Sitting of 17 July 1916

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
North British Railway Bill,
Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow.
Lecky's Divorce Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.

CIVIL SERVICES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1916–17).
Estimate presented of further Sum required to be voted for the service of the year ending 31st March, 1917 [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 100.]
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
Copy presented of Regulations, dated 14th July, 1916, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee and the Insurance Commissioners, entitled the National Health Insurance (Insurance Committees) Consolidated Regulations, 1916 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND).
Copy presented of Examiners' Rules [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Rules as to the employment of Centre Superintendents [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

IRISH UNIVERSITIES ACT, 1908.
Copy presented of Statute VII. for University College, Cork [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
BOARD OF EDUCATION.
Copy presented of Summary of Returns as to School Attendance and Employment in Agriculture supplied by Local Education Authorities of Children excused from School on 31st May, 1916 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of the Progress of the Ordnance Survey to 31st March, 1916. [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.
Copy presented of General Report to the Board of Trade upon the Accidents that have accurred on the Railways of the United Kingdom during the year 1915 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.
Copy presented of Report by the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords and the Chairman of Ways and Means in the House of Commons, under Section 2 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, that they are of opinion that the Provisional Orders be allowed to proceed, subject to such recommendations as they may hereafter make with respect to the several Orders [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR

    GERMAN COLONIES.
    Sir EDWIN CORNWALLasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs which of the German colonies, other than those under the Colonial Office or the Governments of the Dominions, have been entirely taken over by the Allies; and which Power is responsible for the administration in each case.?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord Robert Cecil): The Caroline and Marshall Islands in the Pacific, with the exception of the Island of Nauru, are being administered by the Japanese Government, as is also the district of KiauChau in China.
    Sir E. CORNWALLasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state the names and the extent of the German colonies being administered either by his Department or by the Governments of the Dominions; and who is responsible for administration in each case?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Bonar Law): To the information given in the Prime Minister's reply to the hon. Member's question of 10th January last, and my reply to the question asked on 7th March by the hon. Member for West Islington, I can only add that a portion of the Cameroons (about 35,000 square miles) is being administered by the Government of Nigeria.
    Mr. FERENSasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state if the General Officer Commanding the Expeditionary Force in the Cameroons has issued an Order prohibiting the importation of trade spirits into that area; how long the Order is to remain in force; and whether, with a view of preventing the smuggling of spirits over the border from Nigeria, he will advise the Governor of Nigeria to make a similar rule for that portion of Southern Nigeria east of the Cross River which borders on the Cameroons?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The British sphere in the Cameroons is now being administered by the Governor—General of Nigeria, and a duty of about 13s. 7d. a gallon is now chargeable on trade spirits imported at a strength of 50 degrees, with a higher rate on stronger spirits. This duty is very much higher than elsewhere on the West Coast of Africa. As regards the prevention of smuggling, the Governor—General of Nigeria may be trusted to make adequate arrangements.

    BRITISH DIPLOMATIC SERVICE.
    Sir E. CORNWALLasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps the Foreign Office have already taken to strengthen the organisation and constitution of the British Diplomatic Service, in view of the new conditions arising
    638
    out of the War; how far the Foreign Office are working in co-operation with the Board of Trade to reorganise the Consular Services; and with what result?
    Lord R. CECIL: The proposals of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service are under consideration, but as regards the new conditions arising out of the War it is impossible to speak until it is known what those conditions will be; moreover, candidates will not be available while the War lasts. Any reorganisation of the Consular Service will be discussed in consultation with the Board of Trade with whom the Foreign Office acts in close co-operation as regards all matters of foreign trade.

    BRITISH PRISONERS IN GERMANY (AMERICAN EMBASSY REPORTS).
    Mr. MALCOLMasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how soon he proposes to circulate the Reports from the American Embassy concerning British prisoner camps in Germany received since 31st March, and which were promised for 1st July?
    Lord R. CECIL: I promised my hon. Friend on the 26th June that the next White Paper on this subject would be laid as soon as possible after the end of the quarter. The White Paper is now in the hands of the printer, and will be laid before Parliament shortly.

    DECLARATION OF LONDON.
    Major HUNTasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House an assurance that no attempt will be made under the guise of arbitration, or in any other way, to set up anything in the nature of an International Prize Court, or in any other way to revive any part of the now condemned Declaration of London?
    Lord R. CECIL: There is not now and never has been any intention on the part of the present Government to set up any International Prize Court nor was an International Prize Court provided for in the Declaration of London. An undertaking in the terms of the last part of the question would preclude the Government from applying a large number of well-established rules of International Law and the request for it can hardly have been adequately considered.
    Major HUNT: Are we to understand that we can have no promise from the Government that they will not continue any part of the now condemned Declaration of London?
    Lord R. CECIL: I really do not think my hon. Friend has read the Declaration of London. The Declaration of London consists to a very large extent of a restatement of the ordinary principles of International Law which have been acted on for decades all over the world. It would be impossible for me to give any undertaking that those principles would not be enforced—of course they will be enforced.
    Major HUNT: If the Declaration of London has nothing much in it, why has it been condemned?
    Lord R. CECIL: I explained to the hon. Member and to the House a little time ago why we thought it desirable to withdraw the adoption of the Declaration of London. There were several reasons which I do not propose to repeat at the present moment unless the hon. Member desires me to do so. If he will be kind enough to read what I then said and the recent White Paper on the subject which gave the conclusions between the French Government and ourselves, I think he will find the whole of his question answered.
    Mr. R. McNEILL: May I ask if the Noble Lord intends the House to understand that the Declaration of London contained nothing contrary to established international law, and if it did contain anything, will he not promise to give an undertaking that those parts will not be revived?
    Lord R. CECIL: I certainly did not intend to say that the Declaration of London contained nothing which was not a departure from the established principles of international law. I should like to confer with my hon. Friend whether he really desires that I should give the undertaking, even in the limited sense of the question, which he has asked me to give.
    Mr. HOLT: Would not the undertaking the Noble Lord has been asked to give be in contradiction of existing treaties with America?
    Lord R. CECIL: I should like notice of that question.

    CONTRABAND (ORDERS IN COUNCIL).
    Major HUNTasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that it was stated on behalf of the Government that commodities of any kind would be prevented from reaching or leaving Germany, he can explain what is meant in Clause D of the new Orders in Council, which provides that a vessel carrying, contraband shall be liable to capture and condemnation if the contraband forms more than half the cargo; and if he will say whether a ship carrying just under half contraband goods would be free to continue her voyage and deliver her goods?
    Lord R. CECIL: This question seems to be founded on a complete misapprehension. The Clause to which the hon. Member refers applies to the penalty incurred by the vessel herself and does not affect the rules governing the treatment of contraband cargoes. In the case supposed of a vessel carrying less than half a cargo of contraband the contraband would be put into the Prize Court in the usual way. I do not know if the hon. Member's question wishes to suggest that where even a small portion of the cargo is contraband and the rest is bonâ-fide neutral traffic not destined for the enemy at all, the whole of the cargo should be detained and the whole ship confiscated. But if so, I can only say that this would be a violation of all international law and would greatly embarrass His Majesty's Government in the conduct of the War.
    Major HUNTasked the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the smuggling of fat and other contraband from Holland into Germany by bands of men organised for that purpose; and whether he will make representations to the Dutch Government asking them to prevent the continuation of this practice?
    Lord R. CECIL: His Majesty's Government are aware that in spite of the more stringent measures recently adopted by the Netherlands Government some smuggling of various goods from the Netherlands into Germany continues. They understand that the Netherlands authorities are actively engaged in endeavouring to prevent such traffic.

    MILITARY SERVICE.

      DUAL NATIONALITY.
      Mr. SNOWDENasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action has been taken upon the representations made to the Foreign Office by the Netherlands Minister for the re-lease from the British Army of a Dutch subject named Solomon Duynkerk, who was kidnapped into the Army by Lieutenant Mollock, of Stoke Newington, and who is now undergoing imprisonment at Winchester for refusing to obey military orders?
      Mr. G. TERRELL: May I ask, Sir, if you exercise any supervision upon questions of this character, which are designed for the purpose of mischief making rather than for the purpose of obtaining information?
      Mr. SPEAKER: I do not encourage mischief makers in any quarter of the House. It did not occur to me that this was more mischievous than most questions.
      Lord R. CECIL: After reference to the War Office the Netherlands Minister was informed that persons of dual nationality who have voluntarily attested for military service cannot be permitted to avoid the liability which they have thus undertaken by making a declaration of alienage in renunciation of their British national status.
      Mr. SNOWDEN: Is it not the fact that this man was induced to attest under misrepresentations that it was necessary for aliens to do so?
      Lord R. CECIL: That is not my information, but of course this is really a matter which should be addressed to the War Office.
      Mr. SNOWDEN: Is it not the fact that a representation made by the Dutch Minister was not acknowledged by the Foreign Office for more than a month after its receipt?
      Lord R. CECIL: No, Sir; I am informed that is a mistake.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Is he a British subject?
      Lord R. CECIL: I understand he is.
      Mr. SNOWDENasked the Home Secretary if the Home Office gave authority for the treatment of Solomon Duynkerk, a Dutch subject, as a person liable to service under the Military Service Act; if this man had an official certificate of
      642
      alienage and possessed a registration card marked Dutch; if, notwithstanding this, the man was fined and handed over to the military on the advice of the Home Office; and on what grounds the Home Office took the action they did?
      The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The Home Office has no authority to determine the question whether a man is liable to service under the Military Service Act. The action of the Home Office in the case in question was confined to pointing out, in answer to an inquiry from the magistrate, that Section 16 of the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act, 1914, provides that where a man who was a British subject ceases to be a British subject—as this man had done by making a declaration of alienage—he shall not thereby be discharged from any obligation, duty, or liability in respect of any act done before he ceased to be a British subject. This man had voluntarily attested before he made the declaration of alienage, and the decision of the Court was to the effect that he was bound by his attestation.

      CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
      Mr. SNOWDENasked the President of the Local Government Board if he will give special instructions to the Newport (Mon.) Military Service Tribunal that they must hear and receive evidence in cases of claims on conscientious grounds, seeing that on 30th June this tribunal dismissed the claim of Mr. A. B. Moon, who had evidence from twenty-one ministers and six magistrates of the town as to the genuineness of his convictions, but the chairman refused to allow any letter to be read?
      The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Long): I am informed that the tribunal offered Mr. Moon an adjournment to enable him to call any witnesses whom he might think would help him in his application; that this offer was twice repeated, but declined by Mr. Moon, who wished his application to be then heard; and that, after a lengthy hearing, the application was refused. I understand that Mr. Moon has appealed to the Appeal Tribunal.
      Mr. SNOWDENasked the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been called to the action of the chairman of the Heanor Local Tribunal, who is writing letters to the local Press denouncing conscientious objectors; and,

      643
      in view of the fact that instructions to the tribunal say that the members of the tribunals must maintain an unprejudiced and judicial mind so that applicants for exemption on the ground of conscientious objection may feel that their cases will be fairly considered, will he at once take action to have this chairman removed from his membership of the tribunal?
      Mr. LONG: I have not received any complaints as to the treatment of cases of conscientious objectors by this tribunal. I consider it advisable that a member of a tribunal should not engage in newspaper controversy on a matter which has or may come before the tribunal.
      Mr. SNOWDEN: Has the right hon. Gentleman communicated that view to the chairman of the tribunal?
      Mr. LONG: I am doing so.
      Mr. SNOWDENasked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been directed to a resolution of the London Education Committee to suspend without pay the men in their service who have obtained exemption from military service; and, in view of the definite promise that the Military Service Act would not be used for industrial conscription, if he proposes to take any action in the matter?
      Mr. LONG: I see no reason for intervention in this matter. In any case it is not one in regard to which I could exercise any control.
      Mr. WHITEHOUSEasked the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the plan now adopted by many tribunals of putting a set of complicated questions to applicants claiming exemption on conscientious grounds, in some cases requiring answers to be written in their presence, he will endeavour to secure that uneducated men shall not be prejudiced in their claim by their inability to express themselves in writing?
      Mr. LONG: I have no reason to think that uneducated men will not be given reasonable opportunity of stating their case.
      Mr. SNOWDENasked the Secretary of State for War what action he is taking upon the conduct of Lieutenant-Colonel Hamilton, who, on Monday, 3rd
      644
      July, when formally committing a conscientious objector named Percy Larkman for trial by court-martial at Chelsea, addressed Mr. Larkman with the words, " You cur, you ought to be whipped round the streets!" and if this officer took any part in the actual court-martial on Mr. Larkman, at Chelsea, on 7th July?
      The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): It appears that Lieutenant-Colonel Hamilton did use words capable of bearing the construction stated in the question. He has been seen by the General Officer Commanding the London District on the matter and cautioned. He took no part in the court-martial on Mr. Larkman.
      Mr. SNOWDEN: Is the War Office going to do nothing more to this man than caution him? Is it not regarded by the Army Orders as a very serious offence?
      Mr. FORSTER: It has been dealt with by the General Officer Commanding the district.
      Mr. SNOWDEN: Yes, with a caution.
      Mr. SNOWDENasked what provision is made in the new scheme for dealing with conscientious objectors for the men who on logical conscientious grounds refuse to accept alternative service under the Military Service Act; and what steps do the Government intend to take to prevent men like Mr. Clifford Allen and Mr. Fenner Brockway being handed over to the military authorities, when tribunals have admitted them to be genuine conscientious objectors to both combatant and non-combatant service and to have proved this to the satisfaction of the tribunals?
      The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): It will not be possible for the Government to take any other course with men who refuse to avail themselves of alternative service which is in no way connected with military operations except to hand them over to the military authorities.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some tribunals are dealing with men as if alternative service were simply non-combatant service?
      The PRIME MINISTER: I am not aware of that.
      Mr. HOLT: May I ask how the right hon. Gentleman expects any man who has

      645
      a conscientious objection to military service to enter into a bargain as to the terms in which he would be immune from that service?
      The PRIME MINISTER'Sreply was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
      Sir E. CARSON: Is a conscientious objector a man who takes full advantage of all that is done by others?
      The PRIME MINISTER: I should call such a person an unconscientious objector.

      NO-CONSCRIPTION FELLOWSHIP.
      Mr. SNOWDENasked the Home Secretary whether the books, papers, and money taken in the raid on the premises of the No-Conscription Fellowship offices have been returned, as was the case in the raid upon the offices of the National Council against Conscription, and, if not, why; and will he say if the Government proposes to bring any special charge against the No-Conscription Fellowship, or what action, if any, it is proposed to take?
      Mr. SAMUEL: The seizure in this case was made by the City Police by the Order of the Competent Military Authority under Regulation 51. I am informed that the sum of £12 which was seized was returned on the 10th instant. Copies of six leaflets and pamphlets which had previously been the subject of proceedings under the Defence of the Realm Act in London or elsewhere, and had been condemned by the Courts, were destroyed by order of the Competent Military Authority. The remainder of the literature and documents seized has been returned. I understand that no further proceedings against the No-Conscription Fellowship are at present contemplated.

      MEN OF MILITARY AGE ABROAD.
      Colonel YATEasked the Prime Minister how many men of military age who went abroad before the War or during its earliest stages, without the permission of the Government, to escape military service have been recalled; how many of these have refused to respond to the call; and what steps His Majesty's Government are going to take to impose the same disabilities on those remaining abroad as are inflicted in Continental countries?
      Mr. FORSTER: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has asked me to answer this question. It was not necessary, before the War and during its earlier stages, for anyone desiring to go abroad to go through any formalities which might be described as obtaining the permission of the Government, and I am unable to say how many persons may have gone abroad at that period. Equally, it is impossible to say how many of them have come back and responded to the call. Only those men who were registered on the 15th August, 1915, are being called up. If, by the latter part of the question, my hon. and gallant Friend refers to legislation, the answer is that no legislation is contemplated.
      Colonel YATE: Are no steps contemplated to mark the base conduct of these men in deserting their country in this time of national peril?

      BOARD OF EDUCATION (STAFF).
      Sir H. CRAIKasked the President of the Board of Education the total number of persons employed in the Board of Education at the beginning of the War; how many of these are now serving, in one capacity or another, elsewhere than in the Board of Education, or have been transferred or lent to other offices; what is the total number now serving under the Board; and whether it is found that the business of the Board can be quite adequately carried on with this diminished number?
      The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Arthur Henderson): The number of persons in the employment of the Board of Education at the beginning of the War was 2,135; of these, 727 are now serving elsewhere than under the Board. The number of persons now employed by the Board is 1,472. The Board have made certain emergency arrangements for the conduct of their business in view of the present national situation and the serious depletion of their staff; but these arrangements, although the best of which the present circumstances permit, would not be satisfactory for the conduct of the Board's business under normal conditions.

      DERBY SCHEME.
      Mr. HOGGEasked whether men who attested under the Derby scheme, but who attained the age of forty-one before the limit of time in the Military

      647
      Service Act, are likely to be called up, or whether they will simply be retained in the Reserve?
      Mr. FORSTER: Those who attained the age of forty-one prior to the day on which they are ordered to report to the military authorities will not be retained with the Colours, but will remain in the Reserve.

      MEDICAL EVIDENCE.
      Mr. EDMUND HARVEYasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the action of certain Army medical boards in different parts of the country in passing over medical evidence submitted by civilian medical men and passing for general service, after brief examination, men who subsequently break down under training; and whether he is taking steps to ensure that greater attention should be given by Army medical boards and military representatives to medical evidence from private medical practitioners, in the interests both of the Army and the men concerned?
      Mr. FORSTER: The responsibility for the decisions taken by the recruiting medical boards of course rests with those boards, but they have been instructed to give due consideration to medical evidence submitted by civilian medical practitioners regarding men who have been called up for service. It is not, I think, the case that there has been any general failure to do this, but, in view of statements which have been made, attention has again been called to the point.

      IRISH SCHOOL TEACHERS RESIDENT IN ENGLAND.
      Mr. O'DOWDasked the Secretary of State for War whether an Irishman, a qualified school teacher engaged in his profession for the past twelve years in this country, can be compulsorily called to the Colours under the Military Service Act now in operation in Great Britain?
      Mr. FORSTER: Yes, Sir, he would come within the provisions of the Military Service Acts as a British subject ordinarily resident in Great Britain.

    GERMAN SUBMARINE "DEUTSCHLAND."
    Mr. DILLONasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether
    648
    he will lay immediately any communications which have passed between the British Government and the Government of the United States as to the status of the German submarine " Deutschland "; and whether he will undertake to keep the House of Commons fully informed on the course of negotiations on this matter?
    Lord R. CECIL: The correspondence on the subject is at present proceeding, and it would not be in the public interest to publish it now. But I will see that the hon. Member's suggestion is carefully considered.
    Mr. DILLON: May I ask the Noble Lord whether he can give an undertaking to the House that we shall not be committed to any dispute with the United States in this matter without giving the House the opportunity of considering the whole subject?
    Lord R. CECIL: I do not think the House would wish me to give any such undertaking as that. I will represent the hon. Gentleman's suggestion to my right hon. Friend.

    PRISONERS OF WAR.
    The following question stood upon the Paper in the name of Mr. MALCOLM:—
    11. To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state what reply has been received from the American Embassy regarding the publication of their reports upon the condition and administration of those camps in France to which German prisoners were recently sent from England; and whether those reports will soon be made public?
    Mr. MALCOLM: I understand my right hon. Friend (Lord R. Cecil) wishes me to postpone this question. May I state they have had three weeks to say whether they shall give their permission or not.
    Mr. MALCOLMasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps have been taken by the Prisoners of War Department of the Foreign Office, or by the Prisoners' Committee presided over by Lord Newton, to impress upon employers of labour and trades unions the economic and humanitarian advantage of engaging prisoners of war as workmen; and whether he can publish any correspondence that has passed on this subject?
    Lord R. CECIL: The difficulty of finding employment for prisoners of war does not arise so much from the reluctance of employers to utilise their services as from the requirements of the military authorities for their safe custody. I will see, however, that the suggestion made by my hon. Friend is considered by Lord Newton's Committee.
    Mr. MALCOLMasked how much money has been spent on behalf of or distributed among enemy military and civilian prisoners of war in this country since the beginning of the War by the Emergency Committee for the Assistance of Germans, Austrians, and Hungarians in Distress and by other philanthropic societies in Great Britain?
    Mr. FORSTER: I have not yet been able to obtain the figures for the whole period of the War, but in the twelve months ended on 30th June a net sum of approximately £5,600 had been expended by the Emergency Committee. This does not include money spent on tools and industrial materials, which was recovered from the prisoners, nor the camp visiting expenses which have amounted to about £575. I have no information about the activities of any other philanthropic societies.
    Mr. MALCOLMasked to what extent Dr. Marckel is permitted by the War Office to visit German prisoners of war in this country; what is the nationality of this gentleman; is he the accredited representative of the German Red Cross Society, and how much money is he allowed to distribute or to spend monthly on behalf of German prisoners; and whether any equivalent facilities were given, or was any similar person appointed, in Germany to minister to the wants of British prisoners?
    Mr. FORSTER: Dr. Marckel, who has been a naturalised British subject for twenty-seven years, is not permitted to visit places of internment for prisoners of war in this country. It is known that he has relations with the German Bed Cross Society, and that he helps prisoners in this country, but the Army Council have no information as to the extent of his benefactions. He can only send money or articles to individual prisoners through the commandant of each camp, and the latter has full power to veto any article
    650
    being sent or to withhold it if sent. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
    Mr. MALCOLM: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the commandant has not given this gentleman permission to visit the German prisoners in the camps in Great Britain? He has been in nearly all of them.
    Mr. FORSTER: I am informed that he is not permitted to visit places where German prisoners are interned in this country.
    Mr. MALCOLM: When was that permission taken away?
    Mr. FORSTER: I could not say without notice.
    Sir J. D. REES: Has not the prohibition been enforced for some months?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am afraid I cannot give the date.

    FOOD SUPPLIES AND PRICES.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that certain firms in the Smithfield Market evade his maximum price for frozen lambs by the device of chopping the lamb into two and selling it as pairs of hindquarters and pairs of forequarters, for which they charge full economic values; that many were so sold last week and the previous week by a firm named Sam Matthews and Company; and will he state the total amount of lambs sold by his agents to this firm for the last three weeks?
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Harcourt): I am not aware that any firms adopt "the device of choping the lamb in two and selling it in pairs of hindquarters and pairs of forequarters " for the purpose of evading the Board of Trade Regulations. Messrs. Sam Matthews and Son state that they do not carry on such a trade but that, at the urgent request of certain of their customers, they do cut up into joints about one-quarter of the carcases which they sell. While the better joints are sold above the Board of Trade price the cheaper joints are sold well below that figure, and from the information supplied to me it appears that the proceeds of a carcase so cut up are but little above what would be received for the

    651
    carcase sold as a whole. Messrs. Sam Matthews and Son are now receiving only about one-fifth of their normal supplies of lambs.
    Mr. THORNEasked how many tons of the consignment of New Zealand beef which was stored in the premises of the Compania Sansenina de Carnes Congeladas, Long Lane, Smithfield, and delivered about the first week in June were seized and condemned; what boat brought the beef here and when was it discharged; was any note or comment as to its condition made by the Compania Sansenina's officials when the meat was received into their store, and, if so, what was the nature of the note or remark; has any Report been received from the City of London Corporation's officials on the seizure; and, if so, what does that Report state?
    Mr. HARCOURT: Certain information was given to my hon. Friend on the 22nd June last in answer to questions about this meat, and I do not think I can usefully add to it.

    DOCK WORKERS (NUMBER OF MEN REQUIRED).
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that many of the dock workers around the Albert and Victoria Docks are protesting against the posters that are being posted up day by day saying that 200, 300, and 400 men are wanted at a certain line of boats in the docks; if he is aware that one day only 200 men were taken on to work New Zealand boats out of the 400 wanted; if he is aware that there are hundreds of dockers hanging around the docks who are not working more than two and three days a week; if he is aware that there are three calls a day at the various docks—namely, 6.45, 8.45, and 12.45; if he is aware that, in consequence of advertising for men to assemble at a particular day and time, dockers very often lose work at other places of call; and if he intends taking any action in the matter?
    Mr. HARCOURT: Regulations made by the Board of Trade have been in operation since 26th June last under
    652
    which posters are exhibited daily in the Albert and Victoria Docks, stating the number of men required by the various employers. These arrangements, which which are still in the experimental stage, appear to be working satisfactorily, and no protests against them have been received by the Board. I have not been able to trace the case referred to by my hon. Friend where 200 were taken on out of 400 wanted, and the records show that in the absence of special circumstances the numbers taken on are well up to those stated in the notices. No statistics are available as to the number of days per week worked by individual dock labourers. The Board understand, however, that there is less employment during June and July than at other periods in the year. In the particular docks in question there appear to be three calls—i.e., at 6.45, 7.45, and 12.45—and a call at 8.45 which is not general. The object of the arrangements above referred to is to give the men notice of the places at which labour is required, and it would appear that the arrangements must tend to diminish and not to increase the risk of men losing, work through attending at the wrong place of call.

    DUBLIN IMPORTS (FREIGHTS).
    Mr. FIELDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the freights now levied by shipowners is a principal factor in the price of coal and other commodities in Dublin; and whether the Government will take measures to enable a more moderate profit to shipowners in the interest of consumers; and whether he has received a communication from the Port and Docks Board, Dublin, on the subject?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I have received the communication referred to from the Port and Docks Board, Dublin, and am making some inquiries into the matter. In the meantime, I regret that I am unable to add to the reply already given to my hon. Friend on this subject on 11th July.
    Mr. FIELD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that the Cardiff Shipping Company made a profit last year equal to 187 per cent., and if that be so surely the Board of Trade ought to be able to do something in the way of reducing freights?

    MUNITIONS.

      WORKERS (SCOTLAND).
      Mr. WATTasked the Minister of Munitions whether the 100 munitions workers who were discharged from a controlled establishment at Paisley three months ago, and who were stated by the Minister of Munitions to be holding themselves in readiness for future work, have yet been called upon to do this work; and, if not, will he say whether any more munition workers are now called for in Scotland?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MUNITIONS DEPARTMENT (Dr. Addison): I am not certain as to the firm to which my hon. Friend is referring. If he will send me the necessary information I will make inquiries and let him know the result.
      Mr. WATT: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain how it is that his Department are advertising at the present moment for munition workers, while at this particular works they have been suspended for four months?
      Dr. ADDISON: It depends entirely on the particular process of munition-making in which the people are engaged. In regard to some munitions we have a surplus; in regard to others we have not.
      Mr. HOGGEasked the Minister of Munitions whether women are being employed, after they have completed their period of qualification, on a minimum time rate in the Edinburgh district; and what is that rate?
      Dr. ADDISON: The time rates for women on various classes of munition work and the provisions as to placing them on piecework when qualified are contained in Orders made by the Minister of Munitions on the 24th February and the 6th July, respectively. I am sending copies of these Orders to my hon. Friend, and if he will bring to my notice any case in which it appears that they are not being complied with, I shall be obliged.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Is any inquiry made as to whether they are being complied with?
      Dr. ADDISON: We have a regular system of inquiry all over the country.
      Mr. HOGGEasked whether munition workers in controlled establishments
      654
      in the Edinburgh district are being employed on a minimum time rate which is lower than the existing rate for casual labour?
      Dr. ADDISON: I have no information enabling me to answer this question, though I should think it quite likely that persons are being employed on regular munition work at a lower rate per hour than that paid in employments where work is casual and average earnings therefore relatively low. I shall be glad to receive any information which my hon. Friend can supply.
      Mr. HOGGEasked what is the minimum time rate paid to turners in the Edinburgh district?
      Dr. ADDISON: I understand that the minimum time rate for turners in Edinburgh, recognised by the Amalgamated Society of Engineers, is 42s. 9d. a week, but I am unable to say what is the lowest rate paid in the district.
      Mr. HOGGEasked what is the minimum time rate paid to munition workers machining shells in the Edinburgh district?
      Dr. ADDISON: The minimum time rates required by Circulars L 2 and L 3 to be paid to munition workers machining shells in the Edinburgh district are 32s. 9d. and £l per week of fifty-four hours for male and female machinists respectively.

      ALBERT DOCK, NORTH WOOLWICH.
      Mr. W. THORNEasked the Minister of Munitions whether he is aware that no food canteen has been opened in the Albert Dock, North Woolwich; if he is aware of the demand for the same by the working classes employed in the docks; and if he intends taking any action in the matter?
      Dr. ADDISON: The Central Control Board have been in touch with representatives of the various classes of labour employed at the docks, and no demand for further canteen accommodation at the Albert Dock has been pressed upon the Board. The dock is served by three public-houses and seven canteens, in all of which full meals can be obtained. If the hon. Member will send me particulars upon which his question is based, I will have them looked into.

      TEA EXPORT.
      Mr. LOUGHasked whether the exportation of tea from Sweden has been prohibited since the 11th instant; and, if so, whether this decision of the Swedish Government will affect the prohibition of export which' has been enforced in this country since the 29th June?
      Mr. HARCOURT: The exportaton of tea from Sweden has been recently prohibited. This does not, of course, preclude such exportation under licences issued by the Swedish Government. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

    ANGLO-INDIAN RECRUITING.
    Sir J. JARDINEasked the Secretary of State for India what progress has been made in the recruiting of members of the domiciled Anglo-Indian community for Cavalry, Artillery, and Infantry to be of general service with British troops during the War?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Chamberlain): I have no official information as to the progress of recruiting, but I gather from the Indian newspapers that over 1,000 men have enlisted and that prospects are generally favourable.

    MILITARY TRANSPORT ARRANGEMENTS (INDIA).
    Major ASTORasked the Secretary of State for India whether he has received official Reports concerning the breakdown of the arrangements made in India for the moving of troops and drafts arriving from England; and,. if so, will he take the necessary steps to have matters rectified without delay?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I presume that my hon. and gallant Friend refers to the recent movements of troops from Karachi. I received telegraphic news of this lamentable incident and have asked for a full report regarding it. Meanwhile I have taken steps to ensure that troops will not be moved by rail from Karachi to Northern India under such conditions while hot weather conditions prevail.

    MESOPOTAMIA CAMPAIGN.
    Sir H. CRAIKasked the Secretary of State for India if he will take any steps to procure the prompt production of the Report by Sir W. Vincent, General Bingley, and Mr. Redesdale, upon the medical arrangements for the Mesopotamian Expedition and its presentation to Parliament?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have asked the Viceroy to expedite the consideration of the Report by the authorities in India and to transmit it to me with their observations as early as possible.
    Sir H. CRAIK: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the contents of this Report are already matter of comment?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That may be quite possible, but it ought not to be so, because the Report reached the advisers of the Government of India only a very short time ago and has not yet been examined by them. When the last mail was written they had only just received it, and I myself have not yet got a copy.
    Sir H. CRAIK: Could not a summary of the Report and the chief recommendations be submitted by telegraph?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Report is the result of an inquiry into events in Mesopotamia in the past, of which I gave some account to the House early this Session. I think my hon. Friend and the House will see that it is right that before that Report is published the Government of India should have an opportunity of examining it and that the Government as a whole should have the same opportunity. I gather that my hon. Friend's anxiety is lest anything should now be left undone which could be done to ameliorate the conditions. I am informed by the Viceroy that he specifically put that question to Sir William Vincent and General Bingley, and that they both replied to him that there was nothing now to be done in anticipation of the full consideration of their Report; they believed that everything possible was now being done.
    Colonel AUBREY HERBERTasked if the Mesopotamian Force has for a long period been unprovided with necessary stores and equipment?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I shall deal with this matter in a statement which I shall make to-morrow.
    Sir E. CARSON: Will we have an opportunity of discussing that?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir; but I think it would be more convenient to have the opportunity a day or two later.
    Colonel HERBERT: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if to-morrow he will be in a position to tell the House whether the necessities that were asked for from Mesopotamia were disregarded by the Commander-in-Chief in India, or refused by the Financial Members of the Council?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. and gallant Member will see I cannot anticipate to-day the statement I will make to-morrow.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I understand there are two quite different subjects. The first is the publication or non-publication of Papers in regard to past operations, and the other question is that relating to the actual conduct at the present time of the operations in Mesopotamia. Will the opportunity for debate which is given enable the subjects to be raised separately?
    The PRIME MINISTER: After my statement is made my right hon. Friend will be able to judge for himself.
    Sir HENRY DALZIELasked the Prime Minister whether his promised statement in regard to the publication of the Papers relating to the Dardanelles and Mesopotamia will be made in such a form as to permit of a Debate taking place, or, if not, will he undertake that an early opportunity will be provided should the House so desire?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think that the statement tomorrow can be in such a form as to permit of immediate Debate, but if there is a general feeling in the House that there should be a discussion on any of the points raised I shall be glad to secure an early opportunity?
    Sir J. JARDINEasked the Secretary of State for War whether the provision of medical officers, warders, and nurses for the troops, British and Indian, at Basra and along the Tigris and Euphrates is now sufficient for the requirements of war?
    Mr. FORSTER: By warders I think my hon. Friend refers to ward orderlies. Subject to this correction I may inform him that all demands which have been received by the War Office up to date have been complied with.
    Sir E. CARSON.: Are the War Office accountable for these arrangements?
    Mr. FORSTER: I think that is so now; it has not been so at all times.
    Sir E. CARSON: Could the hon. Gentleman say since when?
    Mr. FORSTER: No, I am afraid I could not without notice.

    DISTURBANCES IN IRELAND.

