Sitting of 27 July 1916

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Colchester Gas Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Yeadon Water Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.

OCCUPIED ALLIED TERRITORIES (MISCELLANEOUS, No. 24, 1916).
Copy presented of Correspondence with the United States Ambassador regarding the Relief of Allied Territories in the Occupation of the Enemy [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
Copy presented of Amendment of the Superannuation Scheme for Teachers, 1916 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
AERONAUTICS.
Copy presented of Report of the Advisory Committee for Aeronautics for the year 1915–16 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
PUBLIC RECORDS (SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE).
Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—Copy of Schedule containing a list and particulars of classes of Documents existing or accruing in the office of the Registrars of the Chancery Division, and in other departments of the Supreme Court of Judicature, which are not considered of sufficient public value to justify their preservation in the Public Record Office [by Act].
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    BRITISH SUBJECT (ARREST IN PARIS).
    Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Foreign Office has information concerning a British subject who was granted a passport to proceed to France in March, 1916, who was arrested in Paris on 11th March, was informed before or during June, 1916, that the French Government had decided on his discharge, but who is still detained in custody; whether this gentleman's advocate was informed that his arrest was due to the English police and not to the French authorities; whether, for a considerable period, the Consulate in Paris and the Foreign Office in London gave no assistance to this English gentleman, who had resided many months in Paris since the outbreak of war as the agent of munition firms; whether his arrest was due to the English police; whether any reason can be given for his continued detention; and what action he proposes to take?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord Robert Cecil): In reply to inquiries from the Foreign Office His Majesty's Consul-General at Paris reported on 31st March last that a British subject was detained in Paris on a charge of espionage and was being examined by the first court-martial. His Majesty's Consul-General closely followed the case, and took such steps as he properly could to expedite the investigation, and he also eventually obtained competent legal advice for the accused. It was at one time hoped that the investigation would be concluded by the middle of June, but it was not till the 30th of that month that the Consul-General reported that a decreee of expulsion had been signed that morning by the Minister of the Interior, and that it was expected that the release of the prisoner would follow in a few days. I understand that he was sent to England yesterday. The accused has stated that he was informed by his advocate that his arrest by the French authorities was in consequence of a communication from the British police, but the Foreign Office have no information to that effect.
    Mr. KING: Does not a decree of expulsion carry with it a moral slur upon the character of this man, who was employed at Woolwich under the War Office and who, very shortly before he went to Paris, was given a passport?
    Lord R. CECIL: I am afraid I do not know the extent to which it carries a moral slur.
    Mr. KING: As he was only released yesterday, was it in consequence of my question having been put down?
    Lord R. CECIL: No, Sir, I have no reason to think that.
    Mr. KING: I have.

    BRITISH PRISONERS (KUT-EL-AMARA).
    Sir E. CORNWALLasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any information as to the treatment of the non-commissioned officers and men who fell into Turkish hands at Kut-el-Amara?
    Lord R. CECIL: We have just received a Note from the United States Ambassador enclosing a dispatch from the United States Embassy at Constantinople, in which it is stated that official lists of the Kut prisoners have not yet been furnished by the Ottoman Government; that the United States Consul at Bagdad telegraphed on 26th June that 1,000 prisoners were still at that city too ill or weak to proceed; and that a British staff-sergeant has reported from Angora the arrival of sixty-two prisoners at that place. Outfits of clothing, toilet supplies, and money will be sent to the prisoners as soon as possible.

    RUSSIA (BRITISH COMMERCIAL TRAVELLERS).
    Mr. WINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will in future negotiations with the Russian Government secure by treaty similar treatment in that country for British commercial travellers as is accorded to the representatives of Russian interests by us, and as already granted to our representatives in Italy, Finland, and France, seeing that in Article 24 of the Law of 15th July, 1880, of France, it is stated that, as French commercial travellers are exempt from any
    1838
    special regulations in Great Britain, British commercial travellers are accordingly exempted in France, and that such exemption in Russia would secure equality of treatment to commercial travellers in all the Allied countries?
    Lord R. CECIL: The point raised by the hon. Member will be borne carefully in mind in the event of future negotiations with the Russian Government on commercial subjects.

    TREATMENT OF POLES.
    Mr. ALDENasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any information regarding the present position of the Polish refugees in Russia; and whether he can state the condition of the Poles in that part of Poland which is in the occupation of Germany, especially as regards the supply of the necessaries of life?
    Lord R. CECIL: I have no special information as to the Polish refugees in Russia, but I belief the work of relief has been energetically carried on by Russion committees, to which considerable sums of money have been subscribed in this country. Reports as to the population in Poland are conflicting, because the enemy Governments at one moment proclaim their complete ability to feed the whole population and at the next moment appeal for relief from neutral countries. But I believe that the situation in many parts of Poland is deplorable, and that the population is exposed to all the sufferings which can be caused by a deliberate and systematic abstraction of foodstuffs of all kinds, and a drastic oppression of labour by the invaders.
    Mr. ALDEN: Has the Noble Lord any information to show that Germany has commandeered the new harvest in Poland?
    Lord R. CECIL: No, Sir. I do not think the new harvest is yet actually being gathered, but I am afraid there is only too much reason to believe that Germany contemplates commandeering the new harvest

    INTERNED PRISONERS (EXCHANGE).
    Mr. ALDENasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether

    1839
    he will consider the possibility, in negotiations with Germany through the American Ambassador, of suggesting that the interned Germans should be sent to some neutral country like Sweden in exchange for a similar number of British interned prisoners in Germany who might be sent to Switzerland?
    Lord R. CECIL: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given yesterday to a question on this subject by the hon. Member for Gainsborough.
    Mr. PETOasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any and, if so, what progress has been made with the negotiations for the exchange of interned civilian prisoners in this country and Germany?
    Lord R. CECIL: The present position is that on the 18th instant we addressed a Note to the United States Ambassador in which we renewed the proposal which we had previously made to the German Government that all British and German civilian prisoners of war over fifty years should be repatriated, as also those over forty-five years who are unfit for service in the field. We further proposed that the remaining British civilian prisoners of war, including merchant seamen of all classes who are not embodied in His Majesty's Naval Forces and the retired British officers detained in Germany, and an equal number of German civilians should be interned in a neutral country. No reply to that Note has yet reached us. The recent correspondence will shortly be published as a White Paper.
    Mr. MALCOLM: How long does the Noble Lord think it is proper to wait for an answer to that question addressed to the German Government?
    Lord R. CECIL: We shall certainly not delay the matter from our side. We have no desire to delay it. We are anxious to get on with it as quickly as we can. It is fair to observe that the letter.was sent only five or six days or a week ago, and I do not think there is any ground for charging the German Government with undue delay at present.

    TEADING WITH THE ENEMY (STATUTORY LIST OF FIRMS).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs
    1840
    why Parliament was not consulted before the issue of the British Black List of proscribed business firms in neutral countries; when will all the correspondence on this subject be submitted to Parliament; and whether he can undertake that no further aggressive action will be taken by this Government until Parliament has been consulted?
    Lord R. CECIL: Parliament was consulted as to the issue of the list presumably referred to when the Trading With the Enemy (Extension of Powers) Act was passed, and unanimously approved the policy. It is not proposed at present to lay on the Table any correspondence on the subject. There has been no aggressive action. The last part of the question, therefore, does not arise.
    Mr. GINNELL: Is the Noble Lord aware of the strong resentment in America against this list?
    Lord R. CECIL: I know there has been some Press criticism on the subject, and I have already answered questions upon it.

    PERSIA (BRITISH SUBJECTS HELD PRISONERS).
    Colonel YATEasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the present condition of the British Consul at Shiraz and the other British subjects held prisoners by German emissaries in Persia; whether there is any prospect of their immediate release; and, if not, whether His Majesty's Government will now take effective retaliatory measures against the German officials on the British concession in China?
    Lord R. CECIL: According to our latest information all these British subjects except two are in good health, and the treatment being accorded to the prisoners had recently improved. In regard to the last part of the question I would observe that, whatever may have been the initial responsibility of German agents in the matter, these prisoners are at present in the hands of rebel Persian Tribesmen, and that the arrest of Germans in China would leave those tribesmen totally unaffected. Everything possible is being done to secure the release of these unfortunate British subjects, but the difficulties are very great.
    Colonel YATE: Considering that the seizure of British subjects originated with

    1841
    German emissaries, will His Majesty's Government take no retaliatory steps at all?
    Lord R. CECIL: If we can catch the original Germans there would be very good reasons for retaliatory steps, but I am not quite sure that it is really sound policy to punish one German for what another German has done.

    MR. GINNELL, M.P. (APPLICATION FOR PASSPORT)
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Under—Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will explain the delay in issuing the passport for which the Member for North Westmeath has applied to enable him to visit certain countries for the purpose of studying peat industries, with a view to the utilisation of bogs in Ireland after the "War, at a time when so much is being done in this country with a corresponding object?
    Lord R. CECIL: In view of the proceedings against the hon. Member, the question of issuing a passport to him has been suspended.
    Mr. GINNELL: Will it be issued immediately after those proceedings end?
    Lord R. CECIL: That depends a little upon the result.
    Mr. RENDALL: Will the Noble Lord consider the issuing of the passport if the hon. Member (Mr. Ginnell) will give an undertaking that he will not return again?
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: I would ask the Noble Lord not to take any notice of that insolent and uncalled for supplementary question.

    HOLLAND (EXPORTS TO GERMANY).
    Mr. PETOasked the Under—Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any record of the tonnage of maize and other feeding stuffs imported into Holland during the first five months of this year compared with a similar period of 1914, and of the pigs and pig products exported from Holland to Germany in the same period; whether he will consider the effect of permitting the import of full pre—war quantities of feeding stuffs by
    1842
    Holland without a corresponding agreement for the import from Holland to this country of meat on the same scale; and whether he will take steps to prevent this indirect method of supplying the enemy with food stuffs, and particularly lard and other materials from which glycerine can be extracted?
    Lord R. CECIL: The total of feeding—stuffs of all kinds imported into Holland during the first five months of this year were 304,130 tons, compared with an average importation of 588,664 tons for the same period during 1911–13. The imports of maize for the same period were 187,515 tons, compared with 358,962 tons for 1911–13. According to the official Dutch Trade Returns, 20,987 tons of pigmeat were exported to Germany during the first five months of this year, compared with 2,017 tons in the same period of 1914. In the same months 358 pigs were exported to all countries, as compared with 5,700 in the same period of 1914. Dutch meat is now being imported into this country from Holland, the quantities exportable to Germany being thus proportionately reduced. With regard to the last part of the question, the quantities of maize and rye importable into Holland are limited, since November last, to 225,000 tons per quarter, and those of oil cake and meal have been likewise reduced to 70,000 tons per quarter. No meat is now imported into Holland. According to the Dutch statistics only 2 tons of vegetable or animal oils (except fish oil) or of lard have been exported to Germany this year.

    BRITISH PRISONERS IN TURKEY.
    Sir E.CORNWALLasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many British prisoners, including those engaged in the Dardanelles campaign, 'are, so far as is known, now in the hand of the Turks?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): So far as is known, the total number of prisoners now in the hands of the Turks is approximately 600 officers and 8,370 other ranks. These figures include native Indians and Egyptians in addition to British officers and soldiers and officers and soldiers from the Dominions.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Is there any possibility of there being prisoners in the

    1843
    hands of the Turks, captured at the Dardanelles, whose names have not been received by the Government?
    Mr. FORSTER: I said in reply to a question yesterday that we were doing everything we could to check the names of British officers and men in the hands of the Turks who were taken at Gallipoli.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Is there any possibility that there are still men in the hands of the Turks whose names have not been received 2
    Mr. FORSTER: There is, of course, always a possibility of there being men whose names have not been received. We are doing our best and exhausting every means to get the most accurate information.

    MUNITIONS.

      WAGES (CANADA).
      Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any communication has been made by his Department to the Canadian Government regarding the payment of the standard rate of wage to workmen employed by firms in Canada carrying out contracts for the supply of munitions of war or the building and repairing of ships for this country?
      The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Bonar Law): I have been in communication with the Canadian Government on the subject, so far as concerns contracts placed in Canada by the Imperial Munitions Board. The correspondence is still proceeding.

    DUTCH BUTTER (SUBSIDIES).
    Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Home Secretary whether the Government have subsidised, are subsidising, or intend to subsidise in any way Dutch butter manufacturers or exporters of Dutch or other foreign butter; and, if so, to what extent per hundredweight of such butter as they may have exported, or may export, from Holland or elsewhere to Great Britain?
    Lord R. CECIL: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply returned to the hon. Member for West Cavan on the 12th instant.

    DISTURBANCES IN IRELAND.

      GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL INTERNED.
      The following question stood in the name of Mr. T. M. HEALY
      12. To ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether one of his inspectors has been arrested and interned; was the consent of his Department sought before the military acted; do his Department regard the inspector as guilty or innocent; is his position being kept open; and will his salary be paid?
      Mr. HEALY: I have received a letter from the Home Secretary, requesting me not to put this question because of the absence of the Irish Minister for Agriculture. Of course, if it is a matter of the personal convenience of the Minister for Agriculture, I gladly do so, but we cannot help noticing that both the members of the Irish Administration, the Attorney-General and the head of the Irish Agricultural Department, are not in attendance, and I should like to ask if it is by order of the Government that they are not allowed to attend the House?
      The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Herbert Samuel): No, they are attending to the business of their Departments in Ireland. The Attorney-General will certainly be here next week and I am asking the Vice-President if he can come over to answer the hon. and learned Gentleman's question and two others.
      Mr. HEALY: I have great pleasure in postponing the question.

      GERARD CBOFTS.
      Mr. GINNELLasked the Home Secretary, in the case of Mr. Gerard Crofts, now in penal servitude for having been accustomed to sing Irish patriotic songs and having been found in the company of persons alleged to be guilty of something else, will he say what those persons have been convicted of, whether by an open Civil Court or by secret court-martial; what punishments they are now undergoing; and whether, apart from the company, Mr. Crofts was found guilty of any definite charge but that of singing patriotic songs 1
      Mr. FORSTER: As regards Gerard Crofts, I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to the hon. Member on the 12th of

      1845
      July. As regards the other unnamed persons mentioned in the question, I can, of course, make no statement in the absence of any means of identification.
      Mr. GINNELL: In view of the hon. Gentleman's previous answer that Gerard Crofts was found in company with people concerned in the insurrection, has not the hon. Gentleman, having that information, sufficient knowledge to know what they were convicted of, and whether Gerard Crofts was convicted of anything apart from singing patriotic songs?
      Mr. FORSTER: He was not convicted for singing patriotic songs. I do not think that is an indictable offence.
      Mr. NUGENT: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Gerard Crofts had been in Ulster a considerable time before he was arrested?
      Mr. FORSTER: I was not aware.

      MR. JEREMIAH O'CORKERY.
      Mr. GINNELLasked the Home Secretary on what charge Mr. Jeremiah O'Corkery, teacher of Gaelic, was arrested on the 12th instant; if not accused of anything but the practice of his profession, will he say under what law he was arrested; where he now is; when and where he is to be tried; and by what kind of Court?
      Mr. SAMUEL: If this question refers to a man named Diarmuid Corkery, of Inchiquin, Kenmare, an order for his internment has been made in the usual course, on the recommendation of the military authorities, and the grounds for his internment are stated in the notice which has been sent to the camp to be served upon him. He has been transferred to Frongoch, and his case is about to be considered by the Advisory Committee.
      Mr. GINNELL: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered whether he has been accused of anything but the practice of his profession?
      Mr. SAMUEL: Yes.
      Mr. GINNELL: What is it?
      Mr. SAMUEL: I do not think it necessary to read out the terms of the notice.
      Mr. GINNELL: What is he accused of besides the practice of his profession as a teacher of Gaelic?
      Mr. SAMUEL: The charge is analogous to that which has been made against the other persons who have been interned.

      WILLIAM O'REILLY.
      Mr. GINNELLasked the Home Secretary for what offence, if any, William O'Reilly, an Irish prisoner at Frongoch, has been for eight days isolated from the other prisoners and confined to a cell there; whether the special treatment comprised other features; what tribunal imposed the punishment; whether he was afforded any opportunity of explaining or defending himself; and whether the punishment is at an end?
      Mr. SAMUEL: If this question refers to Michael O'Reilly, an Irish prisoner, at Frongoch, I am informed by the commandant at the camp that this man was sentenced on the 13th July to 165 hours' close confinement for inciting his fellow prisoners to insubordination. Close confinement entails a certain reduction in the scale of diet, which has to be approved by the medical officer, and is carried out in the camp cells. The man was not continuously confined, inasmuch as he was allowed walking exercise for at least two hours daily. The punishment was imposed by the usual Commandant's Court, and O'Reilly was allowed to defend himself. The punishment is now at an end.

      JAMES DWYER.
      Mr. P. MEEHANasked the Home Secretary whether the case of James Dwyer, formerly of 7, Inns Quay, Dublin, lately detained in Stafford Detention Prison, No. 44 E, and believed to have been changed from there to Frongoch, has been investigated by the Advisory Committee; and, if so, has he been released?
      Mr. SAMUEL: Dwyer's case has been dealt with by the Advisory Committee, who have recommended to me that he should remain interned.
      Mr. HEALY: Does the hon. Member for Newry concur in that?

      ALLEGED SEDITIOUS TEACHING.
      Mr. P. MEEHANasked the Home Secretary if he is aware that out of the 5,700 male teachers in Ireland only two were tried and sentenced for participation in the rebellion; if he is aware that out of fifteen others arrested on suspicion seven have been discharged by the Advisory Committee and that the cases of the remaining eight are under consideration; if he is aware that a recent careful and searching investigation by the National Board throughout all the national schools

      1847
      in Ireland to inquire into the charges of alleged widespread disloyal and seditious teaching has revealed only three instances of alleged disloyal teaching that call for investigation; if he is aware that definite charges of spreading disloyalty and sedition and disseminating treason among the youth of Ireland have been made in the Report of the Hardinge Commission; and whether, in view of all the circumstances, the Government will institute an inquiry or take any action to vindicate the character and reputation of the Irish teachers from the charges made against them?
      Mr. SAMUEL: The facts appear to be as stated in the hon. Member's question. The Commissioners of National Education have already issued a statement on the subject which appeared in the Irish Press on the 22nd instant, and I hardly think any further action is called for.
      Mr. MEEHAN: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the Report of the Hardinge Commission charges of disloyalty were made against these Irish teachers and whether in view of the Report of the Board of National Education he will not vindicate these men?
      Mr. SAMUEL: The Board of National Education in Ireland has already issued a very full and convincing statement in defence of the loyalty of the general body of their staff.
      Mr. NUGENT: May we understand that the Report of the Hardinge Commission. being found unreliable in this, will be found equally unreliable in other matters?
      Mr. SAMUEL: I am not aware that the Hardinge Commission made a general statement.

      PRISONERS DETAINED.
      Mr. LYNCHasked how many prisoners from county Clare are still detained in connection with the rising; whether regard will be paid to the peaceable condition of the county; and whether all these men will be restored to their homes as soon as possible?
      Mr. SAMUEL: I understand that two men from county Clare are still detained. Their cases are still under consideration by the Advisory Committee.
      Mr. LYNCH: If there are only two men, and there has never been any disturbance, would it not be well to release these two men?
      Mr. SAMUEL: I must necessarily await the recommendation of the Advisory Committee. All the other men from Clare who were detained have been released.

      DEATH OF ERNEST CAVANAGH.
      Mr. LYNCHasked the Home Secretary whether, in regard to the death of Ernest Cavanagh on 25th April at Liberty Hall, he will ask the police to consult the military authorities so that, as the police were not themselves present, every means of ascertaining the truth may be made available?
      Mr. SAMUEL: Yes, Sir, this shall be done.

      TRIAL OF MALACHY BRENNAN.
      Mr. FIELDasked the Home Secretary whether he will furnish a Report of the trial in the case of Malachy Brennan; and whether he is aware that in this case there are grounds for a public inquiry?
      Mr. FORSTER: My hon. Friend is, I think, misinformed. There was no trial, and the question of a Report does not, therefore, arise. In answer to the second part of the question, I would refer him to the answer given yesterday by the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for North Westmeath.
      Mr. FIELD: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are special circumstances regarding this case which make a. special inquiry necessary?
      Mr. FORSTER: I was not aware that there were any special circumstances.

      LADY PRISONERS, LEWES.
      Mr. FLAVINasked the Home Secretary whether he will make arrangements with the prison authorities at Lewes so as to allow the three Irish lady prisoners who are confined there to be allowed to take reasonable outdoor exercise under proper supervision outside the prison grounds?
      Mr. SAMUEL: I regret that I am unable to accede to this request. The Commandant at Lewes reports to me that the prisoners in question look very well and sit out in the open all day, and are able, if they desire, to get walking exercise in the exercise ground. The medical officer reports that all three are in excellent health. I would add that as the wing at Lewes Prison, of which these ladies are the sole occupants, is needed for other purposes, I have arranged for their transfer to Aylesbury, where other ladies are interned' under Regulation 14B.
      Mr. FLAVIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these ladies are quite satisfied with their treatment in Lewes, and if they are satisfied, is it at their request they are transferred?
      Mr. SAMUEL: They are not being transferred at their own request, but for the reason I have mentioned that the wing which these ladies occupy at Lewes is needed for other purposes, they are being transferred to Aylesbury, where they will receive treatment on the same lines.
      Mr. KING: Is it not a fact that the German ladies are in a large preponderance at Aylesbury, and is it not rather unfair to send the Irish ladies to be confined with these German ladies 1
      Mr. SAMUEL: There is classification at Aylesbury. Arrangements are made for the ladies to be together in groups.
      Mr. GINNELL: Has it been definitely decided never to give these ladies what they have applied for—a trial under the ordinary law?
      Mr. SAMUEL: The hon. Member has put that question very often, and I have replied.

      DAMAGE IN DUBLIN.
      The following question stood on the Paper in the name of Mr. CLANCY:
      39. To ask the Home Secretary, with reference to the two Bills which the Government have promised to introduce to facilitate the reconstruction of the portion of the city of Dublin destroyed in the course of the recent disturbances, and to effect an amendment of legal procedure rendered necessary by those disturbances, whether he can say when they will be introduced; and whether he is aware that the early passage into law of those measures is a matter of great urgency?
      Mr. CLANCY: I did not know, when I put down this question, that one of the two Bills referred to was to be introduced yesterday.
      Mr. SAMUEL: One of these Bills the Law and Procedure (Emergency Provisions) (Ireland) Bill has already been introduced, and will be circulated to-day. It is hoped to introduce the other Bill next week. I would remind the hon. Member that the provisions to be inserted in this Bill form the subject of discussion between the Dublin Corporation and the Government Departments concerned, and the latest proposals of the corporation were put forward on the 18th instant.

      MARTIAL LAW.
      Mr. GINNELLasked the Prime Minister if he will state the number of Irish public bodies from which he and other members of the Government have received resolutions calling, in the interest of peace and good order in Ireland, for the immediate release of all arrested in connection with the recent insurrection, and the number calling for the withdrawal of martial law; whether the Government have any doubt that those resolutions represent the opinions of the civil population of Ireland without distinction of politics; and, seeing that opinion in the contrary sense is limited to persons profiting by disorder and martial law, whether immediate arrangements will be made for acceding to public opinion reasonably expressed by a general amnesty and the withdrawal of martial law?
      The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I have received about fifty resolutions in favour of the release of persons arrested, and about ten in favour of the withdrawal of martial law. With regard to the rest of the question, I cannot to—day add anything to my previous answers.

      IRISH CRIMES ACT, 1887.
      Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLasked the Prime Minister whether Lord Lansdowne was speaking with the authority of the Cabinet in stating that the Irish Crimes Act, 1887, for the trial of alleged offenders by resident magistrates in Ireland was to be put into operation in certain cases; whether he is aware that a Bill for the repeal of this Statute was, on 18th April, 1894, carried in the House of Commons on its Second Reading by a majority of 60, with the support of the Radical Government of the day; that on 13th March, 1906, a Motion demanding the repeal of this Statute was carried in the House of Commons by a majority of 292 to 83, with the full support of the Radical Cabinet, while, in the year following, the Second Reading for the repeal of this Statute was carried by 206 to 77; and whether the Cabinet have given their consent to the revival of a measure which has been thrice publicly condemned by Cabinets in which the right hon. Gentleman himself and several of his colleagues were leading members, who pledged themselves individually and collectively for its repeal?
      The PRIME MINISTER: I will be glad if my hon. and learned Friend will allow me to defer an answer to this question till Monday, when I will deal with this and other kindred matters in a speech.
      Mr. MacNEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman read the speeches, including his own, in relation to this matter?

    ALIENS IN THE ARMY.
    Mr. KINGasked the Home Secretary (1) whether he is aware that many Russian Jews now in this country observe with particular devotion the traditional duties of their religious faith, such as the eating only of kosher meat; whether he will make some statement to reassure such Jews that on entering the British Army such religious scruples will not be violated, or, alternatively, whether he will arrange for special companies or battalions in which such religious duties may be more easily observed; (2) whether he is aware that many Russian Jews now in this country speak Yiddish and have no command of the British language; and whether, when these men are brought into the Army, they will be first instructed in a course of English, so that they may be able to fully understand their officers before being sent to serve; and (3) whether he is aware that Finns, though Russian subjects, are entirely exempt from military conscription, and if returned to Russia or Finland would not be required to serve; whether this fact was considered by the Home Office before its policy was formulated and its regulations published; and whether it is his intention to force into the British Army those aliens whom their own Government exempts from military service?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I can only repeat that, as I stated in the House on Monday last, all details connected with the enlistment of Russians are now being considered and arranged.
    Mr. KING: Are these details now being considered in consequence of questions I have put down?
    Mr. SAMUEL: No, on account of the importance of the matters.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Did my hon. Friend's question not make the matter important?
    Mr. SAMUEL: No, Sir.
    Sir W. BYLESasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to an appeal from the Jewish students in the Manchester University giving reasons against the new conscription proposals as they affect Russian Jews in this country, especially pointing out the hardships which would ensue from the deportation of political refugees who have sought and found an asylum in England; and whether these representations will lead him to modify his proposals in regard to these exiles?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I have seen a copy of the appeal to which the hon. Member refers. I would call his attention to the statement which I made in this House on Monday last on the subject of the enlistment of Russian subjects.
    Mr. ANDERSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that people, Russian Jews or otherwise, who have come to this country as political refugees from Russia, however they may be punished if they resist compulsory military law, will not be deported back to Russia?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I have already given assurances on that subject on many occasions.

    AGRICULTURAL SHOWS (ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY).
    Mr. GRAHAMasked the Home Secretary whether visitors to agricultural shows in Ireland, which are established for the improvement in the breeding of stock and agriculture generally, are liable to the Government tax; and whether he will say whether a horse-jumping competition, if held in a separate enclosure at the conclusion of the show, will be subject to the tax?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. McKenna): Payments for admission to agricultural shows are subject to the Entertainments Tax, unless the Commissioners of Customs and Excise are satisfied that any of the exemptions provided in Section 1 (5) of the Finance (New Duties) Act, 1916, are applicable, and this can only be determined by the Commissioners on consideration of the particular circumstances of each case. If a horse-jumping competition were held in a separate enclosure the tax would be leviable on the charge, if any, for admission thereto.
    Mr. FLAVIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these agricultural shows in Ireland are held for purely agricultural education, and are mainly, if not entirely, made up by the contributions of the local people, who are all small farmers, and is it fair to levy this tax on them?
    Mr. McKENNA: The Commissioners of Customs can only judge of each case as it arises. I have no doubt a case such as is described by the hon. Member might receive different treatment from a case under different circumstances.
    Mr. FLAVIN: Who are the Commissioners of Customs, and have they any knowledge as to local matters in rural districts in Ireland?
    Mr. McKENNA: They have knowledge of the law, which is the important matter.
    Mr. GRAHAM: Is an agricultural show an entertainment?

    MILITARY SERVICE.

      STATIONERY OFFICE.
      Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the First Commissioner of Works whether Mr. F. L. A. Ribton, an assistant clerk in the Stationery Office, with over ten years' service, has been declared dispensable for military duty while temporary clerks, introduced into the Department since the outbreak of war, have been granted exemption from military duty; whether Mr. W. R. Griffiths, an assistant clerk in the same Department, has been declared dispensable for military duty while a second division clerk of only one year's service, who is learning the work upon which Mr. Griffiths has been engaged, has been granted a certificate of exemption; and, if so, whether the decisions in the two cases may be reconsidered and an undertaking given that the question as to whether a man is or is not indispensable shall rest upon the work which he is doing, and not upon the grade to which he happens to belong?
      The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. McKinnon Wood): As regards Mr. Ribton, the case is as stated. As regards Mr. Griffiths, the question does not state the facts either accurately or fully. Mr. Griffiths was absent from the office on military service for nineteen months. He returned five months ago as
      1854
      a time-expired man, and is liable to be called up again under the Military Service Act, 1916. Mr. Griffiths has not been engaged on the work now being performed by the second division clerk referred to, who has been in the office nearly two years, and is in charge of a large staff of men and women employed on war work. The Controller of the Stationery Office, with full knowledge of the circumstances, decided that the work done by Messrs. Ribton and Griffiths could be done by lady clerks, and he therefore declined to certify those officers as indispensable. In the case of certain other clerks, efficient substitutes could not be found, and he therefore certified such clerks as indispensable.

    SMOKE EMISSION (MOTOR VEHICLES).
    Major W. GUINNESSasked the Home Secretary whether, during the shortage of petrol, he can take any steps to relax the Regulations forbidding the emission of smoke by motor vehicles so that paraffin oil may be substituted for petrol?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Long): It would be necessary to introduce legislation for this purpose. I am considering whether any action should be taken.
    Mr. WATT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this regulation has never been carried out satisfactorily by his Department?
    Mr. LONG: It is not for my Department to carry it out. It is not a regulation, but is forbidden by (Statute, and if the law is broken it is the duty of the police to see: that the law is observed.

    ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY (BONUS).
    Mr. COOTEasked the Home Secretary if the members of the Royal Irish. Constabulary have received any financial consideration by way of bonus since the beginning of the War; if he will state whether a memorial from this force has been sent to him, through the Inspector—General, Royal Irish Constabulary, praying that a bonus may be granted to them during the period of the War owing to the

    1855
    increase in the cost of living; and, if so, what action he proposes to take in the matter?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The memorial referred to by the hon. Member has been received and is under consideration. A statement on the matter will be made in the course of a few days.

    RUSSIAN REFUGEE (CHARLES SAENO).
    Mr. KINGasked the Home Secretary whether he has inquired into the case of Charles Sarno, a Russian subject, who left Russia sixteen years ago as. a political refugee, and who has lived in this country for years and was ready to join the British Army; why this man was apprehended, imprisoned, and destined for deportation to Russia; whether he was saved from deportation and exile in Siberia solely by the Grant by the High Court on the 25th July of a rule of habeas corpus; whether any deportation order for Sarno was signed; if not, why he has been so treated; and whether reparation and an apology will be tended to Mr. Sarno?
    Mr. SAMUEL: As this case has been brought before the Court again I cannot say anything in the matter except that I do not accept the accuracy of any of the statements or suggestions in the question.
    Mr. KING: Does the right hon. Gentleman really mean to say that he signed an order of deportation and that the police did not know it?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I cannot add anything to the answer I have given. As the matter is sub judice it would be improper for me to discuss it in the House.
    Mr. KING: I beg to give notice that I shall call attention to this case on the Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I would point out to the hon. Member that if the case is before the Court that would be a very improper thing to do.

