, where it says:—
      "Doubtless a large number of these men will prefer to emigrate, and while it is true that the Mother Country cannot in some respects make the ex-service man as good an offer as the Dominions, or as foreign countries, like the United States of America and the Argentina, we think a great deal might be done."
      Why cannot we make as good an offer to the men here to cultivate our own land? Investigation has shown that the bulk of them would prefer to remain in this country if they can; and what is the main difference between the offer of the Dominions and the offer made in this Bill? The answer is in one word—ownership. I would like to support what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bordesley Division (Mr. J. Collings) said, and I consider his words were most pertinent. I rather regret that the Member for Wilton (Captain Bathurst) is toying with this substitution of

      137
      long or perpetual leases for ownership, which never can possibly replace the security and the interest the man takes in the piece of land which is actually his own. I was very glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman opposite, in reply to a question I asked him, state that either tenancy or ownership can be adopted. I am very glad that is so. It seems to me, both in Clause 2 and in Clause 4, it would be very easy to introduce an Amendment which would, at any rate, make it permissive that the Board of Agriculture, in this experiment, either through the medium of the co-operative societies, which are going to set up under Clause 2, to finance the purchase of an individual holding, or, under Clause 4, which has reference to powers of management of the land acquired, to have a Sub-section which permits the Department, at any rate, to transfer by actual sale any portion of the holding. As I read Sub-section (c) I thought it referred to sales to outside buyers. If you bought 1,000 acres, and it was desired to get rid of it because it was not suitable land, it means that you have power to sell, and I think it would be better to take power to sell to the tenants themselves, then my main fear with regard to the success of the experiment would be removed. I do not in the least believe in the argument about under 2 per cent, of the small holders being desirous to purchase. It proves nothing at all.
      In my own neighbourhood there is a case which I should like to give to the House. I have a man living near me who was a sergeant-major in the Boer War. He had a year and a half's instruction under his brother-in-law, a farmer, and he then purchased a holding of a little over thirteen acres of land. He has done so well out of that land, that he came to me the other day to ask my advice with regard to one of those rare opportunities where parcels of land were being offered in lots of ten or eleven acres. He said he wanted to buy one lot of eight acres, or rather let me know that he was anxious to buy eight acres if it did not make any difference to me, and if I would stand aside. I assured him that I had not the slightest desire to own eight acres, and I hoped that be would be successful. He bought the eight acres at the auction at a little over £250, which was the amount I told him that I thought the land was worth. He had farmed his thir-
      138
      teen acres to such good effect that he was able to purchase an additional eight acres in order to leave a portion to his daughter, who might marry some farmer in the neighbourhood. That is the way people who save any money are ready to invest in these small holdings where they can. They do not go to the Small Holdings Commissioners at all; they buy land whenever the opportunity offers. Everybody knows that wherever there are small parcels of decent land to be bought there are always purchasers. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Wilton agrees with that; at any rate, that has been my experience. I do not think, in regard to an experiment of this kind, which is intended to put our soldiers and our sailors on the land, that we ought to act on the assumption that our Dominions can offer better terms to them than we can ourselves. I think we should give them here the same security as they will get anywhere else, and just as fair a prospect of making a good living here at home as they could in the Colonies, as far as we possibly can. Therefore, if the right hon. Gentleman will tell me that he is prepared to make possible the transfer of the freehold to the colonists, or whatever we may call them, and that it is possible to arrange for the necessary finance, I, at any rate, give this Bill not only my best wishes, but I am confident that it will be followed by other and very much more extensive measures.
      Sir W. BEALE: The hon. Member for Devizes and other hon. Members opposite, I think, have laid too much stress upon the difference between freehold tenure and leasehold tenure. Leasehold tenure may be for a very considerable number of years. We know that it is very common to have leases of 999 years, and perhaps that is, for all purposes, the ownership which is wanted. I would point out that when you are dealing with a colony, the fact of demising it for a very long time enables you to enforce your covenants in the manner you intend that they should be observed, having regard to the interests of other colonists round about. If you sell the land out and out, you would have very great difficulties abroad in seeing that the covenants were properly fulfilled; but if the man holds it for a number of years, you have complete power over him to see that he fulfils the covenants. The landlord in this case should be the Government, and the Government must have the

      139
      power to say to the tenant, "You must behave in the way and according to the objects with which the land was leased to you." But if the man were a freeholder you would, in order to see that all the conditions were observed, have the trouble of getting an injunction to prevent him from doing things that were not in accordance with the covenants. I think in many cases that would be found impracticable. I do not say that there should be no cases where a man should get the freehold, but I think the object is, where you have a colony, to see not only in the interests of the man you put upon the land, but remember the interests of his fellow colonists, and I think it will be found that there is not so much to be said in favour of freehold as against leasehold tenure as my hon. Friends seem to think.
      Mr. ACLAND: In view of the fact that all the Members who have really been in attendance during the Debate and who desire to speak have spoken, perhaps I may be allowed to make a brief reply, and to appeal to the House to pass the Second Reading now. The Debate has been very valuable, and I desire to thank those who have taken part in it for many very valuable suggestions. I was particularly pleased in common with everybody else present, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member' for the Bordesley Division (Mr. Jesse Col-lings) was able to take part in it. He was the first to take the point which has more or less run through all the speeches that have been made, namely, that they would like to see the Bill very considerably extended. The lot of a Radical land reformer, who happens to be for the moment the Minister in this House responsible for agriculture in a Coalition Government, is not a very easy one. It would do no good if I were to say, personally, what I should like to do, or how personally I should like to design the Bill. I have to speak for the Government and I have to say, unfortunately-though perhaps that is betraying my own opinions I have to say fortunately or unfortunately that this Bill does to some extent represent a compromise of opinion. There are probably much the same opinions amongst members of the Cabinet as those we have heard uttered to-day by Members of the House. The decision, first of all, to take some action on the Report of the Committee, and secondly, to try these small holdings under what I hope will be
      140
      really good conditions and hopeful conditions for their success, but thirdly, not to go further than these three pioneer colonies, or, at any rate, whether three or four, amounting to 6,000 acres in England and Wales, that as I understand it is the perfectly definite decision of the Government, and I am sorry that I am not authorised to hold out any hope that the Bill can be preserved if the House in its wisdom thinks it right to enlarge its scope in the way in which some hon. Members have suggested to-day.
      9.0 P.M.
      The Debate has taken the form which one expected, in that several Members have thought that the Bill was too small and others have thought that it was too large, and in a way the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton (Mr. R. Lambert) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City (Sir F. Banbury) were interesting, if not very useful, antidotes to the Member for South-West Norfolk (Sir R. Winfrey) and for the Attercliffe Division (Mr. Anderson) and the Noble Lord the Member for South Nottingham (Lord H. Cavendish-Bentinck) and others who wished us to go a good deal further. I was particularly charmed, as I am sure the House was, at the idea of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City mowing his own meadow of hay. I imagined him, coat off, straps round his knees, mowing the meadow with a scythe, because he would be far too old fashioned to allow anything so modern as machinery; and I only wish I had a photograph of him doing so, for if I had I should value it extremely. Some Members who addressed the House, I think, had gained the impression-which I am bound to say I did my best to disturb in advance-that this Bill represented all that the Government could or would do as to land arising out of the War. I am not in a position to announce any further policy, because no further policy has been decided upon; but it is clear that this Bill arises only out of the limited considerations dealt with in the Report of Part I of the Committee. Since the Bill was introduced several things have happened, and amongst others the presentation to Parliament of the second part of that Report. I think everyone will agree who wishes the Bill well at all that it was right to proceed with our plan and to introduce, and I hope to pass, the Bill without waiting for the consideration of the most difficult and very, very large questions which arise out