      GOVERNMENT EMPLOYES.
      Major W. GUINNESSasked the Home Secretary whether he has now made inquiries as to Patrick J. Kelly, taken prisoner when defending Jacobs' factory against British troops; Patrick Sheehan, taken prisoner righting in the rebellion in Sinn Fein uniform; R. Rooney, arrested as a well-known Sinn Fein organiser; whether on being released they were rein-stated as clerks in the Land Commission Department in Dublin, their return being the occasion of a demonstrative welcome from their fellow clerks; and what action he proposes to take in view of the under-taking of the Government not to employ men implicated in the Sinn Fein movement?
      Mr. SAMUEL: Sheehan was not taken prisoner fighting in the rebellion in Sinn Fein uniform, but was arrested by the military in his own house, on the 3rd of May. So far as the police are aware Rooney was not connected with the Sinn Fein movement. He was arrested in his office by the military on the 4th of May. Kelly was in Jacobs' factory, and was arrested there, He states that he went to Jacobs' factory on the second day of the rebellion through curiosity to see what was going on, and that he was seen there by an armed volunteer at the gate, who produced a revolver and ordered him inside, and that he was kept there until the surrender of the factory. These men were all released by the military, and were then reinstated by the heads of their Department—the Irish Land Commissioners—who inform me that no demonstration of the nature referred to took place in the office. I am suggesting to the Land Commissioners that the cases of these three men should be included with those of other Civil servants suspected of complicity in the rebellion which will come under review at an early date. I would add that out of 378 men

      659
      of recruitable age, on the staff of the Irish Land Commission, 135 joined His Majesty's Forces in one or other of its branches, while, in addition, many others presented themselves but were medically rejected, and others willing to go could not be spared.
      Major GUINNESS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that even if Mr. Sheehan was not arrested in uniform he was often seen in Sinn Fein uniform?
      An HON. MEMBER: What is Sinn Fein uniform?
      Major GUINNESS: Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that incriminating documents were found at the house?
      Mr. DILLON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is no such thing in existence as Sinn Fein uniform?
      Lord HUGH CECIL: Is it in order for an hon. Member to address a question to another hon. Member?
      Mr. SPEAKER: It is not in order, but I have known it done.
      Major GUINNESS: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that he himself answered a question about the uniform and described the distinguishing marks?
      Mr. SAMUEL: I will make inquiry as to the matters mentioned by the hon. Member.
      Mr. LUNDON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Members on this side of the House are making use of the Sinn Fein rebellion in order to drive Catholics out of every Government Office in Dublin?

      ROYAL COMMISSION REPORT.
      Lord H. CECILasked the Prime Minister whether an opportunity will be given to discuss the Motion relating to the Report of the Royal Commission on the Rebellion in Ireland, of which notice has been given by a large number of Members?
      The PRIME MINISTER: I have not yet had an opportunity of consulting my colleagues on this matter. I will do so as soon as possible, and communicate our decision to the House.

      NORTH KING STREET CASES.
      Mr. DILLONasked the Prime Minister when the promised inquiry into the shootings in North King Street,
      660
      Dublin, will take place; and whether he can give the names of the Commissioners and the terms of reference?
      The PRIME MINISTER: I undertook that these cases should be carefully investigated, but there has never been any promise of a public inquiry. Accordingly after all the available evidence had been secured Courts of Inquiry were held and the witnesses examined. The conclusion arrived at after a full hearing in all the cases was that the deaths occurred in the course of continuous and desperate street and house-to-house fighting which lasted for nearly two days, and in which the soldiers were constantly exposed to sniping from the windows and roofs of the houses. There can be little doubt that some men who were not taking an actual part in the fighting were in the course of the struggle killed by both rebels and soldiers. But after careful inquiry it is impossible to bring home responsibility to any particular person or body of persons. I have myself read the evidence taken by the Courts of Inquiry. I am of opinion that further inquiry would not be likely to lead to any different result.
      Mr. DILLON: Arising out of that answer, is it not a fact that the inquiries were conducted in secret by the military, who were incriminated, or the parties charged in regard to these alleged shootings of non-combatants; has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the wide prevalence of sinister and horrible rumours in the City of Dublin; and does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that a full, impartial, and public inquiry would be desirable, both in the interests of peace and good feeling in Ireland, and the honour of the British Army?
      The PRIME MINISTER: I can only say, having, in the past, had much experience in these matters, and having read the proceedings of the Court of Inquiry, that I do not think that any partiality of any kind was shown. The evidence was collected, not only by the military, but by the police, and other persons, and everybody concerned was voluntarily invited to attend. If I thought truth could be elucidated, or responsibility brought home, by any further Court of Inquiry, I should, not only in the interests of the country, but of the Army, be anxious that such inquiry should be held. I have come to the conclusion I I have done after very careful weighing of

      661
      the facts, and I do not believe that any further inquiry would lead to any different conclusion.
      Mr. DILLON: Will the right hon. Gentleman make public the evidence and proceedings of these tribunals?
      The PRIME MINISTER: I will consider that, certainly.
      Mr. PETO: Is it not obvious that the responsibility really rests with the rebels who raised this rebellion?

      PATRICK DERRICK.
      Mr. DILLONasked the Prime Minister whether he will cause a public inquiry to be held into the case of Patrick Derrick, of Eustace Street, Dublin, who was shot without trial in the back yard of his father's house on Friday, 28th April?
      The PRIME MINISTER: My hon. Friend spoke to me of this case last week and I should like to communicate further with him about it.

      MR. SHEEHY-SKEFFINGTON.
      Mr. DILLONasked the Prime Minister when the promised public inquiry into circumstances under which Mr. Sheehy-Skeffington was murdered in Portobello Barracks will take place; whether he can give the names of the Commissioners who are to conduct the inquiry; and whether the reference will be wide enough to include the cases of Messrs. M'Intyre and Dixon and the fate of all prisoners taken in Portobello Bar-racks while Captain Bowen Colthurst was in a position of authority in those barracks, the extent of responsibility of other officers for the murders, how it came to pass that Captain Bowen Colthurst was retained in a position of responsibility in view of the evidence given as to his mental condition, and who was responsible for continuing Captain Bowen Colthurst in authority for nine days after he had murdered three men and after these murders had been reported to the military authorities in Dublin?
      The PRIME MINISTER: At Mrs. Skeffington's request I am to-day in direct communication with her on this subject, and I should like to defer my answer until I know precisely what she has to lay before me.
      Mr. DILLON: I will put the question again on Thursday.

      MARTIAL LAW.
      Mr. LYNCHasked the Prime Minister whether, in addition to the reports of the military authorities, he receives communications from civilians competent to judge as to the effect of the continuance of martial law in Ireland; and whether, if it be made clear that martial law is extending the area of unrest and disaffection and increasing the spirit of resistance to the Government, he will take steps immediately to put an end to martial law?
      The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the last part, I must refer the hon. Member to the answer given on my behalf by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary last Thursday.
      Mr. LYNCH: Has the Government wilfully closed its ears to the reports of people in Ireland that the best recruiters for Sinn Feinism at present are the British Government?
      Mr. LYNCHasked the Prime Minister whether, in regard to the continuance of martial law in Ireland, he has taken into account the importance of public opinion in the United States and the desirability of profiting by the comparison of British declarations and German conduct in Belgium; whether he has been informed that the tendency of recent events has been to modify opinion in America to the detriment of this country; and whether he will take the earliest steps possible to put an end to military law in Ireland?
      The PRIME MINISTER: With regard to the first part of the question, I can assure the hon. Member that all relevant considerations are borne in mind. With regard to the second part, I am confident that in proportion as the people of the United States of America become acquainted with the full facts of the rebellion they will recognise that it has not been dealt with in any spirit of vindictiveness or with any other object than to restore order and prevent the possibility of the recurrence of such misguided and untoward proceedings. I have already answered the last part of the question.
      Mr. LYNCH: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if, in order to establish full confidence in the United States, and to allow them to judge with full connaissance

      663
      de cause, he will use his influence to remove all restrictions of censorship of news passing between this country and the United States?
      The PRIME MINISTER: I would prefer to have notice of that.

      INTERNED PRISONERS.
      Mr. DORISasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Mr. Joseph M'Bride, an Irish prisoner in Wakefield Prison, is treated with severity and cruelty; that this untried prisoner is kept in solitary confinement, not being allowed to associate with the other untried prisoners; that Mr. M'Bride, an aged man broken in sorrow over the fate of his younger brother, Major John M'Bride, is confined to his cell continuously from 4 p.m. to 6 a.m. with no room for exercise, and that his health is being seriously undermined by these hours of confinement; that parcels of clothing and necessaries addressed to him by his friends have not been delivered to him by the prison officials; and whether this treatment will be terminated and Mr. M'Bride brought to trial or released forthwith?
      Mr. FORSTER: I must correct the hon. Gentleman on one point. Mr. Joseph M'Bride is not in Wakefield Prison, but in Reading Prison, which is under the jurisdiction of the Home Office. I am informed that he is not in solitary confinement, and that he is treated in exactly the same way as the other Irish prisoners. The question of his release is, of course, one for the Advisory Committee, and not for the Army Council.
      Mr. DILLON: Could the hon. Gentleman say why M'Bride and other Irish prisoners have been transferred to Reading, and whether it is a fact that Joseph M'Bride, who is a very delicate man, was left for a long period with insufficient clothing, whilst parcels of clothing sent to him by friends from Ireland were not delivered to him?
      Mr. FORSTER: I am afraid that I must ask for notice of that question.
      Mr. LYNCHasked the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the names of any persons from county Clare still detained as prisoners on account of the rising in Dublin; and whether, in view of the fact that no disturbances of the
      664
      peace occurred in Clare, he will consider the advisability of allowing these prisoners to return to their homes?
      Mr. SAMUEL: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. It would be contrary to practice to give lists of names; but I may say that most of the cases from county Clare have been considered by the Advisory Committee and that effect will be given in due course to their recommendations.
      Mr. LYNCH: Can the hon. Gentleman explain why it is the Government meticulously inquire into the alleged offences of these country youths while they pass the sponge over the fact of an unarmed citizen being killed in the streets of Dublin?

    SPINNING MILLS, BELFAST.
    Mr. DEVLINasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the fact that 1,000 workers have been locked out from the York Street Flax Spinning Mills, Belfast, owing to 100 machine boys having demanded an advance of 2s. a week; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?
    Mr. HARCOURT: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. I am informed by the firm that a stoppage of work of the boys at these mills commenced on Monday, 3rd July, but that all workers resumed on Monday, 10th July, and have since continued at work.

    UNITED KINGDOM AND DOMINIONS.
    Mr. MARTINasked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the behaviour of the Dominions in connection with the War, he will take steps to ensure the continuance and permanence of the present relations between the Dominions and the United Kingdom, such relations consisting of a union of hearts in Imperial matters and absolute selfgovernment in matters affecting the Dominions only?
    Mr. MACMASTER: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question, I would like to ask whether he is aware of any fact or circumstance at the present time that will put the relationship of the Mother Country and the Colonies in any peril whatever?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir, I do not. As to the question of the hon. Member (Mr. Martin) I do not think that at the moment I can usefully add anything to my public utterances on this subject. It is, of course, obvious that no change can be made in the relations between this country and the self-governing Dominions without the consent of the latter.
    Mr. R. McNEILL: Would it not be right on the part of the Government to take steps to prevent the dumping of surplus politicians into this country?

    OLD AGE PENSIONS.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that 160 old age pensioners have gone into the Edinburgh Workhouse as a result of the increase in the cost of living; that an old age pensioners' flag day is being held to buy and provide for them; and, in view of the indignation locally that the Government has not saved those old people from this degradation, whether he will at once introduce legislation to prevent any further degradation to those old people?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am informed that the number of old age pensioners admitted to the Edinburgh Poorhouse during the year ended 15th May last was 152, but that the increased cost of living was not the only cause of their seeking admission. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative. I do not think this is at all an improper object for which to appeal to the generosity of the public. I am afraid that for reasons which have often been stated in this House I cannot undertake to adopt the suggestion contained in the last part of the question.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it costs the country 14s. per week to keep these people in the workhouse, whereas 2s. 6d. would keep them out?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir. I am well aware of that.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Is that the last word to be said upon this matter, or is it any good at all for trade organisations, or any other party, continuing the agitation which is, and has been, going on?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have already—with the Chancellor of the Exchequer—
    666
    expressed the great sympathy that the Government feel for these people, and also the great difficulty there is in making any special provision for their case.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman give a day for discussion?
    Mr. THORNE: Is it not possible to persuade the Treasury to grant £2,500,000, which would practically minimise the hardship from which these old age pensioners are suffering at the present time?
    The PRIME MINISTER: It would cost a great deal more than that.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been called to the fact of the gigantic profits declared by the shipping companies—[HON. MEMBEES: "Order!"]—and could he not further tax those profits to bear the cost? [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] Hon. Members on the other side are getting the dividends.

    GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND.

      AMENDING BILL.
      Mr. MALCOLMasked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce the amending Bill for the better government of Ireland before the Adjournment of this House for the Autumn Recess?
      The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir.
      Mr. W. O'BRIEN: If the right hon. Gentleman wants the thanks of every human being in Ireland except the place-hunters, why not drop this hateful project altogether?
      Major HUNTasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that an assurance was given to loyal Irish-men that Home Rule would not be brought into effect before the end of the War, and that relying on that pledge they went abroad to fight, he can assure the House that adequate safeguards will be put into the new Home Rule Bill which will give all necessary protection to all the loyal Unionists living outside the six counties in Ireland?
      Major NEWMANasked the Prime Minister (1) whether the proposed Bill to enable the Government of Ireland Act, subject to certain modifications, to be brought into immediate operation will be in all its provisions and details temporary

      667
      and provisional; and (2) whether any proposed modification of the Government of Ireland Act, 1912, dealing with the exclusion of any part of Ireland from the operation of the Act or with the formation of the Irish House of Commons from the Irish Members of the Imperial House of Commons, who will continue to sit and vote in full numbers in the Imperial House, will be of a strictly temporary and provisional character and both on the same footing?
      The PRIME MINISTER: I must ask my hon. Friend to await the introduction of the Bill.
      Major NEWMAN: Is it not the fact that these proposals were to be submitted to the people of Ireland in a cutand-dried form: has that been done?
      Mr. REDDY: Why are you not at the front?
      Major HUNT: Are the Government going to break their promise behind the backs of these men?
      The PRIME MINISTER: All that will be fully dealt with in the Bill.
      Mr. MALCOLM: Will the right hon. Gentleman say when the Bill will be introduced?
      The PRIME MINISTER: I hope very soon.
      Mr. GRANTasked (1) if the Army Council or any individuals of the Army Council have expressed either approval or disapproval of the War Secretary's proposals, so far as they are known, with regard to Ireland; and, if so, can any such expressions be made public; and (2) if the Secretary of State for War had obtained the sanction and approval of the Army Council and of the military authorities in Ireland before he submitted his suggestions for the future government of Ireland to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University and to the hon. Member for Waterford?
      The PRIME MINISTER: The answer is in the negative. The Government have not consulted the Army Council on this matter.
      Major NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether he can now inform the House of the exact proposals for the immediate bringing into operation of the Gov-
      668
      ernment of Ireland Act which were made to and accepted by the leaders of the Ulster and Nationalist parties and submitted to the Southern Unionist and Independent Nationalist parties; whether the proposals were also submitted to any leader or member of the Republican party; and, if so, with what result?
      The PRIME MINISTER: With regard to the first part of the question, I have already stated these proposals in outline, and the details will be made clear when the Bill is introduced. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative, and the last part, therefore, does not arise.
      Major NEWMAN: Is it a fact that these proposals were reduced to writing before being submitted to the parties?
      The PRIME MINISTER: Ultimately they were in writing.
      Mr. W. O'BRIEN: Has it not been publicly stated that the terms submitted have been reduced to writing, and, if so, why not publish the document and put an end to all this ambiguity?
      The PRIME MINISTER: It will be published.

      IMPERIAL CONFERENCE.
      Mr. DEVLINasked whether an Imperial Conference is to be held at the close of the War; and whether among the subjects to be considered at it will be the permanent settlement of the Irish question?
      The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir; this I understand to have been a matter in regard to which both parties to the arrangement made in Ireland were in agreement.
      Mr. HOGGE: Will the question of Scottish Home Rule be submitted to the Conference?
      Sir E. CARSON: May I ask whether the Conference will be purely voluntary, and that no one will be coerced into any particular decision?
      The PRIME MINISTERindicated assent.
      Mr. O'BRIEN: Having referred this to an Imperial Conference, why decide beforehand the principal question in dispute?
      The PRIME MINISTER: We are dealing with a situation which is urgent.

    OFFICERS OF PUBLIC DEPARTMENTS (OATH OF ALLEGIANCE).
    Sir H. CRAIKasked the Prime Minister whether the consideration of the suggestion that an oath of allegiance should be required from all officers of public departments and in receipt of public pay has led him to the conclusion that this course should now be adopted?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. McKinnon Wood): The matter has been carefully considered, but legislation would be necessary, and it is doubtful whether the object desired could in practice be secured by this means.

    SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR.
    Mr. HOGGEasked whether any alterations have been made in the duties of the Secretary of State for War from those of the previous occupant of the office; and what special arrangements, if any, have been made for answering questions in the House which were previously, owing to the fact that the Secretary of State was in the House of Lords, addressed to the Under-Secretary?
    The PRIME MINISTER: There have been no alterations in the duties of the Secretary of State for War. Questions in this House will be answered by the Secretary of State or by the Financial Secretary on his behalf.

    AIR RAIDS AND BOMBARDMENTS (WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION).
    Mr. CROOKSasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the arrangement come to whereby the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act apply in cases of death or injury to railwaymen as the result of enemy raids or bombardments; and whether the Government have or will consider the advisability of the provisions of the Act being applied to all workmen who suffer death or injury from the same cause during the course of their employment?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Brace): I am informed that the railway companies have decided that men injured on duty during air raids or bombardments should be compensated on the same basis
    670
    as under the Workmen's Compensation Act. In ordinary cases, however, where the workman is not exposed by reason of his employment to any greater danger from an air raid or a bombardment than the inhabitants generally, and the accident is not in any sense due to the nature of his employment, it would not, I think, be possible to place a liability in respect of any injury which the workman may suffer on the employer.

    DEFENCE OF THE REALM ACTS.

      FINES FOR MISDEMEANOURS.
      Sir J. JARDINEasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that, in certain parts of the Kingdom public dissatisfaction has been, expressed at the amount of the fines inflicted for misdemeanours under the Defence of the Realm Acts in cases where there was no atrocity, aggravation, nor previous conviction, and where there is no judicial appeal open to the persons convicted; and whether, in consideration of the denunciation of excessive fines in England in the Bill and Declaration of Rights and of exorbitant and extraordinary fines in the declaration of the estates of the kingdom of Scotland containing the Claim of Right and the offer of the Crown to their Majesties King William and Queen Mary, dated 11th April, 1689, he will take steps to secure the lieges in the enjoyment of their constitutional rights?
      Mr. SAMUEL: The punishment which may be awarded for contraventions of the Defence of the Realm Regulations cannot exceed that authorised by the Defence of the Realm Act. Subject to this limitation the amount of a fine in any particular case is a matter for the discretion of the Court which tries the offenders. Where the trial is by a Civil Court the Act provides for appeal.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Could you not pass an Act of Indemnity for these people as you have indemnified the Attorney-General?

    GOVERNMENT HOSPITALITY FUND.
    Mr. LYNCHasked whether in cases where entertainment is provided in Parliament buildings for distinguished guests from overseas or abroad any part of the cost falls upon public funds; if so, whether any public control exists over the selection

    671
    of guests to whom invitations are extended in this country, and particularly whether the military representatives of French direction of aeronautics recently invited to a Government luncheon at the Carlton Hotel, presided over by Lord Curzon, were entertained at the public expense; and, if so, why, having regard to the advantages of interchange of views, all those Members of Parliament who had been pressing for a more efficient Air Service were purposely excluded from the list of invitations; and whether care will be taken to avoid such abuses in the future?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I propose to reply to this question in the exact words used by me in answer to a somewhat similar question eight years ago, when the Government Hospitality Fund was first established. The answer I gave on that occasion was as follows:
    "The Prime Minister has asked me to deal with this question, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will not think me wanting in courtesy if I decline to give him any detailed answer to it. My colleagues, in making me responsible for Government hospitality, have imposed on me a task which is very onerous and very delicate—a task for which I confess I feel myself wholly unfitted—but one which I can only perform at all if I am happy enough to command the confidence of both sides of the House. National hospitality would lose half its utility and all its grace if the reasons for which it was proffered or withheld were to become a matter of question and answer in Parliament. I would not for a moment suggest that this House should be debarred from criticising my administration of the fund when the necessary Vote comes up for discussion. They will then be entitled to condemn my conduct of it, or to suspend or cancel the policy itself. But even on such a debate I should not be prepared to defend myself by stating the grounds on which I had abstained from offering hospitality to any individuals or delegations, for I am convinced that such a course would absolutely destroy the aim of international comity, which is the basis and object of this new departure. I can, therefore, only ask for the generous indulgence and confidence of the House during the commencement of this experiment, and until, in their opinion, I have ceased to deserve it."
    Mr. LYNCH: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will weigh the fact that none of us would have raised this question if the funds had not been public funds, and if there were not a possibility that the Government would use those public funds to put a ban of prejudice on critics or opponents of the Government?

    AUGUST HOLIDAYS (SHOPKEEPERS).
    Mr. HINDSasked the Home Secretary whether it is the desire of the Government that the shopkeepers of the country should trade as usual on 7th and 8th of
    672
    August, seeing that neither shopkeepers nor shop assistants are engaged in munition work?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The Government think it necessary that the postponement of the holidays should be as general as possible, and they desire, therefore, that on the 7th and 8th August the retail traders should keep open their shops.

    CIVIL SERVANTS (CLERICAL CLASSES).
    Mr. CROOKSasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the increased cost of living pressing unduly hard upon the lowerpaid Civil servant, he can see his way to granting an increase of pay on similar lines to that granted to the Post Office employes, namely, a rise of 5s. per week to those whose salary does not exceed £104, 4s. from £104 to £150, and 3s. for those in receipt of from £150 to £200 per annum, respectively, many of the latter class having been on their maximum salary for several years past?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The Government carefully considered the question of granting a war bonus to the lower-paid clerical classes in the Civil Service, but they came to the conclusion that a case had not been made out for imposing on the taxpayer the heavy additional charges which would be involved. The amount of the war bonus granted to the Post Office employés was 3s. to adult male employés receiving up to 40s. a week, and 2s. to those receiving between 40s. and 60s.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY SERVICES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS).
    Mr. MALCOLMasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether naval officers are taxed in respect of their pensions for wounds?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): Yes, Sir.
    Mr. MALCOLM: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the question of the remission of taxes?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I have already discussed the matter with certain of my colleagues, but it is necessary to discuss the

    673
    matter with the War Office and the Treasury. I will do so, but I cannot give any undertaking.
    Mr. CREANasked the Secretary of State for War if he will have the case of Private Michael Hurley, No. 2898, Royal Garrison Artillery, Rock Street, Kinsale, county Cork, who lost a leg from the thigh down at Hill 60, France, inquired into with a view to an increase of the small pension of 10s. 6d. granted to him in April, 1916, as this pensioner has dependent on him an aged mother and an invalid brother, and that men similarly circumstanced are in receipt of pensions from 14s. upwards?
    Mr. FORSTER: Gunner Hurley has had his pension increased from 10s. 6d. to 12s. 6d. a week. The Chelsea Commissioners have no power to make any addition to a soldier's pension for dependants other than children.
    Mr. CREAN: Is it suggested that that advantage will be sufficient to support this man?
    Mr. FORSTER: If this soldier, or anyone writing on his behalf, communicates with the Secretary of the Royal Hospital at Chelsea, full consideration will be given to the case.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Is this not a case where the Statutory Committee could give some increase?
    Mr. FORSTER: Yes, they could if it was submitted to them and they found it necessary.

    INVALIDED SAILORS (BADGES).
    Mr. MALCOLMasked whether it is the intention of the Board of Admiralty to issue special badges for invalided sailors similar to those promised to soldiers by the War Office?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes, Sir.

    INCOME TAX (REBATES).
    Mr. WATTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is the rule of his Department to grant rebates of Income Tax on dividends on stocks held by bankers and stockbrokers throughout the country against loans; and, if so, will he explain why some of the employés of his
    674
    Department refuse altogether such repayment while permitting repayment when title deeds of real property are the security?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. McKenna): If my hon. Friend refers to the provisions for repayment of Income Tax contained in Section 22 of the Finance Act, 1915, I may explain that no distinction is made between loans secured on stocks and loans secured on real property.

    DUTY ON ALCOHOL (HOSPITALS).
    Sir P. MAGNUSasked whether the Committee appointed to consider the question of relieving the hospitals from the payment of duty on alcohol used for the purposes of the hospital have yet reported; and, if so, whether, and when, he proposes to take action on the decision at which the Committee have arrived?
    Mr. McKENNA: The Committee have reported and their Report is now receiving consideration. I hope to be able to come to a decision on their recommendations immediately.

    FROZEN MEAT SUPPLY (ARMY).
    Mr. W. THORNEasked for the total amount of money paid to the firm of Perfect and Company for supervising the unloading, storing, inspecting, and dispatching frozen meat to the Army from the outbreak of war to 30th June last, or the latest date for which figures are available?
    Mr. FORSTER: The amount paid for all services rendered to 31st May last is, in round figures, £41,000.

    WOOL
    Sir ROBERT PEARCEasked why wool sales were stopped by the War Office at Kettering on the 8th June, but on the same day allowed to proceed unchecked in London; and whether, in fixing the price for wool the sale of which has been stopped, the Government is guided by prices ruling at the time of the stoppage; and, if not, by what basis and why is that basis adopted; and, where the price of wool has been fixed, have any measures been taken to ensure that all

    675
    the benefits of such action accrue to the Government and none of them to wool merchants or manufacturers'?
    Mr. FORSTER: The Order issued by the Army Council on the 8th June prohibited the' sale of British and Irish wool, but did not apply to the sale of Colonial wool in London and elsewhere. I have explained to a representative deputation of agricultural interests that the price to be paid for British and Irish wool has been fixed on the prices ruling in June and July, 1914, with the addition of 35 per cent. to cover the increased expenses of farmers. A report of this meeting appeared in the public Press on 13th July. The answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: Did the deputation express satisfaction with the hon. Member's proposal or otherwise?
    Mr. FORSTER: No, Sir. Modified satisfaction.

    SOLDIERS' LEAVE.
    Mr. WATTasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the fact that many men in the 52nd Division have been for over twelve months serving in Gallipoli and in the desert round Suez without having any days of rest given them, much less the opportunity of returning home for any time; that preference in the way of rest changes seems to be given to men who have been wounded or sick and who, for these reasons, have had rests and home visits; that therefore many of the hardest and best soldiers have been for these twelve months without any break; and whether he will see that in the future every man in these climates gets opportunity of change and home visit before the breakdown of his health?
    Mr. FORSTER: The War Office does not, of course, receive reports as to how particular men or groups of men are or may be situated in regard to the grant of leave. This matter is one for the discretion of the Commander-in-Chief concerned, to whom all the circumstances and considerations involved are far better known than they can be to anyone in this country. I cannot, therefore, give any undertaking that the men referred to will be given leave, but I can say with confidence
    676
    that points such as those mentioned, are fully considered by the military authorities concerned.
    Mr. WATT: Does not the hon. Gentleman see that the system, as outlined in the question, puts a premium on men falling sick?
    Mr. FORSTER: No; I should not say that it puts a premium on men falling sick. Obviously, men who do fall sick must have consideration.
    Sir J. JARDINE: Will the same principle be applied in a climate like Mesopotamia?
    Mr. FORSTER: Of course, the whole question must be governed by the exigencies of the military situation.

    ROYAL NAVAL DIVISION.
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for War whether he has considered the hardship involved by the allowances of men of the Royal Naval Division, who are now under the War Office, being on a less generous scale than the allowance made to the dependants of privates in the Army; whether he is aware that the allowances of an Army private with a wife and six children amount to 36s. weekly, whereas a Royal Naval Division able sea-man receives only 29s. 8d. for the same dependants; and whether he intends to remedy this inequality forthwith?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The Army separation allowance for a wife and six children would be 25s. 6d. only. My hon. Friend appears to have included the allotment of 3s. 6d. twice in the figure quoted by him. I may remind my hon. Friend that field allowance of 3s. 6d. a week at Blandford, or of either 2s. 4d. or 3s. 6d. a week abroad, according as the man's unit is or is not billeted, is payable in the Royal Naval Division in addition to pay and separation allowance.
    Mr. KING: Does not the fact remain that these men do not do so well in the Royal Naval Division as if they were in the Regular Army?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The pay in the Royal Naval Division, except in the case of an ordinary seaman, who, as a rule, is a young fellow of nineteen and single, is higher than in the Army, and therefore they can make a larger allotment.

    Bristol University.
    Mr. E. HARVEYasked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to the action of the authorities of Bristol University in dispensing with the services of the lady who is head of the teachers' training department of the university, as a measure of war economy; and whether he is taking any action in the matter?
    Mr. HENDERSON: My attention has not been called to the matter. I presume my hon. Friend refers not to the elementary school teachers' training department but to the small secondary teachers' training department of the university. I understand that the work of the secondary department is being suspended; but as this department is not recognised under the Board's Regulations there are no grounds on which I could take any action in the matter.