    COAL PEICES.
    Mr. WINGasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give to the country the reasons which influenced him to grant powers to South Wales colliery
    1856
    proprietors to raise the standard price of coal from 4s. 6d. to 6s. 6d. per ton at the pit; and is he aware that the exercise of his power in this direction is causing dissatisfaction in the country?
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Harcourt): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave on Monday to a question by the hon. Member for the Attercliffe Division. The increase mentioned applies only to the South Wales district.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this increase of 2s. means a new charge upon the consumers in South Wales and Monmouthshire of no less than £3,500,000 a year, in addition to the 4s. increased price that was put on in the former Bill, making a total net charge of no less than £9,149,000 upon the amount of coal consumed?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I do not know whether the figures are correct. The hon. Member's statement is made on the assumption that the whole of the coal so affected is consumed in South Wales.
    Mr. ANDERSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that already there are reports of advancing prices for all consumers, and that there is pressure from other districts to get the same advantage as the South Wales district has got; and will the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the difficulty of the position, try to get from the Government time for the discussion of this matter in the House?
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: I beg to give notice that on the Adjournment I shall call attention to this matter.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the South Wales and Monmouthshire coalowners will be allowed to make an extra charge of 2s. 6d. per ton for all coal suplied to the Navy on and after the date fixed by the Board of Trade; if he is aware that in some districts the coalowners have already jumped up the price of coal 1s. 8d. per ton because of the concession made to the South Wales coalowners; and if he can state the increase of the working cost in the South Wales coal fields since the passing of the Price of Coal (Limitation) Act?
    Mr. HARCOURT: The Price of Coal (Limitation) Act does not apply to coal to be used on a ship. The alteration of the standard amount in respect of the mines

    1857
    in the South Wales district does not authorise coalowners in other districts to increase their prices. The average increase in working costs since the passing of the Act at the collieries in South Wales, whose accounts are audited for the purposes of the Conciliation Agreement, was 2s. 6d. a ton.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Have the Board of Trade any power to restrict excessive charges on bunker coal?
    Mr. HARCOURT: That is under consideration.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to state that the 2s. 6d. refers to export coal, and is he aware it has risen from 18s. to 20s.?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I am not referring to export coal.
    Mr. FLAVIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in many poor districts in Ireland coal has risen to £3 per ton with a tendency to a further increase of from 5s. to 10s., and is he aware that it will be absolutely impossible for many of the poor people in Ireland where there are no munition works to buy any fuel for the coming winter?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I have given an answer to a specific question.
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that his action in permitting the South Wales coalowners to advance the price of coal by 2s. 6d. beyond the limit fixed by the Coal Prices (Limitation) Act has been resented by the Miners' Federation of Great Britain and the general public; that it is interpreted as an invitation to coalowners in all parts of the country to put forward similar demands; that it is bound to lay additional burdens on the poorest people; that it is causing unrest among many of the workers; and whether, in view of these considerations, he will reconsider his decision in this matter?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I received a deputation from the Miners' Federation on the subject, and pointed out to them that the increase was given in respect of a proved increase of working costs. The Price of Coal (Limitation) Act of last year provided that if the Board of Trade are satisfied as regards the coal mines in any district that, owing to special circumstances affecting those mines, the standard amount of 4s. should be increased, the Board may
    1858
    substitute for that amount such higher sum as they may think just. In these circumstances, if it can be shown that the working costs of raising coal for home consumption in any district have increased, the Board can hardly refuse to entertain an application under the Act.
    Mr. ANDERSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question, if any valid arguments are placed before him—will he reconsider the decision he has come to with these coalowners?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I shall be most happy to consider any arguments which are placed before me.

    BRITISH MERCHANT SHIPS (TRANSFERS TO AMERICAN FLAG).
    Major HUNTasked the President of the Board of Trade why two whole fleets of ships under the British flag were allowed to be transferred to the American flag during the War, in view of the fact that these ships would have been useful for carrying meat for the supply of our troops and those of our Allies; and whether he can give the assurance that nothing of the sort will be allowed in future till after the end of the War?
    Mr. HARCOURT: The vessels referred to were transferred in the early months of the War before the Government had power to control transfers. No such transfers would be possible or permitted now. I may add that the capital of the shipping companies owning the fleets in question was mostly American before the War.
    Mr. HOUSTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the names of the owners of the two fleets which were transferred?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I will if notice is given.

    FOOD PRICES.
    Mr. BOWERMANasked whether, in view of the importance of the inquiry to the community in general, it is the intention of the Committee on Food Prices to issue an interim Report, and at the earliest possible moment?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I am informed that the Committee on Prices propose to makes an interim Report dealing with meat, milk, and bacon, and that it is hoped that this Report will be ready at some time in September.

    CONDENSED MILK.
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that condensed milk prepared by the Nestle and Anglo—Swiss Company, marked Produced in Switzerland, is being sold in the United Kingdom; and whether, in view of their statement that their purchases of German raw products largely exceed their sales of condensed milk in Germany, he will take steps to prevent the importation of this condensed milk into the United Kingdom from Switzerland unless it is shown that it contains no German sugar or other German raw product?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I understand that the sugar used in the Swiss factories of this company is derived mainly from America and that none is of German origin.

    SUSPENSION OF A MEMBER.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Prime Minister whether the military authorities in Ireland at the time of the insurrection had Government sanction, either in advance or subsequently, for bombarding the headquarters of the Cumann-na-mban nurses, cutting the red crosses off their dresses, and imprisoning them as criminals; and what has been the result to Colonel Portal of his special activity in this conduct?
    Mr. FORSTER: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has asked me to answer this question. There is no truth in the insinuations contained in this question, and the question of Government sanction does not therefore arise. The head quarters of the Cumann-na-mban were at No. 2, Dawson Street, and this was not bombarded. This society, I am informed, has nothing to do with the Red Cross. The majority of the women arrested carried arms and some are known to have used them.
    Mr. GINNELL: In view of the hon. Gentleman's insolent answer—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]—I must ask permission to inquire. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"]
    Mr. SPEAKER: I did not quite catch what the hon. Member said.
    Mr. GINNELL: In view of the hon. Member's insolent answer——
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a proper way in which to refer to a Minister.
    Mr. GINNELL: In view of the hon. Gentleman's insolent answer——
    Mr. SPEAKERrose——
    Mr. GINNELL: In view of the insolent answer——[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!" and "Sit down"]. I am accused of want of truth, and I am entitled——[HON. MEMBERS: " Order!"]
    Mr. SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Member to conform to the Rules of the House.
    Mr. GINNELL: I must ask whether Colonel Portal denies the allegation in this question?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I must call on the hon. Member to ask Question 47.
    Mr. GINNELL: He does not deny it, because if he did he would be telling a lie. I ask whether Colonel Portal denies the allegation in this question—whether he denies that he ordered his men to cut the Red Crosses off the nurses' dresses and that the men carried out these orders'! [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] Are you aware that——
    Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member cannot behave himself properly, I will ask him to withdraw.
    Mr. GINNELL: I am behaving myself.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I shall not call on the hon Member for any further question.
    Mr. GINNELL: I beg to ask Question 47. It is on the Paper.
    Mr. SPEAKER: As the hon. Member cannot comply with the ordinary customs of the House, I shall not call upon him to ask any further questions.
    Mr. GINNELL: Under what Standing Order do you deny me the right of asking a question which is printed on the Paper?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Under the Standing Order dealing with disorderly conduct.
    Mr. GINNELL: When did it become disorderly conduct to ask a question on the Paper and defend the truth of the question?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I have already called the attention of the hon. Member to the fact that his language is disorderly, and that it is contrary to practice and disorderly for him to persist in speaking while I am on my legs.
    Mr. GINNELL: Is it disorderly to maintain the truth of the question on the Paper?
    Mr. SPEAKER: It is disorderly to use the language which the hon. Gentleman has been using and to conduct himself in the way in which he has been conducting himself.
    Mr. GINNELL: Do you say that it is disorderly to maintain the truth of the question on the Paper?
    Mr. SPEAKERhaving called Question 48,
    Mr. McKENNArose——
    Mr. GINNELL: I ask Question 47!
    Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member persists in interrupting the proceedings, I shall call on him to withdraw.
    Mr. GINNELL: I have already asked Question 47.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I have already told the hon. Member that I will not allow it.
    Mr. GINNELL: You are violating the Rules!
    Mr. SPEAKER: I call upon the hon. Member to withdraw.
    Mr. GINNELL: I follow the Paper in my hand.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I have to call the attention of the House to the fact that the hon. Member for North Westmeath, after having been called upon to withdraw, declines to withdraw. I must name him to the House.
    The PRIME MINISTER: Mr. Speaker having named the hon. Member for North Westmeath, I beg to move that he be suspended from the service of the House.
    Mr. GINNELL: For how long?
    Question, "That Mr. Ginnell be suspensed from the service of the House," put, and agreed to.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Member to withdraw.
    Mr. GINNELL: I must ask Question 47!
    Mr. SPEAKER: I call upon the Serjeant-at-Arms to remove the hon. Member, in obedience to the Order of the House.
    The Serjeant-at-Arms approached Mr. Ginnell, who declined to withdraw.
    The SERJEANT-AT-ARMS(having advanced the Table): The hon. Member refuses to obey your order.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Then I shall suspend the Sitting of the House until such time as the hon. Member has withdrawn.
    Sitting suspended at Twenty-seven minutes past Three o'clock.
    The hon. Member for North "Westmeath having retired, the Sitting was resumed at 3.33 p.m.

    REGISTRATION (SOLDIERS AND SAILORS).
    Major HUNTasked the Prime Minister whether he can now say when the new registration will be begun; and whether the Cabinet has yet decided to include in it all soldiers and sailors who are serving or have served during the War?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Government will introduce proposals on the subject of registration. I cannot at the moment anticipate their scope.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Of course, those proposals will be before the House before any Bill is brought in?
    The PRIME MINISTER: They will be before the House.
    Mr. WARDLE: Will they be introduced in the form of a Resolution?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I would not like to pledge myself—either a Resolution or the Bill.

    WOUNDED BRITISH SOLDIERS.
    Major HUNTasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that our own wounded are being held up for hours on our own railways because trains containing unwounded German prisoners are given preference and allowed to go first; and will he say what action he will take to prevent this preference being given to German prisoners?
    Mr. FORSTER: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has asked me to answer this question. Reference has been made to the acting chairman of the Railway Executive Committee, who says that the statement which my hon. and gallant Friend reproduces in his question js entirely without foundation.
    Mr. MALCOLM: Is there any reason why the German prisoners should not march to their camps?
    Mr. FORSTER: It depends upon the distance they have to go.
    Major HUNT: Does the hon. Gentleman mean to say that our wounded soldiers are to be stopped on account of German prisoners?
    Mr. FORSTER: My hon. Friend refers to the block upon the railway for hours——
    Major HUNT: For how long?
    Mr. FORSTER: I do not know that they were held up at all. The acting—chairman of the Railway Executive says the statement in the question is entirely without foundation.

    DUKE OF ALBANY AND DUKE OF CUMBERLAND.
    Mr SWIFT MacNEILLasked the Prime Minister (1) whether, having regard to the fact that the rank, style, and dignity of Royal Highness, Prince of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and G.C.V.O., now possessed by His Royal Highness the Duke of Albany, a traitor in arms against the Sovereign and people of these countries, are held subject to the pleasure of the King, and the titles of G.C.B. and G.C.V.O. now held by His Highness Prince Albert John Charles Frederick Alfred George of Schleswig-Holstein, now also in arms against the Sovereign and people of these countries, are held subject to the pleasure of the King and are conferred or taken away by the exercise of the Royal prerogative on the advice of the Ministers of the Crown, he will, having regard to the conduct of those princes in becoming public enemies of these Kingdoms, by whose people they were maintained and educated, advise His Majesty the King to deprive them of these honours, ranks, and dignities which they disgrace; and (2) why have not their Royal Highnesses the Duke of Cumberland, Teviotdale, and Earl of Armagh, and the Duke of Albany, Earl of Clarence, and Baron Arklow, traitors in arms against the Sovereign of these countries, and in the line of succession to the throne, been deprived of their peerages by letters patent or statute, or any other powers, and of their vested rights on certain contingencies of succession to the throne by Act of Parliament modifying the provisions of the Act of
    1864
    Settlement, which have been frequently modified, the modification generally being in the interests of Germans; and whether he is aware of the indignation aroused by the protection or immunity given to traitors in high positions, and the construction placed on such seeming preference to private and personal as contrasted with public and Imperial interests; and will he take steps for the removal of such mischievous impressions?
    Sir A. MARKHAMasked the Prime Minister whether, with a view of allaying the sense of disgust felt by a large number of loyal subjects of the Crown at the Duke of Albany and Prince Albert of Schleswig-Holstein, who are in arms against the Sovereign and the people of these countries, he will advise the Sovereign in the exercise of his Royal prerogative to de prive these persons of the various titles, rank, and precedence which they hold at the pleasure of the Crown, and which are accordingly revocable at such pleasure?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Cabinet have had this matter under consideration, and we are, as I said some days ago, in full sympathy with the feeling of the House on this subject. His Majesty will be advised to take the necessary steps both as regards titles and orders, and the technical questions involved are being considered by the Lord Chancellor.
    Mr. LYNCH: Will it be necessary to introduce a Bill?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have stated that the question will be considered by the Lord Chancellor.

    WAR SERVICES (SILVER BADGES).
    Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the new silver badges for war services will include the officers and men of merchant vessels who, through wounds or sickness caused by the operations of the War, have re tired or have been compelled to relinquish their seafaring careers?
    Mr. PETOasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the new silver badges for war services will include the officers and men of merchant ships chartered or requisitioned by the Admiralty who, on account of age or physical infirmity arising from wounds or sickness caused by service in these ships, have retired or relinquished their seafaring duties?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): I have been asked to answer these questions. As regards officers and men of merchant ships, chartered or requisitioned by the Admiralty, the rules under which the badges will be given are under consideration. It is contemplated that they will include all officers and men of the mercantile marine temporarily serving under the Admiralty, who are compelled to leave the naval service on account of physical infirmity arising from wounds or sickness caused by the service. As regards officers and men not so engaged but carrying out the ordinary commercial operations of the mercantile marine—the classes referred to by my hon. Friend in his Question 59—the award of the badge to which I have already referred to is not included in the Admiralty proposal.
    Mr. WARDLE: Before the right hon. Gentleman decides on these badges, will he see that they are of a better pattern and design than they are at present?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I will show my hon. Friend one.
    Mr. HOUSTON: Are we to understand that engineers are included in the term "officers"?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: If on our service. They would then come under my answer to the question of the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto).
    Mr. PETO: Will the case of those in the merchant service who have been wounded by torpedo or shell, or wounded in the ordinary course of their duty in the merchant service, and compelled to retire in consequence of having been wounded in the War, be taken into consideration before they are finally dismissed as unworthy of the badge?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Their case will no doubt be considered. But that is not a question for the Admiralty but for the Board of Trade.

    IMPORTATION OF TOMATOES.
    Mr. RUPERT GWYNNEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider the advisability of prohibiting the importation of tomatoes from abroad, seeing that these can be grown in this country and that from 50,000 to 60,000 cwts. are being now imported each
    1866
    week, and thus save money from going abroad which might be kept in this country?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I do not see my way at present to prohibit the importation of tomatoes.

    HOPS.
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that hops were still being accepted on the American railways at the end of June for transmission to England, though the Board of Trade had issued its prohibition as from the beginning of June; whether he has official information to the effect that one farmer has despatched over 1,000 bales by rail since 8th June; and whether the Board of Trade will apply their prohibition with the utmost rigour?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I have no knowledge of the circumstance alleged in the first two parts of the question, but the hon. Member may rest assured that the same principles will be applied to American hope as are applied to all other prohibited imports.
    Commander BELLAIRS: Has the right hon. Gentleman received extracts from American newspapers stating the details in the question which I sent to him?
    Mr. HARCOURT: Yes, I think I did.
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will see that no special licences are given to firms to import hops because they own farms in the hop-growing States of the United States of America?
    Mr. HARCOURT: Yes, Sir.

    BELGIAN IMPORTS.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will state the number of permits that have been issued for the importation of Belgian produce and manufactures up to 30th June last; can he also state the total value and the kind of Belgian goods imported into this country for the six months ending 30th June last; and is he aware that, although it is necessary that the payments for such imports shall be paid into a blocked bank account here, a good deal of

    1867
    the money finds its way into German hands in Belgium through the help of advances made by bankers in Holland?
    Mr. HARCOURT: The number of such licences issued is 490. The total value of the imports into the United Kingdom consigned from Belgium during the six months ending 30th June amounted to £932,000, but this sum includes imports from that part of Belgium which is in Allied occupation, in respect of which, therefore, no licences are required. The principal articles imported from territory in enemy occupation were chicory, flax, glass, leather gloves, paper, and zinc oxide. Payment for goods imported under licence has to be made into a blocked account in a bank in this country, the bank giving an undertaking that no money will be allowed to be withdrawn and no charge on the account allowed or recognised without licence from His Majesty's Government.

    ENEMY FIRMS (LIQUIDATION).
    Major HUNTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that legal proceedings are being threatened against British tradesmen for money owing to a German firm now being wound up; and could he say whether it is the intention of the Government that British firms should be compelled to pay money to enemy firms to be held by the Public Trustee for the benefit of enemy firms after the War?
    Mr. HARCOURT: Yes, Sir. A Controller appointed to conduct the winding—up of a business under Section 1 of the Trading With the Enemy Amendment Act, 1916, must realise the assets, including book debts, in order that he may, in the first instance, pay debts due to creditors other than enemy creditors If there is any surplus, representing amounts due to enemy creditors or to enemy owners of the business, it is paid to the Public Trustee to be dealt with after the termination of the War as may be directed by Order in Council.

    SUGAR.
    Captain C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Trade, if he is aware that in many Wiltshire villages the grocers have in their shops less than 12 pounds of sugar 'and can obtain no more
    1868
    although there is a considerable demand for this commodity for jam making and preserving fruit, a large quantity of which will be entirely wasted unless a small amount of sugar can be obtained locally for its preservation; and whether he will permit a temporary additional allowance to be made to the vilage grocers in fruit growing areas for this purpose?
    Mr. McKENNA: The Sugar Commission has no knowledge of the cases referred to, and there exists no machinery by which the stocks held by retailers at any particular time can be ascertained. All that the Commission can do is to secure that the available supplies shall be distributed to the trade fairly and generally in the same proportions as in 1915. The Commission has made special arrangements for supplies for fruit preserving where this is carried on on a commercial scale, but it is in practice impossible to extend these arrangements to private preservers. The Board of Agriculture is assisting the private preserver in this matter so far as it is possible to do so.
    Captain BATHURST: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the bulk of the jam used in this country is not produced on a large commercial scale, and that a large amount of fruit which is generally converted into jam is now being wasted in country districts?
    Mr. McKENNA: The Board of Agriculture, I understand, is doing its best to deal with the matter.

    DECIMAL COINAGE AND METRIC SYSTEM.
    Mr. M. BARLOWasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the introduction of decimal coinage and the metric system is under the contemplation of the Board; and whether in view of the advantage to the internal and external trade of the country, he will consider the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the matter and make recommendations?
    Mr. HARCOURT: The use of the metric system of weights and measures has been lawful since the passing of the Weights and Measures (Metric System) Act, 1897. Its compulsory use is not under contemplation by the Board of Trade, and I doubt the desirability of appointing a Committee with special reference to the

    1869
    question. The introduction of a system of decimal coinage is primarily a matter for the Treasury.

    ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES.
    Mr. T. M. HEALYasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether a circular has been issued by his Department urging an arrangement to merge electrical supplies with a view to saving coal; has he considered that new cables and other expense might be necessary to enable such plans to be carried out, involving capital expenditure; and will enabling legislation be introduced to render possible the desirable economies which the Board of Trade wish to effect in cases where statutory authority would be required?
    Mr. HARCOURT: The answer to the first two portions of the question is in the affirmative. In issuing the circular the Board of Trade had not in mind any large schemes of interconnection involving heavy capital expenditure and a large use of material, but rather contemplated arrangements between undertakers whose areas of supply adjoin, or nearly so. I do not think that legislation for this purpose is requisite, but should the necessity for it appear to arise, I would be prepared to give the matter full consideration.

    LONDON CUSTOMS WATCHERS.
    Mr. CROOKSasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he can state when a reply may be expected to the petition presented by the London Customs watchers for some concession to meet the increased cost of living; and whether, in view of the responsible duties discharged by these men, he can hold out any hope of a favourable reply being given and their being treated similarly to the employes of the Port of London Authority and other bodies, who have received a war bonus up to 6s. a week?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I would refer my right hon. Friend to the reply given on the 10th instant by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the hon. Member for West Ham with regard to the wages of Customs watchers in general. The improved scale announced in that reply will benefit a considerable proportion of the London watchers, and after careful consideration I have not felt able to authorise any further concession in their case.

    PRIVY COUNCIL AND HOUSE OF LORDS APPEALS.
    SirJ. D. REESasked the Attorney-General whether His Majesty's Government has under consideration the question of reducing the period allowed for appeals to the Privy Council and the House of Lords; and whether he has read the remarks in this behalf of the former tribunal in the case of Nanda Lal Dhar Biswas v. Jagat Kishore?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Frederick Smith): The House of Lords has, during the present year, amended the Standing Orders, so as to shorten the time for appeals to that House from one year to six months. The question whether the period allowed for appeals to the Privy Council from India can be shortened, so as to obviate the evils to which attention has been called, has engaged the attention of the Government, and is now under the consideration of the India Office. I have read the remarks in the case referred to by my hon. Friend, and I share his view as to their gravity.

    ANGLO-PEESIAN OIL COMPANY.
    Sir E. CORNWALLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the details of the £1,001,000, paid by the British Government to the Anglo-Persian Oil Company will be submitted to the Comptroller and Auditor-General for examination and report?
    Mr. McKENNA: The accounts of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company are not audited by the Comptroller and Auditor-General but by their own auditors. The Treasury has power under Clause 7 of the Agreement to appoint such person or persons as they may approve for the purpose of investigating the accounts and affairs of the company.
    Sir E. CORNWALL: When will Parliament have any opportunity of reviewing this expenditure of either a million or two millions?
    Mr. McKENNA: Perhaps the hon. Member will give notice of that question.

    ROYAL NAVY.
    Mr. FLAVINasked the First Lord of the Admiralty why officers promoted from the writer branch are not included

    1871
    as part of the established numbers of the accountant officers allowed, as is the case in the engineer branch?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The usual practice is to show the list of warrant officers separately from the commissioned ranks. This is a matter of convenience. The practice, however, as regards warrant officers of the engineer branch has been departed from, again as a matter of convenience. But the fact that in one case the warrant officers are shown with the commissioned ranks and in all others—including the writers—separately, does not in any way affect the substantial question which I imagine my hon. Friend has in mind, namely, the proportion of warrant ranks allowed by establishment to the writers.
    Mr. FLAVINasked the increase in the personnel of the Navy authorised by Parliament between October, 1915, and 31st March, 1916; and what increase has been made in the number of commissioned and warrant writers for the same period to meet the consequent demand for experienced accountant officers, observing that authority is vested with the Admiralty by Order in Council, dated 12th August, 1915, to promote an unlimited number of writers to warrant rank during the period of hostilities?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The increase in the personnel of the Navy authorised by Parliament between the 1st October, 1915, and the 31st March, 1916, was from 300,000 to 350,000, or an increase of 16.7 per cent. The actual increase in the number of commissioned and warrant writers made during the same period was from twenty—seven to thirty—eight, or an increase of 40.7 per cent. While it is true" that the Order in Council of 12th August, 1915, gives the Admiralty power during hostilities to fix, with the concurrence of the Treasury, the numbers of commissioned writers and warrant writers, I cannot accept the suggestion that such power could be used to promote an unlimited number of writers to warrant rank. The number of promotions made must, of course, depend upon the needs of the Service.

    OUTPUT OF BEER (RESTRICTION) BILL.
    Mr. GRETTON(by Private Notice): I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether the
    1872
    Lords Amendments to the Output of Beer (Restriction) Bill will be taken to-day, so that the Bill may be passed and receive the Royal Assent at once?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The consideration of this subject is put down for Monday, so that the Amendments may be printed. I do not think it will make any difference in the date of the Royal Assent.
    Mr. GRETTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that under Clause 2 of the Bill important notices have to be given, and may I ask if administrative action will be taken and officials in structed that the date August 1st in the Bill shall not be insisted on, so that persons may not suffer damage by the delay in the passing of this Bill?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Pretyman): Any time that is necessary will be allowed. I cannot say exactly what date, as we do not know when the Bill will receive the Royal Assent and become law.

    OUTPUT OF BEER (RESTRICTION) BILL.

      Land Purchase (Ireland).
      Mr. FITZPATRICKasked the Home Secretary if he will state the total quantity of land purchased and divided in the Queen's County by the Estates Commissioners since the Land Act of 1903 came into operation?
      Mr. SAMUEL: The Estates Commissioners have purchased and divided 9,699 acres of untenanted land in Queen's County.
      Mr. O'DONNELLasked whether the Congested Districts Board have refused all offers of settlement of the case of Michael O'Connor, Turbrin; whether their treatment of this man is intended to cover their own mistake when purchasing the estate; and whether, if they refuse offers of arbitration, they will get the assistance of the police in evicting this man from his holding?
      Mr. SAMUEL: Michael Connor having declined to carry out the reasonable settlement to which he had agreed, the Congested Districts Board are obliged to take steps to obtain possession of the lands under a writ which they have obtained. The Board when purchasing the Ventry estate made no mistake in respect of the purchase price of Connor's

      1873
      holding. If it should be necessary, the police will give protection to those engaged in carrying out the law.
      Mr. O'DONNELL: As this dispute has gone on between the tenant and the Board for over five years, and as there are grounds for supposing that the tenant has some right on his side, will the right hon. Gentleman suggest to the Board that some other tribunal should look into the matter before it is finally disposed of?
      Mr. SAMUEL: I understand that the matter has been subject to review in the Courts of Law.
      Mr. O'DONNELL: Does the right hon. Gentleman really suggest that in a case like this, where the tenant is ready to have this matter submitted to any tribunal other than the Board, that he would refuse to allow that?
      Mr. SAMUEL: I will draw the attention of the Board to the hon. Member's representation.

      Prison Warders (Ireland).
      Mr. P. MEEHANasked the Home Secretary whether the scheme to increase the pay of Irish prison warders will be put into operation at an early date; and whether the full benefits of the scheme will be granted to the female warders?
      Mr. SAMUEL: The reply to the first paragraph of the question is in the affirmative. It is hoped the scheme will include the female warders.

      Science Teaching (Ireland).
      Mr. P. MEEHANasked the Home Secretary if his attention has been called to the protest made by the Irish secondary teachers against the attitude of the Intermediate Education Board in recent years towards science teaching in Irish secondary schools; if he is aware that science, which is a compulsory subject in England, was made an optional subject by the Irish Board; if he is aware that the Board, contrary to all expert opinion and the expressed opinion of the Board itself, have lately introduced a written examination for pass candidates in science, a practice condemned by the highest authorities as detrimental to the teaching of science; and whether, considering the importance of improving the teaching of science, he will take any action in the matter in view of the hostility of the Irish Intermediate Board to science teaching in Irish secondary schools?
      Mr. SAMUEL: My attention has not been called to the protest referred to. Science has been an optionl subject in the examinations of the Intermediate Education Board since 1910, having been, with certain exceptions, an obligatory subject from the date of its introduction in 1902 up to 1909. In their Rules for 1917 the Board have introduced a written examination for pass candidates in science. The statement that the Board is or has been hostile to science teaching in Irish secondary schools is declared by them to be contrary to fact. They have from time to time, and even in the present year, advanced large sums to the schools on exceptionally easy terms in order to enable them to provide proper equipment and appliances for the teaching of practical science. I will ask the Board to consider the hon. Member's representations on this matter at their next meeting.
      Mr. BOLAND: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the action of the Intermediate Board has been completely to change the system which has been operating for the last sixteen years?
      Mr. SAMUEL: No, I was not aware of that.
      Mr. BOLAND: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that while there has been a great demand in this country for an increase of science teaching, the Intermediate Board is now introducing a system of examining instead of the system of inspection which has always taken place up to now?
      Mr. SAMUEL: I can only ask the Board to consider the matter at their next meeting.

    NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
    Mr. T. WILSONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has suspended the operation of Sub section (1) of Section 106 of Part II. of the National Insurance Act; if so, whether he is aware that associations of workmen that made arrangements under Section 105 of the Act, and who are paying officials to perform the necessary work, will not be able to pay the salaries of these officials unless they use their private funds; and whether he will make a grant to these associations to enable them to pay the expenses that they are put to in administering the Act?
    Mr. HARCOURT: In view of the necessity for effecting all possible economies in the charges upon the National Exchequer and the urgent demand for labour, notice was given in February last to associations of workmen that the Grants under Section 106 of the National Insurance Act would be suspended at the end of May. In consequence, however, of representations made by leading trade union organisations to the Board of Trade, it has been decided to continue the Grants as from 31st May, 1916, on the basis of a repayment of one-twelfth instead of one-sixth of the expenditure of associations on un-employment benefit. It is estimated that even on the new basis the repayments under Section 106 will be more than sufficient to cover the cost incurred by associations in administering arrangements ments under Section 105 in cases where the associations have arrangements under the latter Section.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
Mr. DILLON: I wish to make a very brief personal explanation in reference to something that passed in the Debate last night. On the 17th July the hon. and gallant Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Major W. Guinness) asked a question in reference to three clerks in the Land Commission who were suspended, and last night I stated, when contradicting a statement of the hon. and gallant Member, that I could speak from personal knowledge of the case of Patrick Sheehan, who was one of the, clerks named. On thinking the matter over I recollected that that was an error on my part, and that the man about whom I had personal knowledge was Mr. R. Rooney, another of the clerks mentioned. It is a matter of very trifling importance, but as I did contradict the hon. and gallant Member I think I must now make him an apology and say that I could not speak with personal knowledge of the case of Patrick Sheehan.
RIVER GLEN BILL [Lords].
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Colonel LOCKWOOD: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if he can inform the House as to the course of business for next week?
  The PRIME MINISTER: On Monday, we shall take the Motion standing in the name of the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon).
  On Tuesday, a Resolution dealing with Supply; and the Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund (No. 4) Bill.
  On Wednesday, the discussion of the Economic Conference at Paris.
  Mr. HOLT: Can the Prime Minister say what form the discussion on the Economic Conference Resolutions will take? Will it be on the Motion for the Adjournment?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I will say on Monday.
  Colonel LOCKWOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman state the business for Thursday?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, I cannot.
  Ordered, "That the other Government Business have precedence this day of the Business of Supply."—[The Prime Minister.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Proceedings on Government Business be not interrupted this night under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House), and may be entered upon at any hour though opposed."—[The Prime Minister."]
  Sir F. BANBURY: Will the Prime Minister say how many Orders he proposes to take? As the Motion stands, the whole of the Orders on the Paper could be taken. I have no doubt there is no intention to do that, but I think it would be well if we knew what was proposed?
  The PRIME MINISTER: It is only in regard to the first three Orders.
  Sir F. BANBURY: There are fourteen pages of Amendments to the Defence of the Realm (Acquisition of Land) Bill. I presume it is not intended to keep us up very late?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, but I hope we shall make some progress.
  Sir F. BANBURY: What does that mean? I have a distinct recollection of a very unseemly disturbance, late at night, because the Minister in charge, who had made exactly the same statement, did not happen to be in the House, and a question arose as to what really had occurred. I presume we shall not go on after twelve o'clock.
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, I think not.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 4) BILL.
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time upon Monday next.