      141
      of that Report and out of the whole question of the future action arising out of that Report. I hope a good many proposals will be made on all sorts of questions which must arise with regard to agriculture in the War, but I do not think it could have been supposed that we should have been able already to consider the second part of the Report of that Committee, with all the tremendous questions of guaranteed minimum prices for certain foodstuffs, of wages boards, and of housing, to name only three of those questions. We surely could not have got legislation on those matters included in this Bill, and it was right on the other hand to try to push this Bill forward, dealing in a small way with one question, rather than to hold this back for big questions which will be dealt with, as I hope, in due time after they have been considered as they ought to be. There is I make no secret of it at all-pretty active work on many of those questions going on. I believe it has been announced to the House that the Cabinet itself is working on these matters, and I very much hope its deliberations may result in causing further Bills at a later stage. I do not pretend that we have in any sort of way covered the ground in the modest proposal now before the House. The Noble Lord (Lord H. Cavendish-Bentinck) made an interesting suggestion, which I will do my best to carry further, if I have anything to do with the matter, and that is with regard to the utilisation of public utility societies. I think it wants a bit more working out than he could give it in the course of debate, but I hope it may be found prudent. The hon. Member for the Eifion Division (Mr. E. Davies), I must say, astonished me, as he astonished the hon. Gentleman opposite. His point was that there was already very great knowledge about small holdings in Wales, and very wide experience of small holdings in Wales, and, in fact, that a very great part of Wales is already a country of small holdings. I hope I did not misunderstand what he said. That is why it is so difficult to find suitable land for a colony out of which you have got to clear your existing tenants to settle the men under this Bill. It is precisely because the land is so sub-divided and small holdings are so successful there that so many of the suggestions which have been made to us by Members representing the Principality have had to be turned down.
      Mr. E. DAVIES: Is it not the fact that there have been made to the Government two offers which would disturb practically nobody?
      Mr. ACLAND: That is not true. That is a Welshman's idea of disturbing practically nobody. When you really go into it you find a tenant to about every 80 acres-in most of the cases that have been reported to me, at any rate. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot have a country covered already with small holdings and a country in which at the same time you can quite easily find ample land for settlement. But my hon. Friends, who have been so keen on this matter, may rest assured that if a suitable area can be found in Wales, the mind of those who are in charge will remain open on the question of accepting it and making it one of the holdings. Above all things what is necessary is that the best and most suitable land should be got, and the land which will involve the least possible displacement of existing farmers and workmen.
      Mr. RAFFAN: Would you take a deer park which is suitable?
      Mr. ACLAND: If it were suitable land, yes, of course; but as the hon. Member knows perfectly well, it would be impossible to find land of the quality which we want for these men used as a deer park or for any such purpose at the present time. I challenge him or anybody else to find land of a 1,000 or 2,000 acres used as a deer forest or anything of that kind which would be anything like good enough for the purpose we have in view.
      Mr. OUTHWAITEwas understood to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman had inquired with regard to a certain estate.
      Mr. ACLAND: If the hon. Member knew the quality of the land I think it would be some of the last land that he would mention in this connection. There is a great difference between land which may be successfully farmed as a farm of 200 or 300 acres, and land which can be successfully farmed as we want it to be by small men in a community of holdings. Another point in the speech of the hon. Member, which rather amused me, was where he spoke of the conditions of this scheme. If he is so extremely afraid as to its success, I wondered why Wales was so desperately keen to get one of these colonies, and why that demand should have been so carefully organised as it has

      143
      been! It seemed to me that Wales saw well enough that this scheme was going to be a success; it was because she saw it was a good thing that she wanted to have a share in it. The most interesting speech, I think the House will agree, was that made by the hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mr. L. Scott). It was full of suggestions, and I am glad that one of its suggestions was echoed by the speech, which also was full of interest, by the hon. Member for the Wilton Division (Colonel C. Bathurst), namely, that it will not be a really fair experiment, or one which will really test and prove what you want tested and proved, if it is started under the artificial expensive and difficult conditions prevailing in a time of war. I think the suggestion that it would be right for some action to be taken which would result in the scheme being started as it would have been started if it had been begun, say, five years ago, or as we hope it would be started if it were started five years hence, was an extremely valuable suggestion, and of course I will see that we do the best we can with it.
      I was also obliged to the hon. Member for talking about the work which lies before the county councils in helping to provide settlements of small holders. He said, quite truly, that the Report of the Committee contained many suggestions as to improvements of the existing Small Holdings Act. Having put those suggestions into legal language and practically made a draft Bill of them, I think we are at present consulting the county councils as to their views about amending the Act in the way suggested by the Committee. Certainly the question of having a separate Bill to amend the Small Holdings Act in order to make it easier for the county councils to carry out their work, and work of this kind, which I quite agree they ought to do after the War, has been under very definite consideration and has made considerable progress. A further suggestion which also ought to be fruitful was that while reclamation ought to be considered as quite a separate question, as indeed it must if we are to make any progress with it, yet it is not too early to consider whether we could not set to work young prisoners or people of that kind on large works of reclamation in certain suitable parts of the country. I do not believe that that sort of land can at all quickly be made suitable for small holdings. I believe it is a question certainly of years
      144
      before such land can, first of all, be reclaimed and got into a condition for agriculture at all, and, secondly, be so worked as to make it possible to ask small holders to take it. It is only after being worked as a big concern, by big men with plenty of capital to put into it, and treated in a big way, not being split up into small areas, that land not yet reclaimed can ultimately be made available for settlement by small men. But that that is an urgent question which ought, if possible, to be tackled soon I entirely agree. My hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Dundas White) referred to the Lands Clauses Acts. The Clauses of the Lands Clauses Acts that we intend to apply are not restrictive, and they do not contain anything of which he need be afraid. For instance, they help owners to make a title when the title is in a sense defective, when if the Clauses of the Lands Clauses Act were not used it would be much more expensive and take much longer to establish a title under which anyone would buy.
      Mr. WHITE: I did not take exception to the Lands Clauses Acts being brought in for this purpose. What I suggested was that in so far as they were brought in the modifications of them proposed in the Acquisition of Land Bill should apply to this Bill as well.
      Mr. ACLAND: I think those modifications apply not to the part that we are adopting, but to the part that we are not adopting at all. I also very fully agree with him that nothing but the best land is any good for this purpose. I agree so-fully and completely that I will not expand that point. There was the question raised by the hon. Member who spoke last as to-whether I think this is really his point it should not be made optional for settlers to purchase as well as to lease the land when the time comes for them to take up holdings of their own. I have no objection to sale as such. I think, however, the condition of these colonies make it necessary that very stringent conditions should be attached to sales; that the security you get under sale should be extremely difficult to distinguish from the' security you get under tenancy, under the State, or it may be, the county council. After all, if land were to be sold outright, it would, I think, have to be coupled with the condition that if the land were in any way neglected the tenant would be capable of being turned out bag and baggage, whether or not the owner of it. It would

      145
      not simply do that in a holding of this kind the man who, say, neglected properly to spray for disease, or who in other ways endangered the whole of the adjoining land, should be allowed to do so. Therefore, you must keep that kind of option. You cannot under this system give absolute ownership in the sense of the old phrase of "allowing a man to do what he likes with his own." There will have to be the condition, that he will have to take care of the land, and would not have to mortgage or resell his land, except on conditions that might be decided to be perfectly suitable.
      Sir W. BEALE: I do not know whether you can attach freehold land, but you can attach land that is leasehold; but that is in favour of the right hon. Gentleman's argument.
      Mr. ACLAND: I was only going to say this: that these sort of conditions are essential, whether you call it tenure or security of tenure. Whether you can and do sell, so long as these sort of conditions are preserved, I do not mind; but it is essential to have conditions of that kind.
      Mr. SCOTT: The right hon. Gentleman should remember these conditions are attached to holdings which are sold under the Small Holders Act of 1908.
      Mr. ACLAND: Yes, I think that is so.
      Mr. SCOTT: By Section 12.
      Mr. ACLAND: It may be for that reason that ownership under those conditions is so very little distinguishable from tenancy under security that so very few of the county council tenants have expressed any desire to become owners. It is clear enough, at any rate, that the Bill, whatever else it does, does not do anything to exclude the possibility of ownership, so long as conditions which are essential to the life of the community-conditions which would prevent any single person doing harm to the rest-are adequately preserved. That is, of course, an absolutely essential part of the idea. If any attempt were made by those responsible to alienate the land in any way that would enable harm to be done by a careless owner or anything of that kind, I am afraid I could not hold out any hope of being able to accept Amendments to help that. I am sure the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not want anything of that kind.
      146
      I hope now the House will allow us to have the Second Reading of the Bill. I thank hon. Members very much for the most informing and interesting Debate that we have had.
      Mr. OUTHWAITE: If the object of this Bill be to settle some 300 men upon the land it would not be worth discussing; but when we hear explained that this is an experiment likely to lead to a solution of the problem which will exist after the War, of increasing the occupancy of the land, and of the production in this country, we have a right, I think, to consider it from that point of view. We have to-consider what are the conditions likely to-arise so as to be able best to understand whether this Bill offers any hope whatsoever. On the declaration of peace, whenever it comes, there will be millions of men discharged from the munitions works-and from the Army. You will have trade very largely disrupted. There will be art enormous increase of taxation; and it is-very necessary for this country that there should be a greatly increased production. In the general scheme of things, we ought to see if we can meet the changed conditions by an increase of our production by the further utilisation of soil. My criticism of this Bill is that it takes no regard for such conditions as will exist after the War. It follows the old conventional lines. It goes, in the first place, by the way of land purchase, and recognises to the full the right of the owner to the possession of the soil. I myself am confident that this War is going to work a revolution in the minds of men in this particular regard. The Member for Wiltshire Division spoke quite pathetically and in accents of generosity about what we must do for these-men when they return-these men who-have so gallantly fought to defend the soil. We have heard this kind of talk. I do not think that the issue will be decided so much from that point of view. It will not be decided from the aspect of generosity on the part of the landowner. These millions, of men will themselves have something to say on the question. They have been told that they have fought to defend British soil, have saved it from invasion, and from ownership by another nation, and I think they will regard this land as their land. In any question of any method of dealing with the land, and in discovering the solution of this problem, it is, I think, from that aspect these men will regard it. This is the aspect from which I regard it