    Financial Advertisements.
    Mr. G. TERRELLasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can furnish for the information of Members a list of the weekly provincial papers which have been selected for the publication of financial advertisements?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I will circulate a list of the weekly provincial papers to whom the advertisements referred to have been offered.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS (JOINT COMMITTEE).
Report from the Joint Committee in respect of the Larceny Bill [Lords] (pending in the Lords) brought up, and read; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 99.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Third Reading of the Finance Bill may be proceeded with this day after the Bill has been reported to the House as amended on recommital, notwithstanding the practice of the House as to the interval between the various stages of a Bill relating to finance."—[Mr. McKenna.]
  Sir F. BANBURY: I am sorry that the rignt hon. Gentleman has thought it necessary to renew this Motion again to-day. The right hon. Gentleman told us last week that it was necessary to obtain the two stages on one day, because of the delay which would otherwise be occasioned in connection with his borrowing powers. The only possible delay would be one day, and I cannot conceive that could make any difference, but, supposing it did, it is not the fault of the House; it is the fault of the right hon. Gentleman, who might have brought his Budget forward earlier and deferred till a later date some other measures to which we have devoted a certain amount of time. This question is very much more important than appears at first sight. The right hon. Gentleman says that he must have the Bill to-day, because otherwise he cannot get on as quickly as necessary, but what is to prevent the right hon. Gentleman coming down next year and saying the same thing, or perhaps giving a better reason, and so overriding altogether an excellent Rule which has been in force for a large number of years. That I am right in thinking that something of this sort may occur if the House is too lenient is shown by the fact that the present Secretary of State for War when Chancellor of the Exchequer was continually putting the Finance Bill off year after year, and, though remonstrances were made, they had not the slightest effect, and the result was that what is commonly called the "Bowles Act" was placed on the Statute Book to compel the Government to give proper time and means for the discussion of the earlier stages of the Bill. I am afraid, if the House is willing to abrogate its Standing Orders dealing with finance because the right hon. Gentleman says that he is in a hurry, the only result will be that in the future finance will be postponed to the end of the Session, and
  692
  the right hon. Gentleman will then come down and say, " I am very sorry, but I really must get this through at once or I cannot borrow my money or impose some tax." The House will have to dispense with its Rules, and the control of the private Member over the Government will be gone. Now I do hope that private Members on both sides of the House will exercise a little supervision over the Government. The Government up to now have treated with contempt the protests of private Members. They know perfectly well that whilst we may make protests nothing will happen. I do hope that private Members on this side of the House, and those who sit on the other side as well, will take some steps. They need not be in the least afraid that if we go to a Division and beat the Government the Government will resign. There is not the slightest chance of it. All that will happen will be that the Government will see that the House and the private Members are not to be altogether disregarded, and that they must not come down and treat the private Member like dirt, and do away with the whole of the Rules of the House, expecting that we will all follow at their heels without any protest.
  Mr. W. THORNE: Divide!
  Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. Gentleman who is anxious to divide is, of course, going to support the Government.
  Mr. THORNE: How do you know?
  Sir F. BANBURY: I have watched the career of the hon. Member, and I am convinced that he will vote with the Government for anything. However that may be, I am not concerned with the interruption of the hon. Member. I believe he was one of the hon. Members who supported the abrogation of the power of the House of Lords, because they thought it was necessary that the House of Commons should have sole control over finance, and now when we endeavour to obtain that control for the House of Commons he does not choose to listen, and does not desire to oppose the Government, who are taking away from the House of Commons its ordinary control over the finance of the country. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw his Motion. If not, we must divide against it, because it is utterly unnecessary, and because it is a gross breach of the Rules of the House,

  693
  and there has been no reason advanced why we should give way upon this subject.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. McKenna): It is because my proposal is a breach of the ordinary practice of the House that I ask by this Motion that the House should allow me to take this unusual step. I admit it is unusual, and it is only under the stress of circumstances that I ask the House to allow me to take the two stages of the Bill on the one day. I have listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. It is identical in form, substance, argument, and motive to many speeches which I have heard from him during the last twenty years, but they were all delivered in times of peace. They were appropriate to the occasion and represented very proper arguments to be used by an hon. Gentleman on the part of the Opposition to the Government of the country. But I suggest to him that they are absolutely inappropriate to the circumstances of the present time. I have endeavoured to arrange the financial business according to such information as I could get in order to secure that I should have sufficient borrowing powers to last me up to the requisite date. I am not, and nobody can be, in a position to fore-tell at the present time what rate in a particular month our expenditure is going to be. I estimated for expenditure at a certain rate which the House knows was £5,000,000 a day, but for reasons over which I had no control and which I could not foresee, the expenditure for some time now has been over £6,000,000 per day. That is a fact of the War. As a consequence my borrowing powers are being exhausted.
  Sir E. CARSON: When will they be exhausted?
  Mr. McKENNA: I expect on Wednesday or Thursday, certainly not later than Thursday. It depends on the rate of expenditure. Certainly not later than Thursday, possibly on Wednesday. It is impossible to say up to what exact date I have got borrowing power. Is it worth while making this bother about-a matter which is one of real practical convenience? It is the State which suffers; I do not suffer. The State is the only one that suffers. If you take the borrowing powers away it is a financial loss, and I ask the House, does it really think that the State
  694
  should be at a loss? I can make a complete and absolute explanation as to the way in which we have acted, and I have not the slightest fear of my personal exoneration or the exoneration of everybody connected with the Government. The question is, should I be doing my duty if I allowed my borrowing powers to lapse without telling the House and did not ask the House to give me the necessary power to get over this inconvenience. What is it I am asking? Already now we have had the ordinary number of stages of this Bill and an additional stage on the ground of recommital. That recommital was really necessitated by one Amendment; we had a Clause substituted by another Clause which the House preferred. We have already had one extra day in consequence of that recommital, and I ask the House to refrain from requiring a second extra day, and to allow me to take the Report stage of the recommital and the Third Beading on the one day. It is a question for the House. There is upon the Order Paper one Amendment in the recommital Report stage, an Amendment put down by myself, an Amendment which I might have accepted originally on Thursday, but did not do so because by way of assurance I wanted to consult the draftsman as to the best form of words. This is the Amendment substantially which my hon. and learned Friend put down on Thursday to fulfil a pledge, and by way of protection on this single question it was put back to the Report stage, and it might be disposed of and passed after a few minutes' conversation upon the subject. What prejudice will there be to the Rules in respect to financial business if we also take the Third Reading to-day? I ask the House in a time of War, and under the circumstances I have explained, to allow me this breach of the ordinary practice of the House, and to take the two stages to-day. It is for the House to determine, and I am perfectly willing to leave the question to the House. If the House decides against me it is at the cost of the nation alone; it is not at my cost. I hope the House will not be misled by peace arguments, and that it will accept this real business solution of the question.
  Sir E. CARSON: The right hon Gentleman has stated that he has been accustomed for many years to listen to the speeches of my hon. Friend (Sir F. Banbury) in peace times, bat I may tell him

  695
  that we are getting very sick of the kind of war speeches which the right hon. Gentleman and the Government have been accustomed to make for the past to years. Everything they want to do, or to keep back, they say, " It is a war occasion"; whether it is Papers, or Resolutions, or debates, or discussion, "you cannot do anything because the exigencies of the War require otherwise and the right hon. Gentleman comes down to-day and says, "We have been so busy this Session and we have found so many difficulties in getting the work through that I must ask the House of Commons to break through the Rules which have been acted upon for so many years with a view to protect the financial interests of the country." So far as I am concerned, if the right hon. Gentleman had shown any grounds of a case of emergency, I should have at once consented, but he has shown none whatsoever, and, as a matter of fact, at the very last moment of the Finance Bill he brought in a Clause which changed the whole system of legislation and exemption which had existed since 1852, and he did that without any notice whatever to the House, and without having put upon the Paper the change he proposed to make. He has brought the whole of this upon himself, and then he falls back and says, "Are you going to be so unpatriotic that you will not allow me to get this, and enable me to provide for the War?" That is the only circumstance that he has brought forward. If he had shown any reasons, but he does not even say when his borrow ing powers will cease——
  Mr. McKENNA: I have told the House.
  Sir E. CARSON: He said Wednesday or Thursday.
  Mr. McKENNA: Possibly on Wednesday; the latest on Thursday.
  Sir E. CARSON: Take the latest as Thursday; cannot he get the Bill through to-morrow?
  Mr. McKENNA: I cannot get it through this House and the other House and get the Royal Assent.
  4.00.P.M.
  Sir E. CARSON: This is only Monday. He can get the Royal Assent on Wednesday. There is no difficulty about that. But the difficulty is that the Government has got into that condition that they think they can do anything they like, and I think the sooner they know that both the
  696
  country and the House of Commons are waking up to this and wish them to preserve the externals of decency in this House, in relation to the Rules of Order and Procedure in this House, the better. What is to prevent them getting the Bill on Wednesday? He can get time to finish it to-morrow, and the House of Lords is a very obliging place, having no power over finance now, and they can sit, one or two of them can sit, to-morrow and do it in an hour. The right hon. Gentleman seems to forget also that he and the late Government have taken away all the powers of the House of Lords over finance; therefore, the House of Lords need not be considered at all. The very fact, however, that you have taken them away from the House of Lords makes it all the more incumbent on this House that it should realise its full responsibilities in regard to finance. I submit to the House that the right hon. Gentleman has made no case whatsoever. He simply comes down here and says, "I tell you, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, that you must pass this Bill"; therefore the Bill is to be passed.
  Mr. McKENNA: I did not say anything of the sort.
  Sir E. CARSON: That is what his argument comes to.
  Mr. McKENNA: It is a travesty of it.
  Sir E. CARSON: It may be called the ordinary Coalition Government argument, which is "Do what we want, or the Government service is prejudiced." I do not believe it will be prejudiced; therefore, so far as I am concerned, if there is a Division, I shall vote against this Motion.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be the very last to say that this House has ever been reluctant in any way to deal generously with any request that is made by any occupant of his Office.
  Mr. McKENNA: Hear, hear!
  Sir H. DALZIEL: Therefore I am rather sorry and surprised at the ground upon which my right hon. Friend has defended this Resolution to-day. He must remember that the Government have full control of the time of the House. They have taken all the time of private Members. We are not even allowed ten minutes to introduce a Bill. That has been the case

  697
  from the beginning of the Session, with the general approval of the House. That puts the Government in a very peculiar position in regard to their responsibilities to the House generally. We waive all our privileges in order that they may have full opportunities for all legislation connected with the War. In view of that fact it is unreasonable to come down at a time like this and say that because of losing one day the State might lose a considerable amount of money and great difficulties will arise. They ought to have some degree of perspective with regard to the business of the House. We are not sitting our full time at the present moment; we are only sitting four days a week. One day more would have made all the difference. We should not have had any necessity for this Debate, and the right hon. Gentleman would not have had any reason to make this demand. I associate myself most thoroughly with the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir E. Carson) in resenting what I may call the war argument which the Government puts forward. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is an old debater. He knows the value of choosing his own ground. He comes to the House and says, "Anyone who is against adopting this course is interfering with the progress of the War." That is an unworthy argument to come from that bench, because it is not true. Any man who may vote against this Motion is not voting on an issue with regard to the War at all. The whole question is whether the Government have shown full cause for altering procedure which has always been carefully guarded by the House. The right hon. Gentleman asks us to take two important stages of his Bill on one day.
  Mr, McKENNA: They are not important.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: Why not?
  Mr. McKENNA: One is the Report stage of a recommitted Clause, in respect of which there is only one very small Amendment on the Paper, and that is in the name of the Government.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: I refuse to enter into the question of the value of particular proposals in respect of which new stages have become necessary. The only point I have to consider is whether the Government have shown sufficient reason for breaking away from Rules which are well established. In my opinion they have not. They ought not to have allowed this pos-
  698
  sibility of the loss of a day to cause any loss to the State if they did not get the Bill through. They ought to have asked the House to sit on an extra day.
  Mr. McKENNA: We could not sit on Friday because the Finance Ministers of Russia, France, and Italy had a Conference with me during the morning and afternoon of Friday.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: He could have taken the previous Friday. The right hon. Gentleman has allowed his business to get to such a point that if the House exercises its privileges, according to him we are causing a loss to the State. No one in charge of the business of the House ought to have allowed matters to drift to such a stage. There is no reason whatever why the Government could not have had a margin of time in this case. Is it fair to the House to say that because the right hon. Gentleman is working up to the very last minute and because his engagements take him away, therefore the House ought to give up its ancient privileges? I do not look at this Motion as affecting the moment only, but from the point of view of the precedent that is set. We all know the operation of a precedent of this kind. My right hon. Friend or his successor in office will say again next year what he has said to-day, and will probably ask for three stages to be taken on one day. With regard to finance, it is a sound principle that only one stage should be taken on one day, and I am sorry my right hon. Friend should have found it necessary to ask us to give up the practice on this occasion.
  Mr. KING: I want to assure the Government that although they have been attacked by three right hon. Gentlemen there is at any rate one hon. Member who is going to support them entirely. We had better get on with business instead of talking about how we are going to do the business. That is what I came here for, and, personally, I am not at all averse from doing two or three days' work in one. That is what we are going to do to-day. I am rather surprised, however, that we have only just been told, incidentally, that the expenses of the War are now over £6,000,000 a day. That to me was new. Perhaps I am rather behind what is known to other hon. Members. It came to me as a surprise. I want to take this opportunity of saying that I hope the House will be

  699
  taken fully into the confidence of the Government. If they see a steady rise of expenditure going on we ought to be told, in order that in our little way we may assist them all the more. The idea of a Friday sitting on an emergency which was suggested by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir H. Dalziel) is one that
  ought to be considered by the Government. We might very well have a short Debate on a Friday without any inconvenience to the Government or to hon. Members, and then such occasions as this would not arise.
  Question put.
  The House divided: Ayes, 147; Noes, 29.

  Division No. 36.]

  AYES.

  [4.10 p.m.

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Pratt, J. W.

  Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Hazelton, Richard

  Prothero, Rowland Edmund

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Durham)

  Radford, Sir George Heynes

  Arnold, Sydney

  Herbert, Maj.-Gen. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Baird, John Lawrence

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

  Reddy, Michael

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Hinds, John

  Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, E.)

  Barnes, Rt. Hon. George N.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Reid, Rt. Hon. Sir George H.

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Bird, Alfred

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Boland, John Pius

  Jacobsen, Thomas Owen

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Bowden, Major G. R. Harland

  Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Boyton, James

  Jones, William S. Glyn-(Stepney)

  Robertson, Rt. Hon. John M.

  Brace, William

  Joyce, Michael

  Rowlands, James

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Kerry, Earl of

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Bull, Sir William James

  King, Joseph

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Butcher, John George

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Smith, Sir Swire (Keighley, W.R.)

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  Campion, W. R.

  Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Cecil,Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

  Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Egbaston)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A.

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Thomas-Stanford, Charles

  Chancellor, Henry George

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

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Coats, Sir Stuart A. (Wimbledon)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Macmaster, Donald

  Tickler, T. G.

  Cosgrave, James

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Cowan, W. H.

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

  Valentia, Viscount

  Crooks, Rt. Hon. William

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Wardle, George J.

  Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughby R.

  Meagher, Michael

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir J. B.

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

  Whitty, Patrick Joseph

  Fell, Arthur

  Morison, Hector

  Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Wiles, Thomas

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

  Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Murray, Major Hon. Arthur C.

  Williams, Col. Sir Robert (Dorset, West)

  Field, William

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. Doncaster)

  Wing, Thomas Edward

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  O'Grady, James

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

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  O'Malley, William

  Yeo, Alfred William

  Gilbert, J. D.

  Pearce, Sir Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Glanville, Harold James

  Pearce, Sir William (Limehouse)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Goddard, Rt. Hon. Sir Daniel Ford

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Goldstone, Frank

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Gulland and Lord E. Talbot.

  Greenwood, Sir G. G. (Peterborough)

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Phillips, Sir Owen (Chester)

  NOES.

  Bellairs, Commander C. W.

  Guinness, Hon.W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)

  Newman, John R. P.

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

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

  Burgoyne, Alan Hughes

  Harris, Henry Percy (Paddington, S.)

  Stewart, Gershom

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Horne, Edgar

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Hunt, Major Rowland

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole

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

  Younger, Sir George

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Martin, Joseph

  Gardner, Ernest

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Grant, James Augustus

  Meysey-Thompson, Major E. C.

  Sir F. Banbury and Sir H. Dalziel

  Gretton, John

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  FINANCE BILL.
  As amended (on recommittal) considered.
  FINANCE BILL.

    CLAUSE 36.—(Limitation of Relief from Income Tax in Respect of Insurance Premiums.)
    The relief given under Section fifty-four of the Income Tax Act, 1853, as amended by any subsequent enactment, shall not, as regards insurances or contracts for deferred annuities made after the twenty-second day of June, 1916, be given at a greater rate than that of three shillings in the pound, and shall not as regards any insurance or contract for a deferred annuity, be given, notwithstanding anything in paragraph (b) of Subsection (2) of Section sixty-six of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, for the purposes of Super-tax.
    (2) The said relief shall not, as regards insurances or contracts for deferred annuities made after the twenty-second day of June, nineteen hundred and sixteen,—

    (a) be given except in respect of premiums or other payments payable on policies for securing a capital sum on death, whether in conjunction with any other benefit or not; or

    (b) be given in respect of premiums or payments payable during the period of deferment in respect of a policy of deferred assurance.

    Provided that nothing in this Subsection shall affect premiums or payments payable on policies or contracts made in connection with any superannuation or bonâ-fide pension scheme, for the benefit of the employés of any employer or of persons engaged in any particular profession, vocation, trade, or business.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
    I did not say anything upon the arrangement which was come to on the recommitted stage, and I am glad the right hon. Gentleman gave way as far as he did, but he only gave way partially and he made no alteration with regard to the Super-tax. At the present moment in the Courts the Solicitor-General is engaged in defending a case brought against a private individual relating to the Income Tax, and his contention is that the Super-tax is part of the Income Tax. If that contention is right, I see no reason why at present it should be separated from the Income Tax, and dealt with as being something totally distinct. In fact, the right hon. Gentle-
    702
    man himself when the Motion was brought forward suggesting that Super-tax should not be charged upon that part of the income which was received—that is to say, should be charged only on the income after Income Tax had been deducted—used the very self-same argument that the Solicitor-General is now using, that the Super-tax is part of the Income Tax. But now, when it suits him, he takes the other ground and says Super-tax is something quite different and must not be treated in the same category as Income Tax. No doubt what was said by my right hon. Friend (Sir E. Carson) on the Committee stage of the Bill is correct, namely, that the Super-tax payer has no friend, and whether it is or is not logical to treat him in this way, as he consists only of a very small number of people, it is no use raising any argument in his defence, and though he may be badly treated, still it is no use in the present House of Commons attempting to defend him. The right hon. Gentleman to-day has addressed a letter to the newspapers in which he is endeavouring to persuade people to save. He does not go the right way to make them save, because if you do save you are immediately penalised by having extra taxation put upon you. I know it is useless, however just the argument may be, to bring any forward, because the right hon. Gentleman will not listen to them, and the Labour party, of course, are all taking everything they can from anyone who by thrift and industry has been unfortunate enough in this country to make any savings. I thought, as I did not make any observation upon this proposal on the recommital stage, I should not like to allow the Clause to go through without having stated my opinion that I see no adequate reason why there should be a difference between Income Tax and Super-tax. According to the arguments of the Solicitor-General, Super-tax is part of the Income Tax, and therefore ought to be treated in the same way.
    Sir J. D. REES: The arguments used by my right hon. Friend were raised by myself when the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced his concession, and I hope that now they come from so distinguished a quarter the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to reply to them. I cannot understand how it can be argued that Super-tax and Income Tax are upon the same basis for one purpose and not for another. It is a perfectly unarguable position, and I think the right hon. Gentleman

    703
    gave away the case for the present distinction when he admitted with regard to the Amendment of my hon. Friend (Mr. Peto) that there was a good case for altering the rule under which Income Tax, which is an outgoing, is added to the incomings for the purpose of assessing Super-tax. The fact is that a very unjust prejudice is here allowed to operate against people who have admittedly taken advantage of the rule allowing deductions of premiums paid for insurance. They have taken advantage of that provision to pile up insurances. It is well known that a taxing Act must hit the bird in the eye. If it is not exactly to the point, the subject is perfectly justified in taking advantage of any omission or any laxity in the legal provision in that behalf. It is for this reason that in past times smuggling was regarded, if not as a gentlemanlike, at least as a sportsmanlike proceeding, and to this very day that principle rules to a great extent, and as people, perhaps people with large incomes, now take advantage of this provision in regard to Income Tax to increase their thrifty, prudent, desirable provision for their families in the future, it is most unfair that they should be come down upon in this manner while in respect of Income Tax no such penalty attaches. To my mind the case requires no argument. I have not heard a single argument advanced in justification of this arbitrary distinction, except the kind of jealousy which exists against those who are nominally rich but who are becoming poor with the most gigantic strides.
    May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question on this other point? Under the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915, it was provided that not more than 7 per cent, of the actual capital sum assured should be allowed as deduction-that is £70 for every £1,000. Now that the right hon. Gentleman is only going to allow 3s. in the £, does that 7 per cent, limit still hold good, or has it disappeared? So far as I can see, no corresponding provision to that of Clause 10 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915, exists in the present Clause.
    Mr. McKENNA: The deduction will be 3s. on every £70 in respect of every £l,000 insured.
    Sir J. D. REES: Then the maximum does exist?
    Mr. McKENNA: Of course.
    Sir J. D. REES: Then I think that is another injustice. It practically penalises those who insure at older ages and at higher rates in favour of younger people who insure earlier in their lives and at lower rates. Whatever my right hon. Friend may think of the argument, that is the result, and a somewhat deplorable result. Take the case of an insurance of £2,500.
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter which was enacted by the Act of last year, and it is not altered by this Clause. The hon. Gentleman can only discuss at present the contents of Clause 36.
    Sir J. D. REES: I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that the limit is still in force, and it appears to me that it is exceedingly germane to this present discussion. However, my purpose is served for the moment in getting a statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the 7 per cent. limit still exists, and I hope he will explain whether he does not think that the continued existence of that limit is not somewhat inconsistent with, or at any rate a very severe addition to, the present restriction of the 3s. in the £, which is imposed by this Clause?
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. McKENNA: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add the words " or on any policy taken out by a teacher in a secondary school pending the establishment of a superannuation or pension scheme for those teachers."
    This is an Amendment which I put down at the request of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Rawlinson). I think it meets his point.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for meeting me in the matter, and for having put the Amendment down in accordance with his hope expressed last Thursday. There is one thing I want to make quite sure about. The draftsman has added certain words. I quite understand what he means. The words are "pending the establishment of a superannuation or pension scheme for those teachers." I understand the right hon. Gentleman means, as I do, that the exemption shall be complete until a scheme is formulated, as we hope it may be after the War. Afterwards we hope there will be a limitation to those who take part in the scheme. I want it

    705
    clear that the exemption until then is complete, and that any secondary teacher who chooses to enter into one of these contracts is free from the tax until the scheme is formulated after the War. I have received letters, which I have not yet been able to investigate, so I will say no more about them now, showing that there are other classes in rather a similar condition to these secondary school teachers, such as lady doctors. They may be affected, and on some future occasion I might possibly make some request to the right hon. Gentleman. I just mention it now as, if I do not, he might say I have passed it over in silence. Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 38.—(Amendments of Law with Respect to Income Tax on Woodlands.)
    (1) Any person occupying woodlands who proves to the satisfaction of the Special Commissioners that those wood-lands are managed by him on a commercial basis, and with a view to the realisation of profits, shall have the same right under Subsection (4) of Section 22 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915, to elect to be charged under Schedule D as a person who proves those facts to the satisfaction of the General Commissioners, but an application to prove those facts in any year in respect of the same woodlands must be made either to the General or Special Commissioners, and not to both.
    (2) Paragraph (a) of Subsection (4) of Section 22 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915, which provides that the election shall extend to all woodlands managed on the same estate, shall not apply to woodlands which are planted or replanted after the passing of this Act, if the person occupying those woodlands gives notice to the General or Special Commissioners within a year after the time when they are so planted or replanted, that they are to be treated for the purpose of that paragraph as being woodlands on a separate estate.
    (3) Section 23 of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1890 (which gives relief to trading persons in case of loss), shall, where a person occupying woodlands has elected to be charged to Income Tax in respect of those woodlands under Schedule D, apply to losses on those woodlands as it applies to losses in any trade.
    Mr. DUNDAS WHITE: I beg to move to leave out Clause 38 for formal reasons in order to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he would be good
    706
    enough to explain, in as untechnical language as possible, what would be the effect of this Clause. I have no hostile feeling towards the Clause—indeed, I appreciate very fully the object for which the Clause has been introduced. I understand that the general plan is that it is designed to relieve future planting and replanting from the economic penalties that would otherwise fall upon these woodlands under the ordinary operation of the Income Tax as it stands at present or as it stood before last year. I have tried to find out what the precise effects of this Clause would be, but the whole question is rather complicated to one who does not give a considerable amount of study to it. In these circumstances, and in view of the importance of encouraging planting in this country, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he could tell us how matters will stand under this Clause. If these woodlands that are planted are used for sporting purposes or let for sporting purposes, what would the position be then, because there might be certain economic advantages from sporting as well as from the planting of timber?
    Mr. BRUNNER: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Member was good enough to write to me and to say that he desired to get a clear statement as to the effect of Clause 38. As I admit that it is somewhat difficult to construe in its actual words, I have had prepared a statement which, if the House will allow me, I would like to read, as it sets out in a very clear form what is the actual effect of Clause 38. I propose to take a concrete case of a man, whom I will call X, who has lands which he proposes to plant or replant with timber. Within a year of the planting X satisfies either the General Commissioners or the Special Commissioners that he is managing the newly planted woodlands on a commercial basis; he elects for Schedule D assessment and intimates that these woodlands are to be treated as a separate area—a distinct unit—for Income Tax purposes. That is to say, these woodlands, which are to be managed purely on a commercial basis, are cut out for Income Tax purposes from the rest of the estates, and are to be assessed on Schedule D basis. On the conclusion of the first year's operations X's accounts will show a loss, obviously. There will be an excess of expenditure over receipts because he does

    707
    not cut his timber in the first year—indeed, for some years there will be little or nothing to show in the way of receipts. X will have paid Income Tax under Schedule A upon the rental value of the woodlands, and he will now come forward to invoke the aid of Sub-section (3) of Clause 38. Suppose the net Schedule A assessment to be £500, and the losses shown on the year's account to be £300, without charging anything for rent. The loss for Income Tax purposes will be £800, and X will be repaid the whole of the Schedule A tax—that is on £500, and further tax on £300 of his other taxed income. That is to say, where he has no profit, but a loss, he is repaid Schedule A tax, and he is repaid out of his other Income Tax the tax which he has paid in respect of a sum equal to his loss. This process will go on until the tide turns, and when profits begin to be realised X will be assessed for them under Schedule D on a three years' average, deducting, of course, Schedule A assessed value of £500 as an annual working expense. In this way, over the whole period, from the first planting until the final cutting, X will have borne Income Tax upon the actual profits realised from the woodlands, neither more nor less. I think that if we are to prevent discouragement of the planting of woodlands we ought to see to it that whoever plants woodlands is charged neither more nor less than any trader who is carrying on business. I have some further points here in the statement which has been prepared, but I think I have covered the whole ground and given a sufficient answer to my hon. Friend.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I am sure those who have taken an interest in this question are very grateful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the manner in which he has met the demand that some consideration ought to be given to those who are going to replant woods that have been cut down for the purposes of the War. Shortly put it means this: that you cut out of your estate and make a separate return altogether for the new woods, although you may continue to pay Income Tax on the older woods under Schedule D at present, and you can set off against your ordinary income the losses that may be incurred. I am sure we are all very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. WHITE: In withdrawing the Motion, I should like to thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for his clear explanation.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
    Mr. J. MASON: I should like to take this opportunity of making some remarks on certain subjects which are dealt with in this Bill. The first is in regard to the question of the high rate of Income Tax which is imposed in this Bill, not as it affects private incomes, but as it affects, and must necessarily affect, industries carried on in this country, and especially those industries which come into competition with foreign nations in the neutral markets of the world. This is not a question to be considered as affecting these firms at the present moment so much as it is likely to affect them on the completion of the War. No one will imagine that we must continue an Income Tax of 5s. in the £ after the War, but we must admit, and we must be prepared to admit, that the Income Tax for several years after the War must necessarily be at a high rate in order to meet the very large burden which is imposed by the War. The object I have in mentioning this matter to-day, assuming that I am right and that for some years after the War is over the Income Tax has to be maintained at a high rate, is to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that it will be necessary to go into the whole question of the system under which the Income Tax is now collected. It is admitted that the Income Tax Commissioners in collecting the tax are very severe in the matter of depreciation in industry. I think if we have to face a long period of high Income Tax it will be necessary, on account of foreign competition, that we shall have to meet in neutral markets, and in order to give our industries a fair chance, that the Commissioners should be more generous in the question of depreciation in the industries of this country.
    The other subject I wish to speak about is the future of the controlled firms about which we had very considerable discussion the other day. There is no doubt that the controlled firms as a whole felt that they were being unjustly or harshly treated as compared with the uncontrolled firms. The fact that they were brought

    709
    under a double tax on the same profits and that that tax was in each case based on a different standard gave them a feeling that they were being treated more harshly than the uncontrolled firms, who were only subject to one tax. There is undoubtedly considerable justification for that contention, and I am sure that the Government is anxious, and has shown itself anxious, to remove as much of that feeling as possible. It has been suggested, so I am informed, that the controlled firms have tried to get out of a bargain, and it has also been suggested that they have, to some extent, threatened passive resistance. I think that both of these statements are very unjust to a large number of firms in this country, who really have been doing a great deal to carry us through a very difficult period. I will go further, and say that I am perfectly satisfied that if the controlled firms of this country as a whole did fail to get a single thing given to them or to get relief from what they believed to be an injustice, they would continue to do their best to win the War in spite of any injustice put upon them.
    Sir J. D. REES: I wish to refer to a subject which I raised in Committee, because the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in answering me, did not quite meet my point. He very handsomely said that he had recently take up his new duties, and he confessed to not being fully aware of the details. As the subject is one of very great importance and affects very large business concerns, I wish to refer to it again, in the hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not pass it over in silence as he did another subject a few moments ago. The point is this, and I want an assurance from the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to it, which I think he should be able to give. It is the case of a firm which made £50,000 profit in one accounting period and £50,000 loss in another accounting period. Under the principal Act it appeared to be perfectly clear that the one period would be set off against the other, and that there would be no Excess Profits Duty to be paid. Words have been introduced into the Bill which say that the amount to be repaid or set off on account of a deficiency or loss arising in any period in respect of which duty would be payable at the rate of 50 per cent. of the excess, shall be calculated by reference to that rate of duty. As I understand these
    710
    words, the meaning is—I am not sure that it is not so, and I certainly think it would be argued by the tax gatherer—that whereas the concern would have to pay 60 per cent, on the £50,000 excess—that is to say, £30,000, it would only get a set off of 50 per cent. in respect of the loss of £50,000, and that between the £30,000 paid and the £25,000 set off, there would be £5,000 which would have to be paid as Excess Profits Duty, although as a fact no extra profit would have been made during the war period. I cannot think for a moment that that is really meant, but I do delieve that a tax gatherer, in fact, any ingenious person, would argue that that is the intention, of the words now imported into the principal Act by the present Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool (Sir J. Harmood—Banner), than whom there is no more distinguished commercial Member of this House, and no one who has a better knowledge of this subject, supported me in the matter, and said he did not quite understand what would be the effect of the words now imported into the principal Act, and that when he asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, even the Chancellor of the Exchequer indicated some doubt-it must have been in camera—as to what was the actual effect of this Clause. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in reply to me, said that this was a case of taking the rough with the smooth, and he gave me a case of two different men, whereas the whole point of the instance I have given is that it is one man or one firm that is affected, and that the loss in one case is to be set off against profit of an equal amount in the other case. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will think proper on this occasion to give an answer on this matter, because if I err in interpreting the words now imported into the principal Act there are others who also err though they are more familiar than I can claim to be-though I have some knowledge of the subject-with the operation of the Excess Profits Tax in such cases.
    There is another point which is also exceedingly important, because of existing financial relations between Great Britain and the United States, and because we are now a debtor country to the United States and because the Chancellor of the Exchequer is exceedingly anxious that those debts should be as far as possible extinguished, and that all private persons

    711
    should contribute so far as within them lies to their extinction. This arises out of the Budget of 1914, which made Income Tax payable for income arising abroad. Take the case of a man whose income accrues in America. He pays upon that on a three years' average. The contention is that he should pay upon the actualities of the year before, in the same way as the Super-tax is assessed. When I put down an Amendment on this, Mr. Speaker ruled it out. I am sorry that I did not catch his words or I should have ventured to suggest that it was capable of another construction. It was ruled out on the ground that it imposed a charge upon the subject. Had I heard that, I should have shown that the intention, at any rate, was to reduce a charge upon the subject. Suppose that a person whose income arises in America, in answer to the appeal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer brings home, say, £100,000. The income upon that money which he brings home, say, £5,000, is assessed here to Income Tax, while he continues to be assessed upon his three years' average. If such a person sells securities his income in America would be £5,000 less. But for the first year he would still be charged Income Tax upon £10,000, and at the same time he would be paying Income Tax on the £5,000 which he is getting by the reinvestment of the £100,000 that he brought home to invest in Treasury Bills or Exchequer Bonds. Therefore I contend that this patriotic individual would be paying Income Tax on £15,000 per year instead of £10,000 a year, and that this injustice would continue for three years in lesser degree. While accepting this principle in regard to profits arising from trade, where I admit that three years' assessment is the only proper method, my contention is that in other cases the Income Tax should be levied upon the last year's actual receipts, and not upon the three years' average. I have got the figures showing how it would work out for the three years, but I am sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer takes my point and that it is, therefore, unnecessary to take, up further time with this matter.
    Another matter to which I wish to refer is the Cocoa Tax. I must express regret that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, after a long period, having hardened his heart and put a proper tax of 6d. upon cocoa should subsequently have been persuaded to depart from his better judgment and
    712
    reduce it to 4½d. I do not think that those who are interested in tea will accept the Chancellor's statement that 4½d. on cocoa is a tax proportionate to the present tax upon tea. Though I am aware of the arguments that have been put forward, I think that 6d. would have been far more correct. I only hope that when the tea interest—this long suffering and loyal interest—is moved to make representations as to the amount of tax imposed upon it the right hon. Gentleman will be as amenable td the objections of the tea industry as he has been on this occasion to the arguments of those who are interested in the manufacture of cocoa. I think a great deal about this, but I hesitate to say more. I regret that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not been able to impose Income Tax upon the profits of cooperative societies. I am not going to argue that. It has been repeatedly argued, but——
    Mr. SPEAKER: On the Third Beading only the contents of the Bill are a subject for discussion. The hon. Gentleman must not proceed to deal with subjects that are not in the Bill.
    Sir J. D. REES: No, I will not proceed with them.
    Mr. SPEAKER: There is nothing in the Bill about taxing co-operative societies.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: There was one point to which I called attention when the Bill was in Committee. It is in Clause 24. It is with regard to the reduction of Income Tax at the source. Under this Clause the Government is taking power to deduct 5s. from every payer of Income Tax, whether he is liable to pay the 5s. or not. I raised the point with the view of trying to get some relief for those who will be penalised under this Clause, and we suggested that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should take their case into consideration and endeavour to provide some redress, and he said that he would consider the matter. People whose Income Tax is deducted at the source, and whose incomes go up to £500, would have about £28 deducted from their income beyond what they are liable to pay. They are liable to pay in that case 3s. in the £, and 5s. is deducted. I do not trouble about the men who are earning large incomes, and are at the present time exploiting the nation in every direction. My sympathies go to the people who have stationary salaries and are not able to take advantage of the present situation to increase their income. I made the suggestion