  SPECIAL COMMISSIONS (DARDANELLES AND MESOPOTAMIA) BILL.
  Order for Committee read.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The Instruction standing in the name of the hon. Member for West Clare (Mr. Lynch)—["That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill that they have power to add to the names of the Commissioners the name of a representative of the medical faculty "]—is unnecessary, because what it seeks to do can be done in Committee by Amendment.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  SPECIAL COMMISSIONS (DARDANELLES AND MESOPOTAMIA) BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Appointment of Commissioners.)
    (1) The following persons, namely, are hereby appointed Commissioners for the purpose of inquiring into the conduct of operations of war in the Dardanelles, including the supply of equipment to the troops, the provision for the sick and wounded, and the responsibility of those Departments of the Government whose duty it has been to minister to the wants of the forces employed in that theatre of war.
    (2) The following persons, namely, are hereby appointed Commissioners for the purpose of inquiring into the conduct of operations of war in Mesopotamia, including the supply of equipment to the troops, the provision for the sick and wounded, and the responsibility of those Departments of the Government whose

    1897
    duty it has been to minister to the wants of the forces employed in that theatre of war.
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "namely," to insert the words,

    "The Right Honourable Earl Cromer,

    The Right Honourable Andrew Fisher,

    The Honourable Sir Thomas Mackenzie,

    Sir Frederick Cawley, Baronet, Member of Parliament,

    Mr. James Avon Clyde, King's Counsel, Member of Parliament, and

    Captain Stephen Lucius Gwynn, Member, of Parliament."

    Sir H. DALZIEL: I rise only to say, as one interested in these inquiries, that I think it would be ungracious for us not to recognise that the Prime Minister has sought very hard to meet the views which have been expressed in various parts of the House. Recognising that, as far as I am concerned, I do not propose to press any point in regard to the personnel except the Amendment standing in my name [to insert "Mr. Walter Roch"].
    4.0 p.m.
    Mr. LYNCH: I could not allow this Amendment to pass without uttering a protest. In the formation of all these Committees, and, indeed, in filling almost every public office of late, too much regard has been had to the House of Lords, and there has been a woeful lack of any kind of democratic principle. Whenever any public office is to be filled, or any Committee instituted, the first question asked apparently is, "Who are the Noble Lords to be nominated?" That is done quite irrespective of any particular ability or of any outstanding qualities of character. I mean to hammer on this point until it has its effect upon the Government, and until particularly this Government is brought back to those democratic principles with which they are losing contact more and more as this Parliament continues. Not only that, but there seems to be a superstitious respect for the House of Lords, and an impalpable but nevertheless real influence of what may be called society circles. These influences, however impalpable and intangible, are yet a very real force in the government of this country and are, I am certain, partly responsible for that extraordinary reluctance which we have seen exhibited from day to day to remove from the highest honours those who are now
    1898
    fighting against the forces of this country in the field. One would think that the present Coalition Government, and particularly the Liberal Members of it, had taken seriously to heart the feeling described by Byron in the words, "Little Tommy dearly loves a lord." Evidently they swing between the poles of the love of lords and the fear of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin, University. He waves his wand, and they obey, as if some secret instructions have been given to the Cabinet that the fear of Sir Edward Carson is the beginning of wisdom. My own duty, and my own study of character leads me occasionally to visit the House of Lords, where I always feel as if I were in.bonds. The impression given to me is something between an old curiosity shop and a cemetery.
    The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid I hardly see the relevance of these observations.
    Mr. LYNCH: I will not proceed on those lines except simply to delay for one moment to explain the relevancy. My point is this: There is no reality whatever in this preference for lords; it is done simply in obedience to a vague tradition and superstition. That being so, before I sit down I would appeal to the Labour Members to consider this point seriously, to dispute the supremacy suggested, and the fact that a man, even of an illustrious name such as Lord Cromer bears should, as a sort of natural right, step at once into a position of command. There is one argument the Prime Minister puts forward and which is re—echoed on his side when any such objection as I have put forward is made, and that is that these men are men of great experience and have been long years in the administration of some high offices of the country. I should say that for such a Commission as the present these so-called qualifications ought to be regarded as disqualifications. Men of that frame of mind become bureaucratic to their very soul. They are unable to think outside Government lines and in the Government manner. This is, after all, a soldier's campaign. The sons of the working men have to pay for this campaign with their bodies, and these others are not even paying for it with their brains. The first have the premier right to sift to the very bottom all these faults and all these stupendous blunders and monstrous sacrifices for which their sons and relatives

    1899
    have suffered. I would far rather see some honest, intelligent man sitting on the Labour Benches placed as Chairman of this Commission than a man "soaked in the rum of bureaucracy." [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] I am simply adapting a phrase of Carlyle in reference to Webster, the great American statesman, whom he said was "soaked in the rum of bureaucracy." Their tendency will be to resist every inclination and demand for the fullest flood of light into the secret recesses of this inquiry, and to assume what may be called the attitude of defenders of the Government.
    Mr. HAZLETON: I am very anxious to support the Amendment that has been moved by my right hon. Friend opposite.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: I have not moved my Amendment yet.
    Mr. HAZLETON: I thought my right hon. Friend had moved his Amendment. However, there are only one or two words I should like to say in connection with the names proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister. I do not quite share the objection taken by my hon. Friend the Member for West Clare, because I think if the proposed Chairman of this Commission is himself a suitable person we need not bother very much whether or not he is a lord. But Lord Cromer is a man of very advanced age. I just want to ask the Prime Minister a question which I think he will consider of some importance in this connection. Lord Cromer is to be Chairman of this Commission. Lord Cromer, I understand, has recently been ill. In the case of a man of his advanced age we have no guarantee at all that in the next twelve or eighteen months he might not have a recurrence of that illness, and I want to know from the Prime Minister, if that unfortunately should be the case, would Lord Cromer's Chairmanship involve that the proceedings of the Commission would be indefinitely held up? Would the Commission have to adjourn until the Chairman was fully restored to health? Would they have to go on without their Chairman, or would they have to substitute for him some other member of the Commission as president of their body? While I have no objection to Lord Cromer or the other names that have been suggested, we ought to be satisfied, before we pass them, that there would be no interruption due to
    1900
    causes which might occur in this way, and, on the other hand, satisfied that we shall have a Report of this Commission at the earliest possible moment.
    The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. Member, by reference to the Bill, will see that that case is provided for. In regard to the suggestion that we have shown undue favouritism to the House of Lords, I may say that I really never heard a more misplaced criticism in the whole history of this House. As a matter of fact there are only two peers in the whole of these names. With respect to Lord Cromer, he was not born a peer, but he has distinguished himself as a public servant.
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: He is the son of a peer.
    The PRIME MINISTER: Never mind what he was. As a matter of fact, Lord Cromer has distinguished himself and won his present position entirely by his own efforts in every way. A more unfounded and improper charge could not be made than that the Government, in framing this Resolution, did so on the ground of family or social interest. Every one of the men whose names are down here to be put upon the Commission are there upon their own merits and for no other reason.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the words "Captain Stephen Lucius Gwynn, Member of Parliament," to add the words "and Mr. Walter Roch."
    I recognise, as I said a few minutes ago, the spirit in which the Prime Minister has tried to meet the views of the different parts of the House, and I further remember that he stated that the Government proposals were put forward in the nature of suggestions. It has also been intimated by the right hon. Gentleman that if in the framing any particular Amendment he recognised a demand he would endeavour, if possible, to meet it. I suggest that the hon. Member I propose is a suitable member for this Committee, and for several reasons. In the first place, my hon. Friend was the first Member of this House to suggest to the Government that there might be an inquiry on the lines embodied in the Bill now before the Committee. He even placed it upon the Paper as far back as six or eight months ago, and he was supported in that by a very large number of

    1901
    Members sitting in this part of the House. Therefore, I say, if I may, that he was the original author of the proposition we are now carrying into law. That should count for something with the Prime Minister. Again, my hon. and learned Friend is a lawyer. Perhaps that does not recommend itself in some parts of the House, but, at any rate, this is an occasion upon which, I think, it is an advantage to have a lawyer who is in the habit of weighing and considering the value of evidence. I would suggest that upon this occasion the fact of a man being a lawyer ought not to be a disqualification for membership of this Commission. There is the further reason which will probably appeal to hon. Members from Wales. They will have observed that upon this Commission Scotland is represented, the Labour party is represented, the Irish party is represented, but no interest whatever in Wales is represented. Although it is not my business to plead the cause of Wales, I do submit that it strengthens the demand I am now making, because we know that Welsh forces were employed in Gallipoli. It ought, therefore, to be a consideration as to whether Wales should be the only country which is not represented upon this particular Commission.
    The only objection that can be made to my suggestion probably is that the Prime Minister is desirous that the Commissions should not be made too large. I certainly think he is right in that. I do not think he has made them too large. The numbers suggested are not too large a representation of the interests that ought to be represented in a very important matter of this kind, and I therefore suggest the addition of one member, which, I believe, if agreed to, will give great satisfaction to a large number of Members of this House. This would not delay the proceedings one bit. My right hon. Friend's idea is that the proceedings should not be unduly delayed. I do not think the addition of the one member will be regarded as in any way antagonistic to the views expressed by the Prime Minister that he did not require too large a Commission. If the Prime Minister cannot accept the name of my hon Friend, which I hope he may be able to do, I ask that, at any rate, he will leave this matter to the unfettered judgment of the House. It is a House matter even more than a Government matter.
    The PRIME MINISTER: It is an invidious task to discuss the claim of a fellow Member to sit on a Commission of this kind. I see around me a great many Members eminently well qualified to sit, and I have in my mind others who are not present to-day. I do not in the least question the name, or any of the names, that have been mentioned. I do not know that there is any position in this House that the hon. Member whose name has been mentioned is not well fitted to occupy and to adorn. He is one of the ablest of our younger Members, and we always listen to him with great interest. I rather demur, however, to the notion that you must apportion positions of this kind on the principle of nationality. Commissions of this sort have never been arranged upon that footing.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: The matter is worthy of consideration.
    The PRIME MINISTER: Commissions of the kind, I can assure my right hon. Friend, have no reference either to English, Welsh, Scottish, or Irish nationality. I attach very great importance to the Commissions being limited in number. If we add the name of the hon. Member suggested we may have to add other names. This Commission is already one member larger than the other. Then when the matter comes before the House of Lords, who have got to consider this Bill, they will probably think they ought to add somebody, and in that way it is possible that we may have an indefinite addition to the number of the Commission. I would much rather keep the Commission in the form it has been introduced into the House. There is an Amendment also on the Paper to add the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Commander Wedgwood) ' to the other Commission. I am very much in the hands of the Committee. If the Committee want to add these names, by all means let them add them. I have no objection of any sort or kind, but I do warn the House of the danger of adding to the number, and, by so doing, inviting further addition when this Bill gets to another place.
    Sir G. BARING: There is one consideration, if I may say so with great respect, the Prime Minister did not touch upon, and that is in having as one member of the Commission a gentleman who does not owe his selection to the choice of the

    1903
    Government. It would be advisable at this time that one of these Commissioners should be a gentleman selected by the freewill and free volition of the House. The hon. Member for Pembrokeshire, as the Prime Minister said, has extremely good qualifications. When this question was first raised in this House he dealt with the matter with great ability, and I certainly hope, under these circumstances, the Prime Minister will consent to accept his name, and I am sure it will give satisfaction in every quarter of the House.
    Mr. R. McNEILL: I must say I hope the Prime Minister will not accept this Amendment, and I say so with the greatest possible freedom. While I believe that, if an addition were made, no better name could be selected than that proposed, it appears to me that the test we ought to apply is not whether any suggested name is that of a gentleman who is well qualified to serve, but whether or not the Commissioners already suggested by the Government are or are not an efficient Commission for the purposes we have in view. I entirely agree with all that the right hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment has said with regard to the hon. Member whom he proposed to add, but He has not suggested, and I do not think it can be suggested, that the names proposed by the Prime Minister do not form an efficient Commission for the purpose. Under those circumstances, I entirely share the view which was expressed by the Prime Minister, that if you once begin attempting to add to the Commission, suggestions will come from all sides, and all sorts of names might be suggested of those perfectly well qualified to have a share in this investigation. Under those circumstances, I hope the Prime Minister will not only refuse to accept the Amendment, but will distinctly use the powers of the Government in adhering to the names he has already suggested to the House.
    Mr. THOMAS: There can be no doubt that there is a feeling abroad.that the Government reluctantly consented to the Commission. It is useless to burke that fact, and it is equally true to say that not only lamentable, but, in my judgment, disgraceful statements are being made with regard to the general position. Therefore, from the standpoint of clearing the matter up, I welcome the Commission. On the other hand, if there is a suggestion, as Members in all parts of the
    1904
    House well know, that the Government was reluctant to act, nothing is so calculated to destroy the confidence in the Commission as not to meet a general desire for someone to be put on this Commission entirely independently of the Government. It appears to me that the Prime Minister stated the case fairly when he said that, if you were going to discuss the merits of individuals, not only would it be an unfortunate thing, but it would be something which the House of Commons itself ought to refuse to do, because if we are going to discuss individuals we get nowhere. I would support this proposal purely from the standpoint that, the House of Commons having pressed this matter upon the Government, the hon. Member for Pembrokeshire himself acted before very many Members paid attention to it. In the minds of the public he acted because he felt this was a necessary step in the public interest, and I do submit that it would give general public confidence, as the House of Commons has expressed the desire, if there were put on the Committee someone who was the first to move in the matter. I will not go into the qualifications of the hon. Gentleman, because they are generally admitted, but I would urge the Prime Minister to take into consideration that he is an independant nominee who has given consideration to the question, and I believe a nominee who would strengthen public confidence in the Commission.
    Mr. HOUSTON: I do hope the Prime Minister and the House will accept the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman. The point is, I think, that the House and the country would like to see an independent member on the Commission, and, therefore, knowing the hon. and learned Member as I do, and knowing the conspicuous ability he possesses, I think the Commission would be greatly strengthened by his presence on it. I therefore trust the Prime Minister will accept the Amendment.
    Sir C. HENRY(indistinctly heard): I must confess I find myself in a difficulty. Admirable as I think are the qualities of my hon. Friend the Member for Pembrokeshire, there are other Members of the House who might consider others should be put on the Commission, and that, in order to balance the appointment, a Member should be added from the other side. I am quite certain the hon. Member for St. Augustine's (Mr. E. McNeill) would be quite

    1905
    ready to propose one. Although I support the addition of the name of the hon. Member, I would ask my right hon. Friend who moved the Amendment if he cannot accept the Commission as suggested by the Government.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: May I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman and many Friends of mine supporting the Amendment that they should withdraw it? After all, the suggestion they are making is to add an independent man to the Commission. Really that is a reflection on every one of those whom the Government propose to put on the Commission. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Yes, it is. These men have been asked by the Prime Minister, the head of our Coalition Government, to act because they are independent. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] The Prime Minister distinctly stated they had been asked because they had taken no part in the agitation regarding the Dardanelles, and they were selected purely because they were independent. To ask, therefore, for another hon. Member, however valuable he may be, and however important a part he took in the agitation with regard to this question, to be put on because he is independent, is to cast a slur on the other members. I want to go one step further, and I do it as one who worked with the hon. Member—I am not at all sure I was not prior to him with regard to the agitation as to the Dardanelles—and I say the very fact that he took part in this agitation should disqualify him from acting on this Commission.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: He only asked for an inquiry, and did not start an agitation.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: The Commission is being appointed to make an independent inquiry, and I do not think the Government could have selected names which commend themselves more to the House or country at large as independent men who will give independent judgment.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I wish to press for the addition of my hon. Friend to this Commission. We all appreciate the spirit in which the Prime Minister met the proposal of the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy. On the Second Reading he intimated that the Government would be only too glad to receive any suggestion from the House on this matter. Twenty-four hours were given to the House to consider any independent suggestion. The result of this delay of twenty-four hours is only
    1906
    the single suggestion of the addition of my hon. Friend the Member for Pembrokeshire. In view of the statement the Prime Minister made yesterday, and the spirit in which he is approaching the question, I think that on this occasion he might very well make a concession to the House. The hon. Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) has suggested that the hon. Member for Pembrokeshire is to some extent a partisan. It is quite true that the hon. Member for Pembrokeshire was the first to put down a Motion on the Paper for an inquiry. He also made a speech in favour of that proposal, but if' hon. Members take the trouble to look it up, they will find it was conceived in an entirely judicial spirit. There was no attempt to pre-judge any of the issues involved in the Dardanelles campaign. Reference was made to evidence which had been made public, and the sole claim he then made was that there was a prima facie case for the Government to grant an inquiry, so that the matter could be completely thrashed out. That is the spirit in which he brought the matter forward in the latter part of last year, and I think it would be in that spirit he would, act on this Commission. I do not desire to enter into his personal qualifications. I should possibly be accused of being excessively partial to him on the ground of my close association with him, but at least I can say this, that close association with him has enabled me to appreciate the very high powers he possesses for an inquiry of this kind. In view of all the circumstances, in view of my hon. Friend's special, association with this matter, I would ask the Prime Minister to consent to this Amendment.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I think the Committee will agree it is very undesirable to continue this Debate. I hope, therefore, the Committee will come to a decision. The Government will leave it entirely in the hands of the Committee.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: That means taking off the Government Whips?
    The PRIME MINISTERindicated assent.
    Colonel AUBREY HERBERT: I agree with what the Prime Minister said. I quite acknowledge that the hon. Member concerned has every possible qualification, but I think if one asked him what he himself thought about it he would admit

    1907
    there were other men who by accident, by fortune, had larger experience than he has had of military administration and of Eastern matters, and, if another member were to be added to this Commission, I should certainly feel inclined to press the names of those I mentioned yesterday.
    Mr. HOGGE: Had the House been operating in its usual form, obviously the Whips would have consulted the regular Opposition as to whom they should put on this Commission. Probably on this occasion the Whips of both sections of the Coalition have been consulted.
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, this is not a Parliamentary Committee at all. Two of the members are distinguished representatives of the Dominions. It is not in the least subject to the ordinary rules of selection.
    Mr. HOGGE: The Irish party were consulted with regard to their representatives on this Commission, and the Labour party were also consulted. [An HON. MEMBER: "How do you know?"] Deny it if it is not true. Of course it is true. These two parties in the House were consulted. There has been in the House a certain body of opinion representing criticism of this particular expedition, and the Prime Minister deliberately said that he would receive suggestions from the House. If hon. Members who have spoken in this Debate had other names in their mind they could have suggested them. Therefore, I think we are entitled to assume that they were not particularly keen that other specific names should be added. There is a body of opinion in this House keen to have an outside nomination independent from the Prime Minister's nomination. If you accept the names suggested by the Government the House of Commons loses all its power, because you are simply accepting names and not making suggestions. I hope, if we go to a Division, those who wish to preserve the independent criticism of the House of Commons will support the Amendment of my hon. Friend.
    Sir FRANCIS LOWE: Not a single name on this Commission has been objected to, and no alternative names have been proposed. I think that that shows that the House has confidence in the names that have been submitted, and I do not think any sufficient reason has been adduced why an additional name should
    1908
    be added. If an additional name is proposed from the other side, we shall have to propose an additional name from this side. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Meux) would be an admirable addition to the Commission, and if this Amendment is persisted in and carried we shall have other names to propose. Therefore, I think it better that the Commission should be accepted as it stands.
    Mr. LYNCH: I should not have intervened but for the remarks of the Prime Minister, who said, in a somewhat petulant tone, that this discussion is undesirable. The same may be said in regard to the tone of the speech to which we have just listened. The hon. Member for Edgbaston (Sir F. Lowe) said that no names on this Commission had been objected to. I should feel happier in my mind that this Commission would pursue its work right to the very foundation if, instead of Lord Cromer, my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Lanark (Mr. Pringle) were the Chairman. This is not a question of official dignity, but of piercing to the bottom the reason why the lives of thousands of soldiers were needlessly sacrificed, and we want men on this inquiry who will not be deterred from continuing their researches by any reasons whatever, rather than men who by their very origin and qualifications will have the official mind. If this Amendment is pressed to a Division I shall support it.
    Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: I appeal to the Prime Minister to accept this Amendment for two reasons. In the first place, my hon. Friend the Member for Pembrokeshire (Mr. Roch) was one of the first to draw attention to this question of the Dardanelles Expedition, and I should have thought that that in itself was some claim for his inclusion. My second reason is a more cogent one. It is well known that in Suvla Bay in August last year the Welsh Division met with great disaster, and that is a matter which will have to be inquired into most closely, because it has caused great search—ings of heart in Wales in the parts from which those battalions were drawn. Therefore, I think that a Welsh Member ought to be included in this Commission. I notice that there is an Irish Member on this Commission and on the Mesopotamia Commission there is a Labour representative. I urge upon the Prime Minister that, having regard to the fact

    1909
    that there were tens of thousands of Welsh soldiers engaged in this expedition in Gallipoli, and especially having regard to what happened subsequently and the grave anxiety which has been felt all over Wales as to what transpired on that occasion, to add this name to the Commission.
    Mr. JOHN HINDS: I desire to thank the Prime Minister for leaving this matter open. This is a House of Commons question. I think this Commission should be made as effective as possible. My hon. Friend who has just spoken said something about the Welsh troops who fought in the Dardanelles, and for that reason I think we should be very glad to have my hon. Friend added to the Commission, because that would make the list more effective. I should be quite satisfied with the list as it is drawn, but as the Prime Minister
    has no objection to leaving the matter to the House, I think the view I have expressed should be taken into account.
    Commander BELLAIRS: On a point of Order. I wish to draw attention to the fact that there is an Amendment on the Paper, standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth, suggesting that at least one naval and one military officer should be chosen from the retired lists. Will that Amendment be out of order if we pass this Amendment now?
    The CHAIRMAN: No.
    Question put, "That the words 'and Mr. Walter Roch, Member of Parliament,' be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 105; Noes, 92.

    Division No. 44.]

    AYES.

    [4.40 p.m.

    Adamson, William

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

    O'Dowd, John

    Armitage, Robert

    Hinds, John

    O'Malley, William

    Arnold, Sydney

    Hogge, James Myles

    O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Holt, Richard Durning

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Beach, William F. H.

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Partington, Oswald

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Billing, Pemberton

    Joyce, Michael

    Pratt, J. W.

    Bliss, Joseph

    Keating, Matthew

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Boland, John Pius

    Kelly, Edward

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Kilbride, Denis

    Radford, G. H.

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    King, Joseph

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Reddy, Michael

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Lundon, Thomas

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Cory, Sir Clifford John (St. Ives)

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Cosgrave, James

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Crumley, Patrick

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Dillon, John

    McGhee, Richard

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Doris, William

    Martin, Joseph

    Sutton, John E.

    Duffy, William J.

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Thomas, J. H.

    Ferens, Rt. Hon Thomas Robinson

    Meagher, Michael

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    Ffrench, Peter

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Field, William

    Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

    Wedgwood, Major Josiah C.

    Finney, Samuel

    Molloy, Michael

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Fitzpatrick, John Lalor

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Mooney, John J.

    Whitty, Patrick Joseph

    Gilbert, J. D.

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Graham, Edward John

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Griffith, Rt. Hon. Ellis Jones

    Nolan, Joseph

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Hackett, John

    Nugent, J. D. (College Green)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Hazleton, Richard

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Sir Henry Dalziel and Mr. Llewelyn Williams.

    Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.)

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Henry, Sir Charles

    NOES.

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Cochrane, Cecil Algernon

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

    Fell, Arthur

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Coote, William

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

    Cory, James Herbert (Cardiff)

    Galbraith, Samuel

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Gelder, Sir William Alfred

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Craig, Col. James (Down, E.)

    Goulding, Sir Edward Alfred

    Bellairs, Commander C. W.

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Grant, J. A.

    Bethell, Sir John Henry

    Crooks, Rt. Hon. William

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

    Bird, Alfred

    Dalrymple, Hon. H. H.

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)

    Coats, Sir Stuart A. (Wimbledon)

    Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir J. B.

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

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

    Meux, Hon. Sir Hedworth

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

    Hewins, William Herbert Samuel

    Middlebrook, Sir William

    Tickler, T. G.

    Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

    Morgan, George Hay

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Hill, James

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Turton, Edmund Russborough

    Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

    Newman, John R. P.

    Walker, Colonel William Hall

    Horne, Edgar

    Pearce, Sir Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Hudson, Walter

    Pennefather, De Fonblanque

    Wardle, George J.

    Hume-Williams, W. E.

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Watson, Hon. W.

    Hunt, Major Rowland

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Watt, Henry A.

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

    Prothero, Rowland Edmund

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Joynson-Hicks, William

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

    Wiles, Thomas

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Lamb, Sir Ernest Henry

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Robertson, Rt. Hon. J. M. (Tyneside)

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Rowlands, James

    Yate, Colonel C. E.

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Younger, Sir George

    Macdonald, Rt. Hon. J. (Falkirk Bghs.)

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Sharman-Crawford, Colonel R. G.

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

    Stanton, Charles Butt

    TELLERS FOR NOES.—

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Mr. Eugene Wason and Sir Francis Lowe.

    Malcolm, Ian

    Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

    Question, "That the words ' origin, inception, and' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

    Admiral of the Fleet Sir H. MEUX: I beg to move, after the words last inserted, to add the words "and at least one naval and one military officer chosen from the retired lists."
    I hope that my Amendment has the same success as the last one. I am not in the least bit interested as to who is responsible for the initiation of the Dardanelles Expedition. Obviously, those who are responsible are the Government and the Government alone, and they may divide and apportion their responsibility according to their taste. It may perhaps interest the House to know that a proposal to force the Dardanelles forts was made some twenty years ago when the late Lord Salisbury was in office, and the only reason the country did not suffer probably losses of the same sort as the losses suffered last year was that the then First Sea Lord, the late Admiral Richards, absolutely and flatly refused to sanction it. It is a pity that there are not more men living like him to-day. I do not know whether the Prime Minister is aware of that fact, but, if not, his colleague the First Lord of the Admiralty is well aware of it. I wish to ensure that the officers whose conduct will be chiefly inquired into in these investigations, that is to say, the admirals and generals, shall be tried by men who understand something about modern military matters.
    I quite agree with the Prime Minister and the House that as far as their ability, general knowledge, and integrity are concerned the members of the Commission are as good men as one could possibly come across. I have known both the Presidents. I have known Lord Cromer since the occupation of Egypt in 1882, and of course there is no better man in the world. But what does he know about modern battleships?
    1912
    Nothing whatever. Is there any other man on the Commission who knows anything whatever about a modern Navy? I would like the House to imagine this. There are seven gentlemen sitting round a table, and they propose to inquire into the loss of our ships in February or March in the first series of bombardments of the Dardanelles. Which amongst them has the knowledge or the power to ask a single question which is relevant? Not one. I see that the Prime Minister shakes his head. But which of the members knows anything about a modern navy?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The whole of them.
    Sir H. MEUX: The whole of them?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I hope so.
    Sir H. MEUX: How can they? What do they know about mines, stationary and floating? Do they know anything about the handling of submarines and the proper provisions to be made against them? Not one of them. The admirals of the Navy and generals of the Army are on their trial, as it were, and their honour is going to be impugned. I believe the whole of the Navy and Army want to see that the men who examine these questions have some knowledge of them. It is all very well talking, but we know what these Commissions really mean. They are meant to whitewash the Government. I should imagine that the Prime Minister himself had very little to do with the selection of these Commissions. He is much too busy. He is probably thinking more of Dublin than of the Dardanelles, and thinking more of conciliating the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) than of Mesopotamia. Yesterday afternoon the Prime Minister referred to some remarks of his blood-

    1913
    thirsty friend sitting behind about Admiral Byng. [HON. MEMBERS: "The hon. Member for Hexham!"] Never mind who it was. The right hon. Gentleman said that it was a discreditable episode in the Navy. So it was. But has the Prime Minister studied the question of the loss of the Minorca? Probably not. If he had done so, he would know that it was far more disgraceful to the Government of the day. What did John Fortescue, talking of the British Army, put in his book? He put—
    "Byng was shot because Newcastle deserved to be hanged."
    Newcastle was the civilian Minister for War. The Prime Minister has given no reason whatever why there should not be a retired naval officer and a retired military officer on this Commission. The Prime Minister is one of my own friends, but I do not think that he has anything but kindly contempt for the intelligence of naval and military officers. Well, if you judge officers by their ability to talk, that is quite right. I do not suppose that many Members yesterday quite understood what I referred to when I said that if he had listened to the hundred retired naval officers he would not have got into the muddle about the Declaration of London. Perhaps there are some who did understand. They sent in a petition in 1911, and I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman even condescended to acknowledge it. Someone suggested that their pensions should be stopped. That was very noble. I forget who it was. I cannot treat this subject seriously. It is really so absurd to have a Commission to try the Army and Navy and to have on it no man who understands anything about modern fighting. I do not know how to describe it. I have not said much about the Army, but I hope that some military officer who has better powers of talking than I have will get up afterwards, though I have to remember that when the late Field-Marshal Lord Roberts gave advice it was scoffed at. Did not the Prime Minister allow one of his colleagues in the House of Lords to call him an " old man in a panic "? I do not know what he called him privately afterwards.
    The CHAIRMAN: We must not review all past and existing authorities in matters of this kind. We must really try and make a direct hit on the point.
    Sir H. MEUX: Well. I have consumed my allotted time. But, as I am convinced that this "inquiry will be a farce and fiasco
    1914
    and will be written down almost as a failure, I hope hon. Members who share my view, and wish to be regarded both in the' Army and Navy as having some thought for them and not only for civilians, will take the opportunity of following me into the Lobby.
    5.0 P.M.
    Commander BELLAIRS: I have a great deal of sympathy with my hon. and gallant Friend, especially when he is out of order. There is legitimate ground for a difference of opinion as to the constitution of this Commission and the relative merits of civilians and of soldiers and sailors, to be on the Commission. There always will be those differences of opinion. We know perfectly well the opinion once held of the Duke of Wellington by the statesman Lord Wellesley, who thus expressed it: "My brother Arthur is a fool." I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend that the members of this Commission will not have the requisite knowledge. I doubt whether any of them could read a military map or could even study a chart intelligently without assistance. We know perfectly well, whenever there is an inquiry into the loss of a merchant ship, that the judge, as in the case of the "Lusitania," has naval assessors to advise him. Even if the Prime Minister is indisposed to have naval and military members on the Commssion, he would be well advised to have naval and military retired officers of independent judgment to advise the Commission, and I put that suggestion to him. To show how people can go wrong over these technical matters, I remember, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee (Mr. Churchill) was quitting the Cabinet and making his apologia in this House, he referred to the Antwerp Expedition—it bears largely on this question—and said that he was impressed by the execution which the 15—inch howitzers had done, and he argued from howitzers with high—angle fire to naval guns with low trajectory. If he did that with his exceedingly acute intelligence—everyone recognises his great ability—and with his possibilities of naval advice, which he could not have accurately understood, I am certain that a Commission which has not got naval and military advisers at hand is sure to go wrong. I know when I happen to be on a railway Bill and there is some technical point which I do not understand, instead of