      147
      This Bill makes a start on certain lines. It is an experiment. I hold that if that experiment is a success on the present lines, it will in itself check further development, because the more the State comes into the market to acquire land, the more certainly will the price of land rise according to the increased demand. That is the rock. It is on the rock of mrestricted land monopolies and sacrosanct ideas of property that this scheme will fail. On this rock all schemes of the kind have failed in this and in other countries. The hon. Member for Devizes said he did not see why this country—"our land;' he called it-could not provide as good an opportunity, or a better, than is being offered by, or will be offered by, the Dominions. I quite agree with him that it is here on the soil of England that men should have the best opportunity of providing for themselves and their families. It has always seemed to be absurd that men should be driven out of this country to the uttermost ends of the earth, to Australia, say, which is 14,000 miles away, there to cultivate products which have to be sent back across the ocean thousands of miles, to be sold here in the markets of England-that they should have to cultivate territories abroad when they might have utilised the land here. Why cannot we provide as good an opportunity as these Dominions provide? These Dominions I am speaking particularly for the moment of Australia-have striven to provide opportunities for men to settle upon the land upon just such proposals as we have now before us, and Australia is strewn from end to end with the wreckages of such schemes as this one. I would not expect, at any rate, some Members on the other side of the House to accept my view on this question as regards Australia, but I am going to quote an authority with whom they will all be satisfied, an authority who has been proclaimed as having almost divine inspiration in this country during the last few months. I refer to the Prime Minister of Australia the Prime Minister of a Labour party. Mr. Hughes happens to be Prime Minister of Australia because the first time in 1910 the Labour party went to the country on a programme of Land Reform-an outright attack upon land monopoly, and for the purpose of that election they issued a manifesto. From its somewhat flamboyant style I have no doubt it was drawn up by Mr. Hughes himself, but, at any
      148
      rate, he led the van of the electoral activities of that time. I want to read some extracts from that manifesto. It says:
      "Land monopoly is the curse of Australia. With immense areas of fertile land within reasonable distance of great centres of population, blessed with a regular rainfall, sufficient to support fifty millions, a population of less than five millions cannot obtain land for its own limited requirements. The foundation of all national greatness and prosperity must rest on some form of agriculture or pastoral pursuits. In the Commonwealth 80 per cent, live in the towns, and over (60 per cent, are congregated in the six capital cities of the State. Much conditions are unnatural If we do not destroy land monopoly, it will surely destroy us."
      He goes on to say:
      "Land monopoly, then, bars the way to a successful policy of immigration, imperils our national safety, restrains our development, threatens our very existence. Land monoply is a upas tree; its deadly roots are firmly imbedded in the earth … During the last few years it has overshadowed everything. We have only dallied and tampered with the matter."
      —as we have dallied with it.
      "Schemes have never been developed."
      Those schemes are all on the lines of this scheme we have been discussing. He goes on to say:
      "Larger estates are growing to-day faster than settlement schemes are cutting them up. It is like attempting to bale the ocean with a sieve. Something more drastic must be resorted to. There is but one practical step … and that is a graduated tax on land values."
      Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think that is going rather beyond the scope of the Second Reading of the Bill.
      Mr. OUTHWAITE: With all due deference, I was just pointing out that this scheme goes upon the lines of other schemes which have proved to be failures. Take another case—the Dominion of South Africa, where, after the War there, they had tremendous land settlement schemes brought into operation, and we know what an utter failure they were. There was an eminent gentleman, whose name I sometimes see on the Notice Paper, and I expect he is the same gentleman I met in Johannesburg who was interested in this question. He is now a Brigadier-General. I may be mistaken, but I think it is highly probable he is the same gentleman. He pointed out the initiation of those schemes. He said that "Lord Milner went about buying land with a brass band," and the result was that, as these schemes came into operation, the price of land was raised, and, I believe, every land settlement scheme was a hopeless failure for that reason. I remember talking to a very intelligent old Boer, and he said to me, " At the start, we Boers determined not to sell our land, but afterwards we

      149
      thought we will sell it to the settlement scheme, get a high price, they will all fail, and then we will buy back our land at a much lower cost. "That is precisely what they did. When schemes are based on land purchase, as the demand increases, if at all successful, the price rises, and the man put upon the land then becomes merely a slave of the soil.
      Reference has been made to Denmark several times during this Debate. I myself am interested in the question of the development of small holdings in Denmark. I have been over the holdings there, and I was fortunate in seeing some of the leaders of the Economic Reform Movement of Denmark who knew the whole case, and they told me that, in the early days of the cutting up of the land there, land had been acquired at a reasonable price, and, I believe, because there was a heavy Land Tax operating at that time, but it was afterwards removed and the price of land rose. In the early days they got land cheaply, we will say for the sake of argument, and the peasants so established were successful, but when I was there five or six years ago they told me the development had been wholly checked because of the rise in the price of land, and those tenants who had acquired property of recent years had become, as I say, slaves to the soil. To such a point had the conditions come that a great movement was initiated in Denmark, and has been a comparative success, for the system of taxation of land values to break down land monopoly and make land cheap, and legislation has been carried for that purpose. I just desire to give those illustrations of what must be an obvious truth, that, as you set out to acquire land, as demand on the part of the State on behalf of individuals increases, so does the price of land rise, and the whole scheme comes to an-inevitable failure. The point of my argument really is this, that, as I have said, I believe the men, when they return from the War, will come back with different conceptions in their mind from that underlying this Bill. It seems to me that it would be grotesque to tell these men, after fighting for their country and undergoing the horrors of the trenches in order to save this land from invasion, and then turn round and say to them, "This land of England belongs to a few hundred thousand persons in the main, and before you can have a foothold on the soil of this country you must pay a high price for it."
      150
      I understand that when land is to be acquired some £40 an acre is to be paid for it, and that for the small holdings the cost of the buildings and capitalisation something like £1,000 is required. When you put men on the land upon these conditions, paying such a high price for the land and adding the cost of improvements, and on the top of that the heavy rates assessed upon small holdings, the profit will not go into the pockets of the workers, and you will have to find some better way and some more fundamental method of reform. I do not think it can be applied unless you recognise some direct principle that the land is a national possession intended for the benefit of all, and that its monopoly is a flagrant wrong. Until you do as they have done in the Dominions, particularly in Australia and New Zealand, that is, provide an opportunity for the people on the land, realising that land monopoly must be destroyed, you will never solve such a problem as this. The very conditions that will arise after the War in the region of finance will inevitably compel that method to be applied, so vast will be the debt, so gigantic will be the increase of taxation that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have to tax heavily all national assets such as land, and by that process of taxation you will get the only solution of this problem and you will compel everybody who owns land either to use it or let it go to those who will use it.
      Mr. MORTON: Undoubtedly Scotland is very much affected by the land question, and perhaps more so than any other part of the United Kingdom. It is much to be regretted that the Government should have brought in such a poor Bill as this, and I hope they will be ashamed of it before we have done with it in Committee. It is still further to be regretted that the Government of this country can never be induced to do anything until we have to face the effects of a dreadful war. I should like to see a reform of the land question carried out without a war driving us to it. In 1905, at the Albert Hall, the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman promised that we should colonise our own country, and that is what should be done, but up to the present nothing practical has been done in that direction. We are told that Scotland is to have 2,000 acres under this Bill, but what are the facts with regard to the country which I humbly represent? There we have nearly 400,000 acres that we want and which have been mapped, scheduled,

      151
      and marked off by Royal Commissions as being fit for small holdings and to increase the present holdings, and yet only 2,000 acres is to be offered to the whole of Scotland. What has been done in the last few years with regard to Scotland on this question? In 1908 we got a Land Bill and £175,000 was voted, but instead of going forward on this question the Government have put the clock back, and each year without any excuse the question of land reform has been stopped.
      In 1895 we got a report from the Crofting counties that there were over 2,000,000 acres of land there fit to increase holdings, and I should really like to see the Government do something in this matter. We want something done, and we do not want the question played with as it is played with by the present Bill. I dare say we shall have an opportunity in Committee of emphasising our opinion with regard to this Bill, and I shall try to induce the Government to do something more. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill seems to think that the Government can do as they like in the matter. He told us that the Government would not do any more, but no one has a right to say the Government will not do this or that, and it is for the House of Commons to determine what shall be done, and then the Government must obey. I dare say it is exceedingly difficult now to get Labour Members on the Treasury Bench to understand that they are the servants of the people and must do what the House of Commons tells them should be done. I hope we shall deal with the land question in a proper way and give the people all the land they want at fair rents with security of tenure. The land is God's gift to the people, and the people ought to have it at fair rents.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.[Mr. Acland.]