    713
    that the Chancellor in these cases should give the person, who is so charged excess of Income Tax, the right to approach the surveyor of taxes in the locality, who is acquainted with the income of every person in the locality, and say, "I have been taxed at the rate of 5s. in the £. I am only liable to pay 3s. in the £, and I claim my rebate of 2s. in the £." I think that that is a very simple way of dealing with this question.
    Since I raised the matter I have had several letters. One is from a man who is holding at the present time a judicial position, and he admits that he has come across a very large number of cases of very great hardship, especially in the case of women, of people who have no knowledge how to proceed to recover the excess tax. The suggestion which was made is a workable one. What it means is that the Chancellor should undertake to allow the over-tax to any person who is liable to pay only 3s. Income Tax, so that he shall not be obliged to pay practically a charge of 60 per cent. beyond what that person is liable to pay. There is no indication whatever in the Act as to how this person is to recover this money, and no business man in this country would undertake to overcharge any of his customers 60 per cent. beyond the actual price. I certainly protest against the Government taking the power to charge an Income Tax of 5s. in the £ where the person is only liable to pay 3s. in the £, and that it should have taken this money for a given period, even for three months or six months, and practically give them no indication whatever how they are to reclaim it, is a thing which no Government should do. I, therefore, plead with the Chancellor that he should meet the case of these people who are compelled, through their Income Tax being deducted at the source, either by banks or railway companies or other businesses, to the extent of 5s. in the £, and that he should give instructions that the people in their own locality should be able to approach the surveyor of taxes and say, " They have charged me at the rate of 5s. My income is only £300, £400, or £500, as the case may be. I am liable to pay only 3s. in the £, and I claim now to obtain a reduction of 2s. in the £." In these cases the Government have no right to retain the money. Upon these grounds I plead with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make this concession, and to consent to issue these instructions to the different surveyors of
    714
    taxes, and I believe that if he does this it will give very great satisfaction throughout the country.
    5.0 P.M.
    Mr. LOUGH: There is one point raised in the Debate on which I would like to make a single remark which is due to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He has been accused of having dealt unfairly in the matter of the Cocoa Duty in reducing the tax and not maintaining its proper relationship with the tax on tea. I am surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees), who is, to some extent, an expert in these matters, should have raised the argument. He will find, if he looks at the Bill, that the thing is perfectly simple. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has made a change which has put cocoa into the same relationship with tea as had been previously established in the case of coffee. Just as coffee is taxed on the raw coffee, which afterwards has to be roasted and loses about 20 per cent., so cocoa comes in in a green state and has to be roasted, so that this tax of 6d. on the pound bears exactly the same relationship to the drink of cocoa as a 1s. on the pound does to tea. I will not elaborate the point further, but I think it fair to my right hon. Friend, who corrected a mistake in the earlier draft of the Bill, that he should receive a word of criticism on this point in the House. From the little I know of the trade, in which I am not" interested, I think that the change which the Chancellor has made is highly appreciated. My hon. Friend now says that the change is appreciated. I feel great hope that he will take a more reasonable view hereafter. With regard to the point mentioned by my hon. Friend opposite, I do think, though it is the Third Reading of the Bill, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should bear in mind this question of abatement in the case of those with small incomes whose Income Tax is deducted at the source. These are cases of great hard-ship, and if the right hon. Gentleman can in any way facilitate repayment to these taxpayers he will be doing a great service. I do not know whether my hon. Friend has a proposal, but I trust the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to make arrangements for hastening these payments of these abatements.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: I suggested that there should be a local notice published indicating how people could reclaim payment

    715
    of the money. I could not say that people should have these repayments made unless they do claim.
    Mr. LOUGH: There are facilities for those who are justly entitled to make claims. The point I want to make to the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer is that though this year the Government are in need of the money, yet the deduction of the tax at the source will be a great trial to people with small incomes derived from investments, more especially at this time, when their expenditure is greatly increased. Therefore I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will hurry up the Inland Revenue Department in order that these abatements may be made quickly, and if he does that he will be rendering a great service to many people throughout the country. I will only make one general observation with regard to the Bill itself: I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer deserves to be congratulated upon the fact that a Bill which throws such immense burdens upon the country has been accepted by the House.
    Mr. BROUGHTON: I differ from the statement of the hon. Member for East Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees) in regard to income arising in the United States, that the income is averaged on the three preceding years. My experience is that unearned income arising in the United States, for any one year, is for the current year, and that only part of the three preceding years is included in the average.
    Mr. WARDLE: I would like to join in the appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to the deduction which is made at the source, and what is made at a very high rate. Surely there should be some machinery by which this deduction can be made in respect to these fixed incomes, and whereby the money to be returned may be repaid more quickly than is now proposed. I was almost going to say that it should be given back before it is taken away, but certainly it could be allowed when the Income Tax Returns are made up, and the proper amount could then be paid. I feel sure that the case is one of grave hardship, and that we have a right to urge in these extraordinary times that something should be done by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his Department to relieve this class of people with small and fixed incomes, upon whom this burden falls very heavily indeed.
    Mr. PENNEFATHER: My hon. Friend the Member for East Nottingham referred a few moments ago to an apprehension which exists in his mind, and in the mind of others, in regard to what might happen if the new words introduced into this Bill in regard to the Excess Profits Duty-the difference between 50 per cent. and 60 per cent.—were allowed to remain. I quite think that these words must remain in the Bill, and that we could not ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take them out, because I can imagine many circumstances in which it is essential that those words should be in. I think there was some misunderstanding, a bonâ-fide misunderstanding between my hon. Friend the Member for East Nottingham and the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary. They certainly did seem to be talking a little bit at cross purposes. I should like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in order to make the point clear, whether that misunderstanding did not arise from the assumption that if a man made a loss of £50,000 in the first year, and made £50,000 in the second year, there would be a set-off in respect of duty. My point is—I think I am right-that there will be a set-off of the loss as against the profit. No duty having been paid in the first period when there was a loss, no such duty could be set off in respect of the duty payable in the second period. What I submit is this, that the man says, " I have lost £50,000 in the first period and made £50,000 in the second period, and that there is no profit for the whole period, and there being no profit you cannot possibly charge me with Excess Profits Duty." I think that is according to the Principle Act, the words of which are
    "and will make the total amount of Excess Profits Duty paid by him during the whole period accord with his profits or losses during that period."
    I think the right hon. Gentleman had not these words in mind when the discussion arose. I am quite sure my hon. Friend and others interested with him will be perfectly satisfied with an assurance from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that wherever, for the whole period, there is actually no profit, then no Excess Profits Duty will be charged. I think that assuranced would entirely meet the case.
    Sir W. PEARCE: I think in all parts of the House it would afford pleasure if the Chancellor of the Exchequer found himself able to meet the real hardship of

    717
    those people with small incomes whose Income Tax is deducted at the source. To take away 5s. in the £ from people who have a comparatively small sum of money at their disposal is a real hardship, even if the money which is to be repaid is retained only for three or four months. I trust that, if possible, the procedure may be simplified in order to meet the case of people who may, from want of knowledge, find it difficult to make any claim, and if that can be done I am sure the House will be glad. The Excess Profits Taxes are very heavy indeed, but I suppose nobody can object, because the country needs the money. At the same time, however, there is this danger, that this heavy taxation may take "away money which is really necessary for the development of industries, if this country is to maintain its position and to capture trade after the War. The money required by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and by the Ministry of Munitions could go to maintain and extend our industries after the War, and, unless we can do that, we shall have Germany coming back with her dyes, her chemicals and other products. I do hope that the right hon. Gentleman and the Minister of Munitions will bear in mind this aspect of the case, and that they will allow not only for depreciation, but make allowances, if they are able to do so, under both the Finance Act and the Munitions Act, so that there may be in hand capital that is really required for the development of the industries of the country. I hope that there will be borne in mind not only the necessity for adjustment of prices, but adjustments of capital that is wisely expended in the real interests of the nation.
    Mr. BRYCE: I want to emphasise the point raised by my hon. Friend (Sir W. Pearce) with regard to the danger of the action of the Excess Profits Tax. Under existing circumstances there is not much good, seeing the needs of the Chancellor, in urging the point, because he has to get the money some how or other. But I doubt very much whether it is a particularly wise way of getting it. As the last speaker observed, you may be preventing the retention of capital which would be used in the capture of German trade after the War, owing to the action taken under the Munitions Act and under the Finance Act. The Government have set up a very large number of Committees, many of them composed of able men, who
    718
    have devoted a great deal of time and study to the question of the means to be adopted for meeting trade competition, and the increase of our trade after the War. The effect of these Committees will be rendered entirely nugatory by the operation of these taxes. The money which would have been available from the profits would have been used for the purpose of creating facilities for attempting to capture trade. But the money will not be available. These resources are all being eaten up by the operation of the Excess Profits Tax, and it will be quite impossible to get any money even if the Treasury or the Chancellor of the Exchequer are allowed to get in extra subscriptions of capital, because nobody would put their money in for the sake of getting 6 per cent. When we come to the Germans, we find that they have very wisely—though they must be far more in need of money than we are—avoided imposing this tax, and they have done this simply for the purpose of allowing their industries to accumulate funds in readiness for the business which they hope to do after the War, and in order to do which they must be in the very best possible position if they are to get their way at all. That is a point which I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consider with a view to next year's legislation. I hope that he will see his way to remove the Excess Profits Tax instead of increasing it as he has done this year. I join in the appeal of the hon. Member for Limehouse and the Member of the Labour party to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to try, by some tentative legislation, to make a more rapid return to persons with small incomes whose Income Tax is deducted at the source. Take the case of a poor lady with £200 a year who has to pay this tax, and who is entitled to reclaim a very large part of it. The want of the sum of £50 during six, or eight, or nine months means a very great hardship. There was another point, that of allowances for the purpose of Excess Profits Duty, which has been referred to. I do not think the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Pennefather) noticed that Clause 40 makes a difference in the operation as compared with what it was in last year's Act. I hope the Chancellor will be able to show that that will not act unfairly.
    Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: I add my appeal to that of the hon. Member who has just spoken. On the question of Income Tax, the Chancellor and the

    719
    Treasury know that they have no right to retain a good deal of the Income Tax they deduct. People cannot be expected to go through all the paraphernalia to get a return of small sums of £2 or £3, and they will not go to that trouble, and in many cases do not know the modus operandi. The consequence is that large sums are retained as Income Tax, which the Exchequer are not entitled to retain. The only way I can see to cure that is to speed up the method for making these returns and not to have such an elaborate process as hitherto. I should think that a simple declaration that the income is so much and the charge so much, with the production of the receipt and handing it in at one end of a room to be passed along, should be sufficient, and that that day, or the next day, the amount should be refunded. I see no reason why that should not be done if they would only speed up the matter as people do in ordinary affairs. I wish to refer to Clause 52, which deals with the question of accumulated or accumulating capital. I spoke on this matter on the Committee stage, and the then Financial Secretary suggested to me that between the Committee and Report stages he would consider whether he would fix a date for accumulated as distinct from accumulating capital; but like many other pledges given in Committee to consider between that and Report, nothing has been done. I would point out that there must be very great difficulty and confusion in differentiating between what is accumulated capital and what is accumulating. My right hon. Friend saw that, and he said that as regards profits which are used for plant, since they are employed on plant, they become accumulated, and the percentage is being given in all such cases. Take a firm starting in January which makes a balance sheet in December, and that during the first three months they make a profit and increase their book debts or their stock, and having regard to the high price of stock it is very likely they would do so; they are allowed no interest on those items, whereas if they put it into new machinery they are allowed interest from the date on which they do so. That is how I read the statement of the Minister of Munitions. Book debts or stock are just as much assets as plant. Suppose a firm takes a three-monthly balance and
    720
    another firm takes the yearly balance, and on the balance sheet of three months, if there is an accumulated sum, they will be entitled to interest for six or nine months, but in the case of the company which does not balance until the end of the year they get no allowance of interest on the profits which have been accumulated and have gone to increase the assets.
    What is going to happen? People will face this and get rid of it in this way. If I were a firm what I should do would be this. I should draw out the profits and borrow money for plant or book debts and then I would be allowed interest. If I was a company I would issue debentures, pay the dividends up to the hilt during the year, then borrow on the debentures and be allowed interest at the end of the year. I assure you there is a way of getting over it, but I think a good deal depends on administration, and with sufficient elasticity of treatment there may not turn out to be very great hardship. Take another case, where a great difficulty will arise. Suppose that A makes during the first three months £3,000, and has been trading on overdraft and that he reduces the overdraft by that sum. My right hon. Friend must be aware a great many firms carry on business through overdraft, and the profits will go to reduce them. In such a case A gets the benefit of less interest being charged at the end of the year, whereas the man who has no overdraft and leaves the money in the business for the twelve months gets no consideration. It is too late, I suppose, to ask the right hon. Gentleman to strike this out now, but I hope that he will see that it is construed in a reasonable way. If a man can clearly show, or a firm, that the stock has been increased from what it was before, or the book debts in relation to bills payable, they ought to get consideration for the sums concerned as if they had borrowed to do so. If they had borrowed from the bank to do so, they would be entitled to deduct interest under the terms of this provision. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see that justice is done as to this point in administration, which is sometimes not so bad as people make out.
    I have just said a word about controlled establishments, and at this stage I do not want to weary the House further with the matter. I think it was a very grave mistake in the first instance to have allowed another Department to put on what, after all, say what you like, is a grant of money to the Crown. The proper and straight-

    721
    forward course was to treat all companies and firms subject to excess profits in the same way and under the same regulations as each other. That apparently we cannot get away from. I quite acknowledge that to some extent the right hon. Gentleman has mitigated the hardship to controlled firms, but he may take it from me that there is great heartburning amongst those men. They feel, and I think they are entitled to feel, that they deserved not to be worse off than others uncontrolled, and if anything, although they did not ask it, that they should have had better consideration, because a great many of them have dropped their businesses and have come forward to help the country out at a time of great trouble and emergency. They were not the men that you should have left with this heartburning, which, believe me, exists and which, I think, they are justified in feeling. It may be thought that I have been trying to reduce the income which my right hon. Friend seeks, but I am now going to tell him how he can recover from two and a half to three millions of money. I refer to Treasury Bills. When the old Treasury Bills were issued for five, or ten, or fifteen, or twenty millions, sometimes there were none of them on the market at all, and they were taken up mostly by banks and discount houses. The discount was treated as part of their ordinary profit, and therefore they paid the tax on it. What is the position now? The last time I looked I saw that we had some seven hundred millions of Treasury Bills. I do not suppose that banks and discount houses could take more than a third of those, and the rest are in the hands of foreign banks and private individuals. It is quite true, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, that everybody who buys a Treasury Bill ought to return the discount as part of his income and pay the tax on it. Some do so, but the majority do not, and I will tell you why. A man may buy at 95, and as these Bills get a little nearer maturity he may sell at 96 or 97. He treats that as increment of capital, and I do not know how you are to distinguish in any rise that the Treasury Bills have in the market between what is increment of capital upon which he pays no tax, and what is interest upon which he ought to pay tax. The consequence is that my right hon. Friend will not receive from £2,500,000 to £3,000,000 Income Tax, which he ought to receive upon these Treasury Bills, if he dealt with them in what I sug-
    722
    gest is the proper method. I suggest that the Income Tax ought to be deducted on the interest at the time of the issue of the Bills. That may be difficult, but I do not know why it should not be done. There is so much discount less tax on the discount. There he gets his money. He will find it is true if he inquires of his brokers and friends in the market that the great bulk of their Treasury Bills are treated as the increment of capital. He buys at one price, and realises at another, and treats it as capital investment from the first. He ought not to do that, but I dare say it is difficult once an idea or system has grown up in the market to eradicate it. I hope my right hon. Friend will do something, because I want to see him get as much money as possible as long as he gets it fairly and without injustice. I desire that he should get whatever is right, but at the same time I think he has gone a bit out of his way to do what will be felt to be a great injustice, and I do not suppose these firms will abate one single iota of their enthusiasm. All the same it is a very great pity that there should be this rankling feeling.
    Mr. FIELD: I merely rise in order to contradict a statement made by an hon. Member a few moments ago, speaking of what are called excess profits. I disagree with the hon. Member, and agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think that instead of reducing the tax on excess profits, a greater portion—and in fact all the excess profits—ought to be taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Take, for instance, shipping freights. We find in to-day's and Saturday's papers reports of companies in Cardiff, Liverpool, and elsewhere making 187 per cent. profit; one. I think, made over 200 per cent, profit. Is it a reasonable proposition that a man who holds shares in a shipping company should be taxed less than a person with a moderate income? I am strongly of opinion that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, instead of being asked to reduce his excess profits ought really to take all of them that he possibly can. I coincide with what has been said by the majority of Members in the course of this Debate, that it is the man of small income who ought to be considered as far as possible, so as to inflict the least hardship in the collection of this tax. Looking at the enormous amount that has been levied under circumstances over which we have no control, and which are really unprecedented, I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer

    723
    ought to be sincerely congratulated upon having the consent of the House and the public to this enormous measure of finance. He has endeavoured as far as in him lay to enable everyone to contribute according to their means, but I would ask him to reconsider this question of the excess profits, particularly in regard to freights. These freights have to do with the increased cost of food and manufactures, and the result is that the whole question has become a burning one. Especially is there indignation at the freights. One of the most effective ways to prevent these high freights is for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take all the profits. There would then be no object in shipowners charging such enormous freights.
    Sir F. LOWE: I want to ask just one question before the Chancellor of the Exchequer replies. What is the position of a man whose income is wholly or mainly derived from quarterly rents? It is customary for the tenant who pays the rent to deduct the Income Tax from the first quarter, and I understand that under this Bill he deducts 5s. in the £. Therefore the man who receives quarterly rents will get no income for the first quarter, because 5s. in the £ will be deducted. I want to know whether it is possible for this person to be relieved in any way. This certainly places that man in a rather difficult position.
    Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Member has stated the proposition in a way which will not bear examination. The tenant deducts from his rent the amount of the Income Tax which he has paid.
    Sir F. LOWE: For the whole year?
    Mr. McKENNA: For the whole year. Therefore it is deducted for the preceding year. In the case brought forward by the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. J. Samuel) it is paid in arrear, but all deductions from the landlord, after all, have to be paid by himself.
    Sir F. LOWE: Yes; but, as a matter of fact, the amount for a whole year is deducted from a quarter's rent.
    Mr. McKENNA: Certainly; but it is a quarter which is after the period at which the Income Tax is due. Therefore the landlord for the time being is at an advantage. He has to pay it some time, and it falls upon the landlord at a later quarter rather than at an earlier one. The Exchequer
    724
    is bound to be anxious to meet all complaints brought forward in this House, particularly such a reasonable complaint as that to which expression has been given by many of my hon. Friends on both sides of the House today with regard to the payment of Income Tax levied in excess of the amount due. My hon Friend the Member for Stockton raised the question first. Let me remind him what I think has escaped his memory for the moment. Already this year a part of the grievance has been met. He instanced the case of a taxpayer from whom 5s. in the £ was deducted, whereas he ought only to pay 3s. or 3s. 6d. He has got a direct assessment to make to the surveyor. He would know that his total income is only £400 or £500 a year. My hon. Friend says, "Why should not the surveyor deal with it?" Under the new Bill the surveyor can do so. We have already made that reform, and wherever a taxpayer makes a direct assessment and is directly assessed in respect of an earned income, he can get an allowance upon that direct assessment in respect of any overpayments of Income Tax by deduction at the source, so that part of the grievance is met.
    As regards the other point, I would remind the House of a fact which has not been touched upon, that again in this Bill we do provide—or, rather, we have promised—that the repayment shall be made twice a year instead of once a year, which limits the period of time for which the tax-payer can be without his money—a comparatively short period. Again, I have promised, as soon as we are in a position to do so, that I will carry out the whole reform of my hon. Friend, and enable the surveyors to deal with the whole question locally. But we cannot do it at present. Indeed, we are so overburdened with labour that we could not possibly attempt to throw upon the surveyors this additional duty at the present time, nor should I say in the immediate future. The burden of Income Tax collection at present is, and for some time to come will be, enormous. We have the Excess Profits Duty thrown on by way of an addition to all the other duties, and the Inland Revenue officials, untiring as they are in their work, and very remarkable as they are in their abilities, could not undertake the additional work which my hon. Friend suggests might be imposed upon them now. However we have it in view, and I hope at no long distant date the reform will be carried out. There are one or two other points which I would like to deal with at

    725
    once. My hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire (Mr. Henderson) stated that Clause 52 of the Bill, he thought, contains a grievance. I understand that his definition of good administration of the Income Tax is lax administration.
    Mr. HENDERSON: No, no, reasonable!
    Mr. McKENNA: And his definition of bad administration is administration in which the revenue officials recover all they are entitled to recover.
    Mr. HENDERSON: Reasonably.
    Mr. McKENNA: I was therefore rather alarmed at the compliment which my hon. Friend paid to the administration of the Act.
    Mr. HENDERSON: It is a little more reasonable than is usual.
    Mr. McKENNA: Let me assure my hon. Friend of this, that if any accumulating profits have actually been invested in fixed plant, of course that fixed plant will be allowed for; but where accumulating profits have not been so definitely allocated to capital, and may be divided at the end of the year by way of dividend, it would be very improvident to treat those accumulating profits as fixed capital. The accumulating profits must be definitely allocated to fixed capital, or else they must wait until the end of the year until the accounts are made up. I do not think that is an unreasonable provision in the Bill. Then my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees), who was supported by the hon. Member for Liverpool, raised another question. He took the case of two years of profits, in the first of which two years there was a deficiency of £50,000 compared with the datum line revenue, and in the second year there was an excess of £50,000 over the datum line. He argued that the proposal in the present Bill is defective in dealing equitably with a firm so situated. Last year we proposed that the total loss of any one year during the period of the operation of the Excess Profits Duty should be set off against the total datum during the same period, but that, of course, was in contemplation of an equal tax running through the whole period. Now, when the rate of the tax has been raised to 60 per cent., I quite admit that in the case put forward by my hon. Friend the result of the set-off would not be the same as it would have been if the whole loss had been set off
    726
    against the whole profit. Altering the rate of tax of course alters the charge for the year, but the change operates both ways. Suppose, instead of the case of my hon. Friend, there had been in the first year a gain, and a loss in the second year. Then the taxpayer gains, because he makes his loss when the tax is very high, 60 per cent. and makes his profit when it is comparatively low, 50 per cent. It is just the chance of business. One man may make a very big income at the very moment when the Income Tax is 5s. in the £, and may have had the misfortune to have had a series of years with no income, when the Income Tax was only 1s. in the £. That is the fortune of war. Another man may have had a high Income Tax when the tax was 1s. in the £, and may have had a low income when the tax was 5s. in the £. It is the fortune of war. One escapes very much less than the other. However, I admit that on the face of it the operation of the Clause does seem to raise a not unreasonable objection in the minds of certain people, and I will look into it again in view of the next Bill that we may have. Of course it is impossible to reconsider the question now, but I will look further into the matter. That must not be taken as a pledge that any change will be made, but only that I will reapproach the subject with an open mind.
    I was asked in regard to the effect of the high rate of Income Tax prospectively over a long series of years upon the trade of the country. I would be the first to admit, after some study of the subject, that our Income Tax laws were never devised for a rate at the present level. Their entire incidence undoubtedly is not well adapted to our present trade, especially with a scale of 5s. in the £. Nobody could be better acquainted with that fact than the occupant of my present office. I have had case after case of undeniable hardship brought up before me, hardship that it is impossible to deal with under the present law, or even under an Amendment of the present law—and all cases which would entail a complete rearrangement of the Income Tax. That rearrangement had got to be made. I have more than once undertaken, on behalf of the Government, that we will have a complete review of the whole system of the Income Tax as soon as we are in a position to undertake it. For my part I should consider myself in a position to undertake it immediately the War is over. It must not be proposed

    727
    that this undertaking has anything to do with another undertaking which is entirely separate, that we shall get a simplification—a more simple statement of the law as it stands. That work we are already proceeding with. I hope very shortly we shall be able to issue a general codification of the existing Income Tax law. The sooner these laws are remodelled from top to bottom the better for the trade and business of this country. I am sure Income Tax would be accepted more readily by every member of the community if he felt certain, in the main, that the tax was one which would be equally imposed upon all persons able to bear it. I think that completes the reply to questions put to me, except those general observations about the Excess Profits Duty. In this matter I can only say that it would be wrong to take the tax as a permanent tax. We only ask the country to submit to it during the War, because the necessities of revenue are so overwhelming. Everybody has admitted that it is more in accordance with public sentiment that those who are enjoying specially high profits during the War should contribute specially for the purposes of the War. In conclusion, I would thank the House for the support that they have given to me throughout this Bill, a support which alone has enabled me to pass a measure entailing so gigantic a burden as £500,000,000 a year upon the State. Let me assure the House that everybody concerned in the Exchequer will do their very best to see the taxes are levied in as fair and reasonable a way as it is possible to do it.
    Question, "That the Bill be now read the third time," put, and agreed to.
    Bill read the third time, and passed.

  DEFENCE OF THE REALM (ACQUISITION OF LAND—EXPENSES).
  Resolution reported,—"That it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of all compensation and purchase money payable by a Government Department under any Act of the present Session to make provision with respect to the possession and acquisition of land occupied or used for the Defence of the Realm in connection with the present War, and of all other Expenses incurred by any Government Department thereunder."
  Resolution agreed to.

  DEFENCE OF THE REALM (ACQUISITION OF LAND) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  DEFENCE OF THE REALM (ACQUISITION OF LAND) BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Continuation of Possession of Land Occupied for the Purposes of the Defence of the Realm.)
    (1) Where, during the course of the present War, possession has been taken of any land by or on behalf of any Government Department for purposes connected with the present War, whether in exercise of any prerogative right of His Majesty, or of any powers conferred by or under any enactment relating to the defence of the realm, or by agreement, or otherwise, it shall be lawful for the Government Department so in possession, or any other Government Department (hereinafter referred to as the Occupying Department), after the termination of the present War, to continue in possession of the land for such period, not exceeding three years from such termination, as the Occupying Department may consider necessary or expedient, and, if on application being made to the Railway and Canal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) not less than six months before the expiration of such three years the Commission consent there to, for such further period, not exceeding four years from the expiration of such three years, as the Commission may authorise.
    (2) Whilst any land so continues in the possession of any Occupying Department, the Department may for the purposes of the public service exercise in relation thereto all such powers as were during the continuance of the War exercisable in relation thereto for the purposes of the defence of the realm, subject, however, as respects the power of removal of buildings and works, to the provisions of the next following Section.
    (3) There shall be paid to any person interested in the land who suffers direct loss or damage by reason of the exercise of the powers conferred by this Section such compensation as in default of agreement the Commission may determine to be the amount of such loss or damage.
    (4) The Occupying Department may transfer possession of any land to any other Government Department, and upon

    729
    such a transfer being made the Department to whom possession is transferred shall be deemed to be the Occupying Department.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir G. Cave): I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words " during the course of the present War."
    The meaning of the Amendment is simply to deal with certain property taken possession of on the 4th of August, and therefore not actually during the War, because war was not declared until nearly midnight on that day. The matter will still be covered by certain words a little lower down, "for purposes connected with the present War." It should not go beyond that.
    Mr. L. HARDY: I am glad the right hon. and learned Gentleman proposes to exclude these words, because they certainly have a much wider scope than seems necessary.
    Mr. HOLT: May I ask the Solicitor-General whether he is quite certain, in moving the omission of these words, that he is not going too far? Land might be secured after the War for purposes connected with the War. It is quite conceivable that land might be taken for the purpose of disbanding the troops or other winding-up operations connected with the War. It would be right to make it quite plain that this only applies to land taken before the outbreak of the War, and not after peace has been declared.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I am rather of the opinion that the hon. Gentleman who last spoke is right. The omission of these words seem to me to extend the scope and power of the Government. What will be the result of the Bill where possession has been taken of any land by or on behalf of any Government Department for purposes connected with the present War? Possession may have been taken at any time. All the Government have to say is that it was done for the purposes of the present War. 1s it quite certain, as the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Holt) said, that it might not be after the War? This Bill is going to extend for seven years. I do not see the object in omitting the words. They had much better be left in. If they are left out, it leaves power to any Government Department to take any land it likes. All they need say is that the land is taken for purposes connected with the War. Is there any definition of "purposes con-
    730
    I hope my right hon. and learned Friend will reconsider this matter and not press his Amendment.
    Mr. ASHLEY: I rather agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London that the omission of these words is very likely to extend considerably the scope of the Bill. Surely it would be much better for the Solicitor-General to say that he omits these words because there are certain acts committed on 4th August, 1914, which he wishes to have included in the scope of the Bill. Why not have a specific date—3rd August or 2nd August, 1914—then we shall have a landmark and know exactly where we are?
    Sir G. CAVE: I quite understand the point. I do not think that the words, if omitted, will enable the Government to apply the Act to any land taken possession of at the end of the present War. We could not bring that land within the compass of the Clause. But I want nothing else except to bring in, as the hon. Member has just said, the date immediately before the War, when the War was in immediate contemplation, and the land, of course, had to be taken. I am quite willing to meet the House, and I shall ask leave to withdraw this Amendment, and on Report to suggest some words which would appear to more nearly meet the case.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "shall" ["it shall be lawful for the Government Department"], to insert the words "in the absence of agreement to the contrary."
    The object of this Amendment is to prevent land being taken without agreements duly entered into.
    Sir G. CAVE: I am quite agreeable to my right hon. Friend's object, as I said' on the Second Reading, but I think it is completely carried out by a later new Clause of mine headed "Savings," in which Subsections (3) and (4) apply to this case.
    Sir F. BANBURY: The Amendment of my right hon. and learned Friend seems to cover the case, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendments made:
    In Subsection (1) leave out the word "so" ["the Government Department so in possession"].
    Leave out the words "or any other Government Department."—[Sir G. Cave.]
    6.0 P.M.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the word "three" ["not exceeding three years"], and to insert instead thereof the word
    "two."
    It seems to me that two years is a sufficiently long period to give the Government the opportunity of making up their minds as to whether or not it is desirable in the national interests to acquire certain land. Under the circumstances, I do not think it is necessary for me to take up the time of the Committee toy argument, for I think it is perfectly clear that two years is ample time for the Government to make up their minds.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY Of MUNITONS (Dr. Addison): It relates not so much to the acquiring of land as to the continuing in occupation, and I am advised by the military authorities that in many cases in connection with demobilisation it would be quite impossible to be clear in two years, and they would therefore require some machinery whereby they might have the consent of the Commission to continue longer in occupation. If the right hon. Gentleman will agree to an Amendment later on substituting "five" for "four" years, subject to the consent of the Commission, as provided in the Bill, we are willing to accept the Amendment. But we feel it would be impracticable to accept it, unless the total period is seven years in which occupation may be permitted by the consent of the Commission.
    Sir R. ADKINS: I think even if the total period were to remain seven years the Committee would probably agree that the first part should be two, and not three, years. What many of us desire is that if the Government wish to continue the occupation of land they ought to get permission from a judicial body as soon as possible, and not do it without judicial authority. Therefore I support the right hon. Gentleman in his Amendment, whatever is done with regard to the further period by permission of the Railway and Canal Commission. Quite apart from the length of the second period, it is surely
    732
    desirable that the length of the first period, which is decided merely by the action of the Government without any judicial sanction, should be reduced to two years. Therefore I hope the Government will accept this, and then leave us free to discuss the matter whether, when you have to go to the Commission, it should be for three, four, or five years. My right hon. Friend who has just spoken has said, I have no doubt with great accuracy, that there may be certain cases for which the military authorities require a longer period than two years in connection with demobilisation. One cannot conceive a period of five, six, or seven years being required for demobilisation. Such a period as that would only be required when you are contemplating some permanent occupation. In such a case it would surely be a matter for the Railway Commissioners to decide. I hope, therefore, without prejudicing the question whether the remaining figure is to be three, four, or five, the Government will accept this Amendment.
    Mr. ASHLEY: I entirely agree with the last speaker. Surely it would be much better to insert two years here, and leave it to the Commissioners to decide afterwards whether a more extended period is necessary. I do not quite like this bargaining on the part of the Government, that they will give us this if we will agree to that. I think every question ought to be considered on its merits, and we are now discussing the length of time which the Government should be allowed to remain in occupation before the Railway Commission is brought in. In ninety-nine cases out of a hundred I am quite sure two years would be enough. You are not going to keep millions of men in barracks for over two years if you can possibly help it, if only for the sake of expense. Therefore it only ought to be for exceptional cases that an extended time is necessary. Let us have the two years, and then we can discuss how long an extension the Commission should have power to allow.
    Sir G. CAVE: If we are content to take the two years here, we will show when the time comes why five years should be allowed in the second case. I accept the Amendment.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I should like to ask whether "land" here covers every sort of property; because, if so, the placing of two years in this Clause, I imagine, should not prevent an Amendment being moved

    733
    later on to limit the time for which the Control Board should hold public-houses. They are now limited to twelve months after the War, and certainly I am not prepared to see any Act passed to extend that period.
    Sir G. CAVE: There is an Amendment down in my name to omit that.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: Giving power to sell, but not limiting the time to hold. Your Amendment does not limit that.
    Mr. WATT: I am sorry the Solicitor General has consented to change this for two years. He has already capitulated twice to hon. Members on the other side, and I hope this is not a sign that the Government intends to capitulate all along. This is not an economical Amendment. "My hon. Friend (Sir R. Adkins) suggested that the sooner we get to a judicial body to sanction the holding of the land the better, but expenses begin whenever you get to that judicial body, and under this Amendment the expenses of the judicial body will begin at an earlier date.
    Mr HENDERSON: I am afraid I cannot agree with my hon. Friend. If we could mobilise and equip several million men in less than two years it cannot surely take two years for demobilisation.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I am very much obliged to my right hon. and learned Friend for having accepted the last Amendment, without my being held to any bargain, because I do not feel at all inclined to make a bargain with the two right hon. Gentlemen opposite, for I am sure I should be entirely worsted if I attempted a bargain with them. I have an Amendment to leave out the words after the word "expedient" to the end of the Sub-section, the effect of which would be to prevent any further extension of time beyond the two years. After having heard my right hon. Friend's statement that the military authorities think it might in certain circumstances be necessary to have a short extension of that time, I think, perhaps, it might be more convenient, instead of moving the Amendment in this form, if I were to move to leave out " four " in order to insert " two."
    Mr. ASHLEY: I have handed in an Amendment to that effect.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I think there is a general feeling in the Committee that it might possibly be necessary to give power
    734
    to the Commission to make some slight extension of time under certain circumstances. If that is so, I do not think I will move the Amendment standing in my name. At the same time, I should have very much preferred for the Government to have come down to this House, if it were necessary, to extend the time and obtain powers from Parliament to do so. I do not myself quite like the idea of setting up tribunals to whom the Government Department are to go. It seems to me a setting up of a tribunal in place of this House and I am a great supporter of the House of Commons. I think power is gradually being taken away from it, and it seems to me the proper course would be for the right hon. Gentleman to come down to this House with another short Bill, which he would probably get without any discussion, and so preserve to the House of Commons the powers which have always hitherto belonged to it. I am glad my right hon. Friend the Lord Advocate agrees. I am afraid he will not say so, but I see he does agree. Under the circumstances, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Blackpool (Mr. Ashley) has an Amendment, I will not move my Amendment.
    The CHAIRMAN: There are two manuscript Amendments which deal with this point.
    Mr. MOLTENO: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "Railway and Canal Commission," and to insert instead thereof the words " Defence of the Realm Losses Commission."
    The right hon. and learned Solicitor-General on Second Reading expressed an open mind, I think, more or less with regard to this matter. The Defence of the Realm Losses Commission has really investigated the details of all this land. I think in most cases it has actually settled every interest in the land with the one exception of the actual freehold. It has settled the annual value for the purposes of compensation, so that there is only the freehold value to be settled if the Government desire to acquire the land. That is a very small step. My view is that if the Commission which has been up till now dealing .with these matters is allowed to continue to deal with them, it will save trouble for everybody and save expense, and be a more satisfactory tribunal, because it will bring the knowledge which it has already acquired to bear properly and effectively. I can give an