    1915
    shouting my question across to the witness, I prefer to turn to someone with technical knowledge and ask my question quietly and privately. I feel exceedingly diffident, and I think anyone does, of interrupting the course of a cross-examination for the sake of having some technical point explained. If the Commissioners have naval and military assessors at their elbows they will have no hesitation what—ever in going to th'em for any point to be explained, and for advice on any question they want to ask witnesses. For that reason, though I support the Amendment, I should be satisfied if the Commissioners have their naval and military assessors.
    The PRIME MINISTER: The only reason why the Government did not suggest to the House naval and military officers in this case—and it is the same in the other case—was that they desired not to make the Commissions unduly large. In addition to that, there is the difficulty—the extreme difficulty, as I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman will acknowledge—that so many, in fact the whole, of our distinguished naval and military officers are now engaged in active operations in the field.
    Sir H. MEUX: Officers on the retired list. There are a hundred men between sixty and seventy, at least.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am very glad to hear it. At any rate, those on the active list are engaged in the field; but I assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman and the House that the Government are most anxious to avail themselves of naval and military expert advice, and I am rather disposed to accept the suggestion made by my hon. and gallant Friend (Commander Bellairs) to make not Commissioners but Assessors of naval and military officers on retired pay. I think that would meet the whole case, and I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will be disposed to accept that.
    Mr. HEALY: It is far better to put these men on as members of the Commission. If you appoint them as assessors it may well be that this tribunal will think itself bound by their expert advice, whereas sitting round the table on an equality I think the case would be very different. The Amendment moved by the hon. and gallant Member is most reasonable and I trust it will be accepted, but I would like to put forward our view. We do not share the
    1916
    apprehensions of the hon. and gallant Gentleman that this Commission will be unsuccessful or that it will be a farce. On the contrary, I for my part regard it as one of the most serious steps that have ever been taken by the House of Commons, and it is because of the seriousness of the step that I should think it would be unjust both to the Army and to the Navy if in the course of these researches there was nobody representing the Services on the Commission. I think there would be a most invidious feeling on the subject, especially—this is a point on which the right hon. Gentleman (the Prime Minister) might take occasion to yield—as. the House itself has to-day asserted its right to put one of its Members upon the Commission. I think that makes an enormous difference. What will be the feeling to-morrow, or afterwards, in the Navy or Army if it can be said that the House of Commons insisted on having what is called an independent member on this tribunal, but that it refused the request of a. gallant admiral to put on a member of this great and glorious Service? I think we ought not to subject ourselves to criticism of this kind, especially if, as a result of this inquiry—and I trust it may be—the question of the Straits of Messina is examined, and especially as it may lead, not to any reflection, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman said, on the honour of the Service, because there is no question of the honour of any officer as I understand it here, but as there is a question of their judgment and their discretion. That being so, the Government will make a great mistake in any inquiry that may have such large consequences if they refuse the request from the source from which it comes for the appointment of Army and Navy Commissioners.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I do not attach very much importance to the difference between Commissioners and Assessors. In any case, as has been pointed out, there is a considerable majority of laymen on the Commission, which has been added to by the action of the House in appointing one of its own members, a decision with which I do not want to quarrel. I do not attach very much importance to the distinction, as I have said, but it seems to me that it might be more convenient in the working of the Commission if these expert advisers sat as assessors rather than as Commissioners. I shall be quite content, however, to take the hon. and gallant Gentleman's view.
    Sir H. MEUX: There is a very, very great difference, because an assessor may only speak when he is asked. He cannot interfere. He sits round a table, and unless they say, "What do you think?" he cannot say a word. He has no power whatever. He is only an assessor. That is the case, and any legal gentleman will tell you so. Let it be remembered that in these Commissions half the work is done when they are not sitting—when they are lunching, and talking. We all know that——
    The PRIME MINISTER: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman thinks that, I will accept the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word " the " ["the conduct of operations"], to insert the words " circumstances in which and the authority upon which the naval and military expeditions to the Dardanelles and Gallipoli were undertaken."
    The Government have met the House fairly and frankly in all the matters connected with the appointment of this Commission, and the sole desire in every portion of the House is that the inquiry should be searching, practical, and swift. It is, therefore, very necessary that it should be specifically directed to the real points on which a broad, general opinion can be given. It seems to me that there are only two risks, two main dangers', to which the utility of the Commission is now liable to be exposed. The first is that it should be overladen with unnecessary detail, and so led to prolong its labours to an indefinite period; and the second is that it should be entangled in what may be called the purely strategic and tactical technicalities. After all, there are certain simple, salient facts which they should have a right to know, which can be easily established without long delay or indiscreet publication, and I venture to think that it is to this that the reference should more specifically guide the Commission, without, of course, confining them in any inconvenient manner. In this matter there are really two sets of responsibilities being examined. There are, first of all, the decisions of Ministers, and the expert advice on which those decisions were taken. The investigation of that may or may not disclose negligence, carelessness, irregularity, or incompetence. On this the Commission is well qualified to pronounce and Parliament capable of acting. But there is also the conduct of
    1918
    commanders in the field and afloat—a separate set of responsibilities. On this it does seem to me—I almost thought some of my remarks might have been relevant to the discussion that has just taken place, but they are equally relevant to what I am now urging—that the Commission cannot usefully pronounce a final decision. My argument is directed to—showing the importance of the precise and definite reference which I am putting: forward. It seems to me quite impossible that a Commission of laymen, or a Commission which contains a single representative of the military or naval professions, could pronounce finally upon the—conduct of naval or military officers in regard to their professional action or advice. Professional men on professional matters have a right to be judged by their peers, not merely by one representative of the Army or of the Navy, but by properly constituted expert courts; and while I think that this reference which is before us covers the ground in general terms, I feel that there is a great danger that the Commissioners may be drawn1 unduly away from the salient points in the strategic and tactical matters, and I feel that on the strategic and tactical' matters involved the most that can be expected from this Commission, whether lay or hybrid, is that they shall assemble the facts, and say whether occasion is disclosed for disciplinary action or inquiry by military or naval courts. I am, therefore, inclined to—think that the reference should be more precise and detailed than the one the Government have embodied in the Bill. First of all, the reference which is taken for the Dardanelles Commission in the Bill is one which is largely founded' upon the Motion for a Select Committee, moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Sir E. Carson). That reference was drawn up, I" think I am right in saying, mainly with the—idea of the Mesopotamian operations in.' mind, and it is to that that the great prominence of the equipment of the troops: and the provision for the sick and wounded is due, and I think it is very appropriate to that Commission. But, after all, although there were questions connected with the sick and wounded in regard to the Dardanelles, those are not the grave questions at all on which Parliament and' the country wish to be informed.
    I have put on the Paper an Amendment in my name to make sure that specific

    1919
    attention is directed to the inception and initiation of these military and naval expeditions, and I propose to move that; but I am inclined to think, and I offer this counsel in all sincerity to the House, that the general reference of the Commission might be expressed in more precise terms, and it seems to me in more searching terms, and that there would then be more chance of a definite pronouncement by the Commission within a reasonable limit of time, while at the same time not fettering them in any matter into which they think it necessary to go. In moving my Amendment, therefore, I would venture, if I may, to extend it to cover the whole reference as an alternative reference, and to make the reference read as follows: It follows naturally on my Amendment:
    "To inquire into the circumstances in which, and the authority upon which, the naval and military expeditions were sent to the Dardanelles and Gallipoli; into the measures taken to sustain the Army after its landing in the Gallipoli Peninsula, with special reference to the supply of the drafts, reinforcements, ammunition, the equipment of the troops and the selection of commanders; into the conduct of the battle of Suvla-Bay; into the reasons which led to the retention of the Army on the Gallipoli Peninsula until January, 1915, and till the final evacuation; and into such further matters as are incidental to the above."
    I am quite certain that that is a far more searching and direct reference than any which has yet been placed on the Paper, and if the House is really seeking relentlessly to probe this matter, and to place the country at the earliest possible date in possession of the main and salient facts which have led to this great disaster, I am confident that this, or something on these lines, is more likely to yield an effective and fruitful result than a general reference about the equipment of the troops, the provision for the sick and wounded, and the responsibility of those Departments of the Government whose duty it was to minister to the wants of the forces employed in that theatre of war. At any rate, I will take the sense of the Committee on the first portion of my Amendment which appears on the Paper, And, if I see any prospect of the Committee adopting the extension of the Amendment, I will venture to ask your permission to move that additional Amendment.
    The CHAIRMAN: I could not say on the spur of the moment whether I could accept such a comprehensive Amendment, which is not on the Paper. It seems to torpedo all the Amendments of other hon. Members. If the right hon. Gentleman
    1920
    takes the sense of the Committee on the present one, it might be withdrawn and the other substituted for it.
    The PRIME MINISTER: As I said yesterday, the Government are very anxious that the scope of this inquiry should be as wide and comprehensive as possible. I am a little afraid that my right hon. Friend, in the Amendment he has foreshadowed to the Committee, has forgotten the legal principle that guides us in the Courts of law
    "Expressio unius est exclusio alterius."
    I am sure he follows me.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would be kind enough to translate it?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am sure that is quite unnecessary. He knows generally what I mean. I have looked, through all these Amendments on the Paper with the object of choosing the one which seems to me to give the most comprehensive scope to the inquiry. I am not sure that the' best one for that purpose is not that of my right hon. Friend the Member for North St. Pancras (Mr. Dickinson) who proposes to insert the words " origin, inception, and." That is a little more than "initiation." "Initiation" is quite a good word, and I am prepared to accept it, but I think if we accept the Amendment I have suggested we shall cover the whole ground my right hon. Friend (Mr. Churchill) desires. Choosing, as I should like to choose, the words which are most comprehensive and the least open to the dangers suggested by specific enumeration without the generality of the reference being hampered, I do not think w^e can do better than accept the Amendment of my right hon. Friend the Member for North St. Pancras.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: I am very glad the Prime Minister has made this announcement. I tried to catch your eye, Sir, when he got up, in order to say almost the same thing. It is quite clear that if the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Churchill) were accepted it would be acted upon and the inquiry would be limited to the " circumstances and authority." There are many things outside "circumstances and authority" into which the Commissions ought properly to inquire. The Amendment of the right hon. Member for North St. Pancras is a little wider and

    1921
    stronger from our point of view than "initiation," and for my part I shall strongly support it.
    The PRIME MINISTER: If the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Churchill) will withdraw his Amendment, I think the whole of his object will be served.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am quite willing to withdraw it if it is the general sense of the Committee. My own desire was to enable the Commission to apply its activities with the utmost possible dispatch.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    The CHAIRMAN: I take it that the sense of the Committee is that I should ask the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North St. Pancras to move his Amendment.
    Amendment made: In Sub-section (1) after the word "the" ["purpose of inquiring into the conduct"], insert the words "origin, inception and".—[Mr. Dickinson.]
    The CHAIRMAN: The next two Amendments on the Paper to insert the words "control and" and the words "policy and" are covered, I think, by what we have done.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: On a point of Order. Does that affect my Amendment to insert words in line 8?
    The CHAIRMAN: We have not reached that point. A manuscript Amendment has been handed in by the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs).
    Commander BELLAIRS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "Dardanelles," to insert the words " and such Mediterranean naval operations as may have influenced Turkish action."
    My object in moving this Amendment is to have an inquiry in which the public have confidence, as we are having these inquiries, into a matter upon which the public has been and is still greatly exercised. An hon. Friend behind me pointed out in Debate yesterday that the escape of the "Goeben" and the "Breslau" was the cause of the Turks entering the War. It also had a very powerful influence on the Dardanelles operations, which the Commission are to investigate.
    The CHAIRMAN: Now that we have passed the previous Amendment, is not that point really covered?
    Commander BELLAIRS: If the Prime Minister says so, I shall be quite satisfied.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I could not say anything of the kind. No doubt it is a very important—a most important incident of the War, but the escape of the "Goeben" and the "Breslau" had nothing to do with the Dardanelles Expedition at all. If the Government were to agree to that matter being inquired into, the inquiry might be directed to something; which is quite extraneous to the Dardanelles operations, and might even also include the battle of the Falkland Islands.
    The CHAIRMAN: I must point out that that would be going beyond the scope of the Bill altogether.
    Commander BELLAIRS: May I put my point, that it very powerfully influenced, the scope of the Dardanelles operations, because it brought Turkey into the War, and these two ships being inside the Sea of Marmora prevented our own ships from ever attempting to rush the Dardanelles, which is an operation upon which they might have engaged but for the presence, of a very modern ship, the "Goeben."
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: On a point of Order. May I point out that Mr. Speaker ruled yesterday that it was competent for us, in case we enlarged the Bill, to alter the Title. This Amendment depends upon the fact that the Title of the Bill does not extend to it. I understood Mr. Speaker to rule that the extension of the Bill could be made and the Title afterwards amended. It is a matter upon which there is the keenest feeling everywhere. This is an incident which, although it was only an incident, was a rather important one, and it should come within the general inquiry, especially as it is a matter of record. I respectfully suggest that the hon. and gallant Member should be allowed to proceed.
    Mr. BRYCE: What Mr. Speaker said yesterday referred to the introduction of the word "initiation." What Mr. Speaker said was this:
    "If the alteration is made it might necessitate a change in the Title. That is quite possible, but I do not give any decision upon that point at the present moment. I think, however, that it is clear that the House may, if it so desires, insert the word 'initiation.'"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th July, 1916, col. 1725]
    There the Speaker evidently thought the Title might be changed.
    The CHAIRMAN: That is so, undoubtedly, and no doubt an Amendment

    1923
    could be made in the Title to bring it into accord with the Amendment made in the Bill. That is quite different from the point with which I am now dealing. If I were to—accept the Amendment of this wide character, it would be open to hon. Members to extend these inquiries to altogether different operations. The best course would be for the hon. and gallant Member, if he is not satisfied that the words already inserted, namely, "origin, inception and conduct," do not cover his point, to bring in, if he can, some words there to make it plainer. The words already inserted include his proposal, in so far as it is relevant to the inquiry of the Commission.
    Mr. HEALY: Surely there is this point: Supposing the Title is not altered and nobody here moves to inquire into the Falkland Islands battle or any other matter of that kind, that would not be included. The fact that the Government bring in a proposal to limit it to two points of operations does exclude the power of an hon. Member of this House to say that this inquiry should be extended to a third point.
    The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. and learned Member were in my place he would not take that view. We should have no limit. I am obliged to look at the general scope of the Bill. I do not do that too narrowly, but I must look at the general scope of the Bill.
    Sir F. BANBURY: On a point of Order. Am I not right in thinking that the Second Reading confirms the principle, and that it is not in order in Committee to introduce something which entirely changes the scope of the Bill and does away with the principle upon which the Second Reading was carried?
    The CHAIRMAN: That point does not arise here.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I beg to move in Subsection (1), after the word "of" ["including the supply of equipment"], to insert the words " drafts, reinforcements, ammunition, and."
    This Amendment is a very obvious one. It is necessary because the main lines of reference really have much more application to Mesopotamia than they have to the Dardanelles, The question of the sick and wounded at the Dardanelles is really a small question, whereas the question of
    1924
    the supply of drafts, reinforcements and ammunition were vital matters affecting the fortunes of the Army.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I do not object to the words, although I do not think they really add to the scope of the inquiry.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "troops" ["equipment to the troops"], to insert the words "and Fleet." It is obvious that what applies to the Army should apply equally to the Fleet.
    Amendment agreed to.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "the" ["Departments of the Government"].
    This looks a very insidious Amendment, but it is not so really. The reason is that there is some technical doubt—it does not arise so much on this branch of the Clause as upon the other—whether the Government of India is a Department of the Government. It is a Department of Government, but it might be held that it was not a Department of the Government. In order to prevent any ambiguity on that point I propose to omit the word "the."
    Amendment agreed to.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word "namely" ["the following persons, namely'], to insert the words,

    "The Right Honourable Lord George Francis Hamilton,

    The Earl of Donoughmore,

    Lord Hugh Cecil, Member of Parliament,

    Sir Archibald Williamson, Baronet, Member of Parliament, and

    Mr. John Hodge, Member of Parliament."

    Sir H. DALZIEL: It is not my intention, after the way the Government has met us, to press any views I might have on the membership of this Committee any further. My reference yesterday to Lord George Hamilton was in no way intended to be of a personal character. I had the honour of sitting in this House for ten or fifteen years with the Noble Lord, and I never found a more courteous Minister in the House during the time he was in office. He is an industrious man and a man of great impartiality of mind. I never

    1925
    made any objection from that point of view. What I hold is that it would be more satisfactory if we had a non-official member as chairman. An ex-Secretary of State for India is going to sit on a successor of his in that office. Probably the Indian (Government as well as the Home Government will come under review. At the same time I do not wish to make any factious opposition, and I accept the chairmanship of this Noble Lord.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Sir A. MOND: I beg to move, after the words last inserted, to add the words, "Mr. J. C. Wedgwood, Member of Parliament."
    Personal discussion in this matter is somewhat invidious, but, able as the members of this Commission are, there is not one of them who has seen any kind of active service or, to my knowledge, has had any special experience of recent campaigns. We all know that my hon and gallant Friend has seen service in the Dardanelles, in East Africa, and in France. I emphasise the Dardanelles and East Africa because it seems to me that a great many points on these campaigns must turn on what I call more or less tropical conditions and what is and what is not possible under tropical conditions. Therefore, I have felt that it would be a very great advantage to the Commission—I am sure no one will question the ability of my hon. and gallant Friend as a member of the Commission—to have one member who—has seen recent warfare in similar conditions and in similar climates to those in which the campaign in Mesopotamia took place. Eurther, as originally arranged, the Mesopotamia Committee only had five names, compared with six for the Dardanelles Committee. The Mesopotamia Committee is quite as important as the Dardanelles Committee, and I do not know why, originally, a smaller number of members was put on that Committee than on the other. Now, of course, the Dardanelles Committee has seven members and the Mesopotamia Committee has only five. Therefore, I do not think it is unreasonable to maintain a balance. I hope the Prime Minister will accept this name, so as to avoid the necessity of going again to a Division.
    The PRIME MINISTER: On the last occasion I took no exception whatever to the qualifications of my hon. Friend, and I was very careful that the Government
    1926
    should take no part in the Division. The only objection, it seems to me, was that it was adding to the size of the Commission. Here the Commissioners consist of fewer names, and that objection, therefore, does not apply with the same force. As regards the personal qualifications of my hon. and gallant Friend, I do not think there is anyone in the House better fitted to take part in an inquiry of this kind. We occasionally have little breezes and troubles with him, but there is no more popular Member in any quarter of the House or one who has distinguished himself more in this War—intheDardanelles, in East Africa, or in France. He has seen all the various theatres of war and all the different varieties of operations.
    Mr. HAZLETON: Does the Prime Minister propose, in the case of this Commission as well as in the other, to add the name of a military representative?
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: After the words last added, to insert the words "and at least one naval and one military officer chosen from the retired lists."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]
    Mr. DICKINSON: I beg to move, after the word "the" ["inquiry into the conduct"], to insert the words "origin, inception, and."
    Sir J. JARDINE: I have given notice of an Amendment to insert the words "direction and," and I should like to state one reason for that Amendment. Although announced in this House on 18th January last in reply to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. G. Lambert), that the advance to Bagdad was undertaken with the concurrence of the military advisers of the Home Government, it happens that this has not been under stood in some quarters. The "Times of India," a well-known journal, for in stance, in an able article, demands a statement about the responsibility for the sudden decision to push on to Bagdad, showing by whom it was put forward and what arguments were used to overcome the strong and reasoned opposition of all good military critics. To include such important inquiry I have thought the word "direction" should be used, as it is not clearly covered by the words origin, inception, and conduct."
    The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Chamberlain): There is absolutely no difference between my hon. Friend and the Government as to the desirability of having an inquiry into such circumstances as he mentioned in the earlier part of his speech. The question by whom and under what circumstances the orders for the advance to Bagdad were given must clearly be one of the subjects investigated by the Commission. It would be a farce to exclude a matter of that importance from its purview. But I submit that the Amendment my hon. Friend suggests adds nothing to the powers of the Commission. The Commission is directed to inquire in the same terms as those which the Committee has already agreed for the Gallipoli Commission, and the Dardanelles Commission will undoubtedly have the power and the duty of considering such a point as that. My hon. Friend referred also to the general military organisation in India. It must be a matter for the Commission themselves to consider how far they desire to go into that, and how far, for the purpose of their inquiry in arriving at a judgment on the reference which is made to them, it is necessary for them to do it. There will be no objection raised by the Government to their making their inquiry as complete and as searching as they can, though we hope they will not make it more prolonged than necessary.
    Mr. PETO: If the words are as already passed, in respect of the Dardanelles Inquiry, they leave a possible hiatus. "Origin" and "inception" appear to me to be almost a duplication. They both refer to the same matter. Conduct is distinctly limited, and may well be held to leave out such a question as my hon. Friend has referred to specifically, namely, the absolute responsibility for, not the inception of the whole campaign in Mesopotamia, but that vital detail, the advance from Basra to Kut, and then again from Kut to Bagdad. And if, as the right hon. Gentleman says, there is absolutely no difference between the Government and the hon. Member in this matter, I would suggest that he might just as well put in this word "direction," and we could insert it in the case of the Dardanelles Commission on the Report stage. Therefore, I invite the hon. Gentleman to reconsider his intention of withdrawing the word, and I would ask the Secretary of State if there is any possible objection to their being put in, as some of us are extremely anxious, whatever else may be
    1928
    left out of the inquiry, that the finding of the Commission should be perfectly clear, as to the responsibility for the advance' from Kut to Bagdad. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will allow these words, to. go into the Bill.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am entirely in the hands of the House. The last thing that I want to do is to give even the appearance of deprecating a complete and searching inquiry. On the contrary, so far as I am concerned, and I have a certain measure of responsibility, the more complete the inquiry the better I should be pleased, and I can say the same for all concerned. If the hon. Member or the Committee think that any value attaches, to the insertion of these words, I will accept them. I think it is desirable to keep the two Commissions as much on the same lines as possible, otherwise hon. Members, will see what would happen. If any question of the interpretation of the Reference occurred the attention of the chairman would at once be drawn to the fact that one Commission had a different reference, and it would be assumed that it was intended for that Commission to inquire into something which the other could exclude. That is very undesirable. I do not think that these words suggested by the hon. Member (Sir J. Jardine) are necessary, or that they add anything to the present terms of reference, but if the Committee feels uncomfortable, and wishes the words to be put in, I offer no objection.
    The following Amendment stood on the Paper in the name of Colonet YATE: Leave out the words from the word "the" ["inquiring into the"], and to insert instead thereof the words "initiation, direction, and conduct of operations of war in Mesopotamia, including the responsibility for the advance on Ctesiphon, the failure of the night march on Kut, the supply of equipment, guns, munitions, and rations for the troops, the provision for and transport of the sick and wounded, and also the responsibility of those officers, Departments, and Governments, whose duty is was to minister to the wants of the forces employed in that, theatre of war."
    The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. and

    1929
    gallant Member (Colonel Yate) seems to cover a good deal of what is now in the Bill.
    Colonel YATE: I put down my Amendment with a view particularly to carrying out what the Prime Minister told us yesterday he was willing to agree to. He said:
    "The Government has not the least objection to insert 'initiation' or anything you like, because we challenge inquiry over the whole field."
    I gave certain instances which I specially hoped the inquiry would go into, and I give them in my Amendment. I do not want to particularise them, but if we could get an assurance that the inquiry will cover these points, I should be satisfied. There is the question of the advance on Ctesiphon, and there is the case of the great night march across the desert, where the troops were kept waiting from dawn until four o'clock in the afternoon, and had to return. I want to know what the reason was. There is also the case——
    The CHAIRMAN: If we are to have a catalogue of the operations from beginning to end put into the Bill, I do not know where we shall end. I think the hon. and gallant Member must bring up words to cover his points, if the words in the Bill do not do so. We clearly cannot put into an Act of Parliament all the operations covered by his Amendment.
    Colonel YATE: May I ask one question in regard to the final part of my Amendment, as to the responsibility of those officers, Departments, and Governments, whose duty it was to minister to the wants of the forces employed in that theatre of war. I want to know whether the words "Departments of Government" cover such things as the responsibilities of the Government of India, or, say, the responsibilities of certain officers from India? I should like to have an assurance on that.
    The CHAIRMAN: The Motion that the Clause stand part of the Bill would give the hon. and gallant Member his opportunity.
    Further Amendments made:
    After the word "of" ["the supply of"] insert the words " drafts, reinforcements, ammunition, and."
    After the word "troops" ["equipment for the troops"] insert the words "and ifleet."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]
    Sir J. JARDINE: I beg to move, after the word "those" ["responsibility of those"], to insert the words "officers and."
    My object in moving this Amendment is to fix responsibility more accurately on particular officers in order to prevent other officers being wrongly assailed. We have heard from time to time that it is the Financial Department of the Government of India that has done some of the harm. Sometimes it is said it is the Government of India, and it is forgotten that there are two Departments, and it may be that the responsibility belongs to one, possibly to both, and possibly to neither. Therefore, I would like to fix the responsibility on officers as well as Departments. In the present phraseology, there seems to be some doubt as to what is meant by the words "Governments whose duty it has been." It may be argued that you are to find out whether it is the Government here or the Government in India that has been at fault. I note that the Prime Minister in dealing with the matter as regards the Dardanelles struck out the word "the." That would help me. I think we ought to get at the responsibility of high officers as well as the responsibility of Governments, and that would remove the ambiguity that lies in the present phrase. I do not wish to say that anybody has been at fault, or to prejudice the matter in the least, but as rumours and statements get about, I would like to get a full chance of getting at the officers responsible as well as the Government responsible.
    Mr. MALCOLM: I think we all know what is meant when you inquire into an actual Department. We know that it means the officers. It does not mean the walls, or the tables. We know it means the officers, and we do not want the officers specially specified. I think it is quite unnecessary to waste the time of the Committee on a point of that kind. I do want an assurance, however, if I may have it from the right hon. Gentleman—although it is almost unnecessary to ask for it, I should like it put on record—that when we say the responsibility of the Departments may be inquired into, that includes such responsibility as might attach to the Viceroy, the Commander-in-Chief, or' the Finance Minister.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Or a Secretary of State.
    Mr. MALCOLM: That is extremely satisfactory. I want also to be assured that under no Official Secrets Act or anything like that, will the Commission be debarred from getting all the information it wants?
    Sir J. D. REES: I would appeal to my hon. Friend not to proceed with his Amendment. I think it is unnecessary, and I am rather surprised that it comes from him, because I think it is a well recognised principle of Indian administration that the head officer in every department is "the" department. I do not think this Amendment is at all called for. The word "department" is quite sufficient.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I hope my hon. Friend will not press his Amendment. I am sure it is not necessary for the purpose he desires to serve. I interrupted my hon. Friend (Mr. Malcolm) because it must be perfectly clear that the proposal of the Government is not that the Commission should inquire merely into the responsibilities of the Government of India, or of the Commander-in-Chief of India, but, equally, responsibility in other directions can be inquired into, and they stand, we stand, and I stand exactly on the same footing before this inquiry as any other officer of either Government whose action may be impugned.
    Sir J. JARDINE: After what has been said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Further Amendment made: Leave out the word "the" ["of the Government whose duty it has been"].—[Mr. Chamberlain.]
    Motion made, and Question proposed, " That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Sir H. DALZIEL: I have only one suggestion to make. The Clause says that the Commission is to inquire into the sending of a military expedition to the Dardanelles. To that I think might be added Gallipoli. You cannot send a military expedition actually to the Dardanelles. I mention this matter in order that the right hon. Gentleman may consider the point before the Report stage.
    Sir J. D. REES: The right hon. Gentleman said that the words would cover him. I doubt if the words do cover a Secretary of State. The words are, "the responsibility of those Departments of Government whose duty it has been," etc. I must confess that the right hon. Gentleman is
    1932
    the exception that I should have thought did not come within these words, but if he is satisfied that he does, it is not for me to gainsay.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand, part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Powers of Commissioners.)
    (1) The Commissioners appointed under this Act (in this Act referred to as the Commissioners) shall have all such powers, rights, and privileges as are vested in the High Court or in any judge thereof, on the occasion of any action, in respect of the following matters:—

    (a) The enforcing the attendance of witnesses and examining them on oath, affirmation, or otherwise, and the issue of a commission or a request to examine witnesses abroad; and

    (b) The compelling the production of documents; and

    (c) The punishing persons guilty of contempt;

    and a summons signed by one or more of the Commissioners may be substituted for and shall be equivalent to any formal process capable of being issued in any action for enforcing the attendance of witnesses and compelling the production of documents.
    (2) A warrant of committal to prison issued for the purpose of enforcing powers conferred by this Section shall be signed by one or more of the Commissioners, and shall specify the prison to which the offender is to be committed, but shall not authorise the imprisonment of an offender for a period exceeding three months.
    (3) Any person may appear before the Commissioners by counsel or solicitor if authorised to do so by the Commissioners.
    (4) The Commissioners may act notwithstanding any vacancy in their number, and three shall be a quorum.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: I beg to move, in paragraph (b), after the word "documents," to insert the words " including unofficial communications."
    There is some substance, but not a great deal, in this Amendment. The Commission has the power to call for all official documents required. Official documents will cover Cabinet memoranda, telegrams, and communications, and so forth. What I have in my mind as the reason for this Amendment is, as the Secretary of State for India will admit, that there are some-

    1933
    times communications which pass between this country and the Viceroy, or some of his officials, covering views which are not always included in the official papers of this House. I think these are rather important sometimes as a guide as to what were the real views of the persons taking part in these communications at any particular time. Therefore, I would like to see power given to the Commission to ask for these unofficial documents. Another class of document that I want to be assured they have the power to call for is that of communications from the Red Cross Society to India. I am informed that the British Red Cross Society telegraphed several different offers to India of assistance in Mesopotamia, but they were turned down by the Indian Government every time. That shows laxity or something else, and that ought to be inquired into by the Commission. Therefore, I would like to make it clear that the Commission is to have power to send for documents not necessarily official documents.
    6.0 p.m.
    Sir J. D. REES: The documents produced must be documents bearing upon some public question connected with this inquiry. This proposal seems to be of an extraordinarily wide and inquisitorial character.
    Sir HENRY CRAIK: I am certain that the effect of this Amendment would be the exact opposite to that which the right hon. Gentleman intends. The word that stands in the Bill covers all the documents that are in existence. If these words were put in every unofficial document might be burnt to-morrow, and you have no power to prevent it. In the course of the inquiry they might find out all sorts of documents and then call for them to be produced, and the effect of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment would be to limit and not to increase the powers of the Commission.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There is no doubt whatever that the powers which are given to the Commission, which are the powers of the High Court, extend to calling forth any unofficial documents which are relevant to the inquiry, and I presume that my right hon. Friend asks for nothing further than this.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: I had a special reason for obtaining a declaration from
    1934
    the Government on the subject, and, having done so, I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: I beg to move, after (c) to leave out the words " more of the Commissioners," and to insert instead thereof the word " Commissioner."
    I do not see why these words "or more of the Commissioners" should be inserted. I do not suppose that there is any particular harm in putting them in, but there is not the least necessity for having these words, and therefore I think they should not be inserted.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will not press this. I think it better to leave the words, as they appear in the Bill.
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: If the right hon. Gentleman thinks it better that the words should be in, I have not the least objection.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words " Provided that where a person summoned to attend abroad for the purposes of a Commission or a request to examine witnesses issued under this Act fails to attend then if such person, when summoned, is employed in service under the British Crown, his failure to attend shall be deemed to amount to contempt of court, and he shall be liable to be dealt with accordingly on his return to British territory."
    This Amendment is of more importance than the last. The Bill gives power to take evidence by commission. It is quite obvious that as evidence has to be collected from all parts of the world, this part of the Bill will be put into operation. It is framed so that they would have the same power as is now possessed by a judge of the High Court. The power of a judge of the High Court is, unfortunately, rather circumscribed in this case, because all that he can do under a rather cumbersome process is to give leave to issue a commission to take evidence abroad. But there is no means by which you can compel the attendance of witnesses. The King's writ does not run abroad, and, unfortunately, it happens frequently that when you send out a Commission to take most important evidence the people who are summoned to