      POLICE, ETC. (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL.
      As amended, considered.
      POLICE, ETC. (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL.

        CLAUSE 2—(Payments to Constables Serving in the Naval and Military Forces.)
        (1) Where before the passing of this Act a police authority has resolved, promised, sanctioned or agreed to make to any
        152
        constable serving in His Majesty's forces for the purposes of the present War, payments in excess of the amounts authorised by the Police Constables (Naval and Military Service) Acts, 1914 and 1915, any such excess payments up to the date of the passing of this Act, or such later date as may be determined by the Secretary of State, shall be deemed to have been lawfully made, and the Secretary of State may, if he thinks fit, sanction the continuance of such excess payments after such date as aforesaid, and shall do so in any case where it appears to him that the constable joined His Majesty's forces in reliance on such resolution, promise, sanction, or agreement, and that the amount of the excess is not unreasonable. In the case of any constable who dies whilst employed on naval or military service in respect of whom no pension or gratuity is payable from the Police Fund, the police authority shall have power to return to any of his dependants, as defined in Section one of the Police Reservists (Allowances) Act, 1914, the rateable deductions which have been made from his pay towards pension.
        Amendment made: In Sub-section (1), after the word "dies" ["dies whilst employed "], insert the words" or has died."

        CLAUSE 7—(Provisions for Securing Welfare of Workers in Factories and Workshops.)
        Sub-section (3), paragraph (c) provide for the workers concerned being associated in the management of the arrangements, .accommodation or other facilities for which provision is made, in any case where a portion of the cost is contributed by the workers.
        The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Herbert Samuel): I beg to move, at the end of paragraph (c), to add the words " but no-contribution shall be required from the workers in any factory or workshop, except for the purpose of providing additional or special benefits which, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, could not reasonably be required to be provided by the employer alone, and unless two-thirds at least of the workers affected in that factory or workshop, on their views being ascertained in the prescribed manner, assent."
        Mr. ANDERSON: The whole experiment to be made here is a new and most

        153
        promising one, and I very heartily congratulate the Home Secretary on the measure, and hope it will be a great success. I am glad that the workers are going to share in the management of these arrangements, but I want to raise a point of detail in regard to the deductions that are apparently to be made under certain conditions from the wages of the workpeople. It appears that certain things can be done, and if by a ballot two-thirds of the workpeople decide in favour of it they will partly pay for them. In many shops the workers are constantly changing so that twelve months hence you might have a large number who were not present when the ballot was taken. Is it proposed that only one ballot shall be taken, and that new people shall be subject to that ballot and have deductions made from their wages because of it? I want to have a clear understanding what things are going to be free and for what things the workpeople are going to pay. If you are going to introduce suitable lavatory arrangements on a more elaborate scale, I do not think you have any right to ask the workpeople to pay any part of the cost. It is a matter for which the employer ought to be made to pay. There are heaps of other things which in my opinion ought to fall upon the employer. I therefore want to ask the right hon. Gentleman what he has in mind when he speaks of the things for which the workpeople will probably have to pay.
        It would never be expected, of course, that the employer would pay for food, but even there we must guard against any arrangements by which workpeople might be compelled to pay for something they did not desire to use. If a minority are not going to make use of a thing, why should they be asked to pay because the majority have decided that some deduction from the wages should be made? The Truck Act ought not to be modified in this .manner, and it ought not to be a question of the employer making deductions from the, wages of the workpeople for these purposes. I quite agree that there may be circumstances in which the workpeople would very willingly subscribe for some common purpose, but even then some kind of workers' committee ought to be formed, and the workpeople themselves ought to arrange with regard to the deductions to me made. I therefore strongly urge that as it is to be a voluntary decision, because you are going to decide by ballot, the payment should at the same time be volun-
        154
        tary. That is particularly necessary in the case of lower paid women workers. There are many well-paid workpeople who would not miss some deduction from their wages for this purpose, but you have to be particularly careful when you come down to the women and some of the labourers. I therefore want a much clearer statement than I have yet received on this matter, and I should be very glad to have it from the Home Secretary. These are criticisms with regard to very important points of detail, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will think out the matter very carefully and see that the very best arrangement is made. When all is said and done, however, I desire to thank the Home Office for having taken a definite step forward. I believe the workpeople will give it their hearty support, and if it is carried out in the right spirit it will add to the dignity and self-respect of the workpeople of this country.
        Mr. SAMUEL: I wish to express my grateful acknowledgement to the hon. Member for the expressions he has used with respect to this Clause. I fully share his hope that it will enable a considerable advance to be made in the helpfulness and convenience of the conditions in a very large proportion of our workshops in the country. I notice also he says that he recognises that there might be cases in which the workpeople would be very ready to pay for some exceptional and unusual benefit which might be provided under an Order such as this. I am entirely at one with him in considering that the greater part of the matters covered by this Clause, such as arrangements for preparing or heating and taking meals, the supply of drinking water, and other things are proper items in the equipment of any well-ordered factory or workshop, and certainly ought not to be charged to the workpeople. That was always our intention in framing this Clause. We look forward to administering it in that spirit. It would only be in rare and exceptional cases that some charge would be made. In consequence of what was said in the Debate in the Committee Stage of the Bill, I have put down the Amendment which appears on the Paper. It says:
        "No contribution shall be required from the workers in any factory or workshop, except for the purpose of providing additional or special benefits which, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, could not reasonably be required to be provided by the employer alone,

        155
        and unless two-thirds at least of the workers affected in that factory or workshop, on their views being ascertained in the prescribed manner, assent."
        I should like to point out that those words, "In the opinion of the Secretary of State" were put in for this reason. If the Clause had read "Benefits which could not reasonably be required to be provided by the employer alone," a recalcitrant employer might act on his own opinion, whether or not it was a reasonble charge to be made, and it is very possible that the Courts might take a view which would be much less favourable to the workpeople than the view taken by the Home Office. This is much more suitably a matter for administration than for a legal decision, and it was thought desirable in this as in many other similar cases to reserve the matter for the opinion of the Government Department concerned. Of course, if the Government Department did anything unreasonable, the matter could always be ventilated in this House to which the Secretary of State is responsible. As I mentioned in Committee the kind of subject which we have in view, and which would fall within the purview of this part of the Clause, is such a matter as the provision of baths. Of course, there are cases now where under the dangerous trade regulations baths are essential, and where employers are already required to provide them without any payment being made by the workpeople, but in industries subject to ordinary conditions a bath would be an additional amenity. Parliament has already legislated in the case of mines that where baths are compulsorily provided at the pithead the employer may charge the workpeople for the use of them. I indicated the other day that possibly canteens might develop into something in the nature of clubs, and' the workpeople would be quite ready to pay their subscription to a club of that character. But generally it is impossible, and I am sure my hon. Friends who are practical men will realise it fully, to foresee at any given date what may be the future development in a matter such as this. Twenty-five or thirty years hence there may be accommodation, which may have become fairly usual in factories and workshops, of a kind which we do not now anticipate, and my view of the Clause generally is that you ought not to preclude the workpeople, where they are ready to do so, from having the benefit
        156
        of amenities which it would not be proper or reasonable to charge to the employer alone. You ought not to put the Home Secretary in the dilemma of having to say either, " I am very sorry, I cannot make this Order because there is no power for the workpeople to pay," or else to say," I will make this Order, although I know the employer ought not fairly to be charged with this amenity." If you allow the workpeople, in the case in which my hon. Friend admits they should pay, to pay their share, it is more likely that use will be made of this Clause than otherwise. My hon. Friend asks, "Suppose that one generation of workpeople in the factory goes and another comes, in?" It is not proposed to take a ballot at intervals. Wherever you want to establish a thing in a workshop it would naturally come about that some would leave and others would come in. That is essential, and I do not see how any scheme could be made in any other way. With respect to the method of payment, if the workpeople of a factory expressed their willingness to pay for certain amenities, it would be very inconvenient to require that the money should be collected from individuals week by week voluntarily. It is much better to enable payments to be made as deductions are made for the purposes of the Insurance Acts and so forth. There is all the difference in the world between a deduction made in pursuance of a Home Secretary's Order and one made by an employer without authority r which is in the nature of truck. As my hon. Friend is aware, in the mines week by week deductions for various matters are made with the full assent of the miners' trade union, as a simple and convenient means of collection. Instead of going to the trouble and difficulty of collecting these contributions week by week from the men individually, by their trade unions, or otherwise, the unions and the employers agree that deductions should be made at the pay office at the moment when the payment is made, and I do not think, in view of the safeguards this Clause contains, that there will be any difficulty or evil arise in the operation of this portion of it. Let me again express my appreciation of the welcome the hon. Gentleman gave to the purpose of the Clause.
        Mr. GOLDSTONE: While I am in full agreement with the desire and intention of the Home Secretary to improve the accommodation in the workshops and factories, I see a great danger in the scheme