    735
    illustration. In my Constituency a very large area was taken. What the Commission did was to make a careful survey of the land exactly as it was before the Government began to operate upon it, so that they had every detail to enable them to ascertain exactly the condition and value of the land. Any Commission now setting to work and finding miles of country occupied, and every kind of structure put up at a cost of millions, would have an enormous task in ascertaining the actual position before it was built upon, whereas you have the facts ascertained by a body which has proved its competency. I think this is a very hard task to throw on these Commissioners. One of the members of this Commission is also a member of the other Commission, and therefore he would have to bear the double burden. This arrangement applies to Scotland, and there we have had most unsatisfactory results from the labours of the Railway and Canal Commission Two of these Commissioners sit with a judge who has the appointment of the assessor to deal with. The assessors will have to go over all this work again, which has already been done by the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission, and this will add very much to the expense. In Scotland we have had very unsatisfactory results from that kind of procedure. We have got before us a case where in another matter an enormous cost had to be borne by the public in consequence of a Commission of that kind calling in assessors. I suggest that if the Government will accept my Amendment very little change will be necessary in the Bill, for you will only have to leave out the words "Railway and Canal Commission" and insert "Defence of the Realm Losses Commission." [An HON. MEMBER: "That will be worse than before!"]
    Sir G. CAVE: I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment. I need hardly say that I have already expressed the highest possible opinion of the Railway and Canal Commission and the way it has carried out its work; but this is a War Commission appointed for a temporary purpose during the War only. Its function is to ascertain the amount of loss sustained by persons who have suffered by the exercise of the Royal Prerogative during the War. The Commission proceeds on rules which are applicable to that kind of inquiry. Under this Bill we are going into a different inquiry altogether. We give special
    736
    powers to the Commissions to sanction the purchase and so on, and the whole of the inquiry is different altogether, and I do not think we could impose this duty upon a temporary Commission. The personal consideration is not one which weighs with me, but on public grounds I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Exeter (Mr. Duke) will agree that for this particular purpose it is better to have a new Commission. With regard to the Railway and Canal Commission I am surprised to hear that in Scotland they are not satisfied with its work, because that Commission was suggested from Scotland for this purpose. It was a Scottish suggestion, and I think it is rather hard that the hon. Member should now turn round and express dissatisfaction with it.
    Mr. FIELD: Do the Railway and Canal Commission give satisfaction anywhere?
    Sir G. CAVE: I think they give satisfaction everywhere. The hon. Member has complained that one member of the Railway and Canal Commission is also a member of the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission, but I think he will be useful to the Railway and Canal Commission when it undertakes its work. The gentleman referred to is a regular appointed member of the other Commission, and I do not think it is unfair to ask him to continue his work on this Commission even after the War. The Railway and Canal Commission has its quarters, staff, and offices, and is has not a very large amount of work to do.
    Mr. WATT: And it is highly paid.
    Sir G. CAVE: We want to give it a little more work. There is this further advantage, that there is a different president for each of the three countries—one for England, one for Scotland, and one for Ireland—and that is a very useful arrangement. There has been no other suggestion made except this one put forward by the hon. Member, and I cannot accept the Amendment.
    Mr. BOYTON: Personally I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has not accepted this Amendment, and I hope the Committee will take a similar view. I doubt whether the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire (Mr. Molteno) has had any experience of the Defence of the Realm War Losses Commission. If he had, I do not think he would be ready to substitute it for the Railway Commission. If he had

    737
    had the personal experience I have had of attending before the Commission presided over so ably by the Member for Exeter (Mr. Duke), he would not advocate them as a suitable body. In the ordinary course of my business I had to go before that Commission, and I asked how they proposed to justify by way of compensation the payment for over nine acres of land of £13,000. I was asked if I had particularly noticed what the title of the Commission was, and, if not, I was told that they would refer me to the doorpost, on which I should see written up "War Losses Commission," and not "War Gains." The Committee will readily understand that I have no personal appreciation of that Commission or of going before a body so ably constituted and working on charitable principles, for I understand they do not receive any remuneration. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Exeter was good enough to preside over the War Losses Commission without remuneration, and so did those who assisted him. Going before the Railway and Canal Commission will entail a certain amount of expense, but I think that will be preferable to the Losses Commission, although personally I should much prefer the old Lands Clauses Acts. I hope the Committee will share the views expressed by the Solicitor-General and reject this Amendment.
    Mr. D. WHITE: I sympathise with the objects which the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire has in view in proposing this Amendment, but I am not altogether surprised that the learned Solicitor-General has not seen his way to accept it. I cannot, however, accept the hard and fast distinction which has been drawn between the class of compensation given by the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission and that to be given by this Bill. Take, for example, the matter dealt with in the first Clause, namely, the case of land now in possession and which possession is continued. For the first period compensation has been given by the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission, and why when that possession is continued for another three or four years should not the Defence of the Realm Commission deal with it? I fail to see any hard and fast distinction between the two. Even where land is purchased the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission has done its work excellently well, and it would do that kind of work also excellently well.
    738
    Referece has been made to Scotland but I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire will agree with me when I say that he had no complaint to make against the Railway and Canal Commission, but what he complains of is the bringing in of the elaborate and costly machinery of the Lands Clauses Acts under which the public have been fleeced time after time. I hope we shall steer clear of those Acts altogether. This Defence of the Realm Losses Commission has worked very well, and I think on similar matters arising out of the present state of the War the same procedure should be adopted. It may be said that the Commission is overworked, and that that particular Commission does not want to undertake these duties. I know that Commission has done excellent work and has probably got its hands full, but there is no reason why a second branch of that Commission should not be appointed to carry on the same work free from the trammels of the Lands Clauses Acts altogether. The learned Solicitor-General said this particular suggestion came from Scotland, but when I hear of people receiving suggestions from Scotland I am reminded of the fact that Scotland does not make suggestions, and they generally come from some particular body, and I would like to know what particular body in Scotland has recommended the Government to have resort to the Railway and Canal Commission and the Lands Clauses Acts. I think we are entitled to know that. The hon. Member who spoke last gave us a very bare story of his experience with the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission, and I would like to remind the House of the particular case which he put. It is the case of land which has not been used or developed to anything like its full value, and it is not being so used, but is simply being kept with a view to development.
    Mr. BOYTON: By a statutory company and not by an individual.
    Mr. WHITE: I do not care whether it is held by a statutory company or by an individual, and I am no respecter of persons in this matter.
    Mr. BOYTON: It was a public utility
    Mr. WHITE: It is a fact however that this land was not being used to its full

    739
    capacity, but was in process of being developed. Under these circumstances that land was required for public use, and the Defence of the Realm Commission has, I understand, awarded what would make up for the actual loss, but has not given such a profit as the development of this land would command now. I would like to know this——
    Mr. BOYTON: The War Losses Commission allowed nothing. They simply took the land, and they pay no rent.
    Mr. WHITE: They pay no rent to the company. Had the company been paying any rates to the public? I suppose this land has been rated at a purely nominal value, so that the basis on which the owner has contributed to the public needs has been a purely nominal basis. When the public come and say that they require the land, surely they are entitled to have it on something like the same basis. I am glad that the point has been put, because it gives the key to a good many of the objections, and explains why hon. Members want the Lands Clauses Acts brought in. This House would never have stood the Lands Clauses Acts in their natural state, but the amendments and qualifications did not go far enough; even with those alterations and qualifications they would bring in a higher and a totally unjustifiable scale of compensation. That is why I sympathise with the Motion which has been made by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. HENDERSON: I am afraid that the single taxers are on the war path. The moment you speak of acquiring land they are there. This Defence of the Realm Losses Commission is an affair totally different from what is contemplated in this Bill, and they would have to be reconstituted. Under the Defence of the Realm Act no one has any right or claim whatever, and the Commission was appointed, not for the purpose of assessing the loss, but for the purpose of recommending something to be paid by the Government ex gratia.
    Mr. MOLTENO: What is just and fair.
    Mr. HENDERSON: Their standard is not "right"; their standard is "loss," and only such loss as they can say was attributable to the War. They are not dealing with the thing as a right but as a favour, and all they do is to lay before the Government their recommendation.
    740
    If you are going to deal with it as a case of compensation for taking land, you must have some other body which deals with it as a right and not as a favour. I think my hon. Friend will see that, and will withdraw his Amendment.
    Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. Member for the Tradeston Division (Mr. Dundas White) asked my hon. Friend, who said that no rent was paid for the land which was taken possession of, what it was rated at, and he seemed to think that because the land might not be rated it was fair to take it without paying any rent for it.
    Mr. WHITE: I consider, particularly at a time like this, that there ought to be some parity between the valuation on which the owner contributes to the needs of the people and the valuation at which the people have to purchase from him.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I do not see what that has got to do with it. May I ask the hon. Member this? He has a house which he desires to let. The house being empty, he does not pay rates. Does he contend, because that house which he used to let at £500 a year is empty and because he cannot for the moment find a tenant, and does not therefore pay rates, that the Government have a right to come down and take it and pay no rent at all? That is exactly the position. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Certainly!
    Mr. WHITE: The right hon. Gentleman
    The CHAIRMAN: I have not intervened before, but the hon. Member for the Tradeston Division (Mr. D. White) has been knocking out his own Amendment later on. He is anticipating himself. The question certainly does not arise particularly on this Amendment.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I am very glad that has happened, and I do not wish to continue the discussion.
    The CHAIRMAN: I am only warning the Committee, if the discussion does go on any longer, that will finish it.
    Mr. WHITE: I would like to point out, with great respect, that the question was raised not by me but by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Boyton). I merely replied to the point that he made.
    Mr. BOYTON: I only spoke strictly to the Amendment.
    The CHIARMAN: I think it was on this side (including the benches on his right hand).
    Mr. RAFFAN: I do not propose to anticipate my hon. Friend's Amendment. I only rise to express the hope that my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Molteno) will go to a Division. I can assure him, if he does, that he will receive a considerable amount of support. It is perfectly clear that behind the choice of the body which is to determine the compensation lies the question whether the public should be called upon to pay fair and reasonable compensation or compensation under the Lands Clauses Acts. I am sure that there is not an hon. Member here who is a member of a county council or a town council, or any local authority, who does not know that the operation of those Acts is unsatisfactory to the public in every conceivable way, and that in nine cases out of ten larger compensation is awarded to the landowner than is fair and reasonable. This is a proposal to extend the operation of those Acts to compensation paid by the nation as a whole, and I hope my hon. Friends will test the matter so that we can ascertain how many Members are standing by landlords' interest at this time of crisis.
    Sir RYLAND ADKINS: The issues have really just been put by my hon. Friend with great inaccuracy. To begin with, the Schedule is intended to alter the Lands Clauses Acts, rightly or wrongly, in the direction my hon. Friend desires. Therefore, it is quite misleading the public to suggest that a vote on this Amendment is a vote for or against the Lands Clauses Acts. It is a vote whether you shall put this into the hands of a temporary Committee appointed for other purposes or into the hands of a judicial body. The Railway and Canal Commission does not exist for the purpose of promoting the application of the Lands Clauses Acts; it exists for the purpose of having a special tribunal to which this kind of compensation case may properly be given. I merely protest against the false issues which my hon. Friend has unintentionally put to the House.
    Mr. MOLTENO: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend (Mr. Boyton) for having pointed out the objection to my Amendment that the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission does not apply to profits but only to losses. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    HON. MEMBERS: No, no!
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In Subsection (1), leave out the word "three" ["before the expiration of such three years"], and insert instead thereof the word "two."—[Mr. Gretton.]
    Mr. ASHLEY: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "thereto" ["the Commission consent thereto"], to insert the words " on the ground that the Occupying Department has not had reasonable time to complete arrangements for giving up possession."
    I imagine these words would meet the case which the Government have put forward, that further time in some conceivable circumstances would be necessary for the Occupying Department, and that they should come to the Commission and ask for that time to be given. The ground on which the Occupying Department may make the application is left delightfully vague in the Bill. Apparently, if they go on for another four years, and then tell the Commission that they would like to go on, they ought to be allowed to go on. The Solicitor-General shakes his head, but could he tell me if they have to give any reason? The main reason that he gave was that they should be given more time in order to complete their arrangements on demobilisation. Supposing the troops were in the camp twenty-one months after the War came to an end, I admit, as he has inserted two years instead of three years, that it would be perfectly reasonable that the War Office should go to the Commission and say, "Please give us another six months or a year"—or whatever time they wanted—"in order that we may complete our arrangements for dismantling the camp and closing up the business." But I myself do not see any other ground on which they could legitimately approach that Commission, and I would, therefore, ask the Solicitor-General whether he could not see his way to accept my Amendment, or some similar words providing that the ground on which they could make this application should be that they have not time to complete their arrangements for vacating the premises.
    Sir G. CAVE: I could not accept this Amendment, because it implies that a Department should at once make arrangements for giving up possession, or if they

    743
    were not able to go out at once, at any rate in a short time. That is not the meaning of the Bill. There may be other reasons why it is necessary for national purposes that possession should be retained. It may be demobilisation. It may be that they want possession for the purposes of assisting demobilisation. That is inconsistent with this Amendment. It may be that they would want time to put up other factories to do the same work. That is not giving up at once. It might be necessary for defence purposes to keep possession a little longer. That is not consistent with this Amendment, and that is why it should not be accepted. I accept the position that the Government Department must make out a case to the Commission. They could not go to the Commission and say, "We want longer time, and we are, therefore, entitled to it." That is not at all the case. They must go and say why they want it, and only if they satisfy the Commission that for national reasons they want a longer time should they get it. This is an Amendment which ought not to be pressed.
    Sir R. ADKINS: Would it be consistent with the public interest for the Solicitor-General to tell the Committee why the total time contemplated in this Bill is seven years?
    Sir G. CAVE: We are coming to that.
    Sir R. ADKINS: On the next Amendment?
    Sir G. CAVE: Yes.
    Sir R. ADKINS: I did not know that.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Before I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment, I would like to ask whether when the application is made to the Railway and Canal Commission the parties interested in the land are to be allowed to appear and to state their case?
    Sir G. CAVEindicated assent.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Is that so?
    Sir G. CAVE: Certainly, I anticipate that.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Might I suggest that we might put in some words instead of these words to show that the Commission must be satisfied that the extension is asked for on the ground of national requirements. That, I think, would meet the point raised by the Solicitor-General,
    744
    and I therefore suggest words to the effect that the Commission should give their consent on being satisfied that the request for the prolongation of the period is required on Imperial grounds.
    Sir G. CAVE: On other grounds as well.
    Sir F. BANBURY: The point is, that the Solicitor-General says it is not to be supposed that the Commission will consent to the Government extending the period merely because the Government say they want it. That is what I understood him to say. He says they will have to satisfy the Commission. That is all very well, but I should like to have that in the Act of Parliament. It is very much better to have what the Government intend, and what the House would wish, in the Act, instead of letting it be supposed to be the desire of the Government, because when you come to interpret this it by no means follows that the Department concerned will have read the Solicitor-General's speech in the OFFICIAL REPORT. We can quite understand a Department coming forward and saying, "We want this"—and because they want it, it follows that the Commission will give it. I can see no objection to these words being inserted if my hon. and learned Friend could draft some words to meet that object, or if the Solicitor-General would consent to the insertion of words to that effect.
    Sir G. CAVE: I will consider it before Report.
    Sir E. CORNWALL: I should like to support what the hon. Baronet the Member for the City (Sir F. Banbury) has just said. I think it is rather important that the Government Department should not consider it has only just to make an application to the Railway Commissioners, and that by the fact of making the application they will get an extension of time. We all want to give the Government all the facilities they require, but if you come to a case of officials of a Government Department finding it easier to go to the Railway Commissioners and make an application instead of making themselves busy and getting rid of some of these properties they have taken over for the War that would be very much against the public interest. They ought to make out their case, and something ought to be put in the Bill to let it be known to the Railway Commissioners that they have to be thoroughly satisfied that the Government

    745
    Department cannot in the public interest give up this land. I am glad that the Solicitor-General will consider the matter before the Report stage, and I only rose to emphasise the point because I do attach very great importance to the arguments of the hon. Baronet.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I have some words here, and if this Amendment were withdrawn I should like, if I might be allowed, to move them?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): That cannot be done now.
    Mr. WHITE: should like to enter a protest against manuscript Amendments being moved to an important measure like this. This really goes to the root of public finance in acquiring property under the pressure of the War. There is no excuse for manuscript Amendments. This Bill has been before the House for something like ten days, and anyone wanting to make Amendments has had ample time to put them on the Paper. Every hon. Member knows that it is not entirely unknown for an Amendment to be kept out of the Paper, and to be put forward as a manuscript Amendment, the only copies being in the hands of the Member who moves it, the Chairman, and the member of the Government concerned. I do not say that is the case on this occasion. I do not suggest anything of that kind, but I do say that in a measure of this nature no manuscript Amendments, unless they are merely drafting Amendments, ought to be considered by the Government at all. I would call the attention of the Committee to this fact: that this manuscript Amendment will not appear in the Paper again, and will not appear until the Report stage, if, indeed, it appears on the Report stage. In a measure like this the Committee, or the House, whichever it may be, ought to have ample opportunity, and ample time, to consider an Amendment of this nature, which may involve the nation in a very considerable cost. I venture to appeal to the Solicitor-General not to accept any manuscript Amendments, and if hon. Members want manuscript Amendments to be considered on Report, they should put them down for the Report stage, so that all Members can see them, and they will then receive the consideration of the Government.
    Mr. ASHLEY: As the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken made rather an attack on me, and just went short of saying that I did this on purpose to avoid criticism——
    Mr. WHITE: I would like to say that I pointed out the danger of this procedure, but that I frankly said I made no reference to this particular case.
    Mr. ASHLEY: On that point, this is not an easy Bill for a man who is not a lawyer to follow. If hon. Members have done me the honour they will have seen that I have a number of Amendments on the Paper in my own name. I spent most of the week-end, except church-time, over this Bill, and I hope the hon. Member who has just spoken will acquit me of having done anything intentionally to avoid criticism.
    Sir W. BEALE: It might help the Committee a little if I mention that the marginal note of this Section, if referred to, will make the matter perfectly clear without this Amendment. The continuation can only be made for the Defence of the Realm—continuation of possession for that particular purpose. On the question whether a marginal note can be referred to, it is within my recollection—of course, it is only a recollection, because it is a great many years ago—that the very question arose before the most eminent judge I have known, Sir George Jessel, Master of the Rolls, who sent to ascertain whether a marginal note was on the Roll of Parliament, and finding that it was, he ruled that it could be referred to. I give that instance because if this is required the Solicitor-General will find this will answer all purposes.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: If this is in the marginal note there can be no harm in putting it in the body of the Bill, because there are some modern judges, I am sorry to say, who are no doubt unaware of the ruling referred to by the hon. and learned Gentleman, and who do not even now like looking at marginal notes of Acts of Parliament, but are rather concerned with construing what is in the body of the Bill. If that is the intention of the Government, there is no harm in putting it in the Bill. If I may deal with the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. White), who made a severe attack on manuscript Amendments, as I am in no way responsible for this Amendment and have not even seen it, and am, therefore, quite guiltless in this particular case, I should like to ask the hon. Member, whose views about this Bill are so very strong, just to consider the difficulties hon Members opposed to the Bill have. The original Bill, I suppose, was after the hon.

    747
    Gentleman's own heart; but the Government have altered it very considerably, and Government Amendments on a large number of very important points did not appear until Friday or this morning.
    Sir G. CAVE: Friday.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: That is too late. A large body of Amendments was sent to me by persons interested in such matters to put on the Paper. I do not say I am going to put them on the Paper. Perhaps some others may do so. They only arrived on Saturday, and how can you get them put down in time? Private Members cannot send them by post. The Government may or may not be able to do so, but the Government Amendments only appeared on Friday morning, and Amendments of hon. Members could not possibly have come before Saturday morning. How could they have put them down except as manuscript Amendments in a case such as that? If the hon. Gentleman would reserve his indignation for the Government, who are rushing through a Bill when they have the whole time of the House, instead of turning on poor little people like ourselves, unfamiliar with the ways of the House, who are doing our best to put before Members such points as arise, I would support him gladly. I make a protest against what the hon. Gentleman has said, because it may be necessary to put a large number of manuscript Amendments down to the Amendments of the Government.
    Mr. WHITE: There is one point I wish to mention, and that is that some reference has been made to the use of marginal notes, and judges' references to them. If I may speak with very great respect to my hon. and learned Friends, I think they will find that there is a comparatively recent case in which it has been decided, and for practical purposes finally, that marginal notes are no part of the Act and are simply put there for the convenience of men reading the Act. I understand that has been definitely decided. I am sorry I cannot quote the name of the case to the House, but since this has been suggested I think it only right to mention it.
    7.0 P.M.
    Sir F. LOWE: I do not wish to prolong the discussion, because it seems to me very unnecessary. If you read the whole Clause, it says as clearly as possible that this permission can be given only for purposes connected with the War, and if the
    748
    Department can satisfy the Commissioners that it is necessary or expedient that the Government should have the land or the premises for a longer period, then they can have it for an extended period. That suggests that the continued occupation, just as much as the occupation for the earlier period, must necessarily be for purposes connected with the War. Therefore I cannot for the life of me see what there is to wrangle about. It is a question which laymen are not as well able to decide as the lawyers, but if the Solicitor-General assures us that the interpretation of the whole Clause is as I have suggested, there is nothing more to be said, and we might at once get on to the next Amendment.
    Mr. R. McNEILL: After the speech to which we have just listened it is necessary to say something in this wrangle, because I entirely disagree with the point of view taken by my hon. Friend (Sir F. Lowe). It is quite true that according to the Clause the land in the first instance is taken for the purposes of the War. The very object of this Amendment is to provide that there shall be some reason given for holding possession of the land after the War is over. It is ridiculous to suggest, as my hon. Friend does, that at the end of two years after the War is over the Government should still be holding land for the purposes of the War. They must continue in possession for some other purpose. It may be a national purpose, but it will not be in connection with the War. It may arise out of it. It passed my comprehension why the right hon. and learned Gentleman should have any objection to putting in these words. The very outside objection he has to putting them in now is that the words are unnecessary.
    Sir G. CAVE: What words?
    Mr. McNEILL: The words suggested by the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury)
    Sir G. CAVE: What are they?
    Mr. McNEILL: Well, I will say the words suggested in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Blackpool (Mr. Ashley) or any words which the right hon. and learned Gentleman can suggest limiting the right of the Government to retain the land for some national purpose or for purposes of urgency. That would meet the wishes of those who think the words are at present too vague. As the Clause stands, notwithstanding what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said, I

    749
    do not believe the Commission would require any reason whatever to be given; they merely have to be asked for their consent. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman thinks they would require a case to be made out showing that the land was needed for some national purpose, I cannot imagine his objection to the suggested words and to our putting them in now, because they would make clear what he says is the meaning of the Bill.
    Mr. HORNE: I imagine that the object of the Bill is to enable the Government to recover as large a proportion as they possibly can of the money they have spent for the purposes of the War on buildings. So far as huts for the troops are concerned they may be dismissed as being finished within a year or two after the War; but in the case of large factories which are being put up, the question as to how they are to be disposed of will certainly take a good deal longer than two years. It may take seven. I imagine that immediately after the War the Government will continue to use those factories for a short time, and will then try to obtain large public companies who will be able to take them over, and use the elaborate machinery which has been put into them for some work of national importance, very likely of a private nature. In that case it would certainly be more than two years before the negotiations for the sale of those premises could take place, and for that reason it would be a great pity to assent to the two years being put in.
    Mr. NIELD: I should not have intervened in this Debate were it not for the fact that I have a concrete case which I have been asked to bring to the notice of the Government. In my Constituency there is a very large tract of land which was bought by the Agricultural Society of Great Britain for the purpose of agricultural show grounds. That failed, because the agriculturists would not come into that area of London and hold their shows as they do in the other parts of the country. The property lay idle for some time, and then a company was formed to acquire it. Capital was sunk in the purchase, and the property is now known as Park Royal. This is not a case of a person or company occupying land for the purpose of forcing up its value. This company has done everything in its power to get that land occupied by factories, and has lost no opportunity of spending money upon it. When the War broke out only some
    750
    portions of it had been occupied by factories. The War Office came down and commandeered the whole of it for the purposes of the Army Service Corps and the mules and huts necessary for the men. That place has been and is wholly occupied by the Army Service Corps. An hon. Member might say, "What does that matter: I suppose the company received proper remuneration'?" The company have put in their claim before the War Losses Commission and have been awarded something less than one-half of the value. They have actually brought concrete cases of loss before the Commission. A man had an option to take land at a certain price, but they have taken away that option. Is it fair that that land should be occupied upon that basis for three or four years after the War? It may be said that the Army Service Corps huts can easily be removed. After the War a great industrial development is looked for. Everybody hopes that the commercial community of the country will use the opportunity of putting up new buildings and factories. This is the very land for that purpose. It is in the vicinity of London and close to the Great Western and London and North-Western Railways. The company will be liable to be denied the user of that land which they have done their best to develop. This is a point which the Committee should take into consideration. Limiting words should be put into the Clause so that the grant of an extension in matters of this kind should not be granted by the more expression of a wish, but absolute necessity should be shown. I trust the Solicitor-General will see his way to make the words so clear that in cases where there are no permanent buildings provided and the occupation is like that of Park Royal, these properties should not unfairly be kept out of the possession of their owners when they will be of very great value to them.
    Mr. ASHLEY: I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): I understand that leave was asked and refused, therefore I am bound to put the Amendment to the Committee, who must now dispose of it.
    Question, "That the words 'on the ground that the occupying department has not had reasonable time to complete arrangements for giving up possession' be there inserted," put, and negatived.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) has handed in a manuscript Amendment which seems to me to be exactly the same proposal as that just negatived by the Committee.
    Sir F. BANBURY: No, Sir. I would point out that you were not in the Committee at the time my hon. Friend (Mr. Ashley) moved his Amendment and the Solicitor-General, in answering a suggestion of mine, said he would consider these words on Report. I said that I would prefer to move them now, without waiting until Report. They are different from the words moved by my hon Friend. May I be allowed to read them?
    The CHAIRMAN: I have them here. They seem to me to raise exactly the same point. It is quite true that they can be brought up on Report if the hon. Baronet puts them down then. I understand that he himself objected to the withdrawal of the other Amendment?
    Sir F. BANBURY: No, I did not.
    The CHAIRMAN: Anyhow, objection was taken, the withdrawal was refused, and the Committee negatived the Amendment. The hon. Baronet must leave the matter there until another stage.
    Dr. ADDISON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word 'four" ["for such further period, not exceeding four years from the expiration of such three years"], and to insert instead thereof the word "five."
    The effect of this will be to restore the period of seven years as it was in the Clause as printed. The Committee will remember that earlier on we substituted two years for three years as the period during which a Department might continue in occupation without having to apply to the Commission for continued occupation! In order to secure that the period should be seven years at least, I have to move to substitute five years for four here. Some hon. Members appear to be under the impression that the Commission will require no reason whatever to be given when a Department applies to it for continued occupation. I do not myself know much about the Railway and Canal Commission, but I do not think it is a Commission which would be satisfied to have a description of that kind applied to it. I imagine that the Occupying Department will have to make out a good case for continuing in occupation beyond the three years. My hon. Friend (Sir E. Corn-
    752
    wall) suggested that it would be easy for the officials of Government Departments to get this consent from the Commission. He thinks that in order to secure that, a good case must be made out in the national interest for the continued occupation with regard to the period already defined. There is a large group of cases, which one does not want to define too precisely, where a prolonged occupation or the possibility of it may be very necessary in the national interests. Of course, there are cases connected with demobilisation, such as hospitals and so on, all of which I hope will be cleared long before the two years have elapsed; but there are other cases, for instance, where aeroplane stations have been established in which it may be quite uncertain as to whether it may be necessary or desirable in the national interest to continue in occupation. Again, there are places where large stores of materials have been created, where it may be very undesirable to root up the whole thing where thousands of tons of material are stored and move it somewhere else. Those are cases where it may be necessary to have an option of continuing in occupation for a limited period. There are also various kinds of special works which have been put up for the provision of munitions of a special kind to which this provision or something like it must necessarily apply. The Committee will understand quite readily that all this is subject to a case being made out to the satisfaction of the Commission.
    Sir E. CORNWALLmade an observation which was not heard in the Reporters' Gallery.
    Dr. ADDISON: No, the Commission has to give its consent, and I take it no rational Commission will give its consent unless it sees ground for consenting. It will not see ground for consenting until a case is made out to show that consent is reasonable. That is the whole point. What I am asking is to give the Commission power, where a case is made out and where it is desirable and necessary in the national interest, to continue this occupation for a period of a further five years or up to that as a maximum. I cannot imagine that there will be many such cases, but there are some of that kind in our mind where it may be impossible or undesirable to say whether or not an end shall be put to this particular work for some time, and we ask the Committee to give us power to allow this option to continue for five years after the original two.
    Mr. ASHLEY: I have handed in a manuscript Amendment to insert "two" instead of " four," but after hearing the right hon. Gentleman's speech I see the force of his contention that perhaps six or seven years may be necessary in certain cases in the national interest. I recognise that I was wrong and I quite agree with his point of view. But it was rather hinted or promised by the Solicitor-General that on the Report stage he would put in some principle to guide the Commission in deciding whether this extended five years should be granted or not.
    Sir G. CAVE: I have promised to consider it.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Something to guide them so that they should not give it almost as a matter of course.
    Sir R. ADKINS: Perhaps on the whole this is the best solution of this rather difficult question. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the way in which he put what may be national requirements in particular cases, but I hope he realises that there is a very great, and I think justified, dislike of exceptional legislation of this kind going on a day longer than is imperatively necessary for national safety. Therefore we shall look with great interest at such words as my right hon. Friend can put in on Report which will act as a guidance to this tribunal, and which would indicate that the full five years are expected to be exceptional and are only justified by the most exceptional circumstances. I am sure the Government will gain and not lose by doing everything they can to limit the scope of the Bill and mark its exceptional character.
    Mr. HOHLER: I also strongly urge this point, and I am not quite sure that my hon. Friend (Mr. Ashley) has given the matter adequate consideration. It seems to me a very serious thing that the owner of land should be held up for seven years without any possibility of dealing with it. What you may do in wartime is one thing, but when the War is over and the Government requires seven years to make up their mind whether they will take up the land or not, it seems to me an exceedingly serious case. Under the later provisions of the Bill at any time, so long as they occupy, they can exercise their right to purchase. Therefore, two years further would have been ample for the purpose. I cannot agree that four years
    754
    is requisite. If four years is requisite, is the private owner, who has perhaps suffered by the War, to be kept out of dealing with his freehold? There may be a mortgage, or other considerations may arise. I strongly urge on the Government to introduce words which will make it perfectly clear that this is only a concession to be yielded on statutory grounds, and that there may be direct guidance to the tribunal that it is only on real need shown to exist for the continuance in occupation of the land that any such consent as is asked for should be granted.
    Mr. HOLT: I should like to caution some of my hon. Friends on this point. Do they really think it is going to make for public economy to allow the Government to remain for a long period of time in temporary occupation of land? It seems to me that what those who care for the economy of public money want is that the Government should wind up affairs relating to the War as speedily as possible. If we are going to give the Government four years of temporary occupation it is far more probable that public money will be wasted by shilly-shallying on their part, and by hesitating to make up their mind as to what their policy is than that it will be saved. I should very much have preferred to see the period cut down to two years, and then compel the Government, if they want to keep the land for a longer period, to come forward with a considered scheme which they can recommend to the House. There will be nothing to prevent the Government coming forward, by Provisional Order Bill if necessary, at the expiration of two or three years if it is really necessary. I am quite certain that this way is going to end in waste of public money.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I agree with the hon. Member (Mr. Holt). He has made one little error. It is not five years, but seven years.
    Mr. HOLT: I meant five years after the period.
    Sir F. BANBURY: The total period is seven years after the War. I generally agree with my hon. Friend (Mr. Ashley), but I am afraid I do not on this particular occasion, because surely seven years is not necessary for the Government to make up its mind as to what it is going to do. If a Government Department is to be allowed to wander on in occupation or possession of a factory or land or