    1935
    attend do not come, and you have no means at all of making them come. In order to get over that the process was devised of issuing letters of request to a foreign country requesting them to authorise the Courts to summon people to attend before the Commission and to enforce their attendance. It is quite obvious that that process at the present time, supposing that the request were to issue in Persia, would be no good at all. There is no Court in existence which could enforce the attendance of the witnesses. You cannot introduce into an English Bill anything to enforce the attendance before such a Commission of foreigners in a foreign land. The only thing you can do, and which I had in my mind when I drafted this Amendment, was to say that if anybody summoned to attend is directly or indirectly in the service of the Crown, either in the Army or Navy, or attached to a Consulate, or is doing Government work in any form, then if lie neglects to attend his neglect should be contempt of court, and when he returns to English land he can then be attached and punished for his contempt. That is the only remedy of which I can think to enforce the attendance of anybody at these most important tribunals set up for the collection of evidence. It is obvious that neither the Commissioners themselves nor any number of them can journey to Mesopotamia and various parts of the world to collect the evidence that is required. Much of the evidence is not available in England because those from whom it could come are employed abroad, and the Amendment which I now suggest is the only remedy of which I can think.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think that my hon. Friend and I are at one as to what is desired, but if a witness is required his attendance can be enforced under an Order in Council. The case which my hon. Friend wants to meet is a case in foreign territory. If he considers the circumstances, I think that that really means either in the Army in France or, more probably, in Mesopotamia, and that it was specially Mesopotamia which he had in view. In the case of Mesopotamia, we are in military occupation of that part of the country which we hold and the military will see to it that any witness required by the Commission presents himself before it. My hon. and learned Friend's Amendment provides a punishment for an official of the Crown who refuses to attend if ever he
    1936
    returns to this country, but it would not provide any means of compelling the attendance of anybody who was not an official of the Crown. I do not quite see why you should make a distinction between the two. If the evidence of anyone in Mesopotamia is required we must either take that evidence in Mesopotamia or secure the return of the person here, if the person whose evidence is required can come home.
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: Would it meet the point to substitute "British subjects," which would include British subjects who are not in the service of the Crown?
    Mr. ANNAN BRYCE: Does what the right hon. Gentleman say apply also to Egypt?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I understand that an Order in Council would secure the attendance.
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: I venture to suggest that no Order in Council would do so.
    Amendment negatived.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (3).
    Power is given to the Commissioner to give leave to any person to be represented by a solicitor or counsel. Therefore there may be a disposition to leave this discretion in the hands of the Commissioner. It becomes very difficult when certain interests are represented at the Commission for others not to desire to be represented. What I wish to guard against is, that we should have a large number of persons employed in the inquiry who would prolong to an undue extent the proceedings of the Commission. I am afraid that, once we open the door in this way, many people will think that they are entitled to have counsel from day to day, which would only mean the prolongation of the proceedings of the Commission, and it is with the object of preventing that that I move this Amendment.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think it possible that if the Sub-section were omitted altogether, it might be argued that there was a right for everyone to have counsel, and this would be the exact opposite of what the right hon. Gentleman wants.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: That is not on the Statute.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It gives a discretion to the Commission, and I think that

    1937
    the right hon. Gentleman may be satisfied that they will not desire to have counsel more frequently than is necessary. But they may think it right in the course of their inquiry to grant some particular individual whose actions are questioned the assistance of counsel in presenting his case to them. I have no desire, any more than the right hon. Gentleman, that the proceedings of these Commissions should be prolonged indefinitely by a great array of counsel. I cannot conceive that the Commission will for a moment permit such a thing as that, and I think it would only be in any exceptional case that it would be allowed. I put this to the House, that it should be left to the discretion of the Commission whether anyone should be allowed representation by counsel.
    Mr. WATT: I think this is a most important Amendment that has been moved by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir H. Dalziel) for the omission of this particular Sub-section, which enables the Commissioners, if they think fit, to allow counsel to appear. The words of the Subsection authorise the Commissioners to allow counsel, and it may be taken as an indication that the Commissioners would in every instance permit counsel to appear before them. The great desideratum in setting up these Commissions is certainly that they shall speedily report. No doubt each man that is accused before the Commission would be entitled to bring counsel, and that being so, the work of the Committee would be extended very much, and the time will be a great deal longer—if this is permitted—before we could get a Report. Every officer who is charged with any incompetence will take care to be represented by the most able counsel he can obtain, and that means a great prolongation of the proceedings. The Secretary of State for India has said that if the Subsection were omitted it would indicate to the Commissioners that every man could have counsel. I think it should be made clear that every man who is charged before these Commissions is not to have the services of counsel. Are we to understand that these bodies will not be able to administer justice if officers brought before them have no counsel? Surely those officers will get justice, whether they are helped or hindered by counsel. I think the right hon. Gentleman should accept the deletion of the Sub-
    1938
    section, and put in another part of the Bill the instruction that counsel are not to appear.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I hope the Government will not do what I am sure would alter the whole scope and character of the Bill. What we want is a businesslike investigation and Report, but if everybody is to be represented by counsel not only will the proceedings be prolonged but a very great financial burden will he imposed upon a great many persons. I do not know whether the Prime Minister proposes to be represented by counsel; I certainly do not, and I do not think there could be anything more ridiculous than to authorise persons who have been concerned to be represented by the talent at the Bar. That can hardly be conceived, and it would destroy the whole scope of the investigation. Therefore I trust that the Government will not adhere to the Sub-section, but will leave to the Commissioners the protection of any interests they may consider to be affected.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: What I said was that there might be cases, rare cases, where the Commission would desire to allow counsel to appear. I accept the Amendment.
    Mr. PETO: Before the right hon. Gentleman accepts this Amendment, I should like to point out that there are cases of persons who are intimately concerned in this inquiry, and who cannot possibly attend. I rather hesitate to name them, but, for instance, there is General Townshend. If you took the whole of this Sub-section out, and you do not give representation in those rare and exceptional cases to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred, I think you might be doing something which would be a very gross injustice.
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: Speaking as a lawyer, though people may suggest that one cannot give an independent opinion on a question of this kind, yet I submit that every criminal in this country is entitled to be represented by an advocate. There are cases which must come before the Commission, involving the reputation and whole future of officers whose conduct is impugned, and is it to be said that they are not to have the ordinary right of every man who is taken before a tribunal of our country, to be represented by an advocate if he so feels inclined? The right hon. Gentleman, if he likes to strengthen the power of the Commissioners, might say

    1939
    that the Commissioners were only to allow an advocate to appear for anybody whose conduct was impugned under exceptional circumstances, but I do appeal to the right hon. Gentleman not to deny to those whose conduct may be seriously called in question, against whom a report may be seriously called in question, against whom a Report may be issued that would affect their whole future life the right to be represented by counsel. That is the ordinary right of every man in this country. The provision might be strengthened by saying that the person shall not be represented by counsel unless he has obtained the leave of the tribunal before whom his conduct is impugned. That would be hard enough. In ordinary circumstances it is the free right of everybody to be represented before the tribunal. If you you are going to cut that down, I suggest that you are taking away the right, under our system of justice, of every man to be represented by an advocate.
    Sir W. BEALE: I really do not see that the omission of this Sub-section would make any material difference. The Commissioners would have the right to regulate their own procedure, and I cannot see why, if they thought that a person was not capable, in justice to himself, of presenting his own case with sufficient clearness, they should not have the power to allow him to be represented by counsel. That would not necessarily import all those terrifying consequences referred to by the right hon. Member for Kircaldy (Sir H. Dalziel), of long speeches and attempts by counsel to delay the proceedings. Where the Commission thought it necessary they could allow counsel to appear, just as in a criminal case, where the judge calls upon some junior counsel to represent the prisoner, who was not doing himself justice in the presentation of his case. I think that the prohibition of counsel would be very mischievous. At the same time I think that the Sub-section might be omitted, because it appears to me that the Commissioners have power to regulate their own procedure, and have power, if they think it necessary, to show such representation by counsel as would be useful.
    Mr. DILLON: I was moved by the passionate appeal of the hon. and learned Gentleman who sits below me (Mr. Hume-Williams), who said it was the inherent
    1940
    right of every man in this country to be heard by counsel. Has. the hon. and learned Gentleman forgotten the 1,800 prisoners tried last week, not one of whom has been allowed to have counsel? It is very strange how differently men feel when they look at a matter from a different angle of vision. The hon. and learned Member was moved to real passion at the idea of any man accused, while his conduct is being investigated by either of these Commissions, not being able to exercise that right to appear by counsel which is so deeply embedded in the British system of justice. But the hon. and learned Member never thought of the 1,800 men, struggling for their liberty, and who were tried last week without a single one of them having any counsel whatever. I am not making any complaint in this instance, because the Committee are fair-minded men.
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: I never thought of them, because for a few seconds we had escaped from the Irish question. That is why.
    Mr. DILLON: The hon. and learned Member brought the Irish question up. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh"!] Certainly. Why did the hon. Gentleman make a passionate appeal about the right of every man whose conduct is impugned before a tribunal in this country to be represented by counsel?
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: We are not thinking of the Sinn Feiners every minute of the day and night.
    Mr. DILLON: I am not going any further into this matter. I myself, from the point of view of the efficiency of the Commissions, think this Sub-section ought to go out.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I am not a lawyer, but I may be allowed to give my opinion upon this Sub-section. I think the position taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto) is a very true one. I think it might be necessary in the case of a person whose conduct is impugned that he should be able to instruct counsel to appear for him. I agree with that; but if everybody had the right to instruct counsel to appear, probably the inquiry would go on for many years. I know the great possibilities of members of the Bar—still, they are sometimes somewhat lengthy. I have had opportunities of hearing them in the Committee Rooms upstairs, and I find that not only are counsel lengthy, but if one counsel speaks

    1941
    at length if there is another counsel in the room he always gets up to put his learned friend right.
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: Is that practice confined to members of the Bar?
    Sir F. BANBURY: Counsel unfortunately have greater powers of expression than the ordinary civilian, and they can take a very long time to express their views, while the ordinary civilian expresses them at very much shorter length. I think it is necessary to limit very strictly the power of calling counsel. I am sure some power is necessary. If this Sub-section is left out perhaps my right hon. Friend the Secretary'of State for India (Mr. Chamberlain) will consider whether he could not on the Report stage introduce a Sub-section which would give power, in certain exceptional circumstances, to allow counsel to appear. I think that is really necessary.
    Mr. HOLT: It seems to me that matters are getting into a somewhat dangerous position. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for India resisted the Amendment on the ground that it produced precisely the opposite effect to that intended by its Mover, and that if this Sub-section were struck out every person would have an inherent right to appear by counsel. Some lawyers say they will, and others say they will not. It is most important that we should lay the point down in black and white, and not leave to subsequent dispute what are the rights of persons with regard to being represented by counsel. If they are not to appear by counsel we had better say so in the Act in plain English, and in no way leave the question subject to doubt. I think the Commission ought to have power in rare cases to allow persons to be represented by counsel. I have had experience of the proceedings in Committees upstairs, and I know perfectly well that some people are not able to express themselves in a manner to do themselves justice. I have never thought it right to deprive anybody of the services of counsel, as it might subject people to considerable injustice. I should like to see the Clause phrased to provide that no person shall appear before the Commission by counsel or solicitor unless authorised. The presumption would be that no person would be allowed to do so without the consent of the Commissioners.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: The position is that the Government have accepted the Amendment.
    Mr. PETO: On a point of Order, Mr. Chairman. Is that so?
    Sir H. DALZIEL: It is so. It is not a question for the Chair, but for the Government. The speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite sought to prove that everyone concerned had the right to appear by counsel. Does he realise to how many people that applies in this case? I was impressed very much by the case of General Townshend, and no doubt prisoners are of some importance at the inquiry, and it is not absolutely certain that their particular views would be represented if left in official hands. Therefore, I would ask the Government to stand to their present position, and I would ask the Secretary for India to consider between, now and Report whether a Sub-section may not be reinserted something like this; "Any person whom the Commissioners are satisfied is unable to be present may appear before the Commission"—and then, the right hon. Gentleman can use his own words. An absent man, a prisoner of State, in enemy country, may have his conduct impugned, and in such a case the Commissioners should have power to give representation. There is also the possibility that they might postpone that part of the inquiry. Probably it would meet the views expressed if the Sub-section were now omitted and the matter considered in the way I suggest.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I was so impressed by the views expressed from all quarters that I agreed to accept the Amendment. I stated that the Government had no strong views on the subject, and that I was perfectly willing to accept the Amendment if that was the general wish. It is our desire in this matter to follow the general wish of the Committee. Personally, I am not, unfortuately, for the moment a lawyer, and perhaps I am not the best person to interpret the exact effect of an Act of Parliament. I doubt whether it makes any difference to retain, or leave out the Section.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Then why was it ever brought forward?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I did not draft the Bill and I cannot tell you. I believe the Commissions have power to regulate their own procedure, and that they can be trusted to do so in such a way that, on the one hand, you will not have the abuse of a great array of counsel prolonging the—proceedings indefinitely and turning the

    1943
    inquiries into lawsuits in which there are countless parties, and, on the other hand, in such a way as to provide fair treatment for an officer in the unhappy position of 'General Townshend, who is a prisoner of war in the enemy's hands, and whose case I am quite sure the Commissioners would not allow in any way to be prejudiced by that fact. I am not quite clear whether instructing counsel in a case like that would be the best way of doing it, but that is not what I have to argue now. If you take the words out I believe that the Commission would inherently have the power, as was pointed out by the hon. and learned Member (Sir W. Beale). That is the way in which I would much prefer to leave the matter, confident in the discretion and good sense of the Commissioners. With regard to this Bill, the Government are very anxious naturally to carry the general consent of the Committee. We do not want to impose our will on Parliament unnecessarily, and we want rather to make the inquiry such as they desire to see it. I do not, therefore, desire to press the one solution or the other on the Committee, and I am perfectly ready to strike the words out in the meantime.
    Sir J. D. REES: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to stick to the Sub-section. This Commission has to take the evidence not only of gallant officers, but has to deal with Persians, Greeks, Turks, Medes, Elamites, Parthians, and dwellers in Mesopotamia, and you may often want evidence from Turkish contractors or Arab chiefs. If the Commission go to Mesopotamia, how is that to be done without any provision for counsel? An Eastern witness requires to be coached in order to let him know what it is all about and so that his evidence may be given in intelligible form. The Clause is so worded that it is perfectly clear that general representation by counsel is not contemplated. The House has confidence in the gentlemen appointed to form the Committee, and the last thing they are likely to do, if they have any saving sense of sanity, is to allow general representation. In the case of Oriental witnesses, it will be necessary to have some sort of representation, in order to get at what the witnesses have to say. I hope they will hear such witnesses, and thus get light thrown on proceedings which they will not get from any other quarter.
    Mr. HAZLETON: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will hold to his original determination to agree to the Amendment. I think the precedent referred to by the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) is a very good one, and that the Government will folow in this case the practice adopted by the Advisory Committee with regard to the Irish cases. There is far more reason in this case why this Sub-section should go out. The Irish prisoners were being tried for their freedom, while this is mainly an inquiry into mismanagement and incompetence. As I understand the position, whatever conclusion the Commission may come to, it will not itself be the final Court in cases where charges are found against officers either of the Army or the Navy, and that if such officers are found guilty of military offences its only duty will be not to convict the man and send him to prison or intern him, but to recommend that he should be court-martialled. The right hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment was inclined to modify it in the case of General Townshend. We all, of course, sympathise with the position of General Townshend, but I do not believe that such a provision is necessary even in his or any similar case. No words at all are needed, since the Commission has power to regulate its own procedure. The Advisory Committee which dealt with the Irish prisoners had this exact case before them. The prisoners applied to be represented by counsel, but the Committee decided it could not allow it, and if they had done so their labours would probably have been tenfold more laborious. Even in the case of an officer like General Townshend there can be no real inquiry until after the termination of the War. How is counsel to be instructed? Are the legal advisers to go to Constantinople? And if they get in there, how are they going to get out? There must be a court-martial under the King's Regulations upon General Townshend and on all officers who have surrendered when they are released at the end of the War, and that will afford opportunity for investigation into those cases. In any event, on the precedent of the Irish case, we on these benches will resist this Sub-section being retained. We believe that that precedent is a good one and that this Commission can regulate its own procedure.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: With all deference to the right hon. Gentleman I

    1945
    think it would be desirable to have legal opinion on this matter. I am glad to see that the Solicitor-General has just entered the House, for now we shall know exactly where we are. We are told that these Commissioners have all the powers of the High Court. According to Clause 2 they have those powers with regard to attend—'ance of witnesses, the production of documents and the punishment of persons guilty of contempt. Those are the only powers of the High Court which are conferred upon them. That does not appear to include the right to give anybody leave to appear by counsel. I ask, is that so or not? Some Members do not want to have counsel at all, and the right hon. Gentleman told us that if the Sub-section is struck out the Commissioners would still have the right to allow counsel. I had the honour a few years ago of sitting as a member on the Select Committee in a somewhat similar inquiry into the. Putumayo atrocities, and in that case we gave the accused persons the right to appear by counsel. It is not that everybody is to be represented by counsel. One or two seriously implicated witnesses have a right to appear by counsel, and counsel will be of very great assistance to the Commissioners. The Commissioners are quite able to take care of themselves and not to let counsel rove over other matters or make long speeches. I think when you get a serious matter of this kind you should let anybody incriminated appear by counsel, whether he is present or absent. That is true, in the case of General Townshend, but there is something even more important than that. The Government themselves are implicated. The Prime Minister said he did not desire to be represented by counsel. But it is quite possible that after the Commission has been sitting for a fortnight it may be found that the Government ought to be represented by counsel. Probably the Attorney-General might take the part of counsel, and see that nothing undesirable is done, and generally watch the interests of the Government. In my view, in the interests of the Government themselves there ought to be a right to appear by counsel, and it is perfectly clear that the draftsmen of this particular Bill thought that without this Clause there would not be that right. These Bills are drafted by Government draftsmen, who would not have put in this Clause if they had thought that
    1946
    without it the right existed, even the restricted right, to appear by counsel. This is a point that requires careful consideration, and I press the Solicitor-General, whom I am glad to see present, to tell us exactly what the law on the matter is.
    Mr. DICKINSON: I think the right, hon. Gentleman has made a great mistake in assenting to the withdrawal of this Sub-section. In my opinion it would, be far better to leave the Sub-section in, and if necessary alter it slightly when the Report stage comes on. I have had some experience of Commissions, and my own view is that counsel materially assist them. A Commission is always glad to know that it has the authority of Parliament to exercise its discretion as regards individual applications for counsel. That,. I take it, is the object of the Clause, and that nobody is to appear by counsel unless that is authorised by the Commission. You may put it in that form if you like. I feel certain that if you leave out the Clause the Commssion will be faced with the question of whether or not they should allow a person to appear by counsel before them. I hope the Government will still, stick to the Clause.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir George Cave): My hon. Friend ratner appealed tome to give my views on this Sub-section, and I will give him the best opinion I can. It is quite clear to all of us that the normal procedure of Commissions of this kind is that the Commissioners shall themselves, examine the witnesses. The Bill is drawn, on that assumption, because hon. Members will see in Clauses 2 and 4 that the examination of witnesses is distinctly put. in the hands of the Commission. It is plainly the normal procedure that is contemplated. At the same time, I do not feel any doubt myself that if a Royal Commission thinks it desirable that they should be assisted by counsel in the examination of witnesses, it is entirely within their powers to allow that. I think the Commission would have full powers. At the same time, I do rather feel myself that the insertion of a Sub-section of this kind' gives the Commission a clear indication of what their powers are. If they have these powers without the Sub-section, it does not do any harm, while if there is any doubt, and the Committee thinks the power should exist, it is better to put the Sub-section in. My right hon. Friend was willing to withdraw the Sub-section if the

    1947
    whole Committee desired, but, as there is a difference of opinion, I think it is better to retain the Sub-section to-day, and I shall be glad to discuss the matter with my right hon. Friend between now and the Report stage.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: I hope the Solicitor-General will bear in mind what he has just said when we come to the Report stage. I think the general opinion of the Committee is that in exceptional cases it ought to be in the power of the Commission to allow counsel to appear, at the same time we do not want to open the door so that if a solicitor can find a client he will be allowed to appear. It must be remembered that the State will have to bear the expense of all this, which is a very important fact. The State has had to bear the expense in other such cases. In a recent one I remember some Members of this House received about £1,000 because they were engaged as counsel. I think we should be very careful how we open the door to the appearance of counsel. I hope the Solicitor-General will consider this point between now and the Report stage.
    Sir J. JARDINE: I can approach this question from the judicial point of view, having had a long judicial experience in the Indian High Court, and I am entirely in favour of the Clause as it stands. It merely empowers the Commission to hear counsel or solicitors if they so desire. But it also has this great advantage, that people who are far away, many of them in Mesopotamia or somewhere else, can appear by counsel. In the Indian Courts it is found a great convenience for parties to have solicitors appearing for them in chambers, for instance, when a document has to be produced, because it saves a witness a long journey. Moreover, a counsel appearing and giving an explana-
    tion may remove a doubt in the Commissioners' minds about the person affected, and may save endless time. I think there are many perfectly good reasons why we should keep this Clause in. It is very desirable that people who are incriminated should have the utmost chance of having their case adequately heard. The Commissioners are not likely to submit to delay or to being bullied by any counsel. My experience is that counsel and solicitors do help in the hearing of cases, and generally save the time of the judge, and I do not doubt that that will be the case here. The Commissioners are not obliged to admit counsel and solicitors in every case; the Clause leaves them full power to do it or not, as they please. I think, with the Solicitor-General, that they ought to be given this indication that they have that power, and that they may exercise it under the authority of Parliament. Altogether I would press for keeping a Clause like this in the Bill that is now before us.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: I ask leave to withdraw this Amendment, on the understanding that it will be considered on Report.
    Mr. LUNDON: I cannot allow this Amendment to be withdrawn, and I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman agreed to its withdrawal. I object to naval officers and Army officers being represented by counsel before these Commissions, when prisoners in connection with recent events in Ireland are not allowed counsel. If one class is to have the assistance of counsel, the other class should have it too. We shall challenge a Division.
    Question put, "That the words of the Section down to the word 'counsel' stand part of the Question."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 165; Noes, 35.

    Division No. 45.]

    AYES.

    [6.56 p.m.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

    Bird, Alfred

    Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughby N.

    Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir J. B.

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Brace, William

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Fell, Arthur

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Broughton, Urban Hanlon

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Astor, Hon. Waldorf

    Bull, Sir William James

    Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Galbraith, Samuel

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Gilbert, J. D.

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Glanville, H. J.

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Goulding, Sir Edward Alfred

    Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

    Coats, Sir Stuart A. (Wimbledon)

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

    Beach, William F. H.

    Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Cory, Sir Clifford John (St. Ives)

    Harris, Henry Percy (Paddington, S

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, S.)

    Bellairs, Commander C. W.

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Haslam, Lewis

    Middlebrook, Sir William

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Millar, James Duncan

    Sherwell, Arthur James

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

    Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.

    Shortt, Edward

    Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

    Morgan, George Hay

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Hill, James

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Stanton, Charles Butt

    Hodge, John

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Terrell, George (Wilts., N.W.)

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Newman, John R. P.

    Thomas, J. H.

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Nield, Herbert

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Horne, Edgar

    Norton-Griffiths, J.

    Tickler, T. G.

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Partington, Oswald

    Turten, Edmund Russborough

    Hudson, Walter

    Pearce, Sir Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Valentia, Viscount

    Hume-Williams, William Ellis

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

    Wardle, George J.

    Hunt, Major Rowland

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Jacobsen, Thomas Owen

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Watson, Hon. W.

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

    Phillips, Sir Owen (Chester)

    Wedgwood, Major Josiah C.

    Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire)

    Pratt, J. W.

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

    Whiteley, Herbert James

    Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts., Stepney)

    Prothero, Rowland Edmund

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel Edward

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

    King, Joseph

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

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

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

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

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

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

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

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

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Worthington Evans, Major L.

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Robertson, Rt. Hon. J. M. (Tyneside)

    Yate, Colonel C. E.

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

    Rowlands, James

    Young, William (Perthshire, East)

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Younger, Sir George

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

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

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Malcolm, Ian

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

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Mr. Gulland and Lord Edmund Talbot

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

    Meux, Hon. Sir Hedworth

    NOES.

    Barnes, Rt. Hon. George N.

    Hackett, John

    O'Dowd, John

    Boland, John Pius

    Joyce, Michael

    O'Malley, William

    Bryce, John Annan

    Kelly, Edward

    O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

    Cosgrave, James

    Kilbride, Denis

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Crumley, Patrick

    Lundon, Thomas

    Reddy, Michael

    Dillon, John

    McGhee, Richard

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Meagher, Michael

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Doris, William

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Duffy, William J.

    Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

    Whitty, Patrick Joseph

    Ffrench, Peter

    Molloy, Michael

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Nolan, Joseph

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Nugent, J. D. (College Green)

    Mr. Hazleton and Mr. Lynch.

    Graham, Edward John

    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment," put, and agreed to.

    Sir R. JARDINE: I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), after the word "counsel" ["may appear before the Commissioners by counsel or solicitor"], to insert the word "pleader."
    In many cases in certain districts in India there are no solicitors and no barristers, and I think the Commissioners ought to have the opportunity, if necessary, of hearing a pleader of the High Court. Whether such a pleader comes within the definition of the word "counsel" is a matter of opinion. But I do not think the matter should be overlooked. If my right hon. Friend will give me his assurance that before the Report Stage he will consider whether the case is covered by the word "counsel," I will be prepared to withdraw the Amendment.
    Sir G. CAVEsignified assent.
    Sir J. JARDINE: On that assurance I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Sir C. HENRY: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will now consider whether the quorum of three should not be made four?
    Sir H. DALZIEL: May I ask when the Report stage is likely to be taken—not to-night?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Oh, no. I think the Prime Minister undertook to insert further Amendments on the Report stage; at any rate, time will be given to consider Amendments, and the Report stage cannot be taken to-night. As to when it will be taken I cannot say without consultation with the Prime Minister. In regard to the other point raised by the hon. Baronet behind me (Sir C. Henry) it is a matter on which I have no strong view.

    1951
    When it was proposed that one of the Commissions should consist of five members and the other of six, we thought that the quorum should not be more than three. If the House desires now that the Commissions are enlarged to enlarge the quorum to four, I do not think that there will be any objection on the part of the Government. It may, however, be convenient to keep the quorum to a few members of the Commission. Either or both of them may wish to send some of their members to other parts of the world, being unable to go as a full body. Unless, therefore, the House presses the matter I should be inclined to leave the quorum as it stands.