        157
        for administration by Order which he proposes to introduce. In practice it may very well amount to this: Under a regime possibly less generous than that represented by the right hon. Gentleman—in effect it may bring us a variation of the Truck Act depending on the good will or ill-will of some particular Home Secretary; and to that extent I see a grave danger. I am very doubtful of the policy of transferring to Order in Council matters which have been safeguarded to working people by Statute. This is varying a Statute, perhaps with the best intention, and giving an authority which will vary, according to the Home Secretary for the time being, by Order in Council something which has been established as the result of long and difficult work by the trade unions of the country. That is one thing about which I am very doubtful in this Bill, and yet in regard to which I desire to see the authority of the Home Office used for improving the accommodation of our workshops and factories. The right hon. Gentleman did not deal with the very important point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Anderson). My hon. Friend made an appeal on behalf of the underpaid workers. As I understand this Clause it will be possible, by Order in Council—assuming that two-thirds of the workers in a particular factory assent—
        Mr. SAMUEL: Hear, hear!
        10.0 P.M.
        Mr. GOLDSTONE: Yes, to apply compulsory deduction of wages. That deduction will extend to all the workers in the factory, and may extend to those who live sufficiently near to get the accommodation which is charged for in their own home. I want to be assured that those people, particularly those under a certain minimum wage, will not be called upon to make contributions in respect of accommodation which they may possibly get at home, and for which possibly they cannot afford to pay for the time being. I venture to make this suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman that in issuing any Order he shall specifically exempt from the application of the compulsory deduction all those in receipt of less than a stated minimum, and that in respect of the accommodation provided it shall be free accommodation in respect of all persons in receipt of wages below, say, 25s. a week, or whatever for the time being represents the minimum amount necessary to pre-
        158
        serve a reasonable scale of existence for the people concerned. These are the two points I venture to reinforce. The variation from the Truck Act by Order in Council, which is dependent entirely on the attitude of the Home Secretary for the time being, and, secondly, that the right hon. Gentleman shall make sure that persons in receipt of wages below the stated minimum shall receive the benefit of accommodation but shall not suffer a reduction in wages. The principle is in the Insurance Acts. Wherever the employer chooses to penalise his workers or to get cheap labour, he pays a larger portion of the premium in respect of the insured person. The principle can be applied here, and should be applied in this Act, and you should throw on the employer a larger proportion of the cost in respect of those he chooses to employ at a rate which is below a reasonable minimum. I venture to press this upon the sympathetic attention of the Home Secretary.
        Mr. TYSON WILSON: I really had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would not have pressed this Clause, because I gather from his answer to my hon. Friend's question in regard to people who make no use whatever of the amenities in the workshops that they will have to pay whether they make use of them or not. Is that so?
        Mr. SAMUEL: It depends on the circumstances of the particular case.
        Mr. WILSON: Suppose mess-rooms are provided, and it is thought necessary to deduct 2d. or 3d. a week—
        Mr. SAMUEL: No, it would not apply.
        Mr. WILSON: If it were a club, and if the workmen did not want to make use of the club, are you going to compel them to contribute towards the upkeep of it?
        Mr. SAMUEL: I should say not in an ordinary case. One cannot foresee every case that might come along, but I should say not.
        Mr. WILSON: This is a point I want to get quite clear. What I am quite clear about is that a few years ago this House refused a trade union, after it had got a vote of its Members, permission to take a levy in respect of labour representation.
        Mr. WING: They do it now.
        Mr. WILSON: They cannot do it legally-
        Mr. WING: They do it.
        Mr. WILSON: The hon. Member's quarrel is not "with me, but with the people who live in his Constituency. He .suggests they are doing something which is illegal, and perhaps they will deal with .him when the opportunity arises for making a statement of that kind. I want the, right hon. Gentleman, if he is going to press this to a conclusion, to make it quite clear that no workman or workwoman who makes no use of the amenities provided under this Clause, shall be compelled to pay. The right hon. Gentleman can find a precedent for that in many Acts of Parliament that have been passed during the last ten years. I beg him to drop the Clause for the time being.
        Mr. SAMUEL: The whole Clause?
        Mr. WILSON: The part of the Clause with regard to compelling the people to pay. I am quite certain that if in some districts any attempt is made to deduct money from the wages of the workpeople for the purposes named in the Clause, we shall have labour trouble and strikes.
        Mr. SAMUEL: Two-thirds of the workpeople have to express their assent.
        Mr. WILSON: Take the building industry. You may have 150 men working for one employer to-day. In a month's time he has only fifty, and perhaps in a year's time it will be 150 again. The Order is in operation and the people then have no choice. That being so, they will resent interference in matters of this kind. I beg the right hon. Gentleman to make it quite clear in the Clause that no compulsion will be applied to those workpeople who do not make use of any amenity for which the charge is made.
        The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Brace): I really do not understand the attitude of my hon. Friends towards this Clause, which, after all, is a real social welfare Clause. My right hon. Friend has put this Clause into the Bill, giving power to the Home Office, when an opportunity presents itself, to assist the workmen to improve their general conditions of life and the general conditions of their work. We come here and find that the Clause, to which we attach considerable importance, does not receive at the hands of the direct representatives of Labour that sympathetic consideration that we might have expected. My right hon. Friend has given an undertaking that he will carefully
        160
        observe the desires they have expressed and will see that due precautions shall be taken that the workmen will not be penalised. Do my hon. Friends realise that it is the workmen themselves who will determine whether they will or will not have any scheme of reform in connection with their works or their factory? There must be a two-thirds majority. If the two-thirds majority is not obtained, no scheme can be put into operation. If the two-thirds majority is obtained, it must have a binding effect upon the whole of the people in that concern.
        Mr. ANDERSON: Whether they wish it or not?
        Mr. BRACE: Why should my hon. Friends take that view when the whole of their life-work has been based upon the principle of collective bargaining and that the workmen are entirely helpless unless they move altogether? They must really take the mass of the people in any given factory, workshop, or industry as a unit. If they do that, they must pay the workpeople the compliment of believing that unless the scheme proposed is of real value there will be a sufficient majority to vote down any such scheme. I do not want to labour the point. We have had a most unfortunate experience, speaking from the mining standpoint. This House went to considerable trouble in making an arrangement that baths should be placed at the top of the pits so that the workpeople might clean themselves and go to their homes leaving their dirt behind them, but because certain individuals, possibly living near the pits, thought they could do without them, their votes were used to break down the scheme, which I venture to say now, as I have said many times before, would have been of enormous value to the masses of the mining population. I hope my hon. Friends will not concentrate their defence on the rights of individuals, when by the recognition of those rights you are going to destroy the opportunity of a collective body bringing in some scheme of social reform. I hope they will see that this is really a social welfare Clause and will give it their votes and support, because by doing so they will be helping the workmen themselves.
        Mr. WING: The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill must be somewhat disappointed at the reception given to this Clause from below the Gangway. The introduction of this new principle and