    755
    works or buildings for seven years, we all know perfectly well that there is always a desire that officials should remain on and get their salaries, and I think it is quite unnecessary that they should have an opportunity of remaining on for seven years, and some pressure should be put upon them to limit the date up to which they should get their salaries. Instead of its making for economy, it must make for extravagance. The right hon. Gentleman (Dr. Addison), in his very able defence of his Amendment, kept on alluding to the fact that the Commission would not grant the extension unless they were satisfied that it was absolutely necessary. But we have not got those words in the Bill. The Solicitor-General has promised to consider them, but has given no pledge that he will put in words to that effect. I think if we are going to pass this we ought to have something more than a mere undertaking to consider. I would much rather have had a shorter period of, say, two years, which would give a total of four years. That would be sufficient in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred for a Government Department to make up its mind, and if it turned out that there were some particularly exceptional reasons for continuing, the Government could bring in a Bill. We can always vote against the omission of the word "four" in the hope of having a smaller number. I think if, in order to show our desire to oblige my right hon. Friend where we possibly can, we do not vote against four years—it will go awfully against our conscience if we do not—we ought to have an assurance not merely that he will consider but that he will put in on the Report stage words which will show that this is only to be granted under very exceptional circumstances.
    Sir G. CAVE: It may save time if I say I thoroughly accept what is proposed now. My meaning was this: The Committee would like words put in to show that the extension is to be given for some national reason. I do not want to accept precise words to-day because they want consideration. I will think over what are the best words for the purpose.
    Sir G. TOULMIN: I hope that the Solicitor-General will think over those words very carefully. It is rather dangerous to make a promise of that kind, in view of the great importance of the subject. I think the Committee is forgetting
    756
    that all the Departments are under the control of this House—[HON. MEMBERS; " No."]—and that in this case the Department will have to justify their policy to this House as well as to make their application to the Commission. What I should dislike worst of all is that any limitation put in now, in the state of mind in which the Committee seems to be, which is having an absolute fear of these Departments going wild and spending money, they will be forced to sell the buildings on this land and come out of the occupation of the land at a time of depression, when they would not be given such time to make the best arrangement for securing the money which they have to spend on the land as they ought to do. They will have to justify any policy of holding the land and buildings and starting new concerns before the House. I hope the Solicitor-General will be careful that he does not limit their powers.
    Sir W. ESSEX: I thought I understood this Amendment until I heard the explanation of my right hon. Friend (Dr. Addison). All his arguments seemed to tend in the direction of asking for more time even than the five years—the substantial need for many of the structures, for instance, and their possible importance in view of subsequent operations. It seemed to me that the whole of his argument rather led to a non sequitur. He should have accepted the four years, being six in totality, and if then the demands of the State made it desirable to continue the occupation of the land, he should have frankly bought up rights which had been invaded. In doing so he would have secured to the State the right at any subsequent time to sell, and it would enable the present owners to know exactly the limit of time wherein they could contract with a prospective purchaser to stand instead in the shoes of a Government Department. I have not heard any argument from the Front Bench yet for an extension of this time to six or seven years, and in default of other arguments, which I feel my right hon. Friend must have, I think six years are enough.
    Mr. MONTAGUE BARLOW: I think the general feeling of the Committee, with which I agree, is that these large powers which the Government is taking are powers which we view with a certain amount of uneasiness, but having said that I think, in the interests of the State

    757
    and of that very economy which has been urged by both sides, we must recognise that the Government is bound to take some such step as it is taking. May I give an instance which came under my very close personal observation. Earlier in the War I was authorised by the Government to construct a hut camp for a large number of soldiers on common land. They will be perfectly good structures for a good many years to come. If the arrangement is to last only for the War and the huts are to be torn down directly the War is over, there is going to be, what I care about infinitely more than the amour propre of a Government Department, enormous waste of public money. We are bound to recognise that position on behalf of the Government. That is the difficulty the Government is in if we refuse to recognise their position. In the camp to which I have referred from £50,000 to £100,000 of materials and labour have been put into the place, and it is absurd to say that it is going to be torn up at the end of the War, when the life of that camp is good for many years. That remark equally applies to a great many hut camps, hospitals, and so on.
    An HON. MEMBER: Buy the land!
    Mr. BARLOW: Buy the land. We are up against a difficulty when you are going to appropriate common land. That is my answer to my hon. Friend who says, "Buy the land." The only question for the Committee is this: Have the Government adopted the proper procedure? Though I do not like these Clauses I think we have to recognise them, and on the whole I do not think that seven years is an unreasonable time, more especially if the Solicitor-General, with his great legal skill, can draft a form of words that will carry out what we all want, namely, a limitation of the time which, without hampering the Government in reasonable cases, shall yet require the Government Department to draft a case before they get the leave of the Commissioners.
    Mr. HENDERSON: This discussion tends to confirm a danger that I apprehend. The hon. Member (Mr. Barlow) refers to a common on which there are huts. Are you going to pull them down after the War? The idea seems to be to keep them. Are you going to keep them full of soldiers and to employ the soldiers? What I am afraid of is that under this Defence of the Realm Act, which was only passed for the purposes of the War, we
    758
    are bringing in a Bill which is intended for the purposes of the next war. I cannot conceive for a moment why you want five years more than the two years before you can make up your mind what you are going to do. If you are going to make munitions in large quantities in the factories, and if you are going to keep a great many soldiers under the Colours, surely that must be part of a general policy after the War, for which the Government must come down and get the sanction of the House. If it is only for the Defence of the Realm during this War that you require these things, two years is ample time for the Government to make up their minds what they are going to do. They ought to come to the House and state what is their programme for the future, and let the House give its approval if it thinks fit, but to give them a power for seven years, which would outlast the Defence of the Realm Acts by several years, and leave them this option of getting property for the purpose of armaments, is dead wrong, and ought not to be done. I think the present proposal is a monstrous one, and can only be justified by the idea that there is something more behind it, and that the purpose of the present War is not the real object of this Bill. I shall oppose the Amendment because I believe it is quite unreasonable.
    Mr. HARDY: I am rather amazed at the prospect in front of some of the unfortunate owners of land raised by the suggestion made by my hon. Friend (Mr. Barlow), because I know of huts put up for the Crimean War which have been lately occupied. That represents a time considerably more than seven years. Therefore, if we are to keep these huts until we get full value out of them, I do not quite relish the prospect. I suggest that as the right hon. and learned Gentle-has made a very considerable concession in his promise to consider this matter, it would be far better if we waited until we see his words, and then if we find they are not satisfactory we can raise the matter again on the Report stage.
    Question, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
    Word "five" there inserted in the Bill.
    Further Amendment made: In Subsection (1) leave out the word "three" ["expiration of such three years"], and insert instead thereof the word " two."—[Sir G. Cave.]
    Sir R. ADKINS: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), at the end, to add the words " Provided that no land or property belonging to a local authority shall be subject to this Section if required by the local authority to carry out efficiently its statutory duties, or unless proper substituted provision is made by the Government Department concerned for that purpose."
    The Amendment which is down in my name and in the name of other hon. Members is of very considerable importance to local authorities throughout the country. Local authorities have been quite willing to impair their deficiency, to limit their work, and to embarrass their action in almost every direction, where it has been declared by the Government that it is necessary during the War that some of their property should be occupied for Government purposes and not for the purposes placed upon the local authorities by Statute; but it is a very different thing when the War is over for this hampering of the necessary and important work of local authorities to continue. When we are told by my right hon. Friend (Dr. Addison) some of the things they require only in the rarest cases, surely, at any rate, they can so arrange that land belonging to local authorities, and buildings belonging to local authorities, which are necessary for the carrying out of their statutory duties, should be relinquished as soon as possible, and the period of their retention should not be extended under this Bill. It is not easy to discuss this Amendment without referring to the new Clause which the Solicitor-General has down. I thank him for going some distance towards meeting the position of local authorities, but I desire to point out that there is nothing in that new Clause to give the local authorities the same absolute exemption, or to put them in the same position, as is given in the one case of common land. You may be doing as much harm to the government of a town or the country by taking away some other kind of property than you would be by taking away common rights for the period for which this Bill lasts.
    There is nothing in the Solicitor-General's new Clause which covers the words of the latter part of the Amendment, "unless proper substituted provision is made by the Government Department concerned for that purpose." It may be possible for the Local Government Board to sanction the taking of some land,
    760
    or the Board of Education to sanction the taking of some school or playground, and nothing is said in the new Clause as to the question of substituted provision. I suggest that the proper principle is this, that if you cannot wipe up and finish matters arising out of the War within a little while after the War, and if you are going to hamper and interfere with local government, you ought to give the local authority which you are hampering a substituted provision, so as to see that that department of the. government of the country goes on as well as the Departments of the Government which are understood to benefit by the powers given in this Bill. I hope the Solicitor-General will be able to go further than he has indicated he will go, particularly in regard to this question of substituted provision. The Amendment which I am now moving has been put down to carry out the unanimous desire of the Parliamentary Committee of the County Councils Association, and I understand that the Association of Municipal Corporations are in agreement with us on this point. Therefore, we are speaking for the whole of the local authorities of the Kingdom. They do not want to interfere with the Government, and they do not want to interfere with anything which is necessary for the defence of the realm, but we say that the Government are only meeting half the problem, and are shirking half their duty by carrying out this Bill in such a way as to entail the continued impairment of the duties put upon local authorities by Statute.
    Sir G. CAVE: I intervene at this point because I have a proposal to make. This is the first of a series of Amendments which were intended to protect local authorities, statutory companies, and bodies of that kind, in regard to the operations of this Bill. In every case the intention of the Amendments is to give these bodies a veto upon the proposals of the occupying parties. What I suggest is that we should defer the consideration of this Amendment, and of the others which are like it, until we come to the new Clause which I have put down: That Clause deals with all these matters. I will not say that it deals with them to the satisfaction of all hon. Members, or to the satisfaction of the hon. and learned Member who has moved this Amendment, but it is so framed that it may be amended in the direction desired by my hon. and learned Friend. That being so, I think we

    761
    might save a great deal of time if we were to defer discussion until we come to the new Clause.
    The CHAIRMAN: While I cannot rule this Amendment out of order here, if hon. Members insist upon it, I may state that the points raised by them will be in order on the Amendment of the new Clauses referred to.
    Mr. TURTON: As my name appears on the Paper as a supporter of this Amendment, I would like to raise a point of Order. As something has been said about manuscript Amendments, shall we be in order if we hand in manuscript Amendments to the new Clause, providing that substituted land shall be found for local authorities? Will there be any question about that?
    The CHAIRMAN: No.
    Mr. HOLT: I should like to know whether the Solicitor-General expects to take his new Clause to-day, or whether he will give us an undertaking that the new Clause shall be taken on another day, so that we can draft any Amendments which we think suitable?
    Sir G. CAVE: I am an optimist, and I am hoping to get my new Clause to-day. There are a number of Amendments down to my new Clause which deal with this matter. We had better postpone the point until the time comes.
    Sir R. ADKINS: I am most anxious to meet the Government, but if we are to take the new Clause to-night it must involve manuscript Amendments, and manuscript Amendments seem curiously out of favour this afternoon. We represent and are speaking here to-day for local authorities, and we are exceedingly anxious that no Amendments, whether in manuscript or otherwise, shall be taken at any disadvantage. I think, in view of the discussion this afternoon, the Government should not wonder that we are asking the Solicitor-General not to take the new Clause to-night. It is not very easy, particularly when we are trying to consult the experts of local authorities in different parts of the country, to draft our Amendments and make them appropriate to the Clause so that it will work. If the Clause is not taken before Thursday I am sure those who have been acting in concert will do their best, and will put down Amendments in such a form as to raise the issue simply in order to get a Clause which
    762
    will work well. If we can have an under taking of that kind from the Government I will gladly give way now.
    Sir G. CAVE: We will not take the new Clause to-day.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move, at the end of Subsection (1), to insert the words, "Provided that no land or property belonging to a local authority shall be subject to this Section if required by the local authority to carry out efficiently its statutory duties, or unless proper substituted provision is made by the Government Department concerned for that purpose."
    I move this formally to put myself in order, though I do not intend to proceed with it. I do it because I understood my right hon. and learned Friend to attach to his not taking the Clause to-night the condition that he gets the whole of the Bill to-night, and I wish to utter a note of protest against that. There is not the slightest chance of us getting the Bill to-night.
    Sir R. ADKINS: My point was that we should have another day to discuss my right hon Friend's Clause. I must not be taken thereby as agreeing to drop other Amendments, or to sit up until breakfast time in order to get the whole Bill to-night.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I do not think that my right hon. Friend need be anxious, because we cannot go on after eleven o'clock, and there is not the slightest chance of us getting the Bill by then. I should be very pleased to agree to the arrangement, because I do think that his Clause will require a great deal of amendment, and we ought, to have some time to consider and to consult outside bodies as to the Amendment which will be put down. I beg to ask leave to withdraw.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. ASHLEY: I beg to move, in Subsection (2), after the word "however," to insert the words "as respects the power to close public highways or rights of way to the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Clause six, and."
    The Sub-section gives to the Occupying Department for a possible seven years after the War of the powers over the land that they had during the War, except the power of removal of buildings. I wish to remove that power as respects the closing

    763
    of public highways and rights of way during these seven years, except for the twelve months reserved to the Occupying Department under Clause 6. Under Clause 6, Subsection (2), the Occupying Department may not keep a highway, which I understand includes a right of way, closed after the termination of this War for more than twelve months; but it says that it may do so by virtue of another Section, which I take it is this Clause, under Subsection (2). I do not think that my proposal is unreasonable.
    Sir G. CAVE: I will accept that. Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. BOYTON: I beg to move, after Subsection (2), to insert the following Sub-section:
    "(3) The Occupying Department shall pay such rent in respect of any land which continues in their possession and such continuance shall be upon and subject to such terms and conditions as may be agreed between the Department and the persons interested in the land or as, failing agreement, shall be determined by the Commission."
    Sir G. CAVE: Would not this come as an alternative to Subsection (3)? It deals with the same subject matter.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member really requires to move to leave out Subsection (3), in order to insert his proposed Subsection.
    Mr. BOYTON: I beg to move, to omit Subsection (3), in order to insert instead thereof the words which I have read.
    This is a very important question, which may provoke a good deal of discussion.
    Sir G. CAVE: I am willing to accept the Sub-clause of my hon. Friend; I think that it is quite good enough.
    Mr. BRUNNER: My hon. Friend moves to substitute one Sub-clause for the other. Does he mean the compensation is not to be paid, or that rent is to be paid instead? I would like to have some explanation.
    Mr. POLLOCK: If my hon. Friends will look at the Clause as amended by the Amendments which the Solicitor-General proposes to insert, he will see that the Solicitor-General's Clause is a better Clause. The Clause as amended by the Solicitor-General would read in this way:
    "There shall be paid to the persons interested in the land in respect of the
    764
    exercise of the powers conferred by this Section such compensation as in default of agreement the Commission may determine to be reasonable."
    Those really give a better and wider Clause than the words proposed by my hon. Friend. They give authority to the Commission to determine, and supply a flexible Clause, in place of one in which I do not think my hon. Friend has quite foreseen that there may be different interests and considerations which ought to have free play under this Section. I hope that he will not move his Clause, but that the Clause will be amended as suggested by the Soicitor-General.
    Mr. RUTHERFORD: I do not think that the hon. Member who moved the Amendment has quite realised the improvement in the Clause when the Government Amendments, which have not yet been reached, are made. If we adopt the Amendment now before the Committee the effect would be that nothing could be paid but the rent. I think that that would be a very great pity, because there may be a number of other people who suffer damage, who are not entitled to rent. We are not here to protect landlords simply. We are here to protect everybody whose interests may be affected adversely. On the whole I think that the Clause in the Bill, as proposed to be amended by the various Amendments put down by the Solicitor-General, is infinitely better than the one suggested.
    Mr. BRUNNER: May I point out that the people for whom I am acting in connection with this Bill, namely, the commoners, those who are interested in common rights, under this proposal get nothing at all.
    Sir G. CAVE: I have been made aware that the Association of Municipal Corporations greatly prefer the Amendment, and they are also supported by other bodies representing a number of local authorities, and I thought that in adopting it I should find general concurrence. I have proposed to amend the Sub-clause in two ways: To my mind compensation by way of rent might mean nothing at all to the local authority, because they may lose nothing at all by their land being occupied, and therefore they could get no compensation except rent. If it is desired to substitute compensation for rent, that is the first way in which the Amendment gives them more than before. The second point was this: That they wanted power from the

    765
    Commission to impose terms and condition on the occupying authority. The Amendment does that, and I thought and still think that the Amendment has advantages to the local authorities over the Bill as drawn, and if my hon. Friend adheres to his Amendment I am prepared to keep to my promise.
    8.0 P.M.
    Mr. HOHLER: I prefer the Subsection in the Bill as proposed to be amended by the Solicitor-General. I think that the word "rent" alone is far too narrow. It is a word that has a very strict legal significance, involving the relations between landlord and tenant, owner or occupier. There may be other interests to consider, and I am satisfied that it would be exceedingly dangerous from the point of construction, to put in this Clause the word "rent" only. Preferring the Sub-section as it is to be amended by the Solicitor-General, I shall certainly vote against that proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Marylebone if he goes to a Division.
    Sir FRANCIS LOWE: I submit that the Clause might be made perfect if we substituted the Subsection now proposed by my hon. Friend for that which is in the Bill, and if the substituted Subsection were very slightly amended by the Solicitor-General by inserting the words, " shall be upon and subject to such terms and conditions as to payment of compensation or otherwise." These words could be inserted after the word "conditions" ["conditions as may be agreed."] I think the whole thing would be covered in that way.
    Sir F. BANBURY: My hon. Friend the Member for Marylebone, so far as I can make out, proposes to move his Amendment at the end of line 4 of the Subsection, and there is nothing to prevent the right hon. Gentleman dealing with the Subsection afterwards in a way that would give a double safeguard as to rent and other claims. If my hon. Friend moves his Amendment, the Solicitor-General might on the Report stage put in some words which would bring in the question of compensation where it differs from rent. I think something should be provided in order that compensation may be paid in regard to other claims, while rent is provided for as well. No doubt in many cases at the present moment these Departments are occupying lands and buildings and paying no rent at all.
    Mr. BUTCHER: The Solicitor-General's Amendment on the Paper might be put in this way: "Or compensation by way of rent or otherwise." Everyone interested in the land would get what they are entitled to by accepting the Clause as it stands, with the Solicitor-General's amendments. In the case of the landlord he would get his rent, and in the case of people like commoners with rights of turbary and so forth, where those rights are interfered with, would get compensation. Under the Clause, as moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Marylebone, the commoners would not get anything at all, it seems to me. I really think the Solicitor-General had much better stick to the original Subsection, and I appeal to the hon. Member to withdraw his Amendment, as the original Subsection, when amended by the Solicitor-General, will give something additional, which the Subsection now proposed does not provide.
    Mr. BOYTON: I have to appeal in this, case to the Solicitor-General. If the Subsection is allowed to stand as it is now I have already handed in a manuscript Amendment to alter it. I have made an arrangement with the right hon. Gentleman, and if I withdraw this Amendment I should like to know whether he will accept my other Amendment later?
    Mr. PROTHERO: Would it not meet the case if the hon. Member's Amendment were accepted by the Solicitor-General, and further amended in this way, " the occupying Departments shall pay such rent or compensation in lieu thereof in respect of any land?
    Sir R. ADKINS: The difficulty is that compensation in lieu of rent would be held to be compensation in cases where land was otherwise held; therefore I doubt whether it would cover the case. If the Subsection is accepted by the Government that it should be amended by putting in, after the word "conditions," words which would bring in the case of persons who are commoners, whose case cannot be expressed by terms of rent, but would be met by the use of the word "compensation."
    Mr. BARLOW: We are gradually getting out what we want with regard to this Subsection. What is really required is the word "compensation," and as the Solicitor-General pointed out, the Sub-section now proposed meets that point. It is one about which the Association of

    767
    Corporations feel very strongly. Unfortunately the new Subsection defines rent. If the words in the original Clause, namely, "compensation due to loss or damage," were put in, I believe, in respect of any matter such as that of commoners, they would cover the ground.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I hope the Solicitor-General will adhere to his decision to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Marylebone. It seems to me to be an improvement upon the Sub-section as it at present stands in the Bill, together with the Amendments that the Solicitor-General has upon the Paper. As the new Sub-section with the Amendment stands it meets the case, and I think everything is covered that is exercising the minds of my hon. Friends the Member for Nottingham and others. In the first place, the Occupying Department " shall pay such rent in respect of any land which continues in their possession," and then it goes on further to say, "and such' continuance shall be upon, and subject to such terms and conditions as may be agreed between the Department and the persons interested in the land." It seems to me that they would be included under "terms and conditions." Personally, I have a very strong objection to anything in the nature or surplusage being put into an Act of Parliament, and undoubtedly the commoners could appear as persons interested in the land, and they could apply for "such terms and conditions" in regard to the use of the common, and, failing agreement with the Department, they could apply to the Commissioners to obtain the "terms and conditions" which they consider they ought to have.
    Sir W. BEALE: The Subsection in the Bill as proposed to be amended by the Solicitor-General would practically cover all the points raised, and I do not see the slightest advantage in adopting the phraseology suggested by the Amendment of the Member for Marylebone. I should not recommend the introduction of words referring to rent, for the reason that they might exclude terms and conditions favourable to such persons as commoners, for instance, who should have some equivalent rights. You require to use broad words, like "terms and conditions," which would include compensation other than rent, and in that way I think you would make the whole case perfectly clear.
    Mr. BARLOW: Has the Amendment of the hon. Member for Marylebone been accepted, and what are we now discussing?
    The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment has not been accepted by the Committee. The question at present before the Committee is to leave out Subsection (3) as it stands at present in the Bill, and substitute for it the proposal of the hon. Member for Marylebone. It is for the Committee to say on what basis they will proceed for the purpose they have in mind.
    Sir G. CAVE: I think we ought really to agree to the Amendment, which in some respects is better than the Subsection now in the Bill. What hon. Members want is the word "compensation" in some way, and I am willing to put it in the Bill in some shape.
    Mr. POLLOCK: I submit that if the words "terms and conditions" are put in they would make terms and conditions relating only to financial matters. I would point out that the association of municipal bodies to which reference has been made have not yet considered the Amendments of the Solicitor-General which are on the Paper. If they had, they would have found that really everything is contained in the Clause as amended by the Solicitor-General. I hope that the Committee will not delete Subsection (3), but will accept the Amendments with the words "by way of rent or otherwise." It would be very unfortunate to tie ourselves by making the Department only pay rent, which means that there must have been a real tenancy between the parties, which in many cases would not exist, so that they would be cut out of the benefit of the Clause.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: May I make a suggestion to the learned Solicitor-General?
    Sir G. CAVE: I have finished. I have tried to satisfy you.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I would suggest that after the word "rent" in the first line of the proposed Amendment to insert the words "and compensation for loss or damage, if any, suffered."
    Mr. RUTHERFORD: I think we are really all agreed as to what we want. We do not want to cut out of compensation people who do not happen to be landlords. Questions of parks or common grounds and matters of that kind may arise. The Solicitor-General's Amendment to the

    769
    Clause would probably meet all the difficulties; but, if it is desired, in deference to municipal corporations, to adopt the Sub-section now before us, I would suggest to insert after the word "conditions" the following words: "and with such compensation to any person suffering loss or damage." Those words, I think, would meet all the difficulties.
    Mr. WHITE: I hope the Solicitor-General will not accept those words. One knows perfectly well what their object is, and the object of a good deal of the discussion on this Clause. The phrase "compensation to any person suffering loss or damage" is extremely wide, with no limit whatever to the measure of damages, so that any person who could make a case of however indirect and remote damage could claim. I do not know if that is what is wanted. It may be by some, but it is not what is generally wanted. The principle! on which these compensations have been given so far is that the measure of damages, to use the technical phrase, must be kept within reasonable limits, and it must be a reasonably direct consequence of what the Government has done. That seems to me a most important fundamental principle, and if we go beyond that the Government and the Treasury are simply open to financial claims by all and sundry who can suggest the most remote damage that may have happened.
    Mr. HOGGE: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consult with the Lord Advocate, who has an intimate knowledge of the kind of things for which compensation has been asked for in Scotland under similar Acts. There was a notorious case in Scotland where men were settled on the land and the lady who owned the property got several hundred pounds compensation because at some future time she would require to build a school for the children of those people. By consulting with the Lord Advocate, I think the right hon. Gentleman will get much valuable advice.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): Does the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Boyton) wish to withdraw?
    Sir G. CAVE: I accept the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman. I would rather accept the Amendment as it stands, and if there is more to be done we can do it on Report.
    Sir F. LOWE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to insert the words he promised
    770
    to accept with regard to compensation or otherwise? [HON. MEMBERS: "Wait and see!"]
    Sir G. CAVE: They were refused.
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out "—Subsection (3)—"stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
    Question proposed, "That the following Subsection '(3) The occupying department shall pay such rent in respect of any land which continues in their possession, and such continuance shall be upon and subject to such terms and conditions as may be agreed between the department and the persons interested in the land or as, failing agreement, shall be determined by the Commission,' be there inserted."
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I beg to move in the proposed Amendment, after the word "rent," to insert the words "and compensation."
    Sir G. CAVE: I could not accept this Amendment, as it would entitle people both to rent and compensation, and the words would be very wide. I think it is better to leave the Amendment as proposed and we can alter it if necessary.
    Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question, "That the words proposed be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That disposes of the Amendments on the Paper as far as Subsection (4).
    Mr. WHITE: Is my Amendment not in order—[At the end of Subsection (3), to insert the words "provided that the amount of such conmpensation in so far as it represents annual rent for the land shall not be greater than the annual value of the land as adopted for the purpose of local rating at the time when the occupancy thereof by the Department began "]?
    Sir G. CAVE: My hon. Friend's Amendment refers to compensation, and, in view of the decision arrived at, I submit it is no longer in order.
    Mr. RUTHERFORD: I submit we have already decided that the word "compensation" shall not go in and that therefore the proposed Amendment is out of order.
    Mr. RAFFAN: On the point of Order. The question we have been discussing is whether there should be compensation for loss and damage apart from rent. This

    771
    question of this Amendment is a totally different one, and it is the only opportunity my hon. Friend has of raising it.
    Mr. WHITE: I beg to propose, at the end of Subsection (3), to insert the words " provided that the amount of such rent shall not be greater than the annual value of the land as adopted for the purposes of local rating at the time when the occupancy thereof by the Department began."
    The difficulty with regard to my original Amendment arose owing to the changes which have already taken place in the Bill, and I now move it in this form to meet the variations which have taken place.
    Mr. POLLOCK: Is it fair, after there has been accepted an Amendment which we want to consider very carefully, to ask us now to consider a very important Amendment to that Amendment? The word "compensation" has been left out, and now the hon. Member proposes to use his Amendment in a modified form in order to deal with a part of the Clause which has really been dropped out.
    Mr. WHITE: Oh, no!
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have not to decide whether it is fair or not. The only point I have to consider is whether it is in order. As far as I can see, the precise point made by the hon. Member seems to be in order. As far as I understand, the Amendment will read:
    "Provided that the amount of such rent shall not be greater than the annual value of the land as adopted for the purposes of local rating at the time when the occupancy thereof by the Department began."
    Is that right?
    Mr. WHITE: Yes.
    Mr. RUTHERFORD: That is nonsense.
    Mr. HARDY: I would make an appeal to the Government. As only two minutes ago they asked us to accept their Amendment, and, if necessary, reconsider it on the Report stage, I think we ought to consider that that has definitely dealt with this Clause and leave it for further discussion on Report. In view of the appeal made by the Government we have given up discussing questions in which we are interested. I would, therefore, suggest that so far as this Clause is con-
    772
    cerned we ought to limit our discussion now to other points and await the result of the consideration on Report.
    Mr. WHITE: I should like to give my reasons for moving this Amendment. Here we are going to pay compesnation to those whose land we take. In so far as that compensation represents rent I want to secure something like a parity between the valuation on which the owner contributes to the State and the valuation on which the State is to pay the owner I quite understand that there are Members who do not wish these points to be raised, but there are other Members who do want them discussed. The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire (Mr. J. Henderson) said that whenever these questions were raised his phrase was, "The single takers are on the rampage." I do not know quite what he meant, but if he meant that those associated with the land values movement are on the rampage whenever there is any question of the people having to purchase land at a higher valuation than that upon which the owners contribute to the municipal rates, he is quite right. There have been instances in which the amount paid by way of rent or purchase money has been many times the annual value adopted for rating purposes. I am not in favour of land purchase. Many of my hon. Friends differ from me there. But many of those who are in favour of land purchase will at least agree that that purchase should be at a fair price and that there should be a fair relation between the valuation upon which the owner contributes to the State and that upon which the State purchases from the owner.
    That is the object of the proposal. We have an annual value for rating purposes, and I say that when land is taken the compensation in so far as it is annual rent for the land should be based on the annual value for rating purposes. There could not be a simpler proposition. There could not be a simpler check on excessive prices. I agree that the rating valuation may be too low. If that is so, let it be put up. Unfortunately the very people who oppose this kind of proposal are also the people who do not want rating valuations raised to the market value. This seems to be the best form in which I can make my proposal. If the Government think that there should be some allowance let them propose that it should be the annual value for rating purposes plus, say, one-fifth, or one-fourth, or even one-third. In any

    773
    case, I submit that there should be some automatic limit of the kind I am proposing. It is absolutely scandalous the enormous prices that have been paid for land in respect of which the owner has been contributing little or nothing to the State or municipality. I hope the Committee will consider this matter very fully, because I think we ought to bear in mind the cardinal principle to which I have referred, namely, that what is sauce for the goose ought to be sauce for the gander.
    Mr. HORNE: Surely the hon. Member ought to address himself to the difference in the basis on which municipal authorities think fit to collect rates. The valuations are not made by the owners of the land or property. The basis on which rates are collected is fixed by the authorities themselves. In the case of empty houses or vacant land the authorities think it is not proper to collect rates on the higher system, and in many cases they strike the houses or land out of the rate book altogether. I do not imagine that even the hon. Member would suggest that because the property has been struck out of the rate book by the overseers, therefore, if the property is taken by the State, the owner should receive nothing for it.
    Mr. RUTHERFORD: I am one of those who belong to the same school of thought, in regard to the subject just mentioned, as the hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment. At the same time I see the inconvenience of endeavouring to push home that principle in the Bill that we have before us. The taxation of land values is a very large subject. It is one which has been the express object of legislation, or attempted legislation, two or three times during the last fifteen years while I have been in the House, but it certainly is not appropriate to endeavour to put it into an Act like this. We are passing an Act for temporary purposes, and an Act that has simply to do with occupation arising out of this War. It would be exceedingly inconvenient, and very unjust, to put this particular Amendment into this Act——
    HON. MEMBERS: Why?
    Mr. RUTHERFORD: When people have no opportunity of adjusting their assessments. [Laughter.] I mean exactly what I say. I am one of those who think that if once we had an equitable principle of assessment embodied in Statute people would adjust their assessments to the proper figure upon which they really ought
    774
    to contribute taxes. There are, however, to-day such anomalies of assessment for local rating purposes that it would be obviously unjust to import this Amendment into this particular Bill, and at the present moment! Agricultural land in England to-day is assessed upon a basis that is clearly unfair as compared with the assessment of property in the urban districts. There are such anomalies in existence to-day as this: A friend of mine, the other day, leased a fishing, for which he paid £300. He was assessed at £300 a year to the local rates. He made a few inquiries, and found that the whole of the farm lands in the parish were only assessed at £150. Of course they were assessed by the local farmers, who formed the assessment committee. I helped my friend to make a proper communication to the Local Government Board, and the local assessment committee immediately climbed down, and assessed the fishing at £25. There are things of that kind all over the country in various parishes and unions, and to attempt to cut down the amount of rent that a man is to receive for his property to-day, under existing conditions, and with the existing state of the law to the amount generally at which it happens to be assessed at the moment, having regard to the fact that the assessment is to-day levied upon the annual letting value to the tenant, seems to me to be entirely wrong. I hope in the interests of the general principle of endeavouring to put this matter right some day. [Laughter.] Yes, upon that day I shall be found, if I am in the House, entirely in accord with hon. Members opposite. I hope, in the interests of that principle, the Amendment will not be pressed. It opens up such large questions, with so many complications of matters which when they have come before the House have taken days to discuss, that any hope of getting this Bill, which is intended to meet an entirely temporary state of affairs arising out of the War, would be seriously prejudiced, if the Amendment is pressed.
    Dr. ADDISON: I hope my hon. Friend behind me will not press this Amendment. [HON. MEMBERS: "We will!" and "What about Lloyd George?"] It is impossible to accept it. May I point out one or two considerations to my hon. Friend which perhaps his insistence upon this Amendment may have made him forget. This Bill is obviously framed in view of a certain necessary national object. Those of