    CLAUSE 3.—(Discretion to Hold Proceedings Either in Public or in Private.)
    (1) The Commissioners shall, having regard to the interests of the public and to naval, military, and diplomatic considerations, allow or refuse to allow the public or any portion of the public to be present during any proceedings of the Commissioners.
    (2) If any person who is present at any proceedings of the Commissioners at which the public or any portion thereof are not allowed to be present discloses, without the authority of the Commissioners, either directly or indirectly, anything that has taken place at those proceedings, he shall be liable to punishment for contempt of court.
    Amendment made: At end of Sub-section (1) to add the words "provided that a full and complete record in shorthand shall be kept of all evidence, whether taken in public or in private."—[Mr. Hazleton.]
    Sir H. DALZIEL: I beg to move, in Subsection (2), at the beginning, to insert the words "During the continuance of the War."
    As I read the Clause it makes it an offence for any person during a definite time to break the secrecy of the Commission, which is regarded as contempt of court. It does not even say when it will cease to be an offence. Therefore, as the Bill stands, it will be an offence only so long as we have the machinery to bring about the punishment of the persons so acting. For example, after the Commission ceases to exist a person may not be punished for disclosing anything that was
    1952
    regarded as secret during the existence of the Commission. My original object was that during the continuance of the War the public interest should be protected, so that no person should give away matters which might be of a confidential character, or helpful to the enemy But after peace is declared such a person may talk as much as he likes or give away as much information as he likes. There would then be no danger to the public interest. There is, of course, the further question as to whether the Commission is going to cease to exist before or after the War. If the Commission ceases to exist during the War, then probably and possibly, that secrecy which was maintained might be broken after the Commission has ceased to exist. At all events there would be no punishment because the Commission was not there to decide whether or not the action was contempt of court.. I move my Amendment to see what is the position of the Government. If the Commission has reported and the War is over there cannot be much harm in allowing anything to be told about the secrets of the Commission.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman perhaps sees that whatever the exact words the Amendment raises the point as to whether or not we should provide for the alternative of the Commission lasting longer than the War as well as the War lasting longer than the Commission. There is something more than that. If these inquiries are of the character that I think the House intends them to be, documents must be produced which will be of a highly confidential character and whose confidential character will adhere to them even after the War. There will be many documents which could not, I think, be produced during the War which could be produced without any injury the moment the War is over. That is quite certain, but there will be others which will continue to be confidential even after the War is over. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be content not to press his Amendment now, and I shall consider the wording of the Clause a little more carefully before the Report stage.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: I am quite content to do that. I would point out that under the machinery of the Bill you could not deal with the matter except it might be under the Official Secrets Act; otherwise it would require new machinery. I beg; leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    CLAUSE 4.—(Indemnity to Witnesses.)
    (1) A person examined as a witness by the Commissioners shall not be excused from answering any question put to him, or from producing any document, on the ground that the answer thereto or production thereof may criminate or tend to criminate him.
    (2) Every person examined as a witness who, in the opinion of the Commissioners, makes a full and true disclosure touching all the matters in respect of which he is examined, shall be entitled to receive a certificate signed by the Commissioners, stating that the witness has, on his examination, made a full and true disclosure as aforesaid.
    (3) If any criminal proceeding (including a proceeding by court-martial) is at any time thereafter instituted against any such witness, in respect of any matter touching which he has been so examined, the Court having cognisance of the case shall, on his application, and on proof of the certificate, stay the proceeding.
    (4) Nothing in this Section shall apply to the case of proceedings for having given false evidence before the Commissioners, or of having procured, or attempted or conspired to procure, the giving of such evidence.
    Mr. PETO: I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (1). This and a subsequent Amendment I have put down because I think the Clause, as drafted, goes a good deal beyond what we understood were the intentions of the Government. The intention was to protect witnesses who give satisfactory evidence before the Commissioners front any proceedings which are taken afterwards in the way of victimisation—because they have incriminated somebody else or done something of the sort. But if the wording of Subsection (2) be studied it will be seen that an explanation is needed. It seems to me that we require serious alterations in the Bill. Sub-section (3) says:
    "(3) If any criminal proceeding (including a proceeding by court—martial) is at any time thereafter instituted against any such witness, in respect of any matter touching which he has been so examined, the Court having cognisance of the case shall, on his application, and on proof of the certificate, stay the proceeding."
    1954
    There is no word there of any court-martial or proceeding of that kind having been instituted in consequence of the evidence that the witness may have given before the Commission. It means, as I understand it, that any witness who has once given evidence before the Commissioners which they regard as satisfactory, and has received a certificate from those Commissioners, shall never be summoned to any court-martial or any proceeding in regard to any matter upon which he has been examined before the Commissioners. That is a very large order indeed. This Commission is not intended to take the place of any proceedings that may be necessary against any person in regard to matters which the Commission have inquired into. It is no doubt right to give some protection to witnesses against improper proceedings that might be taken against them because they have implicated themselves, or some other person who, out of motives of revenge, or anything else, might bring proceedings against them. But to whitewash them completely and to say all that anyone has got to do before this Commission is to give a full disclosure of all he knows, and that then no court-martial or other proceedings should be taken against him in this matter, seems to me to be going entirely against the intention of the House in setting up this Commission. As each of the Sub-sections of this Clause hang one upon the other, I think they all ought to go out together. I will therefore move to omit the words from the beginning of Subsection (1) to the end of Sub-section (4).
    Mr. DICKINSON: Does not that mean moving the omission of the Clause?
    The CHAIRMAN: Yes, it does.
    Mr. PETO: I will only move to omit the figure (1), because that figure will not be necessary if (2), (3), and (4) are omitted.
    The CHAIRMAN: An Amendment cannot be moved to leave out the figure (1). I had better put it as it stands on the Paper. Sub-section (1) in this case is not the whole operative part of the Clause, and therefore it is not out of order to move the omission of Sub-section (1).
    Sir G. CAVE: This Clause, or a Clause of this kind, is a common form in this kind of Bill, and for reasons which I am sure my hon. Friend will appreciate. The first object of the Bill is to get at the truth, and, therefore, you have to make it perfectly clear that anyone may safely tell all he knows. Unless

    1955
    you are going to have witnesses whose tongues are not tied, you cannot get at all the facts. For that very reason, in such an inquiry it is necessary to have some provision of this kind. What we say in this Clause is that if a man comes before the Commission to give evidence, and he may be brought there, he shall not be entitled to refuse to answer questions on the ground that the answer may incriminate himself. Unless you have that, you may find that an important witness, who alone can prove the whole facts, objects to tell all he knows on the ground that his answers may incriminate himself, and then you defeat the whole object of the inquiry. Perhaps I may be allowed to add a few words in respect to the subsequent Subsections. If you say that a man must answer any question, you must go on to protect him against consequences which might otherwise follow. Without going into the details of the later Sub-sections, I think my hon. Friend will find in all these cases—I have matters in my mind such as election petitions—you have the consequential condition that when a man has answered the whole questions fully and fairly, and the Commission is satisfied he has made a full and true disclosure of all the matters referred to, he is protected against any consequences. I think it would be perilous and injurious to the object the whole House has in view if this Sub-section were not inserted.
    Mr. HOLT: Is it in order to have one general discussion on the Amendments, instead of setting them point by point?
    The CHAIRMAN: I think the Committee had better take them separately.
    Sir F. BANBURY: The announcement which my right hon. and learned Friend has made is very important. I was present in the House on Second Reading when the Prime Minister, or, at any rate, some right hon. Gentleman on that Bench, stated, as I understood, that the object of this Clause was merely to prevent what is called in certain circles victimisation, so that in the case of a man who came forward and gave evidence, his superior officer in the Army or a public Department might not take advantage of his having given evidence, and dismiss him from the service, or degrade him, or do something to punish him for having given that evidence. That, I think, is absolutely right. But now my right hon. and learned Friend goes much further, as I understand, and he says that
    1956
    a person—it might be a great general or even a Secretary of State—who comes forward and admits he has made a very serious error, for which he ought to be called to account, because he tells the truth neither a court-martial nor any other proceeding can follow. I hope I may be wrong, but that is what I understood. There may be criminality, and the whole object of this inquiry would be lost. What we want to find out is whether there has been any criminal offence, and, if found against any person, that person ought to be punished. Therefore, I really trust my right hon. Friend will either make some Amendment in this Clause or reconsider it before Report.
    Mr. HOLT: I want to reinforce what the right hon. Baronet has just said. So far as I can understand the Clause, it appears to me that if a man comes before the Commission, and, on being asked to explain the reason for his doing so-and-so. on a certain date, he turns round and says " I was blind drunk," and it turns out to be true, he is saved from proceedings against him by this Clause. I do not believe that that was what the House had in its mind at all. I would submit that at this inquiry we should compare the Commission rather to a coroner's inquest. A coroner's inquest inquires into what has taken place, and may finally bring in a verdict of murder, or manslaughter, or whatever it may be against a man, who is then put on his trial. I think the Commissioners ought to have it in their power, at any rate, to recommend that persons who appear before them, and appear to be guilty of misconduct, should be put upon their trial, and if the Commissioners have not effective power so that persons shall be brought to trial, then I can only say the whole of this thing is a sham.
    Mr. ASHLEY: I agree in one way with the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, but, on the other hand, you must consider the position of the man who is brought up as a witness. You send for a man and say it is in the public interest that he should answer certain questions, so that the House of Commons and the country may know how these various expeditions have been carried out, who was responsible at the Dardanelles, and who in Mesopotamia. If you compel a man to do something which, in ordinary circumstances, he is not compelled to do, and he incriminates himself, surely it is only fair and right that you should not take advantage of the

    1957
    evidence that has been extracted from by force majeure, and institute criminal proceedings against him. I admit it has its disadvantages, but I cannot see how the bon. Gentleman who stands up for the rights of the individual can support compelling a man to give evidence against his will, compelling him to incriminate himself, and then, on the evidence you have extracted from him, bring a criminal charge against him, and perhaps hang or shoot him, because that is the logical consequence. After all, that is the point we have got to consider. I admit that there are grave disadvantages in the wording of this Subsection, and surely it is not beyond the wit of the legal talent which adorns the Government Bench, to devise some words which would enable the public interest to be properly looked after, and the truth to be extracted, and yet preserve a man from being punished for something that he is compelled to give in the public interest. I could not vote for the omission of this Sub-section, because I think, if omitted, it might cause some injustice to individuals.
    Mr. DICKINSON: Especially as the Prime Minister is here now, I think it is as well that we should understand what he said yesterday. This point was raised by my hon. Friend (Mr. Holt), and the right bon. Gentleman said:
    "With regard to Clause 4, I can assure my hon. Friend we do not desire that the operation of that "Clause should be such as to exclude from subsequent investigation, and it may be punishment, anybody who is shown to be responsible for what has happened. It is a common form of Clause which is put into every Bill of this kind, and if any hon. Members think that it Is too wide or they have some Amendment to suggest, I shall be very pleased to consider it…"
    And then he said:
    "It is put into every Bill. It is simply to exonerate him from the consequences of giving evidence which might incriminate him in some other proceedings. It has no other scope or purpose."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th July, 1916, cols. 1728–1729, Vol. LXXXIV.]
    That is the position, and I understand the Government do not want, as this Clause, I take it, does want, the mere fact of a man having made a clean breast, to exonerate him from any court—martial or other proceedings afterwards. Of course, at the present moment we are only discussing the first portion of this Clause, but I may perhaps point out that, having made provision for enabling a man to be compelled to produce a document,—although it may incriminate him, the Clause goes on to say:
    "(2) Every person examined as a witness who, in the opinion of the Com-
    1958
    missioners, makes a full and true disclosure touching all the matters in respect of which he is examined, shall be entitled to receive a certificate signed by the Commissioners, stating that the witness has, on his examination, made a full and true disclosure as aforesaid.
    (3) If any criminal proceeding (including a proceeding by court-martial) is at any time thereafter instituted against any such witness, in respect of any matter touching which he has been so examined, the Court having cognisance of the case shall, on his application, and on proof of the certificate, stay the proceeding."
    As it is drafted it would be perfectly clear that the man is entitled to say "Give me this certificate," and that will protect him from all further proceedings of any kind. I admit the difficulty which has been raised that if you force a man to disclose you are bound to give him some remedy or protection from what will follow, but I am perfectly certain you must find a different form of words in order to protect the position laid down by the Prime Minister that this is not going to exonerate persons who may have been proved to be guilty of neglect or wrong actions simply because they make a clean breast of it before the Commission. I hope the Solicitor-General will give this matter further consideration as regards the actual wording necessary to carry out the intention of the Prime Minister.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I confess that the words of the Clause, as drawn, are too wide, and go beyond the necessities of the case. What we have in view is that if a man has extorted from him by compulsion disclosures which involve incriminating himself, he ought to be protected against those disclosures being used as evidence against him in subsequent proceedings. That has always been the rule, but if there is independent evidence by which he could be made amenable he ought not to escape simply because he has given incriminating answers that ought not to be used against him. I think the Solicitor-General agrees with me in that. I think the best plan would, be to remould this provision on Report and bring it up in another form satisfactory to hon. Members.
    Mr. POLLOCK: May I suggest that the Clauses which are to be found in the Corrupt and Illegal Practices (Prevention) Act, 1883, and which form the model from

    1959
    which this Clause is taken, would really meet the case. Section 59 of that Act provides:
    (1) A person who is called as a witness respecting an election before any Election Court shall not be excused from answering any question relating to any offence at or connected with such election, on the ground that the answer thereto may criminate or tend to criminate himself or on the ground of privilege;
    Provided that:

    (a) a witness who answers truly all questions which he is required by the Election Court to answer shall be entitled to receive a certificate of indemnity under the hand of a member of the Court, stating that such witness has so answered; and

    (b) an answer by a person to a question put by or before any Election Court shall not, except in the case of any criminal proceeding for perjury in respect of such evidence, be in any proceeding, civil or criminal, admissible in evidence against him."

    That is exactly what the Prime Minister has suggested, and if Section 59 of that Act we're put in place of Clause 4, the exact suggestion of the Prime Minister would be met, and we should be following a procedure which has been adopted in similar circumstances and has proved successful, and which has met all cases both in securing the evidence necessary and proper protection for the witnesses.
    Sir G. CAVE: That Section seems to be very appropriate to the case. I do not pledge myself to those particular words, but I will bear them in mind. I think that some protection ought to be given to these witnesses.
    Mr. WATSON: The Corrupt Practices Act does not cover documents. I know this question of documents is not at issue, because they would be available in Scotland and probably in England in any criminal trial or court—martial.
    Mr. PETO: After what has been said I desire to withdraw my Amendment, but I should like to understand whether the Solicitor-General intends to accept an Amendment to leave out this Clause or does he propose to leave it in the Bill in its present imperfect condition 1
    The CHAIRMAN: That point can be dealt with when the Clause is put.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    The following Amendment stood on the Paper in the name of Mr. LYNCH:
    At the end of Sub-section (3) to insert the words,
    "That if any witness, whether in the service of the State or in private employment, be subjected in consequence of his evidence to any kind of threat, intimidation, or vexatious questioning, or any kind of prejudicial treatment whatever at the hands of any of his superior officers or employers such officers or employers shall be deemed guilty of an offence for which the penalty of imprisonment may be enforced at the discretion of the Commission."
    The CHAIRMAN: This Amendment as it stands does not read.
    Mr. DICKINSON: I hope the Solicitor-General will give consideration to the Amendment which I put down on the Paper in regard to this point.
    Mr. LYNCH: Is there any way in which I can introduce my Amendment, which is not quite on the same footing as those that have been disposed of?
    The CHAIRMAN: If the lion. Member examines his Amendment he will find that it does not read, and it is too indefinite altogether.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. PETO: In view of the suggestion made by the hon. and learned Member for Warwick (Mr. Pollock) to introduce a Section from the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Act, I wish to ask if there is any object in leaving this Clause in the Bill?
    Sir G. CAVE: That question can be dealt with on Report.

    CLAUSE 5.—(Sittings Outside the United Kingdom.)
    The Commissioners may hold sittings outside the United Kingdom, and if any such sittings are held in India, this Act shall have effect as respects those sittings as if a High Court or Chief Court in British India were substituted for the High Court.
    Mr. WATT: I beg to move, after the word "Commissioners," to insert the

    1961
    words "or any of their number to whom such authority may be delegated."
    The probability is that the Government will accept this Amendment, and it is quite a different question to that of the quorum. It deals entirely with sittings outside the United Kingdom and will enable the Commission to send one or two of their number abroad to get information, while the others are continuing their investigations.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think that the whole powers of the Commission ought to be exercised by less than three members. This Amendment raises the question of whether the Commission ought to have power to sit in duplicate, one section in Mesopotamia and the other in London, if they so desire. I promise the hon. Member that I will consider his point and I will consult with the Solicitor-General before the Report stage.
    Mr. WATT: I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir J. D. REES: I beg to move, after the word "sittings," to insert the words "in Mesopotamia and elsewhere."
    The Clause will then run, "The Commissioners may hold sittings in Mesopotamia and elsewhere outside the United Kingdom." I am aware that it is contended that the words of the Clause cover the point because Mesopotamia is outside the United Kingdom. The Clause provides the procedure if the Commission sits in India, but I think if anybody outside the House of Commons unaccustomed to the language of draftsmen read this Clause he would say that there was provision made in this Dardanelles and Mesopotamia Bill for sittings only in India. Nevertheless, it is the case that there is a special Clause contemplating sittings in India and not contemplating sittings in Mesopotamia. Now, as Mesopotamia is the particular place to which the inquiry refers, it seems to me that it should be specifically mentioned here, so as to make it clear to all and sundry who are not accustomed to legal language or the artifices of the draftsmen that sittings are contemplated in Mesopotamia as well as in India. My Amendment does no harm to the structure of the Clause. The Prime Minister, when speaking yesterday, told me that the sittings in Mesopotamia were not excluded by this Clause. I am per-
    1962
    fectly well aware of that, but I submit that it is desirable that in this Bill the sittings in Mesopotamia should be contemplated and specifically mentioned. I know there are Amendments on the Paper which are, in substance, like my own. I thought, at first, that the words "Persian Gulf" should also be inserted, but the limits of that once blessed country, "Mesopotamia," have never been laid down. Basra, which is commonly supposed to be in the Persian Gulf, is regarded as being in Mesopotamia, and therefore it is not necessary to insert more places than Mesopotamia, and my Amendment will cover that point. I may be told that it is not necessary to insert my Amendment, but I hope the Government will accept it, because my words are not only harmless, but I think, from a public point of view, they would be beneficial.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Surplus words in an Act of Parliament are mischievous. This Amendment is not required in order to enable the Commission to sit in Mesopotamia if they wish to do so. Why pick out Mesopotamia in particular? Why not Salonika?
    Sir J. D. REES: Because the Bill concerns the Dardanelles and Mesopotamia.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Exactly. May it not be necessary to carry out inquiries in Egypt with regard to the operations in Mesopotamia? May it not be necessary to carry out inquiries in some of the islands with regard to the operations at the Dardanelles? My hon. Friend proposes to name one particular country to which this Commission should go. We have drawn the Bill so as to enable them to go wherever they may find it necessary for the purposes of their inquiry.
    Mr. R. McNEILL: My hon. Friend wants to turn this Act of Parliament into an advertisement. He wants people outside to understand that it is possible for the Commission to hold meetings in Mesopotamia. He does not contend that there is any difficulty in holding such meetings. Therefore, the whole object of the Amendment is to advertise to people outside the purposes of the Act and the powers in the Act.
    Sir J. JARDINE: I have an Amendment of much the same sort, but I have put it down for rather different reasons. The other day, in reply to a question of mine, I understood the Prime Minister's

    1963
    objection to having this word "Mesopotamia" put in the Bill was that we had no civil jurisdiction there, and that Mesopotamia in that way differed from India. I may have been wrong in my understanding of what he meant to say, but that was certainly what I understood. So far as I know, foreign jurisdiction of the Crown does exist now in Basra and other parts of Mesopotamia to which this Commission would probably go. I put a question on 9th February of last year asking the Under-Secretary of State for India whether any civil officers under the Government of India had been sent to Basra, and if any arrangements had been made for administering civil and criminal justice in that town and the adjacent territories now in British occupation. I got this answer:
    "The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Provisional arrangements are being made for the administration of civil and criminal justice by non-military Courts."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th February, 1915, col. 396, Vol. LXIX.]
    That seems to show that above a year ago jurisdiction of a non-military sort was being set up there and was being administered by Indian civil servants. The Foreign Jurisdiction Acts all recognise that may be created by conquest as well as by concession, custom, and other means. I think, therefore, that the objection taken to my proposal was based on a mistaken fact, and that there was no power for the Commissioners to sit in Mesopotamia. I would like to see the word " Mesopotamia " included in the Bill, and for that reason I support the Amendment of my hon. Friend, though I would rather press my own Amendment.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot do that now.
    Mr. HAZLETON: May I ask if the new Clause further on the Paper ["Australian citizens"] in the name of the hon. Member for West Clair (Mr. Lynch) will be in order?
    Sir J. D. REES: Is the hon. Member in order in intervening on my Amendment 1
    The CHAIRMAN: I must hear what the point is.
    Mr. HAZLETON: If not, I desire on this Amendment to raise a few questions which I will otherwise wait to develop until the new Clause is reached.
    The CHAIRMAN: I see no reason so far to rule out the new Clause of the hon. Member for West Clare.
    Mr. HAZLETON: Then I will wait until that Clause is reached.
    Question, "That the words proposed be there inserted," put, and negatived.
    Amendment made: Leave out the words "If any such sittings are held in India,"' and insert instead thereof the words " For the purpose of any such sittings in India or of anything required to be done in India by or on behalf of the Commissioners."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]
    Colonel YATE: I beg to move, after the word "India" ["If any such sittings are held in Lidia"], to insert the words "Mesopotamia, Persia, the Persian Gulf, or Arabia." I desire to put these words in the Bill, because the Commission, or a part of it, may go outside Mesopotamia into Persia, Arabia, or the Persian Gulf. I should also like to have an assurance that they will be at perfect liberty to carry on their inquiry afloat or ashore, whichever is most convenient.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: They have a general power to sit outside the United Kingdom, and the effect of my hon. and gallant Friend's Amendment would only be of a limiting character.
    Question, "That the words proposed be there inserted," put, and negatived.
    Amendment made: Leave out the words "as respects those sittings." [Mr. Chamberlain.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 6.—(Reports.)
    Any Report of the Commissioners shall be laid as soon as may be before both Houses of Parliament, and the Commissioners may, if they think fit, make interim Reports.
    Sir J. D. REES: I beg to move to leave out the word "may" ["The Commissioners may"], and to insert instead therof the word "shall."
    It is considered desirable by many people interested in this question that there shall be an interim Report. It is perfectly true that the Commissioners may, if they think fit, make interim Reports, but equally they may not think fit, and Parliament may be without a Report for a very long time. I shall be prepared to agree to three months, six months, or any period which the right hon. Gentleman might approve, but I do think there should be some provision that

    1965
    they shall submit an interim Report. There are some pressing matters relating to an expedition which is not dead like the Dardanelles Expedition, but which is continuing and in which there is a more living interest than there is in the Dardanelles Expedition.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I hope my hon. Friend will not press his Amendment in the particular form in which he has put it down. It is no good directing the Commission to make an interim Report if they have not carried their investigations to a point which enables them to do it. There is a serious point raised by a manuscript Amendment of the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), which proposes that the Mesopotamian Commission should be directed to make an interim Report with regard to the medical arrangements in that campaign. The Government are willing to accept that Amendment if the House so desire. I believe that is the point on which the public most desire to have information and to have a Report at the earliest possible time. I quite understand that the House would not wish the Report on that subject to be delayed until the Mesopotamian Commission have finished the whole of their inquiries. I hope the announcement I make that the Government will accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Mayo will satisfy my hon. Friend and enable him to withdraw his Amendment.
    Sir J. D. REES: Certainly; that meets my case.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. WATT: I beg to move at the end of the Clause to add the words,
    "and shall in any event issue a Report within three months after the passing of this Act, and their final Report within six months after the passing of this Act, unless this period shall be extended by Resolution of the House of Commons."
    I was asked to move this Amendment by the hon. Member for Pembrokeshire (Mr. W. Roch), but after what the right hon. Gentleman has said I feel it is hopeless to expect that he will accept anything in the nature of a compulsory Report within three months and a final Report within six months. The idea of the Amendment is to expedite the work of the Commission, and I think the House desires that it should be expedited.
    Question, "That the words proposed be there inserted," put, and negatived.
    Mr. DILLON: I beg to move at the end of the Clause to add the words—
    "Provided always that the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the Mesopotamian campaign shall proceed with all possible expedition to inquire with regard to the provision for the sick and wounded and shall report the results of their inquiry on this matter before proceeding with the rest of their inquiry."
    Major-General Sir IVOR HERBERT: On a point of Order. I understood that the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Pembrokeshire (Mr. Roch) was moved.
    The CHAIRMAN: It was disposed of.
    Sir IVOR HERBERT: Not in such a way that anyone could hear it.
    The CHAIRMAN: I thought that I put it quite distinctly.
    Sir IVOR HERBERT: No one here could hear it.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 7 (Short Title) agreed to.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Australian Citizens.)
    "In respect to Australian citizens no powers shall be vested in the Commissioners additional to those which would exist had Section 2 not been enacted."—[Mr. Lynch.]
    Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Mr. LYNCH: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    May I ask the representative of the Government whether this Clause, or any modification of it which would substantially express the same thing, will be accepted, because, if so, it will dispense with the necessity of my saying anything further?
    8.0 p.m.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Of course, the hon. Member's statement places me in some difficulty. I am not quite clear what his object is. In his endea—vour to facilitate business, which I hope he will maintain to the end, he has refrained from explaining it to the House. I conceive the position to be that an Australian in this

    1967
    country is a British citizen on exactly the same footing as any other; he is subject to exactly the same law as any other British subject, and I do not think that under this Act there can arise any occasion for an inquiry in Australia itself.
    Mr. LYNCHThere may not arise any inquiry in Australia itself—I think that is very improbable—but it is possible that an Australian who fought at the Dardanelles may find himself, by virtue of this Act, when this Bill becomes an Act, under the inculcation of a law which would constrain him to do something, to suffer something, which might give umbrage even to Australian opinion. Or, to put the matter in another way. We are here enacting in the British Parliament a law of which the incidence might strike an Australian citizen in his capacity as an Australian citizen. There are certain matters in which the status of Australia with regard to this country is not perfectly defined, and there is a tendency, less marked than it used to be, even in this Parliament to encroach on the domain of Australia. The Prime Minister even to-day, inadvertently no doubt, committed a faux pas in speaking of Mr. Andrew Fisher as being a representative of one of the Colonies. I admit it was quite a slip of the tongue, but that is an infringement of the right of Australia to be regarded as a Dominion, or, as it is sometimes called, a self-governing Dominion, though I think that even the word "self-governing" is rather unnecessary and patronising. If the representative of the Government here will not accept either this Clause or some modification of it in words which would express the meaning, then I must push it to a Division, because I want the Australian Government to know that there is a possibility that by an enactment in this Parliament there may be an infringement on the domain which they consider, and rightly consider, their own.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I thought I had made it clear to the hon. Member that it would not be so.
    Mr. LYNCH: I will be happy if the right hon. Gentleman will make it quite clear.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I will try. The Commission will have no local powers in Australia, but I think it is quite clear that it must have such power over Austra-
    1968
    lians in this country as it has over anyone else in this country. We cannot make a distinction between people who are in this country in this matter. What the Australian Government and people would naturally be jealous of would be any infringement of their own rights within their own country, but I have never heard an Australian resident in this country claim to be treated differently from any other British subject.
    Mr. POLLOCK: Might I point out to the hon. Member for West Clare (Mr. Lynch) that he seems to be proceeding under a misapprehension of the facts and of the law. There is at the present time an Act—I think it is called the Colonial Evidence Act—which would, under the proper procedure, give all these powers to a Court sitting over here if it required evidence to be given in Australia for the purpose of proceedings over here, or if evidence were required here to assist proceedings in Australia. It deals with all these matters, and at the present time the self-governing Dominions and the Mother Country are bound together by a system by which evidence under this Section can be obtainel by a proper process. There is nothing in this Act which cannot be obtained by the present system, if put in force, although it may take a little longer to carry it out. Section 2 is no new thing. It is really founded upon the system of the Colonial Evidence Act, which at the present time works, and works usefully, between the two countries.
    Mr. HAZLETON: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chamberlain) has quite met the whole of the case of my hon. Friend (Mr. Lynch). He has stated that this Commission will have no legal powers in Australia. Of course, we will not contest that satisfactory position, which partly meets my hon. Friend's case; but I would like to put to the right hon.' Gentleman one or two cases as illustrations, and to ask him how those cases which I will give should be met. We know there were very large numbers of Australian and New Zealand troops in the Dardanelles, and they had over these troops high Australian officers. It may be that for the purposes of the inquiry to be held by the Dardanelles Commission some of these officers may require to be examined, not only the higher officers, but those who can bear witness to the terrible conditions

    1969
    that these troops had to go through in Gallipoli. Many of these men may have been wounded, and have gone back to Australia. Will this Commission have power to compel those witnesses to return to this country for the purpose of giving evidence? I would like the House to look into that point. I do not think that that is an encroachment upon the rights of the Commonwealth of Australia which should be permitted for a moment, and, of course, a way out would be that the Commissioners should communicate with the Government of Australia with a view to seeing if the Government could spare the services of these gentlemen.
    I would only like to say on this New Clause one other word. Very many thousands of Australian and New Zealand troops went from these great Dominions to the Dardanelles. Their record there was one that has not been surpassed by any troops in any part of the operations of war. They went out from Australia under their own organisation, and with their own equipment to a certain extent. We have heard something of the terrible scandals that have taken place in connection with the Dardanelles operations, but throughout it all neither the Home Government, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, nor the Prime Minister, from start to finish of what has gone on in public and in the Press, has ever said one public word in vindication of the Commonwealth Government of Australia, or of the Dominion Government of New Zealand, although they are perfectly well aware that neither of those Governments has one iota of responsibility for the scandals and mismanagement that have taken place. I say it is due to those Governments that that should have been stated, not now but long ago, by some responsible Minister in this country.
    Mr. ASHLEY: I am rather sorry that the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken made those few last remarks, because they are calculated to disturb the brotherly and friendly feeling which now exists between the Dominions and the Mother Country. No one is anxious to run down the great Dominions, as the hon. Gentleman seems to think. I am sure we are all most proud of them, and I think the slight note of discord the hon. Gentleman struck will do him and his Friends no good here if they wish to get other
    1970
    measures through the House. With regard to this new Clause, I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that it is surely perfectly possible, without sending anyone out to Australia to take evidence or compelling Australian witnesses to come back here, to Mesopotamia, or wherever the Commission is sitting, to use the methods of the High Courts of Australia. That Court would be communicated with, and I understand they would then have powers to compel the attendance of witnesses in Australia. There they would be examined on oath, the results of the examination would be sent home to the Commission, and that would meet all the difficulties the hon. Gentleman imagines to exist. There would be no more inconvenience to witnesses in Australia to attend the High Court than there would be to an English citizen to attend a High Court here.
    Sir W. BEALE: I think I can ease the minds of the hon. Members who have supported this new Clause if they are really under any apprehension that the Bill is in any way prejudicial or slighting to Australians in the way suggested. This Bill gives the Commission simply the powers of the High Court. At present any Australian in this country can be examined as a witness in this country under the usual pratice, or a Commission can be sent to Australia if it is more to his convenience or to his interest that his evidence should be taken there. This Bill, of course, also gives this Commission these new powers to issue instructions to take evidence. How the hon. Gentleman can imagine that there is any intention to treat an Australian in any different way from an English subject who may happen to be in Australia or in any other country from which it is inconvenient for him to go in order to give evidence, I cannot understand. The Australian and English subjects would be treated with the same machinery, and in the same respect, and I do not see any ground whatever for the apprehension.
    Sir S. COLLINS: I think the hon. Member for North Galway (Mr. Hazleton) is in error in his statement that no mention has been made of the matters of which he has spoken, and I think he will be pleased to hear that the Prime Minister, and the Secretary of State for War also, have constantly, not only here, but in other places

    1971
    I think, spoken in praise of the work done by the Australian and New Zealand troops.
    Mr. HAZLETON: The hon. Gentleman is in error. I did not say anything in reference to the fact that no tribute had been paid to the valour of these Australian and New Zealand troops. I did not insinuate that for a moment. I said that no acknowledgment had been made by the Government of the fact that the Australian and New Zealand Governments are not in any way responsible for the misfortunes or the errors of management which took place in the Dardanelles.
    The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): This question is quite apart from the Clause.
    Mr. LYNCH: I may say at the beginning that I had not the slightest intention of introducing any vexatious matter. I have been greatly, but not entirely, reassured by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chamberlain) and the hon. and learned Gentleman who spoke from this side (Mr. Pollock). What was in my mind was this: This Commission will have some powers of punishment, and some powers even of disculpation, and that might touch Australian subjects upon whom the Australian Government would desire to exercise either those powers of punishment or of disculpation. Whereas I feel very jealous of any kind of infringement of the complete self—governance of Australia, I do not think I exaggerated that susceptibility as I represented it, because I think it is shared by Australians everywhere, and that it may be put forward now as one of their national characteristics. In view of what has been said, however, and of the consensus of opinion in the House, I beg leave to withdraw my new Clause.
    Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Power to Suspend Officers for Inefficiency.)
    The Commssioners shall have power to suspend from his duties, pending the result of their inquiries, if they think the efficiency of the public service is involved, any officer of the naval or military forces, or any civil officer of the public service against whom charges concerning the conduct of military or naval operations may be made.—[Mr. Hazleton.]
    Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Mr. HAZLETON: I beg to move "That the Clause be read a second time."
    I hope the Secretary of State for India will see his way to accept it.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir.
    Mr. HAZLETON: I am sorry for that decision, because there is a point of real substance and importance in it. The chief point is that there may be men in the public service—either the Army, the Navy, or the Civil Service—who have certain responsibilities for the mismanagement or incompetence that has gone on in connection with the campaign either' in the Dardanelles or Mesopotamia. In the course of their investigations, these Commissions may find that a certain percentage of these men still hold responsible positions in the public services. I dare say some of them have been retired or removed to other spheres, but we are led to understand that there are men holding responsible positions in this country and elsewhere who have grave responsibilities in connection with parts of these misfortunes. If the Secretary of State for India will not accept this Clause, perhaps he will tell the Committee what is to be the procedure in regard to those officials—whether they be officers of the Army, Navy, or Civil Services? Are they to be allowed to hold their positions and to continue in them, it may be to add to the incompetence and mischief they have already done? We have had an instance on more than one occasion in the last few weeks where charges were made against public servants in Ireland, and they were investigated by an Advisory Committee which made its recommendations with regard to them. Those officials then went home to Ireland. Some of them were reinstated in their offices, but later on the Home Secretary comes along and appoints a Special Commission to go over to Dublin to investigate these cases, and, in the meantime, these men are suspended from the duties of their offices in Ireland. Why should these Irish officials be suspended while the officers of the Army and Navy who are responsible for these misfortunes and perhaps for the loss of thousands of lives, are allowed to draw large sums in salaries and to continue there until the end of the War, when a great many of them ought to have been court-martialled already?
    I do not ask in this Clause that these officers should be dismissed from the public service, although the Government in many