        161
        doctrine of the minority voting down the majority is quite a new order from that quarter. It is remarkable that there was very little mercy for the minority at a time when they held certain opinions. Under this Clause there may be certain schemes which will be of great assistance, even to those who are supposed to have small wages. I assume that a cooperative movement, say, in the provision of food and canteens, may be a means whereby persons may find it more to their advantage to feed at the factory collectively than to feed individually. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will stand by the Bill, especially the Clause as amended, and will go to a Division upon it.
        Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I am afraid there is a good deal of misunderstanding about this matter. I am perfectly amazed at the speech of the Under-Secretary. The whole point is this—I do not want to enter into any controversy with him, but I would like to explain to him the position in which he finds himself and we find ourselves—supposing we get the two-thirds majority at any given moment in favour of one of these reforms, such as canteens, or baths, or anything like that, how is that two-thirds going to be made effective? Once voted, is the effect of the vote to be permanent? Obviously you cannot ask an employer to put in baths on the understanding that they are to be paid for, and then allow the employes to say a year after, or the following year, that they will cry off the obligation of the original two-thirds vote. We have, as a matter of fact, now in this country model employers who tell us they can afford to give baths, canteens, and supply hot water and so on, without any charge being imposed on the workpeople. If this Clause goes in and becomes part and parcel of the social legislation of this country, what I am afraid is going to happen is that all future advances of that character are going to be paid for by the workpeople. The American experience is particularly fertile on this question. It has been found that these things are economically valuable, that they yield a profit to the employer, and that the workshops run on these lines are far more profitable than those run on less efficient lines. Instead of that being made a charge upon industry, as we think it ought to be, the line that is taken by this Amendment, for the first time so far as general legislation is concerned—it is not the first time so far as special legislation
        162
        is concerned—is that all these economic improvements in the humanising of industry and in the attending to the human side of labour are going to be paid for by labour.
        Mr. WING: By order of the Home Secretary.
        Mr. MACDONALD: My hon. Friend knows perfectly well that we might put our lives in the hands of the existing Home Secretary, and our money too, but that is no guarantee. He comes to-day and he goes to-morrow. We have had certain changes effected during the last week which warn us on that point. It is a most dangerous thing. The intentions of the Home Office with regard to the Amendment are excellent. Nobody disputes that, but if this Clause is put in the Bill it is not this Home Office and this Home Secretary we do not trust, but the sort of new principle in social legislation which I believe is the wrong principle which is open to all sorts of abuse, and is starting a development of industrial amelioration on totally wrong lines. That is why we are inclined to oppose this Amendment.
        Sir G. TOULMIN: The Debate has very largely turned, of course, on the Amendment of the Home Secretary. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman should consider that the points which have been raised in regard to his Amendment imply opposition to the first Sub-section of the Clause. Many of us can see in that first Sub-section very large and very valuable improvements being made in our industrial system. I think probably my hon. Friend (Mr. Tyson Wilson) went rather further than he would like the House to go when he asked for the withdrawal of the Clause. But there is rather a new point in regard to making orders for payment by workpeople for the provision of any of these improvements. It really becomes a question of trust in the Home Office. I rather think that some of the expressions of my right hon. Friend suggesting future developments of a very large character of the nature of clubs have rather tended to raise fears which have been expressed. One would like to know whether there is an idea that people who are going to use these new amenities are to pay according to the use they make of them, or for instance in the other point according to the wages that they make. If they do not use these appliances is it to be a levy on the general wages which are

        163
        paid to them? I do not know whether some of my hon. Friends who are rather fearful recognise the effect of Sub-section (7), that—
        "Any Order made under this Section may be revoked at any time in whole or in part by the Secretary of State, without prejudice to the making of a further Order."
        If there were a temporary majority, it might be a two-thirds majority, and if subsequently changed and the amenity ceased to be agreeable to the majority of the employés concerned, I presume one would have to take Parliamentary action in order to secure that these contributions were not levied for amenities which " were not used. All the same, I am quite sure that in more than one section of the House the use that is made of this Clause will be very carefully and rather jealously watched in regard to the imposition of what in the case of one set of employés may be a forced and not a voluntary contribution.
        Amendment agreed to.
        Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
        Mr. DENNISS: We had a very full discussion of this matter on the Committee stage of the Bill, and we had a Division, and I think nearly everyone in the House who heard the Debate voted for the Amendment. Unfortunately, the Bill being called a Police Bill, this provision for the abolition of the certifying surgeons in factories, who are of such importance to the industries of this country, was sandwiched in between police pensions and the lunacy arrangements, and other Members who came in thought they were voting for police pensions, and we were outvoted. The question of the abolition of the reports of certifying surgeons on accidents in factories is one which has been repeatedly approved by Parliament, and it is only recently that the Committee sat which made a report that they thought some economy might be made by abolishing those reports as regards accidents. I did not oppose it on the ground that the certifying surgeons had any vested interests. I would not under any circumstances take up such a position. I opposed it on behalf not only of the operatives who were affected, but also of the employers. I read to the Home Secretary a petition which
        164
        came from my Constituency, signed by the whole of the employers and operatives in the cotton trade there, the largest in England, with some 20,000,000 spindles, some 17,000 looms, and 60,000 operatives, that this Clause should not be persisted in, and speaking of the value and the safeguard to them of the certifying surgeon's report. Inasmuch as there are only 200 inspectors in the whole Kingdom and one-third of them are abroad at the present time or working on munitions, and that there are 2,000 certifying surgeons who report upon accidents, the proposal in this Bill to abolish the reports of these 2,000 certifying surgeons and not even to increase the number of inspectors, although the Home Office say that it is absolutely necessary that the number of inspectors should be increased after the War, leaves the industries of this country and the factories of this country in great jeopardy, because in the great check upon the reports of accidents by the employers the safety of the workpeople, especially of women, depends in a large measure, when you have such representatives of Labour as the hon. Members for Ince (Mr. Walsh) and the hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Bowerman), among others, saying that the reports of the certifying surgeons are of the greatest possible use to the workpeople; when you have a Constituency like mine, the centre of an enormous industry, containing not only an enormous number of cotton mills and cotton operatives, but also the largest machine works in the world and other works, and when one sees the employers and the workpeople joining in asking that these certifying surgeons should be kept to report as a safeguard to themselves, and especially to the women, it is a pity that the right hon. Gentleman has not thought fit to leave this matter open until the end of the War. He did not meet my arguments, which were based upon the statements in the petition. What he said was that the Committee on accidents in 1911 had reported in favour of the abolition of some of the reports of the certifying, surgeons. In their Report the Committee did not propose any such sweeping change as the right hon. Gentleman has made. I objected principally, and I still object to this legislation, on the ground that it is not emergency legislation. It is a permanent alteration of the law, done in war time, an alteration which has been proposed and twice re-jected by Parliament—in 1901 and 1905—

        165
        and pretence that it is for the purpose of economy will not be justified by the result. The money to be saved is very small. There are 2,000 certifying surgeons and their pay is only £12,500, which means a very few £'s each. But it is not expected to save the whole of that amount, because certain of their functions are retained. The report of the Retrenchment Committee on this subject was quite futile or misconceived. They did not know what they were doing, and certainly did not understand the subject. They were told that the Committee had reported on the matter, and they said, therefore, they understood that it would be advisable to stop the reports of the certifying surgeons to save this very small sum. I must express my thanks to the right hon. Gentleman for the concession which he has made in answer to our representations. It is a very considerable concession, but it is not nearly enough. However, it is something substantial, and I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving it.
        Sir H. CRAIK: I did not intervene on the Committee stage of this Bill with regard to Clause 8, on which I have had to differ very seriously from the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. I did not wish on that occasion to add to the strength of his most impregnable argument, namely, that three university Members had spoken against this Clause. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that that was so effective an argument against any Amendment that it never seemed to occur to him, even when the university Members were joined by those Members who spoke for the employés, that for once possibly the university Members might be in the right. The right hon. Gentleman does not really meet the difficulty which I have raised. The point is perfectly broad and perfectly clear. I am not fighting for any professional emolument. It is a trifle. So far as those who have been in correspondence with me are concerned, certainly they did not include any prominent Constituents of mine. I do not know whether any of them are or are not Constituents of mine. I resist this in the interests of what I consider a very important professional matter which is necessary for the welfare of the community. Let the House remember that these certifying surgeons are the people who grant the certificates upon which
        166
        young persons are allowed to work in these factories. I consider that the duties which they perform are of immense value, both from the professional point of view in relation to the work which they have to carry on and in the Interests of the community and of the workers themselves. It is important that the persons who grant these certificates should be in immediate and constant touch with the incidents of the life in factories and workshops, and with the character of the accidents to which the workers are subject. That is not to be set aside by any allusion to unnecessary and duplicate reports, or reports of this or that committee, which told us that this or that thing was unnecessary. The right hon. Gentleman has told us over and over again that these certifying surgeons' reports were merely duplicates of the reports sent up by the inspectors. But where do the inspectors get those reports? Except in a very small percentage of these accident cases, they do not even visit the factories. They do not see the circumstances for themselves at all. They accept the statement of the proprietor. The only check upon that statement was the check by the certifying surgeon who is in constant touch with the worker and acquainted with the work and knows the conditions of the factories. The right hon. Gentleman says, "This is perfectly useless. We have all that is necessary from the proprietor, and we very often find that the certifying surgeon adds nothing." But the report of the proprietor had been subject—he does not know how often or in what particular—to the cheek of the certifying surgeon.
        The Home Secretary says that these certifying surgeons have no knowledge of the mechanical parts of the machinery. That is not what I want. They have knowledge of the workers, with whom they are brought into personal contact when they have been injured. They can learn what sort of injuries are received, what sort of accidents may occur, and I can see that it is of enormous importance, in a time like this, when you have diluted labour so largely employed in most dangerous new developments of machinery, that you should have this personal touch of certifying surgeons as an element to provide for the safety of the workers. The fact that unfortunate university Members who have among their constituents certifying surgeons interested in the welfare of the community,