    775
    us who have been associated with its drafting and so on, from the very start until now, have had continually to make concessions to one another. There are many hon. Members of the House on both sides who have very strong views on land questions and subjects arising out of them, and who are willing, in this case, to make special concession of certain cherished principles for the sake of getting an agreed Bill through the House of Commons. My hon. Friends indicated a little while ago by certain interruptions, or rather comments on one of the speakers, that they quite recognised that the Amendment of my hon. Friend would really open up the whole question of the taxation of land values.
    HON. MEMBERS: No! and Yes!
    Mr. WHITE: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me——
    Dr. ADDISON: No, no! I think that the speech my hon. Friend delivered showed quite well what a very wide issue was raised by this Amendment. Also I must say that it would not be altogether applicable to a great many interests. The Amendment which has already been accepted by the House leaves it to the person concerned to come to an agreement, or failing an agreement the rent, or whatever it is, to be determined by the Commissioners. I think that is quite a fair way to leave the matter. It is all very well to insist upon the doctrine of my hon. Friend, which a good many of us might have strong views upon in times of peace: but I would point out that the conditions upon which this land has been taken possession of are entirely different from those usually obtaining. Land or buildings were taken arbitrarily, here and there, according to the requirements at the time, without any regard whatever—so I may put it—to any interest except the national interest. It often happens that a tradesman or a group of men carrying on business in one town were a bit hard in comparison with another group of men similarly occupied in the same district, because the place, or the land, which they occupied, happened to be suitable for our purpose. It is not a case in which you apply a certain principle in a fairly uniform manner. It is something which is arbitrarily applied here and there, as the national interests might require certain buildings or portions of land. I would suggest that cases of this kind, picked out here and
    776
    there, for special national reasons and in special emergencies, are really not the occasions in which to embody in legislation some principle which might, or might not, in time of peace be applied in a comprehensive scheme dealing generally with the land question. I am not very sanguine of my representations weighing against the opinions and views of my hon. Friend upon the justice of an Amendment in connection with a subject of which he has long been an exponent. I do, however, sincerely hope that the Committee will not, at all events, discuss it at great length, but will allow us to get on with the Bill. Having accepted the principle of procedure already, we are quite unable to accept this Amendment.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: The statement made by the right hon. Gentleman certainly shows that we have travelled a long way since the days of Limehouse. I was not at all impressed by the argument he used that this was particularly inapplicable in time of war. I should have felt some diffidence in supporting this Amendment if it were not for the conditions which have arisen through the War; but, after all, if we are under these circumstances going to pay landowners rather less than they would be entitled to in the days of peace, I think we are justified in doing it at a time when we are told this land is in danger of invasion and this War is for the purpose of preserving it. If ever there was a time when in the national interests we should prevent the landlord getting the price he has got in the past, it is now. The State requires to get land in the main in connection with munition work. I can inform the right hon. Gentleman that in all the great munition centres this process of extracting enormous sums when land has to be purchased by public authorities has been going on. Take, for instance, Sheffield. A very great area has been rated in the past as agricultural land at about £2 an acre, but I know from figures supplied to me by the education authority of Sheffield that in the past where they have purchased sites for school buildings assessed at about £2 an acre annual value, they have paid from £1,000 to £2,000 an acre for it. I think by the acceptance of my hon. Friend's Amendment, in this week of national economy, when we are told that to waste is treason, we are providing means by which the State will not be called upon to waste the public funds.
    I think my right hon. Friend will realise that the need has arisen for the adoption

    777
    of such a method as this, and it seems to me we have recently adopted some almost analogous provision. We have established the War Losses Commission, under which the landowner gets no compensation whatsoever unless he can prove an actual loss has taken place by the taking over of the land. If we take this land over on the basis of the rent actually being received, the owner cannot claim to have suffered any loss by our doing so. He may claim to have suffered a prospective loss, but then we say to him, "We are taking this for the national purposes of the War, and if we did not wage this war to prevent the invasion of this country by Germany, you would lose all your land and everything else." Surely as patriotic gentlemen—and they claim to be the most patriotic section of the community—they will not object to our taking this step. Therefore, I think, this is a practical method of preventing the State being punished. The appeal is always being made at this time of war for the surrender of all individual rights. While I would not support this Amendment in peace time, I will support it now because we have overridden the individual rights of a man's own life and limb. This is following on the principle of Conscription which has been adopted in this House. We have been told that Conscription is the establishment of the principle of equality of sacrifice. Well, let us try to establish some little equality of sacrifice in the region of land monopoly. I cannot believe for a moment that this Amendment would be opposed by the Territorialists of this country, and I am surprised to find my right hon. Friend who represents the Government, in view of his recent association with the late Minister of Munitions, opposing some little step in this direction. I would advise him to look up some of the former speeches made by the present. Minister of War, and then perhaps he will adopt the Amendment of my hon. Friend.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I have much pleasure in voting with the Government on this occasion. I always do so when they are right. The Debate to which we have just listened shows the inadvisability of bringing in the Bill in its present form, because it has given hon. Members below the Gangway an opportunity of airing all those old theories with regard to Land Values and a variety of other things which really are not concerned with this Bill at all, and of bringing in again those speeches
    778
    of the Secretary of State for War which, I feel sure, he would be only too glad to forget.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: We will remind him.
    Mr. RAFFAN: Is that statement of the right hon. Baronet made with the authority of the Minister of War?
    Sir F. BANBURY: No. I am not a member of the present Government, and I am generally in opposition to the present Government. The present Government do not confide in me in the least; if they did, probably they would conduct the affairs of the State better.
    Mr. HOGGE: Impossible!
    Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken seems to consider that the whole of the land which is going to be taken is undeveloped land in the neighbourhood of Sheffield or some other towns, which, not being productive of a very large rental at the present time, inasmuch as it is building land which is not yet available or developed for building purposes, is rated at what it brings in, and considers he is going to put his hand in the pocket of somebody else and secure some particular advantage to the State. But I thinks he forgets that a great deal of the land which has been acquired in the present connection is not land in the neighbourhood of large towns. No doubt some of it is, but a great deal is certainly not. There is a large portion of land which I happen to know, because I pass it whenever I go down home, which is near Didcot. It certainly is not very valuable building land, and probably is rated at its full value. Now land, I am given to understand, includes buildings, and buildings include houses. There are a great number of houses which are very much overrated. There has been a very great fall in the price of a great number of houses, especially in London. I should be very glad to let my house in London at the price at which it is rated. I have been unable to convince the gentleman who makes the assessment that it is a great deal too high. It is an undoubted fact, certainly in the ease of a large number of houses in the West End, that the annual value of assessment is far above that at which they could be let. As regards agricultural land, what would be the effect supposing this Amendment were carried? Here I speak from what I

    779
    know. There are a large number of farms let at rentals which obtained in the "nineties" and which have never been raised. The landlord who has got a tenant in possession has never raised his rent. In many cases the rentals were fixed in the "nineties," when wheat was about 25s. a quarter, when beef was selling about 6d. per pound, and sheep, now fetching 90s., were selling at about 36s. The rental has never been raised, and consequently under our system of rating it is fixed upon what the house or the land is let at, and the rating has not been raised. Consequently all landlords who have agricultural property whose farms are under-rented will suffer, and that is what would take place unless the landlord did not really care what happened to his property. It is said that the landlord ought to be willing to hand over his property below its ordinary value, but is the landlord the only person who is being benefited in this country at the present time, and is it not a fact that the landowner has probably made greater sacrifices than any other persons? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] How about the Death Duties, the Super-tax, and the Income Tax paid in many cases on a nominal rental which he never received? I do not say that the landowner is alone, because all the richer classes are paying far and away more than anyone else, although they have made just as great sacrifices in other respects. In many cases the richer classes are paying 1s. in the £ for every 20s. they receive. I should be the last person to say that the other classes have not made equal sacrifices, but no classes have made more sacrifices than what are called the " upper classes," by the way they have fought at the front and the way in which they have given their money.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have not risen to rule the right hon. Gentleman out of order, but I would remind him that if he opens out this subject I shall be unable to stop a general debate upon it.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I do not wish to raise a big question like this, and I regret that it has been raised. I only rose because amongst a certain class of people it is becoming a habit to attack other people simply because they have a little land or have been prudent and saved a little money.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The subject has been rather widely opened and carried on upon the same basis by the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. I would now suggest that hon. Members should make their remarks more strictly relevant to the Bill and to the Amendment under discussion.
    9.0.P.M.
    Mr. ANDERSON: I will confine my remarks strictly to the Amendment. I wish to bring the subject back to the simple issue raised by the hon. Member who moved this Amendment. It does not seem to me that it opens out questions of land value and land monopoly unless hon. Members wish to use it for that purpose, but what we do want is to find a reasonable basis for compensation and rent in regard to the land and buildings that have been taken over during the War. The question arises, does local rating afford a reasonable basis for that purpose? I suggest that no better basis can be found for fixing the maximum that ought to be paid than this basis of assessment for local rating purposes. Either local rating represents the true value of the property, in which case no harm can be done, or else it is equivalent to us being told, as we were told by the hon. Member for Liverpool, that farmers for years have been paying far less than they ought to have been paying in regard to their assessment. It seems to me if that is true and if these people have been getting off far too lightly——
    Mr. RUTHERFORD: I did not say anything of the sort. I said as between themselves and the paying of local rates the farmers in question had fixed values upon their farms which are obviously much below their true value to the extent of about 20 per cent.
    Mr. ANDERSON: That is my point. If farmers, by means of a local council or otherwise, have fixed for certain other farmers or for themselves a value 20 per cent. below what ought to have been charged, and if they have been paying less all these years to the local authority, it seems to me to be quite fair now to equalise the matter by allowing the local authority to pay back a little less than the value.
    Mr. RUTHERFORD: The hon. Member is quite mistaken in imputing that motive. As they were doing it amongst themselves for the whole of themselves,

    781
    and had to contribute a certain quantity to the union, it made no difference as between one and the other except when some stranger came in to build a house or rent a fishing.
    Mr. ANDERSON: I think my point holds good that where the rating was too low, it seems to me that the matter will be equalised if the same test is now applied, and as these farmers have escaped paying the full value it will only be fair if the owner gets a little less now.
    Mr. ASHLEY: But it is the landowners who will suffer in the compensation.
    Mr. ANDERSON: I am aware that rating is paid by all sorts of people in different ways. The hon. Baronet opposite raised a question of local rating in other cases being too high. If the local rating has been too high, and some one has been paying more than he ought to be paying in regard to local rates, it is only fair that he ought to get a little more now, and the matter will equalise itself in that way. I am sure that hon. Members do not wish to emphasise private interests against the public good in a matter of this kind, and surely the public good is still going to obtain in regard to this kind after the War is over, and if a fair basis is reached that is all they have a right to claim. I suggest that the question of local rates fixes a rough and ready method by which that basis can be reached, and for that reason I think this Amendment ought to be pressed to a Division.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I desire to support the Amendment which has been so ably moved by the hon. Member for the Tradeston Division (Mr. D. White). I have listened with great care and attention to all the speeches which have been made in opposition to the Amendment, and in neither the single official speech nor in the three unofficial speeches which have been made in opposition can I find any adequate reason for resisting this very reasonable proposal. I may say in passing that I regret extremely, when a proposal of this kind is being discussed by the Committee, that neither is anybody here representing the Treasury nor is the Secretary of State for War, who has in the past spoken so soundly and so clearly upon this important question, present.
    Dr. ADDISON: He is not in the House.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Well, we shall have him here on the Report stage. I hope my right hon. Friend will give him notice that his presence is urgently desired when this question comes up for discussion again on the Report stage. We have to-day read the stirring appeal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the morning papers in regard to war savings. Here the Committee of the House of Commons is discussing a question in which the protection of the public purse is most closely concerned. We are now determining the terms upon which rent is to be paid for land which is now occupied by various Government Departments. My hon. Friend justly desires that some reasonable standard should be placed in the Bill so that those authorities who have to determine the matter in the future may be guided by some sort of rule from this House, and he has suggested the rateable value. This amuses the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. W. Rutherford), who constantly assures us when any critical proposal dealing with this question is put forward that he has a great platonic affection for the principle, but he can under no circumstances adopt any of its practical applications. His platonic affection has been extremely useful on the platform, but it has had no practical result in the Division Lobby of the House of Commons. I hope we shall give him another opportunity this evening of demonstrating for the benefit of the Liverpool electors the value of his platonic affection. The hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Home), who has left the House, seemed to be under the impression that any unfairness or any inequality in the matter of rateable value is entirely due to the local authorities, but the very opposite point was made by the hon. Gentleman opposite, who objected to this proposal because the people affected can have no opportunity of adjusting their assessments. Therefore, according to the theory of the hon. Member for Liverpool, it is the person assessed who adjusts the assessment. Obviously he should not have an opportunity of taking advantage of his own wrong to the disadvantage of the public purse.
    Mr. RUTHERFORD: If and when the rating assessments are fixed upon the value, which is one of the principles which the hon. Member and his Friends want, then such a Clause as this might be fair, but it has not yet been done, and it is not

    783
    the principle upon which properties are assessed. Therefore this Amendment is entirely unfair. Of course, it is too late to appeal to you on a point of Order, but it must be very inconvenient on a Bill such as this to bring up a great principle which has nothing to do with the Bill and spend the whole night discussing it.
    Mr. PRINGLE: The hon. Gentleman has taken ample advantage of the privilege I accorded him by giving way.
    Mr. RUTHERFORD: I beg your pardon.
    Mr. PRINGLE: But by his ample explanation he has done nothing to retrieve the position which he took up in his original speech. I can understand, having made the howler he did in his original speech, that he should now desire to have the discussion closured. But having exposed the very absurdity and inconsistency of the hon. Gentleman's position, I propose to leave him to himself and to his constituents. We may now leave this unofficial defence, even that of the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir F. Banbury), because the greater part of his speech was taken up with an irrelevant panegyric of the landed classes, and turn to the official defence given by the right hon. Gentleman representing the Munitions Department. He studiously avoided any attempt to deal with the fairness of the proposal. He merely put forward a case on the ground of inconvenience. After all, this was a temporary measure, and, of course, it is inconvenient to be just in temporary measures. It is inconvenient to put into practice all those principles which we have so eloquently protested in the past, because this is a temporary matter.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Only on the platform.
    Mr. PRINGLE: That is a theory of the City.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I would venture respectfully to point out to the Committee that the sole question with which this Amendment is concerned is whether the existing rateable value is to be taken as the standard for the rent of the land used by the Government, and to that alone I must ask hon. Members to direct their remarks.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I was endeavouring to point out that the principle of this Amend-
    784
    ment, as you have so clearly stated, is that for the purpose of compensation in respect of land the rateable value should be taken. That is a matter which many of us have advocated in the past, and we regret that the right hon. Gentleman cannot support this principle now. We naturally look for some reasons for a departure from such a sound and such a just principle, and the only reason which the right hon. Gentleman gave us was that in dealing with a tempoary measure of this kind in a time of war concessions have to be given on all sides. I took down to the best of my ability the words which he used. So far as I have been able to follow the discussion on this Bill, the concessions have been all on one side. This is the first occasion upon which a concession has been asked for in the interests of the Treasury, and it is a very strange thing indeed that in a time of war when the necessity for economy is so urgent—the necessity will be even greater probably in the earlier years of peace than now in a time of war when we are living upon borrowed money—the only people who turn a deaf ear to the appeals for economy are those who are understood to be the guardians of the public purse.
    Mr. R. MCNEILL: I was unfortunate enough not to have heard all the earlier speeches delivered on this Amendment, but I have gained some idea of what they must have been by the speech of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. I gather from what he has just said that very foolish and irrelevant talk came from this side of the House, because my hon. Friend who sits beside me (Mr. Rutherford) appears to have been guilty of howlers, and my right hon. Friend in front of me (Sir F. Banbury) guilty of irrelevance, and the only person who appears to have acted better in the eyes of the hon. Member is the Mover of this Amendment, who appears to have been forcible and convincing. At any rate, that shows some broad-mindedness on his part, as I always understood he was unable to find anything relevant or logical outside Lanarkshire, but now it would appear to have extended to Glasgow. If I may say so, with regard to the speech of the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Anderson), he really brought before the Committee the one and only point which we have to discuss, and that is: Does the present local rating, or does it not, afford a fair basis for the compensation to be paid under this Clause? It appears to me that the discussion upon

    785
    this point has brought out, as so many of these discussions do bring out, the difficulty that arises from the constant use in economic discussions of the same term in various senses. Nothing seems to me more prolific of confusion and of fallacy than the way in which the word "value" is constantly used, and that appears to me to be the cause of the disagreement in the discussion on this Clause, and of the disagreement in the minds of a good many hon. Members. The value in the sense of rateable value is a totally different thing, and is intended to be—an hon. Member laughs as though it was intended and had failed to be, but that is not the case—from the market value. Rateable value is one thing, and market value is another. No one ever pretended it was otherwise. There is no reason whatever why they should be the same. It is quite true that you might completely amend your system of taxation so as to make them the same, and it would be a very arguable proposition, but that is not the basis of taxation or of rating in this country, and it never has been. The reason for it being on a different footing is quite plain. You want to get a certain amount of local taxation raised, and it is raised exclusively from land and houses and does not fall on personal property at all, and in order to get a certain taxation you put it upon a fictitious entity called the rateable value. There is no occasion for getting that to be the same as actual or market value. You get your taxation spread over a certain source which is real property, apart from personalty, and you get it quite fairly as between the different owners of that class of property by that means. When once you come to the question of disposing altogether of that particular property, however, and you use the word "value," you use it in a totally different sense. You do not mean a fictitious entity for purposes of taxation, but what one man would give and another man would take. It is a totally different thing, and it is exactly the same as it would be in regard to the disposal of any other property under the sun. Whether or not that is right or wrong, whether the single-taxers, or whoever they may be, have good or logical ground for their doctrine, is neither here nor there in the present taxation, but there is not the slightest similarity between the two. If hon. Members will bear that in mind they will see how utterly unfair and unjust it would be to impart that sense to the word "value"
    786
    in this particular connection. The hon. Member for Attercliffe said quite truly and fairly of us on this side that we were all anxious during this time of war for the public good, and that he was quite sure that owners of particular property would not allow private gain to stand in the way of the public good. That is not more than fair to owners of private property, and I can speak quite disinterestedly, as I have none myself. Surely it is fair to look to the position in which owners of property will be placed. If hon. Members will look at the Subsection they will see that it there says that—
    "There shall be paid to any person interested in the land who suffers direct loss or damage by reason of the exercise of the powers conferred by this Section, such compensation as in default of agreement the Commission may determine to be the amount of such loss or damage."
    It is clear that the loss or damage which a man might suffer in relation to his land, whatever your theories may be about the taxable value, is an actual loss——
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that the Subsection to which he refers has been struck out.
    Mr. McNEILL: I knew it had been altered, but I did not know in exactly what way. In any case, I thought the sense was exactly the same. The meaning is, at any rate, to give compensation for loss. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO, no! It is acquisition of land!"] I understood it was to be compensation for loss or damage. That is the purpose of the whole Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO, no!"] It is quite true that I have not the exact words that have been substituted, but that is the meaning of the whole Bill.
    Mr. RAFFAN: May I point out that compensation is to be dealt with quite separately? This is merely a question of how rent is to be fixed. Compensation for loss and damage will be dealt with quite separately.
    Mr. McNEILL: I will not proceed with the minutiæ of the argument. The broad sense is the same. I mean that the value that the land has to its owner is not to be measured by what he is assessed at for taxable purposes. It is to be based really, as all other real values are in the last resort, on what he could get for it if he

    787
    sold it in the market. That is the only true position of any real value. You may attempt to value property because you have not an open market for it, and you may appoint a valuator to determine the value. But he must, if he goes on any sound principle—and that is what he will do if he endeavours to value it fairly—determine what would be its value if there were an open market, and what price would be given by a willing purchaser to a willing seller. If hon. Members bear that in mind they will see the unfairness of this Amendment.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: I do not intend to wander all over this question of taxation, but the speech to which we have just listened is based on a misconception of the meaning of this Amendment. The hon. and learned Gentleman has been arguing about purchase. This has nothing to do with purchase. This Amendment merely deals with the rent to be paid for the land taken. If the Government takes land which is let already, the proposals would leave them to pay the owner the same rent as he had been receiving from the private tenant. The owner, therefore, would suffer nothing whatever. All he would be prevented from doing would be putting up the rent against the Government because it had bean taken for national purposes. Surely no patriotic owner is anxious for the power to put up the rent against the Government in order to make a profit out of the War, because the nation wants his property for national purposes, and this would limit it to the amount paid before. Either the land has been rented or it has not been rented.
    Sir E. CORNWALL: It has nothing to do with rent.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: It has. Either the land has been let or it has not been let. If it has not, no income has been received from it at all.
    HON. MEMBERS: Why not?
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Because if no income has been received, and the land has been used, it will have been assessed at the value of the rent which would have been receivable if it had been let to a tenant. That would be a fair basis for rent fixed to be paid by the Government to the owner. If the land has not been used at all—some of it has not been used, because it has been taken in districts where it has been practically
    788
    derelict—in such cases the Government have to agree, I presume, on the rent and the rent agreed between the owner and the Government would be the basis of rating, which would form the remuneration which the landlord would obtain for the loan of his land. In that case the owner would have increased his income by letting the land to the Government. Is there any reason why, simply because we are at war, the nation, in taking large quantities of land, should be made to pay more taking it wholesale than the private individual who takes it retail? Why should we penalise the Government every time it requires the use of a piece of land? This proposal is a perfectly reasonable one; it is that no landlord should be damnified through having to let land to the Government. Every provision is made whereby loss due to damage done to the land is to be paid to the owner, but in the meantime the owner himself stands either to receive the same income from the land he has been receiving or he will receive an increased income from the land. No injury can be done by passing the Amendment, which I hope will be voted for by all hon. Members who are sufficiently patriotic—
    Mr. RUTHERFORD: To kill the Bill
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: To wish to protect the national Exchequer against private exactions.
    Sir E. CORNWALL: On general grounds I am entirely in favour of the principle embodied in the Amendment, but I cannot understand how it applies to this Bill. It may be that I am not so capable of appreciating the position as some of my hon. Friends who have already spoken. This is a Bill dealing with properties taken over by the Government during the War which are in the possession of the Government now. Under the Bill, as we have already passed it, the Government can keep it for another two years. If they want it for a longer period they have to make an application to the Railway and Canal Commission for an extension of the period of occupation. The occupation may be extended for any period not exceeding five years if the Government Department can prove to the Railway and Canal Commission that it is in the interests of the State that they should occupy the land or the premises for a certain period not exceeding the five years. How in the world can my hon. Friends introduce the question of basing compensation—[HON. MEMBERS: "Rent!"]—on a

    789
    theory to which I subscribe as much as they do, on the rateable value prior to the Government acquiring the land? Any tribunal that assesses the value the Government will have to pay for the few months, or years, during which the Railway and Canal Commission will authorise them to continue in occupation, must do so on the basis of the rent the Government is paying now, What troubles me about the Bill is not so much the public money for any particular rent or compensation which the Railway and Canal Commission may give to the owners of the land or the properties under the Bill. What troubles me is that we should make this Bill so secure that no Government Department shall take more land or more premises than is actually required. It is in the retention of more land and more premises than is actually required that you are going to have a waste of public money.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Will you make it more expensive?
    Sir E. CORNWALL: No, I want to make it less expensive. If anybody is getting more money than is required for any land or premises now, let the Government, after they have occupied the land for two years after the War, refuse to occupy it and get rid of it.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now going back to a general discussion of the Clause. We had a very long discussion this afternoon on the whole subject of the Clause, and are now shut down to a much more clearly denned point. I hope the hon. Member will keep to that.
    Sir E. CORNWALL: I will endeavour to do so, Sir. The principle of the Amendment, good as it is when applied to compensation for land and premises occupied by the Government in ordinary times, has no bearing whatever upon this Bill, and we had better not be led astray into the difficulties created by the Amendment. We should limit the Bill to the occupation of land and premises actually required for Government purposes during the War and immediately after the War is over.
    Sir F. LOWE: The wording of the Amendment is extremely indefinite. It says:
    "The annual value of the land as adopted for the purposes of local rating."
    If that means anything, I should say it means the assessment for rating purposes,
    790
    that is, rent less a considerable amount in deductions. If this Amendment were adopted, you would have the rent of the land subject to various deductions made for rating purposes. That would be the rent fixed. After that the same deductions would have to be made again from the reduced rent. You would then get a rent very much below the actual rental value of the land on ordinary principles. Therefore the Amendment is absolutely-absurd and inconsistent with ordinary commercial usages. It ought not to be entertained by the Committee for a moment.
    Sir G. TOULMIN: We have just passed a new Subsection to the Clause which says:
    "The Occupying Department shall pay such rent …. as may be agreed …. or, as failing agreement, shall be determined by the Commission."
    The question is, whether there is to be any limit to the rent and are we to give any directions of any kind as to any limit that shall be fixed to the demands on the Departments. Unless some limiting words are inserted it appears that the Government must raise the value against itself. It has done so in consequence of the action it has taken directly for the defence of the realm and of the emergency which has arisen. A number of hon. Members have been very anxious to limit the amount of benefit which the Departments might take under this Bill. Now some of us desire to limit the costs in which they may be cast in regard to the action they have taken. In rating, the property which is occupied by an owner is valued on the rent which would be obtained from any tenant, including the owner. If the property is already let, it would appear that that which has been already fixed in the open market is a sum which can be objected to by no one, unless you want to say that the Government must be rated and have to pay rent upon its necessities. If the property is in the hands of the owner himself he has been able to see that he had the full annual value if he desired to do so. The only change which has taken place with regard to him is the appearance of the Government as the tenant, and we have to ask ourselves what is the result of that? We must find out the owner's loss. The illustration of the hon. Member for Marlborough was a very good one. We want to find out what has been the war loss to the owner and

    791
    not give him war profits. Find out what he has lost through the Government having his land, and give him that rent. Manufacturers have to take their chance in calculating the munitions levy which is placed upon them. They at least have certainly been using their resources to the best advantage, but they are not to have a greater advantage than a fifth over their datum line. Why should the land-lord have more than a fifth? Why not let this be inserted, giving them an advantage of a fifth just as manufacturers have had to submit to? There is one point about this. I think, as the Amendment is now drawn, it would limit the power of agreement of the Department. I do not think that it is advisable. I think the Department should be able to agree with the landlord as now, and that this proviso should only relate to anything which is determined by the Commission. It should be a direction to the Commission and not to the Department, leaving the Department to do what I am sure it will endeavour to do—to come to an amicable and just arrangement with any landowner whose land it takes.
    Mr. HENDERSON: For the life of me I cannot understand this. It says, as I read it, "Provided that 'he amount of such rent." There is not a word about rent.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member does not know what changes have been made. I have already explained to at least one other Member what Amendment has been put in—the second one on page 414.
    Mr. HENDERSON: It is given to me that you have struck out the words "compensation in so far as it represents annual rent."
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not aware that Subsection (3) has been struck out and an Amendment put in there.
    Mr. RAFFAN: In my view the question which is raised by the Amendment is the one familiar and simple question of whether any direction whatever is to be given to the authorities which is to decide the question of rent or whether they are to be left without any direction of any sort. That is not a mere academic question. I could give instance after instance of cases where, when it was necessary to secure land for public purposes, the nation
    792
    has been compelled to pay up to 2,000 or 3,000 years' purchase. Does even the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) defend that sort of thing going on in time of war, in War Savings Week, when it is so necessary to exercise economy?
    Sir F. BANBURY: This has nothing to do with purchase; it is only a question of direction.
    Mr. RAFFAN: That is no doubt perfectly true, but if the land is being purchased, and no direction whatever is given to the tribunal, we shall have the same problem for the taxpayer by way of excessive rent as we have by way of excessive price. I have endeavoured to understand the right hon. Baronet, who is usually the most able defender of vested interests in this House, but I fail on this occasion to see what he is afraid of. He informs us that in many cases properties are rated too high. I think he said that, as a rule, properties are rated too high. Under these circumstances, what does the landlord stand to lose by the Amendment? He loses nothing by the Amendment unless the right hon. Gentleman desires to obtain for him a larger sum even than this amount, which, in his view, is an excessive amount of rent. It is true he told us of other cases of agricultural land where the landowner has gone on for many years letting the land at a rent which is less than its real value, and he asks pathetically what the position of that landlord is to be under this proposal. The position of the landlord is simply this, that as he has been considerate to his tenants in time of agricultural depression, so we ask him to take the same terms and no other terms from the nation at a time when it is passing through a period of great stress. We ask by this Amendment nothing more than that there should be some check on excessive rents. We should like, if it were possible, an even more exact standard. The hon Member (Mr. R. McNeill) says the only true value which should be arrived at in dealing with all transactions of this kind is that the price should be as between a willing buyer and a willing seller. I agree absolutely that that should be the standard, but it should be the standard for rating and for value, and if we are unable to secure that ideal standard it is only left to us to say that if we are fixing rent we shall take the only figure that is available at present. Rateable value and rent are supposed to be on the same basis and the same standard.

    793
    It is possible that there are cases where they are not, but they are supposed to be. That is the test. We ask that the rate which has been put down on the rate book for so many years, and against which the occupier and the owner have every right to appeal if they are dissatisfied with it, shall be taken and that we shall not have in time of war a repetition of the old scandal that the nation's need is the landlord's opportunity.
    Mr. HENDERSON: I apologise for not quite following this, but I submit that there is really no substance in this Amendment. If the Bill continues the tenancy as now existing, the rent is agreed. The War Office always enters into an agreement for any land they have taken. No one would think of increasing the rent, but if they have not fixed the rent now there is no rating. Upon this nothing you are going to find the rate that you are going to pay. My hon. Friend said if they have not agreed the rent they will agree the rent.
    Mr. CHANCELLORmade a remark which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
    Mr. HENDERSON: That is putting the cart before the horse to say that the rent will have to be fixed and then the rate will be paid. What is the use, then, of saying that the rent will be fixed from the rate? The whole thing is absurd. The rents are being paid now; they are agreed, and when the War is over, if they want them for two years more, that rent cannot be raised. They would have to go to the Commission to raise the rent, and would have to show very good reason why that rent, which has been paid for two years, should under those circumstances be raised.
    Question put, "That the proposed words be there inserted.
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 38; Noes, 86.

    Division No. 37.]

    AYES.

    [9.47 P.m.

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Bryce, John Annan

    Kilbride, Denis

    Rowlands, James

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    King, Joseph

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Clynes, John R.

    Lundon, Thomas

    Watt, Henry A.

    Cosgrave, James

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Whitty, Patrick Joseph

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughby H.

    Morrell, Philip

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Nolan, Joseph

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Gilbert, J. D.

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Goldstone, Frank

    Pratt, J. W.

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Pringle, William M. R.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Dundas White and Mr. Anderson

    Hazleton, Richard

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Hogge, James Myles

    Rees, G. C. (Carnarvonshire, Arfon)

    NOES.

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Forster, Henry William

    Phillips, Sir Owen (Chester)

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Greenwood, Sir G. G. (Peterborough)

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Gretton, John

    Prothero, Rowland Edmund

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Radford, Sir George Heynes

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G.

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Bathurst, Capt. C. (Wilts, Wilton)

    Harris, Henry Percy (Paddington, S.)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Beale. Sir William Phipson

    Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbigh)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Robertson, Rt. Hon John M.

    Boyton, James

    Horne, Edgar

    Robinson, Sidney

    Brace, William

    Howard, Hon Geoffrey

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Hunt, Major Rowland

    Runciman, Sir Walter (Hartlepool)

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Kellaway, Frederick George

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

    Butcher, J. G.

    Layland-Barrett, Sir F.

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Carew, C. R. S.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

    Cator, John

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Cave, Rt. Hon. Sir George

    Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

    Stewart, Gershom

    Coats, Sir Stuart A. (Wimbledon)

    Macmaster, Donald

    Tickler, T. G.

    Cochrane, Cecil Algernon

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

    Turton, Edmund Russborough

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Valentia, Viscount

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Walker, Colonel William Hall

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Morgan, George Hay

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

    Dixon, C. H.

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

    Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir J. B.

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Parker, Rt. Hon. Sir G. (Gravesend)

    Fell, Arthur

    Pearce, Sir Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Gulland and ,Lord Edmund Talbot.