    1973
    cases did dismiss officials in the public service in Ireland without waiting even for a trial before the Commission they have now appointed. If the right hon. Gentleman will not adopt the suggestion I make in this Clause, what is to be the procedure? These Commissions will investigate these cases and will find that certain men are responsible. The recommendations of these Commissions cannot be made for the next twelve months, eighteen months, or even two years. Are we to wait until then to rid the public service of men who have made these blunders and shown this incompetence? If they make an interim recommendation, will the responsibility lie on the heads of the various Departments to whom they belong? Will the Commission make certain recommendations, and will it be for the Secretary of State for War or the First Lord of the Admiralty to act upon those recommendations? By far the simpler, the more straightforward, easier, and better plan would be to give these Commissions power to deal with these cases provisionally themselves until they have had an opportunity of considering the cases fully. In the interests not only of the persons concerned, but of the officials of the public service, this is a workable arrangement, and I would urge the Secretary of State for India to reconsider the decision to which he has come not to accept this new Clause.
    Mr. ASHLEY: While listening to the hon. Gentleman, and also to his neighbour (Mr. Lynch), I was reminded of an advertisement which struck our eyes so often in London a few years ago, which said:
    "All roads lead to Earl's Court."
    It seems now that all roads, whether they come from the Dardanelles, from Mesopotamia or Australia, at once, for some magic reason, all lead back to Dublin. I imagine that I should be as much out of order as the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hazleton) was if I referred to Dublin and the Irish officials he mentioned. In all seriousness, I would say that it must be apparent to the hon. Gentleman that it is quite impossible for such powers as he proposes to be given to these two bodies. Surely we are not going to imitate the deplorable custom which prevailed during the French Revolution of allowing roving bodies of Parliamentarians to go up and down the Armies, sending generals home, interfering with military operations, and generally being a nuisance and helpful to the enemy! We
    1974
    ought not to accept this new Clause. We ought to rely upon the military and naval authorities here in England dismissing any incompetent generals and admirals there may be. When the Report comes out—I hope it will come soon—then is the time to get rid of people who are inefficient and to take such steps as may be necessary to make the public services more efficient.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: His Majesty's Government could not possibly accept this Clause, which proposes to give executive powers to the Commission. If either of the Commissions feel that it has found and proved a case of gross unfitness of a person still in a responsible position which he has already filled, or who has filled a similar position, they can make an Interim Report on the subject; but as to the executive power of suspending officers or the punishment of those concerned, the Government cannot accept a proposal to entrust that to the Commissions.
    Mr. LYNCH: I am partly in accord with my hon. Friend (Mr. Hazleton) and also partly in accord with the hon. Member for Blackpool (Mr. Ashley), except in one part where he was distinctly out of order—that is, where he strayed out of his course to throw aspersions on the French Eevolu—tion. If it were in order, I could give the Committee, a discourse on that matter, be. cause I consider that the French Revolution was one of the most saintly works of moral sanitation the world has ever seen. The main force of the hon. Member's argument was, however, correct. The alternative put forward by the Mover of the new Clause, although it puts the Government in a bad light in regard to Ireland, should be a warning to us not to give these excessive powers to these particular Commissions. Let the whole responsibility rest entirely with the Cabinet, just as responsibility for all proceedings in Ireland also rests with the Cabinet. If I can use my powers of persuasion to induce my hon. Friend to withdraw, I would do so.
    Mr. FLAVIN: If there has not been incompetence shown by some of the leading generals in connection with the Dardanelles and Mesopotamia, why set up these two Commissions at all? It is quite evident, from the public point of view, that there was gross incompetence and negligence by the Home Department or by the General Officer Commanding the Forces. There must be some evidence in the Admiralty or in the War Office as to the people who were responsible for incompetence

    1975
    neglect, and want of foresight in connection with the loss of valuable lives and stores in the Dardanelles and Mesopotamia campaigns. In refusing to accept this Clause the right hon. Gentleman takes the position that it will only be after the evidence is heard and the Report made by these Commissions that they will be able to get at those people who are guilty of the great loss of life. The proceedings may be taken on the Report of the Commission the same as has been taken in connection with the lamentable affair in Dublin by a countryman of our own, Captain Colthurst, who rendered service at the front, and who, during his military career, for all we know, may have caused the loss of many valuable Irish lives fighting for the freedom of small nations during the five or six months that he was at the front. We have able men to-day holding responsible military positions in His Majesty's forces coming up before the military tribunal in Dublin and swearing that this man was of unsound mind.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not discussing the Clause which is before the Committee.
    Mr. FLAVIN: I am discussing it in so far as my hon. Friend has moved an Amendment giving this Commission power to deal with those who are guilty of negligence and who are incapable of carrying out the trust which is reposed in them. I am illustrating my argument by pointing out what had been done in Dublin. It is only after this Commission hears the evidence and makes its Report, according to the right hon. Gentleman, that the House of Commons or the War Office or the Admiralty will be able to know who are the guilty parties, and make them amenable. In the meantime, what may happen if these suspected parties who are to-day in command of the Army or Navy are still in command, and sacrifice more valuable lives? What is to prevent the friends of these military commanders coming up three, four, five, or six months after the Report is laid, and giving evidence in connection with the mental incapacity of these men who are responsible for these valuable lives being lost, the same as military experts gave evidence in the case of Captain Colthurst. I see no reason why the same procedure should not occur in connection with the Report of this Committe, and evidence be given that the mental capacity of these men was such that they could not be held responsible
    1976
    for the valuable lives which were lost in connection with gross blundering and miscalculation.
    Mr. LUNDON: I desire to support this Clause. The hon. Member (Mr. Ashley) said that all roads lead to Ireland. To me all roads do lead to Ireland, though they may not lead the hon. Member in the proper direction, and therefore I am at one with my hon. Friend in stating that what is good enough for a junior Civil servant in Ireland ought to be good enough for an officer in the Army or the Navy. After all, it is a question of suspension. It does not matter who the individual may be. Even though he was a general drawing a salary of £3,000 or £4,000 a year, junior Civil servant in Ireland drawing £100 or £150 is entitled to the same treatment at the hands of the Government. I hope my hon. Friend will not press his Clause, because, after all, it is merely wasting the time of the House, and we are not here to obstruct business, but at the same time I hope the right hon. Gentleman will suggest to the heads of the various Departments that something in the nature of what is suggested by my hon. Friend may be carried out.
    Amendment negatived.

  TITLE.
  A Bill to constitute Special Commissions to inquire into the conduct of Operations of War in the Dardanelles, and into the conduct of Operations of War in Mesopotamia.
  Amendments made: After the word "the" ["the conduct of Operations of War in the Dardanelles "], insert the words "origin, inception, and."
  After the word "the" ["the conduct of Operations of War in Mesopotamia"], insert the words " origin, inception, and."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]
  Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.

  DEFENCE OF THE REALM (ACQUISITION OF LAND) BILL.
  Considered in Committee. [Progress, 17th July.]
  [Mr. MACLEAN in the Chair.]

  DEFENCE OF THE REALM (ACQUISITION OF LAND) BILL.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Power to Remove Buildings and Works.)
    (1) Whilst any land of which possession has been so taken is in the possession of

    1977
    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

    (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,
    1978
    notwithstanding any rights in the building, machinery, or plant to which any other person interested in the land, whether as mortgagee or otherwise, maybe entitled.
    Mr. ASHLEY: I beg to move, in Subsection (2), to leave out the words " at their option" ["the Occupying Department shall at their option"], and to insert instead thereof the words " at the option of the persons interested."
    The option is entirely with the Department whether they shall restore the land to the condition it was in or pay such compensation as may be agreed upon. The Amendment proposes exactly to turn that position round. It proposes to confer on the persons interested the power of deciding whether the land shall be restored to the condition it was in before the building was set up, or whether they shall claim compensation from the Commission. I admit that at the First Heading of the Amendment I thought it was rather more—than ought to be given to the owner of the land, because it occurred to me that there might be cases in which it was practically impossible to restore the land to the condition it was in before the buildings were put upon it, or it might cost such an enos—mous sum of public money that such restoration might be against the public interest, and altogether unreasonable and out of all, proportion to the good which would come of it. I can quite conceive that that might be so because, after all,. when enormous foundations of concrete have been put in, and concrete roads three feet deep have been made all over the property, it may be a physical impossibility to do it It may be said that I am arguing against my own Amendment, but what I do not understand is, if my hon. Friend's Amendment is unreasonable, how the Amendment of the Solicitor-General later on can be carried out, because that Amendment provides that in the case of any common, open space, or allotment, the land shall be so restored as aforesaid to the satisfaction of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries. If you are able, as I understand the Solicitor-General suggests it is possible, to restore common lands, open spaces, and public parks to the condition in which they were before the War broke out, and before buildings were put upon them, and if it is in the public interest that that should be done in the case of land which is open to the public and

    1979
    belongs to the public, then I consider the same process ought to be carried out, if the owner so wishes it, in the case of private land, and that the land should be so restored. I think it is unreasonable in the case of common land to undertake to restore it entirely, because I think in some cases it is practically impossible, except at very great cost. Some words ought to be put in, such as "as far as may be," or something of that sort.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Dr. Addison): We provide for that.
    Mr. ASHLEY: I do not see anything in the Solicitor-General's Amendment about " so far as may be."
    Dr. ADDISON: It says "to the satisfaction of the Board."
    Mr. ASHLEY: To the satisfaction of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, who are to say whether the work has been carried out in a right and proper manner. I think this Amendment raises rather a bigger question than at first sight would seem to be raised by it. I will, however, reserve my further remarks until I have heard what the right hon. Gentleman has got to say, because upon what he says de pends whether I shall go to a Division or make any further remark. What I want to put to him is this: That I do not see why a differentiation should be made between a public park and private property in this particular case. I think it is absurd, in the case of a public park or an open space, to undertake to put it back exactly in the some position it was in before the War, because in so many cases that may mean the spending of thousands and thousands of pounds, and will be a waste of public money.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am not quite able to follow the remarks of the hon. Member as relating to his Amendment. It is surely a short statement to make as to whether it may be at the option of the Department or at the option of the person interested. The question he is touching upon does not arise upon this Amendment, but upon another Amendment.
    Mr. ASHLEY: I apologise for straying beyond the limits of order, but it seemed to me that I could not practically discuss my Amendment until I knew what was the intention of the Government in relation
    1980
    to their Amendment further on. I will simply move my Amendment, and reserve any further remarks until I have heard what the right hon. Gentleman has to say.
    Mr. BRUNNER: If these words are put in the Solicitor-General's Amendment, which comes next, cannot be moved, because the Solicitor-General proposes to leave out the words "at their option."
    Dr. ADDISON: I can see the force or the general contention raised by the hon. Member (Mr. Ashley). He, and some of his Friends, objected, on the Second Reading, to leaving the option entirely with the Department, and, therefore, in order to meet them, the Solicitor-General put down the Amendments which stand in his name. The substance of those Amendments, I think, meet essentially the point raised by the hon. Member, that the option should no longer remain entirely with the Department. I think the hon. Member has stated the case as well as it can be stated for leaving the option entirely with the owner or the person interested in the site. He also made a further point, that in some cases it would be physically impossible to restore the land, and, therefore, we must have qualifying phrases, but we shall come to that later. The Solicitor-General agrees that the words "at their option" shall be left out in order that we may insert the words "Provided that if the Department and the persons interested in the land do not come to an agreement between themselves, then the question shall be referred to the Commission for their decision." I think that meets the case that was put before us that the option should not be entirely with the Department, but that where the parties were unable to agree the case should be referred to the Commission.
    Sir F. BANBURYmade a remark which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
    Dr. ADDISON: If the hon. Baronet can point out that my right hon. Friend's Amendment does not do that—that is what we want to do—we shall be willing to make the Amendment achieve that end. Perhaps he will show us that it does not achieve that end when we come to the Amendment.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I think the Government have not given full force to the considerations which arise in the case where a person has allowed the Government to

    1981
    come on his land, and in many cases probably he is charging no rent, and the Government quite properly for their own purposes have put in drains or cement works, or similar things upon the land. At the end of the War, when the Government no longer need these things, if they take the buildings down, then what my hon. Friend wants, and what I submit to the Committee is a perfectly sound right to give to the owner of the land, is to entitle him to say to the Government, "At my option you must take away these things. If you do not take them away you will have to pay compensation." The landlord is then in a position, at his own option, to tell the Government to take those things away. Is that a very hard measure to mete out to the Government in these particular cases? I submit that it is not. It is perfectly fair that if the Government goes upon a person's land and puts buildings upon it, and afterwards chooses to take away those buildings, the owner should be entitled to ask for the land to be restored to the position it was in before the Government went on the land. At his option the Government ought to be required to take away cement foundations and other things. I gave an example, on the Second Reading, of the case of a cricket ground which has been lent to the Government and where they have built upon it certain huts. These huts will be taken down later, and the owner ought to be able to say, "Take away the foundations also on which these huts have been built." It may be expensive, but when the owner has allowed his land to be used in that way he ought to have the right to tell the Government to restore the land to its original state. The Government have seen that there is something in that, and they propose, by a series of Amendments, to carry out the intentions of the right hon. Gentleman, and to say, in effect, we are not going to give you an option, but we are going to say that if the Government cannot agree with the landlord about the matter they can go to the Commission, and the Commission can decide whether the grounds are to be cleared or not. That, I think, is the intention which the Government propose to carry out; but I submit that it is not acting quite fairly to the person who is the owner of the land. The option, as my hon. Friend's Amendment sets out, should be given to the owner of the land, and if the Government choose to pull down the houses, or whatever has been erected upon the land, they should be bound, if
    1982
    the owner wishes, to have the land cleaned up for him. My hon. Friend asked me to move this Amendment, and the hon. Member for Marylebone (Mr. Boyton), who has great experience in these matters, has pointed out the difficulties in connection with brickwork and concrete foundations, and these should be dealt with at the option of the owner of the land.
    Mr. D. WHITE: I hope that the Government will not only not accept the Amendment, but I have some doubts about the Government's own Amendment, which is on the Paper. The point is that after the buildings are removed the land is to be returned cleared of what was put upon it or into it—that is, restored to its original condition—or, if not restored, that compensation should be paid. The question is, Who is to have the option of saying which of these things is to be done? Under the Bill as it stands the Department is to have the option. Under the Amendment of the hon. Member the owners of the land are to have the option. There is this particular danger if the option is transferred: It has already been said that there are cases in which it may be physically very difficult to remove certain foundations or other things upon the land, so that the cost of removing them would be out of all proportion to the value thereby conferred. But if the owner of the land were given the option of saying whether this should be done he can insist upon that being done, and can hold out for a high price as compensation for agreeing that it should not be done. That is a danger which I want to avoid. That alone would make me vote against the Amendment if it went to a Division. Under the Amendment of the Solicitor-General the first part of the Clause is to be restored to its original condition, and then words are to be inserted that if the persons interested in the land agree, or the Commission consent, then compensation is to be paid. That seems open to the same objection, because if the persons interested in the land decline to agree, what is to happen then? Are they to be entitled to have the land absolutely cleared, whatever it may cost? And if they are entitled to that, then they may be entitled in default of that to claim a most inequitable large compensation. That seems to me to be the main point of the Amendment, and

    1983
    the great reason why the option, exercised reasonably and fairly, should be left in the hands of the Departments.
    Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has advanced the extraordinary argument that he can imagine cases in which, owing to physical difficulties, it would be impossible to restore the land to the condition in which it was before it was taken over unless a very large amount of money was spent upon it, and therefore he is in favour of compensation being paid. Does that mean that proper compensation shall be paid so as to enable the landowners to restore the land to the condition in which it was before it was taken, which he has a right to ask, or that small compensation shall be paid which will not restore the land and which will mean that the landowner, for having done something very useful to the State, should be fined? I never heard a more extraordinary argument advanced. The dislike which the hon. Member has towards landowners has allowed him to run away with his reason, because I do not believe that anybody in any quarter of the House would seek to support a contention which practically comes to this, that if your property is in such a condition that it cost, perhaps, £10,000 to put it right, we are to say, "We will not allow this, but we will have somebody who will assess compensation which will be only about £2,000."
    Mr. D. WHITE: That is not my argument at all. The point turns upon the question, Who should have the option? It is not whether the land is to be made as good as it was before, but whether it should be restored to its original condition.
    Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. Gentleman has not read the Clause, because it says that the land shall be put into the condition in which it was before, but that if the Department prefers paying compensation it should have the right to pay compensation. Our contention was that that option should not be given to the Department, but should either be given to the owner or to some tribunal to adjudicate upon. Personally, I think, after consideration, that my right hon. Friend's Amendment does meet the point. But I could not listen without replying to the hon. Member opposite when he made a statement which it now appears he made because he did not understand what was in the Clause and had never read the Clause. [An HON.
    1984
    MEMBER: "Order!"] I do not know why some hon. Member ejaculated "Order!' The hon. Member said there was nothing in the Clause as to the necessity of restoring the land to the condition in which it was before, and that is not so.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: As far as I understand the Amendment, if the State required a piece of accommodation land for the purpose of its factory, land which had attained already a building value and should be utilised for that purpose, and erect a factory on it, drained it and put it into the best possible condition for use for buildings, then, according to this Amendment, the State can be compelled by the landowner to restore it to the condition of agricultured or accommodation land. That puts it into the power of the owner virtually to levy blackmail upon the Government. For that reason this seems to me to be an utterly unsustainable Amendment.
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause" put, and negatived.
    Question, "That the proposed words. 'at the option of the persons interested,' be there inserted," put, and negatived.
    Sir G. CAVE: I beg to move, in Subsection (2), after the word "or" ["constructed or pay such"], to insert the words " shall, if the persons interested in the land agree or the Commission consent, instead of so restoring the land."
    Mr. D. WHITE: Will this meet the point I raised as to what will happen in the event of the persons interested in the land not agreeing, and standing out for compensation, or standing out for the land being restored to the condition in which it formerly was 1
    Sir G. CAVE: There is an alternative. Amendment agreed to.
    Sir G. CAVE: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2), to insert the words " Provided that in the case of any common, open space, or allotment, the land shall be so restored as aforesaid to the satisfaction of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries."
    Mr. HARDY: I am obliged to the Solicitor-General for having met in some way the point I raised on the Second Reading, and with which I endeavoured to deal in my Amendment. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has also,put down a new Clause, as well as this proviso here

    1985
    and I would like to ask whether he feels that this goes quite far enough. In his new Clause the right hon. Gentleman mentions open spaces or allotments, also public or private parks. Here, in this Amendment, he only uses the words " any common, open 'space or allotment." The local authorities are very anxious about public parks, and if it is not quite certain that public parks are included in public spaces, I think the words ought to be added. There is just as much objection to leaving the land unrestored in public parks as in common or open spaces, and it is very desirable that words should be inserted. The right hon. Gentleman, in his later new Clause, has acknowledged private parks. In this case they ought really to be dealt with rather more generously than other properties, and I would suggest that he should add words so that in the case of commons, open spaces or allotments, and public and private parks, the land should in all cases be restored to the satisfaction of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries. Public authorities certainly feel very strongly on the matter of public parks.
    Sir G. CAVE: I propose to move an Amendment later under which the expression open spaces will include any land laid out as a public garden, or used for the purpose of public recreation. That would cover the places commonly called public parks. In regard to private parks, I think we ought to confine ourselves to property which is public, for private parks are not on the same footing for the purposes of this Clause.
    Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: Why is it necessary to have public and private parks in the later Amendment?
    Sir G. CAVE: We will consider that later.
    Mr. BRUNNER: I am very much obliged to the Solicitor-General for the form of this Amendment, but it does not seem to me that one Department should sit in judgment on another Department, and I suggest the omission of those words which refer to the land being restored to the satisfaction of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries.
    9.0 P.M.
    Mr. DICKINSON: I cannot but think that we ought to take exception to this proposal, because the whole principle of the conduct of public places is that in no circumstances are they to be interfered
    1986
    with except by Act of Parliament. I assume the Board of Agriculture is to express satisfaction as to the method by which the land was restored, but it would be better if the Board of Agriculture were to have the power, as a Department, of authorising the restoration of land. I think that the words used in the Amendment are absolutely wrong. I am particularly anxious, and I may say that everyone is anxious, that commons and open spaces under all circumstances ought to be restored to the public, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider whether those words should be left in at all.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "to the satisfaction of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries."
    I do not quite see what is the object of introducing the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries. The hon. Member who spoke a few moments ago objected to the insertion of these words on the ground that he did not think one Department ought to judge the work of another Department. I think that is an extremely good reason, and I was rather astonished it came from that side of the House. Personally, I think if you want to set up somebody as an authority you should set up the Railway Commission. They are the authority who all through have been put forward as being the people to hear parties in the event of a dispute, and the dispute is to be remitted to them for settlement. I certainly do not think, especially in these days of bureaucratic tyranny, that you can come forward and say that one Department is to do something, and if the person affected by the action of that Department is not satisfied he must go to another Department. I certainly feel very strongly on the point. I do not see why private parks should not be included just as much as public parks. A large number of people in this country have been very generous in the use of their private parks, and I can give several instances in which private parks have been given up to the use of the Army. Why should not those parks be put in the same position as public parks? As a matter of fact, the owners of those private parks are hardly used by the fact of their property not being put in the same position as public parks, which are under the public authority with the ratepayers at their back, while the landowner in many cases has

    1987
    only himself to rely upon. I really do think he ought to be put in the same position as the public authority that have the ratepayers at their back. Therefore I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider his decision as to the inclusion of private parks.
    Sir G. CAVE: The object of the proposal is fairly plain. We want to restore the land, and we want someone to see if we have done our duty in that respect, and what body could be better for that purpose than the Board of Agriculture? I am very much surprised that my hon. Friends do not see the benefit of the Clause with these words inserted. I do not think they are unreasonable, and there is no objection from the Departments interested.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: I am s6rry the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet is not accepted. I join with him in opposition to any extension of bureaucratic methods. We have come to a time when we can no longer regard one Department as the proper custodian of the general benefits of the community as regards another. I do think there should have been some other authority. Possibly the local governing authority would have been as good as any other. If the suggestion as to private parks as taken by the Solicitor-General, I hope it will only be with regard to those which are ordinarily open to the public.
    Mr. PROTHERO: It seems to me as the Board of Agriculture represents the old Inclosure Commissioners, and as all the authority over commons is vested in them, that even if he did not put in these words but put in some other authority, yet you could not oust the jurisdiction and authority of the Board of Agriculture. Therefore these words are the right words and the only words which could properly be put in.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr BRUNNER: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2), to insert the following new Sub-section:
    "(3) The occupying Department (within three years after the termination of the present War shall remove all buildings and works whether of a permanent or temporary character which have been erected or constructed for pur-
    1988
    poses connected with the present War on, over, or under any common land, common, open space, or allotment set out for any public purpose under an Inclosure Act or award."
    This Clause is now, I think, in a rather curious position as far as drafting is concerned. It refers to where any building work has been removed, and it goes on to say, "provided that the land shall be restored as aforesaid." Under Sub-section (2) the building or work may or may not be removed. The drafting is therefore very clumsy. This Sub-section which I now propose would remove any doubt as to whether buildings or other erections upon common land had to be removed or not.
    Sir G. CAVE: I think the Amendment which I moved and which has been carried will effect what the hon. Member desires. You cannot restore the land to its former condition without removing the buildings. If the hon. Member will allow me I will consider the matter between now and Report, and if it appears to require further words I will insert them.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I think there should be some sort of limitation as to the time for clearing away.
    Amendment negatived.

    CLAUSE 3.—(Power to Acquire Land Permanently.)
    (1) It shall be lawful to acquire by agreement or compulsorily on behalf of His Majesty—

    (a) any land in the possession of an occupying department or any interest in such land;

    (b) any land on, over, or under which any buildings, works, or improvements have, for purposes connected with the present War, been erected, constructed, or made wholly at the expense of the State, or any interest in such land;

    (c) with the consent of the Commission, any land on, over, or under which any buildings, works, or improvements have, for purposes connected with the present War, been erected, constructed, or made partly at the expense of the State, or any interest in such land.

    (2) Where any land or any interest in land is or has been so acquired any adjoining or neighbouring land (whether belonging to the same owner or not), or

    1989
    any right of access, or other easement or right which appears to the Commission to be required for the proper enjoyment of the land or interest so acquired, or any interest therein, may, with the consent of the Commission, also be acquired.
    (3) The power to acquire land, or an interest therein, under this Section shall include power to acquire the land or interest either with or without all or any of the mines or minerals lying thereunder as the purchasing department may determine, and if the surface is acquired apart from the mines and minerals either without any right of support or with such right of support as the department may require.
    (4) The power of acquisition conferred by this Section shall be exercisable—

    (a) in the case of land in the possession of an occupying department or of land and rights required for the proper enjoyment thereof, by the occupying department at any time whilst the department is in possession;

    (b) in the case of other land or rights, by any Government Department at any time during the present War or within twelve months after the termination thereof.

    (5) For the purposes of the acquisition of land and interests therein under this Section, the provisions of the Lands Clauses Acts, subject to the modifications set out in the Schedule to this Act, shall be incorporated with this Act.
    (6) Where any buildings, works, or improvements have, for purposes connected with the present War, been erected, constructed, or made wholly or partly at the expense of the State, on, over, or under any land, no person shall without the consent of a Government Department remove, destroy, alter, or dispose of the buildings, works, or improvements whilst the right of acquiring the land conferred by this Section remains in force.
    (7) This Section shall not authorise the acquisition otherwise than by agreement of any land subject to any right of common, or of any public park or any public recreation ground.
    Mr. DICKINSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "lawful," to insert the words "for a Government Department by Provisional Order confirmed by Parliament."
    1990
    The effect of these words would be to substitute for the system which is proposed by the Bill, namely, the taking of the land by agreement or compulsion by Government Departments, simply by their own action, the present practice, which has been adopted for many years, by which land can only be taken under the authority of Parliament, either by private Bill or by Provisional Order. The proposal of Clause 3 is a very novel one, and one which I believe is unknown except with regard to certain provisions in times of peace which entitle the military authorities to take land for national purposes of defence. Here we are proposing that any Department, the Munitions Department or the War Office, shall, after the War is over, have the right to take any land that they are at the present moment in possession of and appropriate for purposes which I have no doubt in their opinion are necessary for the advantage of the nation. All that will be done, as I read the Bill, in absolute privacy, and no one will know what is going on. I am not concerned at the present moment with the position of the landowner whose land is going to be taken without any reference to Parliament. He at any rate will know that his land is going to be taken, and will be able to make what protest he likes before that is done. But other people are interested in the Government's obtaining possession of land. The neighbourhood is interested. The public who, perhaps, have been in the enjoyment of the land are interested. People who are quite prepared to have a munition factory established on a certain spot in the crisis of the War are at any rate interested in the question whether that factory shall be left standing. It is essential that the public should have some right of representing their views to some authority before the land is taken. The House of Commons has a right to know what is going to be done by the Government after the War. Are we going to contemplate the War Office taking possession of great tracts of land for purposes which they may think necessary, but which the House of Commons may think are not necessary at all t I cannot help thinking that all these proposals for various Departments to become owners of the land of which they are now in possession, and as to which no question has been raised by reason of the

    1991
    War, should come before the House of Commons before they are definitely decided.
    I urge upon the Committee that it should not hand over this enormous power to the various Departments. The right hon. Baronet opposite said he was astonished to find that we on this side of the House were objecting to the Departments having these powers. Personally, I have always objected to Government Departments having undue powers. I am in favour of the House of Commons having power to take what land is necessary for the nation, but for Government Departments to have that power is a totally wrong system. This House ought to know what the Government Departments are going to do. The present system ensures that, and ensures it without much expense or lose of time. At one time it—was necessary in every case to go through the expensive process of carrying a private Bill through both House of Parliament. Of late years the system of Provisional Orders has much cheapened, and simplified the procedure. The Government Departments prepare the Provisional Orders. They are bound to hear various persons interested. The Provisional Orders are then laid before this House in the form of a Bill. With such preparation the great majority of the proposals go through without much comment, but when there is opposition a Committee of this House has to consider it and deal with it in the ordinary way. It is a great protection to the public and to this House. I cannot help thinking that if the Government will accept my suggestion it will get rid of a great deal of the opposition to this Bill, because everybody would know that, at any rate, these far—reaching proposals of the Government would, when they come into concrete shape, be submitted to Parliament and be open to public criticism.
    I notice that in the interval since the Second Reading of the Bill, and since the tabling of Amendments, the Government have been considering the question, and that the Solicitor-General in a long savings Clause which is to be moved subsequently has made some proposals to meet this objection. He proposes that no land shall be taken compulsorily unless it is permitted by the Railway Commissioners. I have put down an Amendment to that effect later on in case my present Amendment should fail to obtain the support of the Committee. But I would point
    1992
    out that that does not really meet the case. It does not meet the case of the House of Commons. The inquiry before the Railway Commissioners may be a protection to the public or to the landowner, but it does not give any power to this House to settle whether the Government is to possess this or that large tract of land, or this or that factory, of which at present it is in possession. What I want to do is to ensure that when the War is over and the Government is considering what land it requires to take permanently for future industrial or war purposes it should be done in the open and come before Parliament in order that we may know what the proposals of the Government are.
    Mr. FIELD: I think the observations of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Dickinson) deserve the attention of the Government. After all, we are too much in the hands of Departments in this country. The House of Commons is almost deprived of its natural functions, and it is impossible to say what the Departments will require after the War is over. There is no reason that I can see why this House should not have the opportunity of examining these proposals before the land is handed over to the Departments.
    Mr. BARNES: I join in the appeal to the Government to accept this Amendment. I understand that the Solicitor-General is going, later on, to make an alteration in the definition, so that public parks will be included in the Clause we have just passed. Therefore, when the War is over we shall be in this position: The occupying Department will be in possession of land upon which buildings have been erected, land which in many cases has been given by a public authority. The occupying Department has effected improvements or erected buildings on The land, and it is to have the power of compulsorily acquiring the land. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Then I should like an explanation on that point. It seems to me that, as the Bill stands, it would give the occupying Department that power. I want to avoid that. I join my right hon. Friend in his plea that the House of Commons has the right to be considered in the matter, and should be protected against the occupying Departments doing things which might not be approved by this House.
    Sir G. CAVE: A public park comes within the definition of an open space, and