        167
        and in the completeness of the survey which is given by their profession, happen to be accompanied in their protest by an overwhelming proportion of those who speak for factory workers at least entitles them to be listened to. You have chosen now, under the pretext of emergency legislation, to settle a long-standing dispute which the House has refused to decide in your way on more than one occasion during more than a dozen years, and now that you have got a favourable verdict from the Retrenchment Committee you bring that to bear and settle this dispute under the guise of emergency legislation. That does not give me satisfaction. Glad as I am that the right hon. Gentleman has seen his way to make a certain concession, I do not think that it will prove satisfactory either to the workers or to the certifying surgeons in the part which they take in this work, which they have performed so long, as I contend, with benefit to the community. That is now to depend only on those people in the Home Office and amongst the inspectors, who have uniformly and consistently through a long course of years tried to oust those certifying surgeons from their work. I am not ashamed of the part which University Members have taken in associating themselves with the workers. I am not ashamed, moreover, of the course which party I belong to has taken in the amelioration of factory legislation. For many years this system of certifying surgeons has formed part of factory legislation. You are now, as I regard it, restricting the securities for the workmen, and I prophesy that before very long the system you are now establishing will not work satisfactorily, and will give rise to protest, and the right hon. Gentleman will see reason to regret the step which he is now taking.
        Mr. MACDONALD: I should like to support the Home Office in the step it has taken in this Clause. I can assure the hon. Member opposite that so far as I am concerned, at any rate, this is not a piece of emergency legislation. There was a Committee appointed by the Home Office some years ago charged with the task of investigating the Factory Acts. I happened to be a member of that Committee. We went very carefully into the whole question, and I am perfectly certain that if the hon. Member (Sir H. Craik) had gone through the documents which we
        168
        had to examine he would have seen what were, in the vast majority of cases, the reports of these certifying surgeons, and he would have felt bound, I think, to come to the conclusion to which the Committee came, on which all sections and interests were represented, that this particular part of the certifying surgeon's work was not a very useful one at all. What happens? Nine out of ten of those accidents are purely mechanical accidents. Just through a bad crank of a machine or some carelessness in mechanical appliances, the accident has to be reported to the factory inspector, who, if he does his duty, must inspect the machine and the mechanical cause of the accident. It is not a medical problem; it is not a problem in which a doctor's opinion is of the least value as a doctor's opinion. It is purely a matter for a trained engineer, pre-eminently for a factory inspector.
        Sir H. CRAIK: He does not visit them all?
        Mr. MACDONALD: He ought to. If the hon. Gentlemen will raise that question he will get my support. He ought to visit them, and if there are not enough to visit, they certainly ought to be reinforced in number.
        Sir H. CRAIK: The hon. Member knows that the inspector does not visit more than a very small percentage of the cases dealt with by certifying surgeons.
        Mr. MACDONALD: It is supposed to be and he ought to, and it is his duty to visit every serious accident. That only anticipates another point I want to make. What is the value of a certifying surgeon's visit to a machine accident. It is no good at all. The mere fact that we can see that a man has visited the accident may be misleading. I should much rather face the bare fact that all these accidents are not the subject of visitation by competent men than to ask a doctor to visit the accident which has been caused by a defective machine, because I am perfectly certain that a visitation which has no relation to the cause-of the accident is worse than no visitation at all. The former misleads us into the belief that we are doing something to remove the causes of accidents, whereas if we were told by the Chief Inspector of Factories that there were thousands of accidents that have not been visited at all, then we would take steps to see that a proper visitation takes place.
        Sir H. CRAIK: Surely a surgical examination of the case must often be a very great guide as to how an accident happened, or what caused it.
        Mr. MACDONALD: Really in nine cases out of ten no guide at all. If a finger is crushed and a doctor called in he cannot tell you why it is crushed or what guard is required to the machine to prevent further fingers being crushed, and that is the problem. I come back to my point that an examination and inspection which is not really a technical inspection is worse than no inspection or examination at all. That point of view, at any rate, weighed with me very considerably when I had to make up my mind. When the documents are examined you will find that the factory inspectors' and the certifying surgeons are very largely duplicates. That is a great mistake. We should not have two reports upon the same subject. We ought to put the responsibility upon one man. If the Home Office shows year after year in the Annual Report of the Chief Inspector, that there are so many thousands or hundreds of accidents that have not been the subject of investigation, then let the Home Office be charged with neglect from these benches, and we will remedy the matter. Do not let us go on assuming that inspection is being carried on of an efficient and satisfactory character by doctors who do not know machinery. They are excellent in dealing with results of accidents; but really no good at all in dealing with the causes. Therefore I think this is a very good improvement, and I have the greatest pleasure in supporting the Home Office in this proposal.
        Mr. WATT: I hope the Home Secretary will not for a moment consider with approval the proposal to omit this Clause. He has told us that the Clause will save £12,500 a year, and that the reports of the certifying surgeons are, in the opinion of his Department, useless, being mere repetitions of the reports of the employers. If they are useless, surely the State ought not to continue to pay for them. The Government are constantly being urged to save money, and when they come forward with this proposal to save £12,500 the House immediately, through its University Members and others, complains of this concrete saving. I think the Home Secretary will get the approval of the majority of the House if he adheres to his Clause. There will never be a better opportunity .for saving this money, because the medical
        170
        profession are just now not able to fulfil the demands made upon them. Therefore the right hon. Gentleman is wise in taking the present opportunity of cutting off this £12,500.
        Mr. GOLDSTONE: I am sorry to be in disagreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester (Mr. R. Macdonald). Allowing the spirit of his argument that it is advisable to give the work now undertaken in part at least by the certifying surgeons to the technical inspectors of the Home Office who have special knowledge, my hon. Friend apparently forgets that during this period of War something like one-third of the factory inspectors are with His Majesty's Forces. To that extent the effective overlooking of accidents in factories is diminished. Were it the fact that the Home Secretary proposed to make up the shortage of factory inspectors during the period of the War there might be something to be said, and there would perhaps be less point in the opposition which has been urged. But the fact remains-and it is a very significant and important from the point of view of the people who work in factories and workshops-that their safety is prejudiced to the extent of the diminution of inspection by one-third, and the removal of what was at least a safeguard. The certifying surgeons made ho fewer than 52,000 investigations last year. They are in and out of the factories constantly, and they get, if not a technical knowledge of workshop conditions, what may be called a working knowledge.
        Sir H. CRAIK: A human knowledge.
        Mr. GOLDSTONE: And a knowledge of the human side of the problem. Even the half knowledge from the technical side is at least a safeguard for the life and limb of the workers. I have in mind, particularly, the interests of the young people. There are entering the factories an increasing number of young inexpert people; these inexpert people touch the machinery; and if the inspection is diminished by one-third and we have not the guarantee of the certifying surgeons, it seems to me that we are prejudicing the position of the workers in factories to an extent we ought not to tolerate.
        There is another point. It is assumed by the hon. Member for Glasgow that we are going to save that £12,500. I was under the impression, from what the right hon. Gentleman said in the earlier stage of the Bill, that it is proposed to