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Pennefather, De Fonblanque

    Ffrench, Peter

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Sir R. ADKINS: I beg to move to omit Subsection (4).
    I do so for the reason that this Subsection would enable any Department which, under this Bill, occupied land or acquired it to transfer possession to any other Government Department. We are dealing exclusively with land or houses which are acquired during the period of the War for war purposes, and this power of general transfer would have the effect of giving the power to any Government Department which had no interest in the matter at the beginning to acquire it afterwards. That would abolish the very wholesome and proper restriction, made in time of peace, that if a Government Department want land or houses other than by agreement they must come to this House to get permission. I see that my right hon. Friend has an Amendment down to limit it to the Admiralty, the Army Council, and the Minister of Munitions. When he replies to me, as he will in a minute, perhaps he will say why he put in the Minister of Munitions, because if that Department continues after the War, surely it would continue in possession of such property as is necessary for its work. If after the War it is absorbed in the Army and Navy, then one can understand that the transfer of property might still be required for these purposes either to the Admiralty or the Army Council. But what ground is there for land or houses being transferred to the Minister of Munitions which has been acquired during the period of the War itself? I take it from my right hon. Friend's Amendment that the Government do absolutely withdraw the general suggestion of transfer among Government Departments, under which land acquired for the purpose of huts might be assigned to the Post Office for the purpose of a new post office. There would be no end to this, and it would be a quite unnecessary violation of the general procedure of Parliament in these matters.
    Sir G. CAVE: I think that this point is met by the Amendment which is put on the Paper. There was not and there is not any intention that land which is occupied for defensive purposes shall be transferred to other Civil Departments. The object of putting in this Subsection was that it should be open to one defensive Department to transfer the land to another Department of defence, so that, if found necessary, land occupied for Army aeroplanes should be transferred to the
    796
    Admiralty side of the same Department, and also that when the Ministry of Munitions is coming to a close it will be able to transfer land in its occupation to the Army Council, or the Admiralty. That object is attained by the Amendment in my name. As to the Ministry of Munitions, it may be desirable when land is held on very good terms to transfer it to the Ministry of Munitions during the short time in which that Department will exist after the War.
    10.0.P.M.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I agree thoroughly with what was said by the hon. and learned Gentleman who moved the Amendment. I cannot understand why the Subsection was ever put into the Bill in the form in which it now is. I am quite certain that my right hon. Friend had nothing to do with the drafting, or he would not have put in the Clause in this form, because as it is it does give power to different Government Departments to do that which hon. hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, in the interests of economy, are desirous that they should not do. They can transfer, say, from the Admiralty or the Ministry of Munitions to the Post Office, and so set up a sort of gambling or speculation in houses and land between various Departments of the Government. When the Second Reading took place my right hon. Friend said that they did not mean that. It would be very much simpler if we had the real meaning put into the Bill. To begin with, it would save a considerable amount of time. As the Ministry of Munitions will probably not be in existence for long after the War, and as they might wish to transfer some of their Departments either to the Admiralty or to the Army Council, they should have power to do that, and I understand that the Amendment of my right hon. Friend is designed to meet that. I do not know whether I should be in order in saying anything about it at present. I do not know what the hon. and learned Gentleman is inclined to do. I should be inclined not to press this Amendment, provided I could get an undertaking from my right hon. Friend to leave out " Minister of Munitions." I quite see that it may be necessary to give the Admiralty or the Army Council power to take over from a moribund Department certain lands or buildings which it has to get rid of, but why put in "Minister of Munitions "? They do not want to take

    797
    over anything. I understood that the whole thing is founded on the fact that after the War the Ministry of Munitions will not exist. If that is so, it is quite clear that it is not necessary to have the words, "or the Minister of Munitions." All they want is "the Admiralty or the Army Council." I do not know whether it would be more convenient to defer that point until the actual Amendment is before the Committee, but I think that my hon. and learned Friend had better not withdraw his Amendment until he has got some undertaking from the Government with reference to the Minister of Munitions.
    Mr. HOLT: There are two points on this Amendment to which I would draw attention. I do not think that any power to transfer land from one Department to another ought to apply to land as to which any extension of time has been granted by the Railway and Canal Commissioners. It the Government grant an extension of time for the occupation of land that only applies to its use by the Department which obtains the extension of time. Words ought to be put in making it quite plain that land in respect of which such extension of time has been granted cannot be transferred to another Department, because, if that were so, the extension of time would be quite vitiated as having been obtained under false representation. It may be quite right that the Admiralty, for instance, should be in occupation for their purpose of particular land, such as docks and land in connection with ships, but there is not the slightest reason why they should have the absolute right to transfer it to the War Office or to the Ministry of Munitions for a wholly different purpose. It is quite true that work in the War Office and work in the Admiralty have more connection than work in the Admiralty and work in the Board of Education; but they do not carry on the same work and do not necessarily require the same land, and I do not think it is a desirable thing to allow them to pass land between themselves without the consent of Parliament. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will persist in his Amendment, unless he gets an assurance from the Government that land as to which an extension of time has been given shall not be transferred, and also that land shall not be turned from one purpose to a wholly different purpose. If it is merely going to be used by the same Department for the same purpose that is one thing, but if it is
    798
    to be passed by the Admiralty, who have been using it for loading and unloading ships to the War Office, to be used as a place for storing disused clothes, that is a totally different proposition. We should get an assurance that the land will continue to be used for the same purpose for which it was originally obtained.
    Mr. ASHLEY: I think in the case of the Ministry of Munitions there is reason why they should have power to hand over land to another Department. Whether or not they continue after the War their activities will certainly be greatly diminished, and therefore they will probably have surplus land which they do not require. I think it is quite reasonable that this Subsection should be so amended that they may be able to hand over any surplus land, either after they are dead or even if they continue to live, to some other Department. Having said that I do protest against the idea that the Army Council should be allowed to hand over land to the Admiralty or vice versâ, because I do not see what reason there is for it. If the land was taken for Army service purposes, and those are not continued purposes, it can be disposed of; or if for naval purposes and it is not wanted for those purposes, it can be disposed of. I do not think that we ought to have dealings in land between Departments except in the case of the Ministry of Munitions, which will probably soon come to an end, or in any case its activities will probably be greatly diminished.
    Mr. WHITE: I rather differ from what has been said on this subject, because it seems to me that the Subsection is much better as it stands than is the suggested Amendment. The reason is very simple. In the first place, let me refer to what was said by the hon. Baronet opposite, that there might be cases of speculative land purchases for buildings, for a post office, or anything of that sort; but I would point out to the hon. Baronet that I think he has overlooked the Clause which relates to land leased for a time, and the total lease is for a period of about seven years. That being the case, there can be no question of speculative building or anything of that sort. The concession which the Solicitor-General foreshadowed seems to me to go rather too far because it is limited to the three Departments concerned directly with the War. I would like to point out the effect of that provision. If, for instance, a large camp were established, and

    799
    it was desirable to set up a temporary post office for the use of the camp, and no other land was available, the suggested provision would have the effect of preventing the military authorities from handing over a certain part of this land that had been taken for the camp, and which piece of land was acquired for the purposes of a temporary post office. One might give other instances. For instance, if it were necessary to have something connected with rails, rails being under the Board of Trade, that Department would be prevented from having land handed over to it. It seems to me entirely unnecessary that we should have this Amendment. This measure proceeds on a certain assumption that the powers given to the Government will be exercised for purposes connected with the War. I think if this Subsection is allowed to stand, it will be sufficient for all purposes. I would point out that even the concession which the Solicitor-General suggests does not meet the opinion of the opponents of this Subsection, because my hon. Friend said that it is not merely the question of the Departments but a question of what use the land is to be put to. Supposing the War Office get a piece of land and wants to change it for another piece, that would be prevented quite as much in regard to the War Office as the handing of it over to the Admiralty. We are dealing here with land taken on short lease under special powers necessary for war, and I think that the Government Departments should have a free hand.
    Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dundas White) has not read the Bill. I do not in the least blame him, because it is really difficult to understand what the effect of the Bill is. This provision only applies to the occupation of land and to the renting of buildings for a period of seven years. The hon. Gentleman should read Clause 3. First of all, Clause 1, which we are now discussing, says that land may be held for a period of something less than seven years, and it is called occupying land. Clause 3 goes on to say that it shall be lawful to acquire land by purchase or lease, and therefore what really takes place is, that if we do allow this Clause to remain in the Bill, or if we accept the Amendment of the Solicitor-General, we give power under Clause 3 to acquire any land in which the Departments are now occupying. The hon. Gentleman need not shake his head. I admit that the Bill is
    800
    difficult to understand, and is very far-reaching in its effect; but I think if he had taken the trouble to study it, as I have done, and I have given the hon. Gentleman chapter and verse, he would see in regard to a Bill like this that, unless he can give proof, he must do something more efficacious than a mere shake of the head. The fact is that it is a very difficult Bill to understand, and it is extremely badly drafted.
    Mr. WHITE: I have studied the Bill, and I am familiar with Clause 3, which relates to the purchase of land, but this Subsection of Clause 1 relates to the continued possession of land on lease. I frankly admit to the hon. Baronet that my impression has been that Subsection (4) of Clause 1 which we are now discussing referred to Clause 1, and did not refer to Clause 3. I gather that the general opinion is that it not only refers to Clause 1, but refers to Clause 3 as well. For myself I find nothing linking it with Clause 3, but perhaps the Solicitor-General will give us some interpretation of this very difficult Bill.
    Sir R. ADKINS: In reply to my hon. Friend I would point out that this deals with Occupying Departments, and, for the purposes of the Clause, their powers are denned. It is perfectly clear that under Clause 1 the Departments can continue possession, and under Clause 3 they can acquire land by purchase, and then transfer it to any other Government Department. They can buy it or sell it. Most of us think it is far too great a power to give to any Government Department. In a Bill like this, which is an emergency measure, it is not fair either to private persons or to public bodies, who parted with their land willingly under emergency conditions during the War, to have all these fresh contingencies put upon them without the direct and frequent intervention of Parliament. Perhaps the representative of the Ministry of Munitions who is present will speak to us upon these points which have been raised and. as to the transfer of land and to the continuance of the use of the land for the same purposes. The people who originally parted with their land in time of war did so for specific and important purposes; and it is not fair to them, and it is still more unfair to public bodies who have parted with their land for specific purposes, to change its use to another purpose not so urgent. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will

    801
    meet me on the two points I have mentioned. I quite agree that the Solicitor-General has gone a long way to meet the other point, and if the right hon. Gentleman meets the points I have set forth I will willingly withdraw the Amendment.
    Dr. ADDISON: I am sorry to say that we cannot accept the proposal of my hon. and learned Friend because there are very substantial reasons why this power must be in the Bill in some form or other in the interests of the conduct of the business of the Departments, which are the three Defence Departments. For instance, there will be miles of stores belonging either to the War Office or the Ministry of Munitions. In the case of those occupied by the Ministry of Munitions it may be desirable in some cases to trasfer them to the Admiralty and in some to the War Office. There will be many cases arising of clearing up at the end of the War where it will be desirable or convenient for certain of the stores to be transferred. There are all kinds of storehouses occupied at present by two or three Departments, and in some cases it may be very convenient that the whole thing should be carried on by the Ministry of Munitions and in others by the War Office. [An HON. MEMBER: "After the War?"] Yes, in order that the matter may be properly cleared up. Such a power as that proposed is necessary in order to carry out the various arrangements which must be carried out at the conclusion of the War to enable the Departments to transfer land from one to the other for ,the purpose of public service.
    Sir R. ADKINS: In the case of the Ministry of Munitions, would it not be well done within two years after the War so that therefore you need not bring in the remaining five years?
    Dr. ADDISON: I cannot see what the hon. and learned Gentleman is going to gain by embarrassing us with all those kind of conditions. This provision is designed to serve the interests of the public in some way or other, and what does it matter if it is more convenient, say, that a given store shall be under the War Office or the Ministry of Munitions, as long as it is the more convenient in the interests of the public. I really do not think the hon. and learned Gentleman would be acting either in the interests of the local authorities or anybody else by tying up the Departments as to how they may
    802
    transfer. It is desired to get rid of these places as soon as we can, especially as the majority will be occupied by perishable stores. There will be cases, particularly, I dare say, in connection with the Air Service, where it will be desirable to transfer either to the War Office or to the Admiralty, so that it is advisable to keep the three Departments in. The modification which my right hon. and learned Friend has put down meets all the serious points which were directed against the Subsection on Second Reading. I hope my hon. and learned Friend will not press his Amendment, for I am sure it would be entirely contrary to the public interest that such a provision as we here seek to obtain should not be contained in the Bill.
    Mr. HOLT: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that in cases of transfer there shall be no alteration in the purpose for which the property is used—that something connected with the Air Service shall not be altered to the manufacture of jam, for example?
    Dr. ADDISON: I must ask my hon. Friend to believe that the Department will exercise some common sense. Neither of these Departments would start the manufacture of jam. It would not be within their powers to do anything of the kind. It must be something within the functions of the Department. Suppose there is a storehouse in which we store 2—inch bombs. It might be convenient for the War Office to store clothing there. We might come to an arrangement to turn out our bombs and they would store their clothing. It is quite a different purpose. It is storage, and that is all the similarity there is, but I do not think there would be any advantage in tying our hands to prevent that.
    Sir F. BANBURY: We are all anxious to meet the right hon. Gentleman in any way we can. I understood that the Ministry of Munitions would probably not be in existence for many years after the War. There will be some time in which the Department can make arrangements for winding up. That being so, what advantage is to be gained by transferring to a Department which is going to be wound up these assets, so to speak——
    Sir G. CAVE: Possession.
    Sir F. BANBURY: What for?
    Dr. ADDISON: That is what I have indicated.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that it must be advisable to transfer from the Ministry of Munitions something in which shells were kept so that the War Office might keep clothes there. I did not understand that there was anything now in the hands of the War Office or of the Admiralty which would be transferred for a short time to the Ministry of Munitions.
    Dr. ADDISON: Certainly.
    Sir F. BANBURY: What sort of things?
    Dr. ADDISON: There are miles of storehouses belonging to the two Departments on both sides of the Channel. I am certain there will be a large number of cases in which it will be most convenient to transfer things from the War Office to the Ministry of Munitions, or vice versa, for a short time.
    Sir F. BANBURY: On both sides of the Channel?
    Dr. ADDISON: We shall have to bring a lot of goods from the other side to this side.
    Sir R. ADKINS: In view of what has been said, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir G. CAVE: I beg to move, in Subsection (4), to leave out the words "any other Government Department," and to insert instead thereof the words "the Admiralty, or Army Council, or the Minister of Munitions."
    Mr. PETO: I would only ask one question, in view of what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions has just said—particularly as regards the Air Service. It is quite possible that, before the end of the period of seven years, we may have a definite organisation of the Air Service. It seems to me that these words, " the Admiralty, or Army Council, or the Minister of Munitions," would preclude the transfer of stores suitable for air defence to the definite Department or Ministry of the Air. I should, therefore, like to ask the Solicitor-General whether it would not be wise to put in words to cover that, or any other Department connected with air defence?
    Sir G. CAVE: Is not the answer to that, that if an Air Department is
    804
    created, the Bill creating it will surely contain words to enable the Army Council, or other Department, to transfer to the new Department anything that may be connected with it?
    Amendment agreed to.
    The CHAIRMAN: The two subsequent Amendments have been disposed of.
    Mr. WATT: On a point of Order, Mr. Whitley. May I draw your attention to the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh: "(5) This Section shall not apply otherwise than by agreement to any land belonging to any local authority or held by any statutory body for public purposes." I understand you have ruled it out of order. May I call attention to the fact that it brings in the question of agreement in dealing with land of a local authority?
    The CHAIRMAN: That matter will be appropriate on the New Clause on the Order Paper dealing with Savings.
    Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Sir F. BANBURY: Notwithstanding the very pleasant way we have been met by the right hon. Gentleman and the endeavours to amend the Clause, I still think it would have been very much better if the whole Bill had been withdrawn and a new Bill had been substituted for it. It has been shown, perfectly conclusively I think, that the Clause which is under discussion goes very much further than the majority of Members of this House had any idea of. Instead of this House, it sets up another authority in the form of the Railway and Canal Commission. If the Government are desirous of taking private property, instead of their acting as hitherto, under the general law of the land, by coming down to this House and asking for a Bill, giving the particulars of the particular land or buildings that they desire to acquire and so getting the consent of the House, all they will have to do is to go to the Commission I have named and ask for power to do these things. That is a very great mistake and a very great abrogation of the powers of this House. I regret very much that my right hon. and learned Friend did not accede to the request which several of us made on the Second Reading, withdraw the Bill and substitute for it another Bill.

    805
    It would have been much simpler, and it would not have met with the opposition which this Bill has met. It looks as though the Government desired to do away with the authority of Parliament and allow the Departments, in consultation with the particular Commission, to do practically what they like. I do wish to offer another protest against Clause 1, which, I think, is quite outside the necessary powers required, and which ought never to have been introduced into the Bill.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I do venture, before this Clause forms part of the Bill, to enter a formal protest against its existence at all. It is a most extraordinary Clause even with the Government Amendments. A person who has been patriotic enough to give up his land for a particular purpose is subject to what amounts to penalties in this Clause. His neighbour who has been equally unpatriotic is not touched by this Clause. You have this position: a man who has given up fields or meadows or cricket grounds, or whatever it may be, to the Government for a particular purpose, say, for a hospital, is under this extraordinary Clause liable to have his land, which he gave perfectly willingly and for nothing, kept away from him for seven years, possibly on some chance of getting compensation on some kind of basis by the Railway Commission, and the land which he has given in that way for a hospital can be used against his will and wish for any purpose the Government may desire. He may object to it being turned from a hospital into a munition works in the neighbourhood of his house, or, if he had given it for soldiers' huts to be erected on it, he might object very much to it being turned into a hospital quite adjacent to his house. I do submit that, merely because a land-owner has willingly given up his land to the War Office or to the Ministry of Munitions at a time of emergency, to bring in this Clause for the next seven years is a great injustice and an entirely wrong form of legislation. There has been no friction, or very little friction indeed, so far as I am aware, with the land-owning community as regards the question of the needs of the realm at the present time. Why this Bill should be necessary to suggest anything of the kind I cannot under-
    806
    stand. It seems to me no real case has been made out for this Bill at all. The person who has given up his land, which was used as a cricket ground, is possibly willing to meet the Government if the land is required for a further four or seven years for the purpose. In ninety-nine cases out of a hundred I believe they would do it, but it is quite a different matter when a Government comes down and says, " Unless you do this or that, we can exercise our powers, and keep you out of your cricket ground, and you will be put to the expense of going before the tribunal to show cause why you should not be compelled." Upon the point of the land which is given for one use being used for another, on which I propose to put down an Amendment on the Report stage, I do submit that this Clause is' an unnecessary Clause, and I am sorry to see it introduced.
    Sir G. CAVE: I understand my hon. Friends are only making a protest. Out of respect for them, may I say two or three words? I am very glad that the opinions they uttered about the Bill are really not reflected outside the House. I have had a great deal of correspondence from responsible bodies, and all of them are very desirous of helping the Government in this matter. Provided reasonable objections are met, I am sure that the strong feeling of the country is in favour of some Bill of this kind. It is suggested we might withdraw this Bill and introduce another. Hon. Members have not tried to conceive, as I have, the terms of another Bill which would meet their views. The more I think of it, the more I am sure this is the proper way of dealing with the emergency that has arisen. If we had not had this Bill, or something very like it, an enormous national expenditure must have been thrown away, and, much worse than that, the future defence of this country would have been hampered if it had been in the power of any private owner or any local authority to require the Government at once to give up possession unless they came to some terms or other by agreement. For that reason I am quite satisfied we have a right to bring in this Bill, and I feel confident, when my hon. Friends have considered it further in its final stage, their feelings towards it will not be as hostile as they have been to-day.
    Colonel GRETTON: There is one particular matter which has not been noticed in the discussion, and that is the necessity

    807
    for public economy. In winding-up any business where a large staff has been employed there always is a difficulty in closing down because the staff is very often anxious that there should be no closing down. The only protection which this Clause gives is the Railway and Canal Commission. I do not know whether that protection is sufficient to protect the public purse in that direction. It is much to be lamented that the time for winding-up is so long, and that there is not another provision for examining more closely into the circumstances under which the longer occupation of land may continue under this Clause. I hope that something will be devised on Report which will meet this difficulty.
    Mr. R. McNEILL: I hope my right hon. Friend will not think it any want of personal consideration on my part if I decline to apologise for taking up the time of the Committee by saying a few words. I took no part in the Debate on the Second Reading, and I do not think the Government can possibly expect that this Bill will be passed in the course of an evening, when every Clause is full of debatable matter. This is a Bill that cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be called an urgency war measure, because it deals with controversial matters for a period after the War. Under these circumstances I do not think that on the first evening of the Committee any of us need apologise for asking for a few moments to lay our views before the Committee. The Solicitor-General said that he imagined that this Bill was not so unpopular outside the House as it seemed to be inside, and that he had received communications from various responsible bodies. I do not know what sort of responsible bodies they were, but, after all, the people most affected by this Bill are not responsible bodies but individuals, and my belief is that the actual provisions of this measure and the proposals of the Government are not in the least known out of doors.
    I do not believe that there is a general understanding throughout the country of the proposals of the Government, and I feel confident that if those proposals were more generally known my right hon. Friend would not be able to stand up and say that he believed the Bill would be popularly received out of doors. I am certain that there is no one on this side of the
    808
    House who would raise a single voice against any proposal for really helping along the War, nor would anybody say a word against public economy or any reasonable and definite means the Government might take for keeping down the awful cost of the War and the loss which must follow at its conclusion. I entirely agree that the proposals in this Bill do an amount of injustice both in principle and to individuals which is quite unnecessary, and we believe that all the legitimate objects of the Government, with which we all sympathise, in the way of the saving, expenditure, and losses which will have to be incurred in the cutting of the loss on stores and so forth after the War, could have been obtained without those objectionable principles to which we have called attention in the Bill as it stands. The reason this Bill has not been more understood out of doors is owing to the peculiar conditions under which Parliamentary work is being done at the present time. Just imagine if this Bill, as controversial as it can possibly be, had been brought in under ordinary prewar Parliamentary conditions! I have not the slightest doubt that the Government which was in power in 1914 could, by the strenuous use of their Parliamentary majority, have carried this Bill through the House. We should then have had the advantage of the serious, strenuous opposition which would have been offered to it by my right hon. Friend who then would have been sitting on this side of the House. Does anybody imagine that it would not have been fought line for line and Clause for Clause by any Parliamentary body sitting opposite to the Government of the day? Therefore, I do think that we are fully justified at all events in making a serious protest. We do not complain of my right hon. Friend. We recognise the necessity for the Coalition Government, and we recognise that all of us support measures during the War to which we object very largely on principle, and which we only support because of the necessity of the time. Our complaint here is that the Government have gone far beyond those necessities. They are making this particular Bill a vehicle for dealings with property long after the necessity for them must have passed away, and they have resisted some of the proposals which we have brought forward, and which at all events might have mitigated the objection we entertain.
    Mr. A. WILLIAMS: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has charged against the Government that they are using this Bill to promote dealings with property long after the necessity has disappeared. I really do not see how he can substantiate that charge at all. The Bill simply gives them power for two years to do certain things and then to go to the Commission and ask their consent to continue for another five years. The Commission will only give that consent if good reason is shown. It is quite misleading to say that the Government have power to do all these things for seven years; they have only power to do them for two years and then to go to the Commission and ask for a continuance if they can show good cause for such continuance. That is a perfectly reasonable thing. We have had dreadful pictures drawn to us this evening of the unreasonable things the Government could do under this Bill. It would be quite equally possible to draw harrowing pictures of the things landlords could do to the Government if no such Bill were in existence. It seems to me a perfectly reasonable thing that the Commissioners, as a judicial body, should hold the balance fairly between the two sides. I do think it conveys a false impression to the House and to the country if hon. Gentlemen are allowed to rise one after another in criticism, and if a large number of Members in this House who are in favour of the Bill and think it a just and reasonable measure for dealing with a difficult position sit still and do nothing. Therefore, I thought I ought to say these few words in support of this Clause.
    Mr. ASHLEY: I was very much impressed by the remarks of the hon. Member for Rutland (Mr. Gretton). He said that what he was afraid of was the delay in closing down Government establishments and enterprises after the War, owing to the natural desire of the officials connected with those establishments and enterprises to continue the jobs in which they were occupied and which, no doubt, in many cases would be well paid. I think there is a great deal in what he says, and I would put it forward for the consideration of the learned Solicitor-General whether he might not before the Report stage think over and devise some Amendment, so that, though the Commission would be empowered to give additional extension of five years when the Government Department came up for it,
    810
    yet they should in the same way have to go up again in two or three years to justify the continuance of the whole of the five years.
    It is rather a large order for the Government Departments to go to the Commission and say, "We want another five years; give it us." The Commission goes into the matter, and to the best of its knowledge and belief decides that it is justifiable to give these five years. It may well be that, after two years, another investigation, not necessarily so searching but some sort of investigation made by the Commission or some other independent body, might be made, and it might be discovered that the whole thing could be wound up in two instead of five years. I know it is not easy to suggest an exact plan that could be followed, but I suggest to the Government in the interests of economy, because nobody wants to continue this longer than is necessary, that they should consider the suggestions of the hon. Member for Rutland, and see whether it is necessary to give a definite five years extension, or whether some revision should not be had after two or three years.
    Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Power to Remove Buildings and Works.)
    (1) Whilst any land of which possession has been so taken is in the possession of an Occupying Department after the termination of the present war, any building or other work which for purposes connected with the present war has been erected or constructed on over or under the land wholly or partly at the expense of the State, or, with the consent of the Occupying Department, at the expense of some person not being a person interested in the land, may be removed, without the consent of any person interested in the land, by the Occupying Department, or, with the consent of the Occupying Department, by the person at whose expense it was erected or constructed, any law or custom to the contrary notwithstanding:
    Provided that—

    (a) where the building or work was erected or constructed partly at the expense of a person interested in the land; or

    811

    (b) where in pursuance of an agreement with a Government Department any person interested in the land is entitled to the benefit of or to prohibit the removal of the building or work;

    this provision shall not authorise the removal of that building or work during the continuance of such interest in the land without the consent of that person or the persons deriving title under him:
    Provided also that where under any agreement a Government Department is entitled to remove any such building or work nothing in this Section shall prejudice the rights of the Department or any other person under the agreement.
    (2) Where any building or work has been removed under the powers conferred by this Section the Occupying Department shall, at their option, either cause the land to be restored to the condition in which it was before the building or work was erected or constructed or pay such compensation in respect of the depreciation (if any) in the value of the land attributable to the disturbance of the soil as in default of agreement may be determined by the Commission.
    (3) Where any building or any machinery or plant fixed or attached to any land has, for purposes connected with the present war, been erected wholly or partly at the expense of the State in accordance with an agreement with any person interested in the land, any power to remove the building, machinery, and plant so erected conferred on any Government Department under the agreement may be exercised, notwithstanding any rights in the building, machinery, or plant to which any other person interested in the land, whether as mortgagee or otherwise, may be entitled.
    Colonel GRETTON: In the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University (Mr. Prothero), I beg to move, after Subsection (1), to insert the words " Provided also that any person interested in the land shall be entitled in default of agreement to the contrary to submit for the decision and award of the Commission any question arising between himself and any Government Department out, or in the course, or as a result, of the occupation of the land."
    There seems to be a substantial point in this Amendment. It is provided in the
    812
    language the Government accepted earlier in the evening that the occupying party should pay such rent, and so forth, as may be agreed, and following agreement the Commissioners shall decide. But there are many other questions arising besides the adjustment of rent, and there are many other matters which must arise in the occupation of land temporarily held for short periods, and this proviso would give the owners of the land or the person who has to receive the rent and make the terms with the Government Department under this Bill, and would give powers to the Commissioners not only to deal with the question of rent, but any other matters that may arise and require adjustment between themselves and the Occupying Department. I think there is a really substantial point in this matter, and if justice is to be done to the owners of the land a proviso of this kind should be inserted in the Bill, though, of course, I do not imagine that the Government would be entirely satisfied with the drafting; in fact, I am not sure that the drafting on the Paper is quite perfect. For instance, I am not sure that the words "to the contrary" will be required. At any rate, a substantial point is involved and I ask the Government to give it serious consideration.
    Sir G. CAVE: My hon. and gallant Friend is obviously not very satisfied with the drafting of the Amendment. I agree with him. I do not quite understand what is intended, nor why it comes into this Clause. This is a removal Clause, and he proposes to insert as a proviso to one Subsection an Amendment containing general provisions referring differences on questions arising out of the occupation of the land. If the hon. Member will withdraw this now, I will speak to him and my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University (Mr. Prothero) as to what it is they are aiming at, and see if it is possible to meet them in any way in some other part of the Bill. I do not think it can come in in this particular Clause, nor is it in proper form.
    Sir F. BANBURY: This is an important Amendment, because I am quite sure that there may be considerable difficulties arising under this particular Clause. I have not the slightest objection to the Clause as a whole, because I think the Occupying Department ought to have the

    813
    power to remove what I presume would otherwise be tenant's fixtures. The Sub-section says:
    "Whilst any land of which possession has been so taken is in the possession of an Occupying Department after the termination of the present War, any building or other work which for purposes connected with the present War has been erected or constructed on, over, or under the land wholly or partly at the expense of the State, or, with the consent of the Occupying Department."
    Under these words questions may arise as to what is meant by "wholly or partly at the expense of the State." I do not know whether it would not be possible for the landowner himself to have spent some money, so that the work has been partly constructed at the expense of the State and partly at the expense of the landowner. In those circumstances some such words as my hon. and gallant Friend has moved are necessary, unless great injustice is to be done. What is the objection to allowing the Commission, where any points of difficulty or disagreement arise, to be the deciding authority? I object very much to the idea that the Department is to say, "Here is an Act of Parliament; we are to be the judges in our own case." I do not look upon a Department, even if it is a Department of the Government, as being always a very wise body. It is very often a tyrannical body and will not listen to any reasons unless it thinks the person advancing the reasons has some power to enforce them. We give too much power to this Department and to that. The whole tendency lately has been to set up a Government Department and give it power to do this, that, and the other—to make Regulations and to do all sorts of things. I protest against so much power being given to the Departments. We have done things owing to the War that we would never do in ordinary times. We have given powers to the Government which I do not believe any King, even in the days of the Tudors, was given. Henry VIII. had no powers such as we have given to the Government. I really think there ought to be some limit upon those powers. I do not know that the actual Amendment is very well worded, but I would much rather have it inserted in the Bill as it is now, and
    814
    amend it on Report stage. We shall have something in the Bill then. If it is really to be considered upon the Report stage we may forget all about it before the Report stage comes on.
    Colonel GRETTON: I understand that my right hon. Friend is willing to consider the principle and that there are other matters arising out of the rating of land which are not covered by such expressions as "payment of value" or "payment of rate." That is exactly the point I want to bring before his notice. I understand that he is willing to consider the question on rather wider ground than the actual details arising out of the building. That is entirely satisfactory to me, and I think will be satisfactory to my hon. Friend who has put down the Amendment. Probably a new Clause may be necessary. I am very much obliged to my right hon. Friend for having given consideration to the matter and for being favourably disposed to go further into it on the wider basis I have mentioned. I do not want to proceed further with the Amendment to-night.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words "at their option" ["Department shall, at their option"], and to insert instead thereof the words "as in default of agreement may be determined by the Commission."
    I do not think that it ought to be at the option of the Occupying Department whether or not they shall do this, that, or the other. They ought to come to an agreement with the owner, and if they cannot do this, and agree as to which of the two courses they are to pursue, they should refer it to the Commission, and the Commission should decide.
    Sir G. CAVE: I could not accept the Amendment in its present form, but I am in sympathy with what my right hon. Friend says, and it is quite a fair case to consider.
    Mr. BOYTON: Will my right hon. Friend accept my Amendment? It will be more simple.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Did my right hon. Friend say he would consider whether he can put in better words?
    Sir G. CAVE: I will consider it before Report.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    It being Eleven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow (Tuesday).
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
    Where upon Mr. DEPUTY-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 One minute after Eleven o'clock.

WAR.
  DEFENCE OF THE REALM ACT.
    MARTIAL LAW.
    MARTIAL LAW.
  INVALIDED AND WOUNDED MEN (BADGES).
  INVALIDED AND WOUNDED MEN (BADGES).
  DISTURBANCES IN IRELAND.
    ARRESTS.
    ARRESTS.
    TRIALS IN CAMERA.
    TRIALS IN CAMERA.
    COUNTY MEATH CASE.
    COUNTY MEATH CASE.
    PAPERS AND POEMS OF P. H. PEARSE.
    PAPERS AND POEMS OF P. H. PEARSE.
    FUNERALS FROM DUBLIN TO GLASNEVIN.
    FUNERALS FROM DUBLIN TO GLASNEVIN.
    LADY PRISONERS.
    LADY PRISONERS.
    UNTRIED PRISONERS.
    UNTRIED PRISONERS.
    GAELIC LEAGUE.
    GAELIC LEAGUE.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY SERVICES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS).
  NAVAL AND MILITARY SERVICES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS).
  TROOPS IN EGYPT (COLONIAL ALLOWANCE).
  TROOPS IN EGYPT (COLONIAL ALLOWANCE).
  MILITARY SERVICE.
    ATTESTED MAN (CLERKSHIP).
    ATTESTED MAN (CLERKSHIP).
    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  TERRITORIAL FORCE (W) RESERVE.
  TERRITORIAL FORCE (W) RESERVE.
  PRESS CENSORSHIP (IRELAND).
  PRESS CENSORSHIP (IRELAND).
  ARTIFICIAL LIMBS FOR SOLDIERS.
  ARTIFICIAL LIMBS FOR SOLDIERS.
  BILLETING ALLOWANCE.
  BILLETING ALLOWANCE.
  WOOL.
  WOOL.
  MUNITIONS.
    NATIONAL SHELL FACTORY, DARLINGTON.
    NATIONAL SHELL FACTORY, DARLINGTON.
  CEYLON
    (ARREST OF MR. JAYATILOKA).
    (ARREST OF MR. JAYATILOKA).
  SUGAR (AUSTRALIA).
  SUGAR (AUSTRALIA).
  TRAFFIC RESTRICTIONS.
  TRAFFIC RESTRICTIONS.
  STEAMSHIP "APPAM."
  STEAMSHIP "APPAM."
  Revenue (Ireland),
  Revenue (Ireland),
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Old Age Pensions.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Demolition Order, Hampstead.
  Demolition Order, Hampstead.

RE-ELECTION OF MINISTERS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow (The Lord President (M. Crewe)). (No. 71.)
House adjourned till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.