        171
        add to the number of factory inspectors, even though one-third resume their normal work of inspection, that is to say, there is to be no ultimate saving. I hope I am right in that-that there is to be no ultimate saving of the £12,500. I sincerely hope it is to be carried through the Estimates, and if what is at the back of the right hon. Gentleman's mind is the employment of some whole-time surgeons to guarantee life and limb, a good deal of my opposition would die away. If it is now the proposal to allow that £12,500. as I believe, usefully spent in keeping a watch on the type of machinery and workshop conditions of the working -class people, to be lost, then I think it will indeed be a sad loss. If for the period of the War the certifying surgeon has gone, and the inspectors are diminished by one-third, surely there is reason why during this period we should not support a position such as this, but make a change, if there is to be a change, at the end of the War. I think my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester has forgotten the fact that in losing the thorough inspection, which we have enjoyed, of the certifying surgeons we are losing that which at least did give us a kind of corroboration of the employers' reports. If the employer's report is not to have behind it the possibilities of the endorsement or non-endorsement of the certifying surgeons, one of the safeguards is gone. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to allow the matter to stand over until the end of the War, and then bring it up again with a view to effecting changes, if they are considered desirable, at that time.
        Mr. A. WILLIAMS: I agree that it is to be regretted that this abolition should take place now without anything being put in its place. I think it is quite clear that there is no economy. It is no secret that a large and more expensive system is very shortly to be put in its place. I have no objection at all to that. I shall be glad to see a better and more efficient system established, even though it was more expensive. I do strongly object to this safeguard being taken away for a certain number of months or years whichever the War may last—and nothing whatever is put in its place. It has been admitted by the Home Secretary, and by the Member for Leicester, that in a certain proportion of cases these reports of the certifying surgeons are
        172
        useful. If that is admitted, the whole case is given away. You are taking away things which are useful in a certain proportion of cases. Nothing can be useful in all cases. They are mostly retained because it may be in 5, 10, or 20 per cent, of cases these reports are useful. The certifying surgeon is called upon expressly to report as to whether machinery is or is not guarded. We are told that he is not a mechanical engineer. That is quite true, but the inspector does not pass an examination in mechanical engineering when appointed. There is no great mystery about the-guarding of machinery. Any man of common sense who has seen machinery for a few times gets to understand its guarding, and can report whether the guard is or is not sufficient. The certifying surgeon has to report whether or not the accident was or was not due to the mismanagement of the machinery by the person who is injured, and various other circumstances. He has to report as to septic poisoning. Is an inspector of factories an authority on septic poisoning? The certifying surgeon has to report upon it. He is the only man who has the right to follow the injured man into any room of any building to which he may be removed. Why take away that right? I admit that the Ameendments put in at our suggestion by the Home Secretary will possibly enable him: to get around some of these difficulties, but they certainly do not enable him to do away with all these difficulties. For these reasons I very much regret that this change should be made prematurely, and before the Home Secretary is ready to put something better in the place of the present system.
        Mr. SAMUEL: On this question of the certifying surgeons on the Second Reading, by leave of the House, I made two speeches, and in Committee I made two speeches, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary made two speeches, one on the Second Reading, and one on the Committee stage—six speeches from the Treasury Bench, and I am not to be tempted to make a seventh, particularly since, on this-occasion, we have had the unusual experience of hearing from other benches kind things said about the Clause, and especially the House must have been interested by the very forcible and the convincing speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester (Mr. R. Macdonald). I would only say this, that I repudiate entirely

        173
        the idea that the Home Office is engaged in anything either out of the desire for economy or any other motive, to lessen the safeguards of the working people of this country. I repudiate that most strongly. The hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Goldstone) said that we were diminishing the effective overlooking of accidents, but it is because, as the hon. Member for Leicester has pointed out, this overlooking of inspection by doctors is not effective for the purpose in view, for that reason, and that reason only, that, with complete equanimity, we ask the House to terminate the present system. The proposal certainly is that after the War we shall use this money, or the greater part of it, to strengthen the inspectorate. [An HON. MEMBER: "No economy!"] Yes, there is always an economy when you cease to waste money-always! And we should refrain from spending this money saved during the War, which is not a time for increasing the officials, however desirable their increase may be. But when the War is over, it is proposed to increase the number of medical inspectors and certain other inspectors, with a view to making our inspectorate more successful even than now.
        With reference to the welfare Clause, I fully appreciate the danger to which the hon. Member for Leicester referred, that we may slip into some system of charging workpeople for amenities and facilities that ought to be properly provided by good employers and by all employers free of cost. The working of the Clause will be most carefully watched from that point of view. I do not anticipate that one scheme in fifty—perhaps even a smaller proportion than that—will include any Clause requiring any contribution from the workpeople at all. But if in other days and under other auspices the Home Office were disposed to fall into the practice of requiring the workpeople to pay, in the first place they have the remedy in their own hands, because they cannot be made to pay unless two-thirds agree to pay, and, in the second place, the working classes are very vocal in these matters, and I am quite sure we should soon hear of it in Parliament and
        174
        elsewhere. Let me thank the House for the assistance they have given by the passage of this Bill. The Amendments made at the instance of various hon. Members have been, I think, all sensible improvements in the Clauses of the Bill, and I firmly believe the forebodings of some hon. Members will not be found in practice to be realised, but that many people throughout the country will have Parliament to thank for a number of very useful Clauses.
        Mr. RAWLINSON: I have had the privilege of hearing some three or four out of the seven Government speeches in favour of the Bill, and also the speech of the hon. Member for Leicester. The House will hardly believe me, but I am still not in the least convinced that the Government have made a good case. There is to be an economy during the War, apparently a very necessary economy, but afterwards there will be no economy, and what the right hon. Gentleman has just said is that he is going to appoint more inspectors. That is not a substitute for certifying surgeons. The certifying surgeon is independent of Government control and the employer, and that is the advantage of having a certifying surgeon. I do not say "Thank you" for an increase of inspectors under Home Office control. I hope when this money comes to be spent after the War we shall have these surgeons doing this work absolutely independently of the inspectors.
        Question put, and agreed to.
        Bill read the third time, and passed.
        The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
        Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 22nd February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
        Question put, and agreed to.
        Adjourned accordingly at Four minutes before Eleven o'clock.

WAR.
  PRICES COMMITTEE.
  PRICES COMMITTEE.
  ALLOTMENT LETTERS.
  ALLOTMENT LETTERS.
  AMERICAN SECURITIES (STAMP DUTY).
  AMERICAN SECURITIES (STAMP DUTY).
  INCOME TAX (LIMITED COMPANIES).
  INCOME TAX (LIMITED COMPANIES).
  OUT-PORT WATCHERS (GLASGOW).
  OUT-PORT WATCHERS (GLASGOW).
  NERVE-SHAKEN SAILORS.
  NERVE-SHAKEN SAILORS.
  DISTURBANCES IN IRELAND.
    WOUNDED PRISONERS.
    WOUNDED PRISONERS.
    JOHN MURPHY.
    JOHN MURPHY.
  BRITISH AVIATORS (ACTS OF GALLANTRY).
  BRITISH AVIATORS (ACTS OF GALLANTRY).
  BRIGADIER-GENERAL OWEN THOMAS.
  BRIGADIER-GENERAL OWEN THOMAS.
  ROYAL FIELD ARTILLERY (ARREARS OF PAY).
  ROYAL FIELD ARTILLERY (ARREARS OF PAY).
  MUNITIONS.
    BUILDERS' EMPLOYES.
    BUILDERS' EMPLOYES.
    WALTHAM: ABBEY FACTORY.
    WALTHAM: ABBEY FACTORY.
  GOODS OF ENEMY ORIGIN.
  GOODS OF ENEMY ORIGIN.
  GOVERNMENT AIRCRAFT INSURANCE SCHEME.
  GOVERNMENT AIRCRAFT INSURANCE SCHEME.
  HAY (MAXIMUM PRICES).
  HAY (MAXIMUM PRICES).
  DECLARATION OF PARIS.
  DECLARATION OF PARIS.
  NEUTRAL RELIEF COMMISSIONS.
  NEUTRAL RELIEF COMMISSIONS.
  Anthrax.
  Anthrax.
  Irish Land Commission (Net Expenditure).
  Irish Land Commission (Net Expenditure).
  Separation Decrees.
  Separation Decrees.