    1993
    we expressly provide that no open space shall be acquired under the Act. Therefore, I think that answers the objection of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Barnes). The Amendment means that if the Munitions Department or the War Office desire to acquire even a small piece of land upon which they have put expensive buildings, they have to go through this process: First, they must hold a public inquiry on the spot, then they must get their Provisional Order framed and passed, then a Bill must be introduced in this House to confirm the Provisional Order, then you must have the First and Second Readings and the Bill must go upstairs, where if anybody objects there is an inquiry, with counsel and the other assistance; then if it gets through the one House, it has to go through much the same process in the other. Even then you have only got a Provisional Order to which the procedure under the Lands Clauses Acts will apply. All this long, elaborate process you have to undergo in every case in which the Department desire to acquire land on which they have put expensive buildings which they desire to retain for public purposes. If it were desired to make this Bill impossible, I know no better way to do it than by carrying this Amendment. The effect would be in many cases that the State would have to spend in the costs incurred in this way very much more than the value of the land. I am sure that that is not what the Committee will desire.
    I do not wonder at all at the right hon. Gentleman moving this Amendment if, as I gather from some of the arguments put forward, he objects to the Bill on principle. But I want to state just once more—I cannot argue it out; it would not be proper now—what it is we desire to do by this Clause and by the other parts of the Bill. There are hundreds of cases which have happened in this War where very costly buildings have been erected upon land, buildings which are not only very costly, but which for public reasons—chiefly for reasons of defence—it is desirable that the State should retain. In these cases, unless we have a Clause of this kind, the State must lose not only its money, but the site. The consequences, rightly or wrongly, I believe would be very serious. I am convinced that in many cases this land ought to be acquired for public purposes, and at a fair price. If anybody can show me a better way of doing it than the one we propose, I
    1994
    shall only be too glad to listen. But, as I said, having thought it over a good deal, I think the best way is to give the State, which in these cases has become the leading partner, the power to acquire the land at a fair price. Once you come to that conclusion, it is a matter of machinery. The Committee has a choice between the machinery proposed by the Amendment which I have described, which I really think will not commend itself as applicable to the cases, and the machinery which I propose to insert in a new Clause. I quite accept the view that the Department ought not to have unlimited power to acquire any land, and that there ought to be some tribunal, wholly independent of the Department—and, of course, the owner—to which these matters shall be referred. We are proposing a Commission presided over by a High Court Judge, with two gentlemen of very great experience as assessors, and this Commission will say whether or not the land needs to be acquired. If they do not think the public Department ought to acquire the land, they will have the power and the strength of mind, I have little doubt, to say so.
    Mr. HARDY: The Bill does not say so at present.
    Sir G.CAVE: Oh, no; but reference has been made to this matter. I shall provide for it by a new Clause, except, of course, in regard to cases where we have the power to acquire to-day without any consent at all, namely, under the Defence of the Realm and other Acts. We cannot give up the powers that we have, but in the Amendment which I am putting forward I shall ensure that in no case shall we have new powers to acquire land except as I have stated. I think that is a fair proposal, and one that should meet the very reasonable objections put forward on the Second Reading of the Bill. On "the whole, I think it is a better proposal than that which is now made. It gives protection to the owner, who will not have his land taken away except after inquiry by a responsible tribunal. No doubt with all the publicity given to the proceedings those concerned will be protected, at the same time the State will not suffer from the very great cost, in many cases a terrible cost, that it may be put to by the proposed Amendment. I hope the Amendment will not be pressed, and that the Committee will consider the proposal the Government is going to make as preferable.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I must say that I have not been convinced by the arguments of my right hon. and learned Friend. What is the actual position? What is it that the right hon. Gentleman who has moved the Amendment desires to do? He desires to retain the control of this House over the expenditure of the nation's money!
    Mr. DICKINSON: Hear, hear!
    Sir F. BANBURY: That is really what it comes to. My right hon. and learned Friend, with all that gift of eloquence which he has at his command, has, if he will excuse me for saying so, drawn a red herring over the point at issue. It is not whether or not there shall be power given to the State to do certain things, because already in Clause 1 we have given the State power to remain in possession for a period not exceeding two years; then there is a further Amendment which will allow the occupying Departments, with the consent of the Commission, to remain in possession for another five years—seven years altogether. Therefore there is plenty of time during those seven years for the Government Department to consider whether or not the House of Commons should be consulted upon an expenditure of public money. We have already passed a Resolution giving power to the Government to take any money that they may consider necessary—because there was no limit to the money in the Resolution—for any purposes connected with this Bill. The result of that is that the Government Department can buy any land under certain conditions without coming to this House at all. That is rather a strong order for any Government to put before the House of Commons. Surely we ought not to have such trust in these various Government Departments that we should confer upon them such power? There is—or there ought to be—very great supervision exercised over the expenditure of the nation's money. We have already expended, and I am afraid in the future we shall expend, very large sums of the country's money. Surely we ought not to take from this House of Commons that which was the original duty of the House of Commons—namely, the supervision of finance?
    If the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment is carried, I do not think it is going to do any harm to the Government. I think all the pictures of delay and expense which have been conjured up by my right hon. and learned Friend are imaginary. I do not think there is any great expense over a Provisional Order, and I do not
    1996
    think, to begin with, the vast majority of Members of this House know whether Provisional Orders are in existence or not. As the right hon. Gentleman says, they would only know if there were certain people in the neighbourhood interested who had managed to get hold of a particular Member of Parliament and asked him to look up the Provisional Order. Therefore, I do not think there is any great likelihood of there being any opposition, or any great opposition, to these Provisional Orders. What would happen is this: If there were a proposal by the Government to acquire land for the purpose suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, namely, to continue large works that would be a nuisance to the neighbourhood, to which people gladly submitted during the War, but the continuance of which during peace time they might object to, I think it should be right that this House should be consulted as to whether those works should be continued. I do not know whether I take quite te same view as the right hon. Gentleman as to whether the War Office should continue to provide munitions in case of another war. Probably we should disagree about that, but we are united in this, that whatever is done should be done with the full knowledge and consent of the House of Commons, and I sincerely trust the Committee will support the right hon. Gentleman in the Amendment he has moved.
    Sir G. TOULMIN: I hope the Government will adhere to the proposal that they have made. The argument which has been addressed by the Mover of this Amendment gains its whole force because he calls private individuals the public, and sets up persons, who desire to object to the public exercising these rights, and calls them the public. Private individuals are to be given powers to block the public use of this land. Now, private individuals can either buy or sell, and the other private individuals, whom my right hon. Friend calls the public, cannot object and cannot insist upon having the obstacles which he wants to have put in the way of the public Departments. But, according to his Amendment, the public Department must not buy without these private individuals being able to hinder or to stop the transaction. They must either hold, or sell, or do anything they like with their own private land, without reference to the public, and must also be able to obstruct the public. His argument separates the Department which is acting for, and on

    1997
    behalf of, the public, and the public itself, and he would give powers to private individuals against the public which they have not against other private individuals.
    In my opinion, the House ought to give the Government power to defend the immense sums which they have had to expend upon private property during the course of this War, and not to set up a dilatory, costly, and complicated procedure which always acts against the public, and is used as a means for extorting large sums from the public purse. I am really rather astonished at some of the arguments which are used in this House in reference to the conduct of public Departments. The public Departments are responsible to this House, and it really is a rather doleful confession of failure on the part of Members of this House to speak as if they were unable to control public Departments. [HON. MEMBERS: "So we are! "] An hon. Friend says they are trying to do it now. They are not trying to control any policy which public Departments come and lay before them. What they are trying to do is to set up a machinery which will obstruct and hinder Departments doing those things which the House itself may desire they should do. It is putting powers into private hands against the proper exercise, in my opinion, of their powers by the Departments.
    Colonel GRETTON: The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken apparently has greater trust in the public Departments under all circumstances than is felt by the great majority of Members of this House. Our experience—and some Members, perhaps, have longer experience in this House than he has the advantage of—find the great difficulty of this House is to control public Departments. The real principle of this Amendment, which may not perhaps contain the best machinery to carry it out, is that there should be on occasion the power of this House to intervene, and, not only on the merits of the case, but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London has pointed out, on financial grounds. One of the greatest defects of this Bill is that, by the Resolution which has been passed, and by the Clauses in the Bill, this House in effect surrenders all financial control, and vast sums may be expended without any control by this House until the money has been spent. Of course, it is always possible to bring these matters up on the
    1998
    salary of the Minister, but the Minister is responsible for so many things that very often these matters are lost sight of.
    I do not think the machinery of provisional Orders is very effective. As a matter of fact, provisional Orders are more often than not a mere form in which certain officials and professional gentlemen take part, and formal matters are gone through, no one is interested and nothing happens. But occasionally there are matters which have to be dealt with, and I should like to assure the hon. Gentleman who spoke last that private individuals find it very difficult indeed to oppose Government Departments on those occasions. It is very expensive, and the Public Department has at its back the whole resources of the Treasury and all the legal acumen which the Government commands. It is seldom, I think, that frivolous cases are brought before the authority who have to deal with those provisional Orders, but the main merit, in my opinion, of this Amendment is that it would secure to the House financial control over the expenditure of very large sums of money. I did not gather that the right hon and learned Gentleman offered any objection to this House having financial control before the money is spent.
    Sir G. CAVE: It has that.
    Colonel GRETTON: He says "It has that." I am afraid, in my ignorance, I did not realise in what way the House has financial control. Of course, the Government, by the Resolution, can spend sums which are not limited, and I would rather press upon the Committee that some effort should be made, if not in this form, then in another so that the financial control should be restored and the House would be able to look into these matters and decide whether public money should be spent, if the House wishes to investigate it.
    Sir E. CORNWALL: I think the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North St. Pancras (Mr. Dickinson) is one which the Committee ought to seriously consider before it decides to reject it. It raises one of the main principles of the Bill. I am not concerned about the private owner, and I do not think my right hon. Friend has been, pleading for the private owner. The private owner is perfectly safe with the Railway and Canal Commission. He is not going to have his land taken away at a price below what he would be entitled to

    1999
    so I do not think it is quite to the point for my hon. Friend to take up that objection. It seems to me that this Bill proposes to set up the Railway and Canal Commission and put it in the place of this House. The Solicitor-General said we were all right, because the Government Department could not take the land without going to the Railway and Canal Commissioners. Does anyone imagine that those Commissioners are going to settle any question of policy as to whether the Government of this country should take over this land or not? All the Railway and Canal Commission will consider is not whether a primâ-facie case is made out for taking the land, but the main point they will consider is whether, after a Government Department had said it wants the land, on what terms the land should be acquired.
    Under this Bill, the Government have seven years to consider these questions. They have the two years, and then they have the five years to occupy the land temporarily under the Defence of the Realm (Acquisition of Land) Bill. Does anybody in this Committee imagine that seven years after the War is not long enough for the Government to hold whatever land they require for munitions or the Army or anything else, after having put up these expensive buildings? I recognise that no one wants the public to be mulcted in regard to these transactions, but does anyone imagine that during seven long years that if the Government want this land permanently there is not time in that seven years for the Government to come to Parliament and give the particular Government Department whatever power they may want to permanently occupy that land. Why should we who have rightly given carte blanche to the Government to acquire any land they may require for the prosecution of the War, and given them seven years to occupy this land temporarily after the War, pass this Clause in this form, and say that instead of the seven years temporary power they have, they should take power to acquire this land compulsorily over the House of Commons by merely going to the Railway and Canal Commission? I do not think that is the function of that Commission. The function of this House is to safeguard the expenditure. We are spending several millions a day now, but immediately the War is over we shall want to get on to the bedrock of saving the taxpayers' money,
    2000
    and we ought not to give away any opportunity of doing that. If we give a permanent power to a Government Department to take this land over the heads of the House of Commons, I believe we shall be making a great mistake. Whether we adopt the Provisional Order method or any other, it ought to be some system which does retain the power of the House of Commons with regard to expenditure after the War. So far as I am concerned, if this Amendment goes to a Division I shall have to support it, and I hope it will be carried.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I think it is recognised that this matter does not stand quite as it ought to do, and there is not really any control by the House of Commons over this expenditure. I suggest that there might possibly be a way out of the difficulty by adopting some other policy than that suggested by the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. I do not think the Provisional Order system is really suitable for this purpose, because it will introduce very great inconvenience. Everything the right hon. Gentleman opposite said about it is very well justified. Before this War we had every year a Post Office Sites Bill brought in which used to include in it power to buy all the various sites required for the erection of new post offices in connection with that Department. Is it not possible during the long period granted by this Bill to introduce periodically a measure of that kind, asking the House for confirmation of those particular proposals to buy the land, taking into consideration the price of the land and the building and getting the sanction of Parliament in that way, and thus enabling this House to have some control. I think some system of that kind would avoid the rather clumsy system of Provisional Orders, and it would surely give us the control which we distinctly ought to have.
    Sir W. BYLES: I support the Amendment because I do not want Parliament to lose its control over these transactions. We are the highest Court of the nation, and we ought to have a say in transactions of this kind. The system suggested presents no serious difficulty, and unless there is good reason for opposing any particular scheme, it goes through like greased lightning. I do not mind how much land His Majesty gets into his possession, as long as he is holding it in trust for the nation. I understand that public departments and common land are all exempted, so that the vast area of Regent's Park now

    2001
    covered by these buildings could not possibly be taken under the Clause we are now considering. Is that so?
    Sir G. CAVE: Yes.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: I think this Amendment raises a matter of very great importance, and I hope it will be adopted. There is a time ahead when this House should keep control over the transactions of this Department. During this period, when people's minds are so much occupied by the War, this Department may go into huge transactions by way of land purchase and when the War is over they may say, " Here we have these great areas of land and buildings, and the only thing to do is to carry them on in the shape of national factories." All the officials in this Department will have something of the kind in view. I notice that recently there was a speech made by a gentleman in Leeds which was reported in all the papers, and therefore I presume he was of some importance. I do not know whether he was speaking the views of the Government or not, but he said that after the War he hoped the Ministry of Munitions would be carried on for some trade purpose or other.
    If we allow a Department to purchase land and establish themselves permanently, we shall be doing something which is detrimental to the national interest. Every transaction which is likely to lead to something permanent, such as the acquisition of land, ought to come before this House. There is no reason why, when you come to the question of the acquisition of land, why it should not be done in the open and before this House. There have been no questions of corruption or jobbery in this country in the past largely because these transactions have had to be done in the light of day. In other countries it is not so. There is no more fruitful source of corruption than the acquisition of land by Departments when it is done behind the backs of the people. The intention of my right hon. Friend's Amendment certainly ought to be adopted.
    Mr. HARDY: I am glad that this discussion has taken place, and I believe hon. Members on all sides of the House feel that we are departing a very long way from our old custom. I confess I am not very much in love with the Provisional Order system, but it has raised the matter definitely, and perhaps we should be obliged to go into the Lobby in
    2002
    favour of it if the Amendment were carried to a Division. I rather welcome the suggestion of my hon. Friend (Sir G. Younger) that we should have some such Bill as he named. We used year after year to have a Military Works Bill brought before this House, and I think something of the same nature might be devised which would definitely bring before us the purchases which the Government might desire to make in connection with these lands of which they have come into possession. This is the first discussion we have had on the actual acquisition of land, and I should like to ask definitely whether the Government can tell the House the extent to which these Departments have now occupied land. Can they give us any figures as to the acreage which is occupied by the three great Departments? It is very desirable, in considering this Bill, for us to know the extent of land affected by it, and I would ask the Government to give us some figures on the subject in order to guide us in the discussion which is to follow. I think we are justified in asking for that information, and we ought to know. It would help us in deciding whether the House itself or a Commission should determine whether in future this land should be occupied by the Government or not.
    10.0 P.M.
    Sir TUDOR WALTERS: The House ought not to lose sight of the fact that there are very large areas of land, and that a considerable amount of money has been spent upon the buildings erected on them. It is part of my duty to inspect a number of these areas which the Government are now temporarily occupying, and I am amazed at the permanent nature of the works that have been erected thereon. I have no doubt that the Minister of Munitions and the War Office have been well advised, but one would think that some of the temporary huts were meant to come into the possession of our great—greatgrandchildren. It is therefore only right that the Government should have considerable powers for the acquisition of land. Factories have even been built, and certainly very large extensions of factories have taken place on land belonging to private owners. The Provisional Order is not at all a convenient method, and I should have thought that the proper way would be for the particular Department affected to take stock of the land which will actually be required. I

    2003
    should imagine that they could put almost their proposals in one Bill. They could look round all the land which they are now occupying—it would not take them a very long time; they could certainly do it in the next Session of Parliament—and they could present to the House a complete scheme indicating the extent of the area and the kind of land to be purchased, and giving an estimate of the cost. Then the House would see precisely the sum of money to which it was being committed, and it might also examine the policy which would follow from those commitments. Certain of these areas might be found to contain factories suitable for the carrying on of some kind of Government work. Other kinds might be suitable for houses for the working clases. If the Government came forward with some comprehensive scheme, including commercial and housing enterprises, the House would have an opportunity of seeing precisely what the policy was and of understanding the nature of the commitments. I hope that the Solicitor-General will reconsider this Clause. I do not consider any suggestion that has been made to-night—I do not think my own suggestion—entirely meets the case. There are three different suggestions before us. They indicate what is the mind of the House. The House wants to have control, to understand what are its commitments, and to have the power to veto any expenditure which seems to it extravagant. Perhaps the Minister in charge of the Bill will consider this matter, with the help of his advisers, and present some better scheme than that contained in this Clause before the Bill is finally passed into law.
    Mr. ASHLEY: The proposal of the last speaker is a very dangerous one. I do not see how any Government Department can possibly know now what its necessities are going to be in six months or a year's time. Surely the amount of land and the buildings we shall want, and in fact all the natural requirements, must depend upon the European situation after the War, upon whether we have national service or not, and upon a thousand of things of which we cannot possibly know anything at the present time. It would, therefore, be impossible to embody everything in one Bill and bring it forward. I would, however, press upon the Government the proposal of my hon.
    2004
    Friend (Sir G. Younger). It seems to me that we ought to maintain control as far as possible over Government Departments. We ought to insist that these transactions should be embodied in a Bill which should come before the House for revision. We all know, except in cases of outrageous conduct on the part of the Government, that sort of Bill always goes through automatically. Ninety-nine per cent of the Members do not even know that any such Bill exists. It would only be in case of some transaction which obviously ought not to be carried through that any obstruction or even criticism would take place, but there would be in the ultimate resort the power of the House of Commons maintained. I am sure that everybody to whatever party he belongs is determined that the House of Commons shall be the ruling authority in this matter. We know that during the War we have practically handed over all our powers to Government Departments and the Cabinet. There is no doubt about it. We see it every day; but directly the War is over I think this House ought to be given its full powers, and it is only by carrying out the suggestion of my hon. Friend, which I am very glad to see put forward, that such powers will be retained.
    Mr. MORTON: I should like to say that, whatever you do, do not have anything to do with Provisional Orders. I am quite in favour of applying some other method of carrying out the object, if possible, and we have been looking for that for many years. Curiously enough—I do not know whether many Members here know of it—it was adopted, so far as improvements in London are concerned, as long ago as 1817, when a very wise Home Secretary, of the name of Michael Angelo Taylor, induced the House of Commons and the House of Lords to allow local authorities in London to widen, lengthen, and improve streets without coming to Parliament. When a local authority wishes to make improvements it gives notice in the ordinary way; it then comes before a recorder and jury of twelve men, who settle at once the price to be paid, from which there is no appeal except on points of law; and it is all settled. In the City of London we have put that Act of Parliament in operation about a thousand times; we have spent a great many millions of money under it; and but for having that Act we never should have improved the City as we have

    2005
    done if you had compelled us to come to Parliament for a Provisional Order in order to buy up all the property required. That has worked well. Curiously enough, Parliament would not give that power to the Metropolitan Board of Works nor to the London County Council. They gave it to the Corporation of the City of London and the vestries and the district boards, now called boroughs. Curiously, also, the county council now goes to the local authorities to get them to carry out improvements, they finding the money, because they find it much better and less costly than getting an Act of Parliament. If you can find some methods, and there ought to be some found, for dealing with land wanted for public improvements or business, and if you can find something that will act as what is commonly called the Michael Angelo Taylor Act, 1817, you will save a great deal of money, and, what is more, a great deal of time and trouble. I think it would be better if the Government adopted the proposed scheme for the present, and gave it to the Railway Commissioners to settle. It is a much better system than that of Provisional Orders, or Acts of Parliament, because in many cases having to get those has actually prohibited improvements altogether.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I think that as my suggestion has been received with a certain amount of favour I should like to get an expression of opinion on it by moving an Amendment to the Amendment. I therefore beg to move as an Amendment to the Amendment, after the word "by" ["Government Department by Provisional Order"], to insert the words "Act of Parliament or by"; so that the Amendment would read, "For a Government Department by Act of Parliament or by Provisional Order confirmed by Parliament." I have not taken out the other words, as I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman will agree to their being removed. I put those words in so that we can have an expression of opinion upon it.
    Dr. ADDISON: I think there appears to be some misapprehension on the part of some hon. Members as to what the action of the Government is in bringing in this Bill at all. My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green (Sir E. Cornwall) said he was anxious to save the taxpayers' money, and for this reason he advocated that we should only acquire this land, however small the amount of it, by bringing in a Provisional Order Bill and
    2006
    getting it passed through the House. I will give the House two or three cases. I will not, of course, mention where they are. Here is a case where a factory has been built at a cost of £478,000. It has been fitted with the most elaborate machinery at considerable cost, and in answer to my hon. Friend below the Gangway (Sir T. Walters), who knows the place I am speaking of very well, I may say that it had to be of a very durable character, otherwise it would not have carried the machinery. We had to put in concrete foundations, overhead cranes, and all the rest of the paraphernalia of a big engineering shop, otherwise we could not have made 8—inch shells in it—and that was what we wanted it for. We have spent £478,000 on 9½ acres of land. I would like to assure the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Ashley) that it is not to exalt the powers of some of these tyrannical Departments, which it is very convenient to abuse, but which somehow or other we have to use, but that the Departments have had in the discharge of the duties which Parliament has put upon them to spend in this particular case, as well as we could, £478,000 in order to enable us to make 8—inch shells. In order to secure to the State the full value of this expenditure we want to be able to buy at a fair price, and unless we can acquire the land com—pulsorily under the Land Act we can only buy it with the consent of the Commissioners, the 9 ½ acres on which we have spent about £500,000.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: They would never refuse that power!
    Dr. ADDISON: Of course they would not.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: They might refuse it in other cases.
    Dr. ADDISON: I will come to the hon. Baronet's point later.
    Sir E. CORNWALL: It is the fifty other cases we are after, and not this one.
    Mr. WATT: It is the same principle.
    Dr. ADDISON: In this particular case it is very likely that if this were opposed we should spend more in getting that Bill through Parliament than the land would cost. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] All I have to say is that that does not strike me as a very efficient device for saving the taxpayers' money.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: It is not a private Bill.
    Dr. ADDISON: The hon. Baronet knows, and none better, that these Bills, when opposed, lead to very considerable public expenditure. I shall be glad if he likes to put forward some alternative.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: The right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood my Amendment altogether.
    Dr. ADDISON: I am not on the hon. Baronet's Amendment. I am on the other——
    Sir G. YOUNGER: That can be cut out. I dare say the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to cut it out.
    Dr. ADDISON: I am not referring to the hon. Baronet's Amendment, but to the Amendment on the Order Paper moved by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Dickinson). I will come to the hon. Baronet's Amendment later on. Under "the proposals of my right hon. Friend there is not a doubt about it that if a large number of these schemes was opposed we should spend more in getting Provisional Orders through this House than the land is worth; and all I have to say is that that is not a very efficient method of saving the taxpayers' money. The whole object of the acquirement of this land is to save the taxpayers' money. Unless you acquire the land, which belongs to somebody else, the £478,000 we have spent will not belong to the State but to the other man. The Committee recognises that that is a position we are not justified in perpetuating. We shall only be able to acquire a patch of land which could not be otherwise acquired under the Military Lands Act with the consent of the tribunal. I have a list here, a considerable selection, some of them occupying patches of ground of one and a half acres on which we have put expensive machinery of a very technical kind which does not occupy a great deal of ground. It is going rather a long way, if the object is to save public money, to expect the Department to ask for an Act of Parliament for each individual transaction. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] That is the Amendment of my right hon. Friend. When we have already spent considerable sums of money, we are to come to the House for an Act of Parliament to buy the patch of land on which the machinery stands! I could understand that provided we had to get a Provisional Order for every executive act of the Department
    2008
    which involved public expenditure, but I cannot understand it on any other ground. It seems that the Committee is very anxious that the Departments should not engage in reckless expenditure. With that everyone cordially agrees. The hon. Baronet opposite (Sir G. Younger) suggests an expedient which he thinks might, perhaps, meet the case. I am not a lawyer myself, and do not know what the Act which is associated with the Post Office Railway really does. I am informed it does not deal with land compulsorily acquired. It recites an agreed price, which presupposes that it has been arbitrated upon beforehand. I am not quite sure whether that will be a very efficient way of meeting what the hon. Baronet has in view. However, I will say this: If there is an expedient which carries with it the feeling of the Committee generally which is practicable, my right hon. Friend will consider it and will put down something on the Report stage. I would not like to go further than that. It must be something which is practicable. The House of Commons has control over expenditure. It is true that some hon. Members think that that control is rather visionary. I feel inclined to agree with them, because we have Votes for large sums of money coming before us en bloc. It is quite true that the House has no power over individual transactions. I do not know that the House has ever claimed to have power over individual transactions, because Parliament has entrusted a Department to carry out certain duties, and those duties cost money. If the Department does its work extremely badly, Parliament calls it to account, but it does not go through the individual items of the expenditure of the Department. There are thousands of items on every Vote. That is not the practice the House of Commons has adopted.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Yes, it has!
    Dr. ADDISON: Not individual items?
    Sir F. BANBURY: Yes.
    Dr. ADDISON: You get the total of the items in the Vote, but it does not give you all the items which make up the total.
    Sir F. BANBURY: In the case of salaries it does.
    Dr. ADDISON: Salaries are a mere bagatelle compared with the expenditure of the Departments. These expenditures

    2009
    that I am speaking of run into millions. It is not a question of clerks but of large expenditure for the purpose of defence against aircraft, munition factories, and all the rest of it. Do hon. Members suggest' that the War Office should submit every individual item of this expenditure?
    Sir F. BANBURY: Can the War Office buy any land without the sanction of this House 1
    Dr. ADDISON: Oh, yes, certainly. The War Office can buy land under the Acts mentioned without consent of the House. In other cases it is suggested here that a convenient procedure would be to require the consent of the Commission. That is what we suggest and that was the suggestion made on the Second Reading of the Bill. If there is any other way of meeting the criticism of hon. Members opposite we will consider it and see if we can adopt it on the Report stage. I hope they will not ask for more than that. So far as the Amendment before the House is concerned it is hopelessly impracticable, and it would be a gross waste of public money.
    Mr. POLLOCK: I have listened to the right hon Gentleman's speech, and I am not sure whether he is in favour of the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet or not.
    Dr. ADDISON: I do not want to accept either of them now, but will look into it and see if there is a practical way.
    Mr. POLLOCK: If the Amendment is accepted the Clause will read in this way, "It shall be lawful to acquire by Act of Parliament compulsorily on behalf of His Majesty any land," and so on. I think we all know that. But the inseirtion of this method of procedure by Act of Parliament means at best nothing, because you can already acquire by Act of Parliament compulsorily any land that you like, and therefore this addition to the present Amendment really adds nothing at all. The analogy that is drawn as to the Military Lands Act does not, I think, hold good. There is at present, as expressed in Sub-section (5) of the Solicitor-General's Clause, a power under the Acts from 1842 to 1873, or the Military Lands Acts, 1892 to 1903, to acquire land, and for that purpose from time to time money is provided. You cannot take away under this Bill the powers this Department at present has of acquiring the land.
    2010
    It is now suggested we should have a system of Provisional Orders, which comes to this: That where it is desirable to take land, which is not public land or a public park, and which land cannot be obtained, as a great deal of land can be obtained, under the Military Lands Act, and so on, in these particular cases, which probably are not very many, it is suggested that you are to have the cumbersome method of proceeding by Provisional Order. Let us come to real life. Does any Member of the Committee really think that we are going to have greater power of control by this House if we acquire land by means of Provisional Order? I remember some years ago there was a very important Provisional Order which went through this House, an Order of wide application, which contained a number of provisions of great importance to traders, both in London and in the Midlands. A great number of us were very anxious to stop the passage of it in order that we might have reconsideration, and it was only with the assistance of the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) and by his vigilance for a considerable number of days, that we were able to intercept that Provisional Order and get a debate in this House. It was found almost impossible under the procedure of the House to get it into Committee or to deal with it in any way at all. My experience, and the learning that I obtained from the right hon. Baronet at that time, taught me that if we want to get control in this House we should not have anything to do with Provisional Orders. If you want to spend public money, and if you want to have prolonged debates in Committee upstairs, and so on, then a Provisional Order is an admirable institution, and, I have no doubt, provides great opportunities for those who are concerned in that procedure. We are asked now to choose, on the Amendment originally introduced by the right hon. Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Dickinson), whether we prefer the Provisional Order system, or whether we should prefer to proceed by a system under which you have got to obtain the consent of the Commission; which means that you would have to go before the Railway and Canal Commission, which gives a public hearing, and you have the opportunity on both sides of being fully heard, not merely before lawyers but by persons who are experts in other matters, and who have the opportunity of giving their expert advice to the Court. Then the decision would be given as to whether or not the Department

    2011
    should have the right to proceed. That is the method which is at present proposed, and is incorporated in Section 5. That, the hon. Baronet said, is good for the lawyer, but not half so good, if he will accept the assurance from me, as the method of procedure by Provisional Order. The hon Baronet is anxious to secure about ten times the expense by going by means of Provisional Order.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I am against it.
    Mr. POLLOCK: At any rate, the hon. Baronet wants to help the lawyers. I am trying to keep them out.
    Sir G. YOUNGERmade a remark which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
    Mr. POLLOCK: Then we are on the same side.
    Mr. FLAVIN: Give the lawyers a chance!
    Mr. POLLOCK: I will convey the expression of the hon. Member to the hon. Baronet. In considering this question we should bear in mind that there are not many cases in which very valuable land will be taken, because in most cases it will be not of very large quantity and probably in the country districts. The amount of land that will nave to be taken will be land to which the Military Lands Act does not apply> and in these casesit is suggested that you ought to proceed by the very expensive method of Provisional Order, which seems to me a wasteful procedure, without securing any sort of control at all. I think that if the consent of the Commission is inserted in this Clause, that control will have been acquired for the purpose for which control is required, and that the amount of land that should be taken will have to be considered by the Commission, that that will be adequate to safeguard the rights involved, whether they are the rights of the public or the rights of the individual owners of the land which may be threatened by taking their land from them.
    Sir W. BEALE: I think the Ministers in charge of this Bill ought to see their way to get over the difficulties that have been raised. As to the actual Amendment, the words are put in such a way that they apply to the control of the acquisition of land by agreement, and I do not see why the acquisition of land by agreement should be fettered by the necessity of having to obtain a Provisional Order. The
    2012
    only objection to taking land by agreement is that it would be spending public money, and I look upon this as a Bill to save public money. But when you come to the taking of land compulsorily, then I do agree that some safeguard ought to be provided. The method which the hon. and learned Member for Leamington suggests amounts to this, that the Railway and Canal Commission should be the safeguard of the landowners. They are not an attractive body. I agree that a Provisional Order is expensive and cumbrous, but not when it is directed to the acquisition of specific land. In those cases in which gas and waterworks are enabled to acquire land a Provisional Order does not require all the reference to particular Departments and the expenses that are sometimes necessary. I cannot say that I think much of the proposed Amendment of the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs. To enact that a person may do a thing by Act of Parliament is rather a novelty for which there is no precedent. To come to the point. We want some safeguard for the landowner where land is to be taken compulsorily. As on a Provisional Order a local inquiry can be directed, so I think that a local inquiry could be directed by the Commission, and I would suggest that the Government would be well advised to modify the provision in some form or other, so as to have an inquiry for the protection of the landowner and of the whole neighbourhood, which would define what land should be taken, and for what purpose, and would ascertain that there was no public right which was going to be violated.
    Sir F. BANBURY: The fears of my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General as to the difficulties which would result from a Provisional Order would not be realised. My hon. and learned Friend says that an Act of Parliament is superfluous. It is not superfluous. The object of the hon. Baronet's Amendment is to give the Government an option that they may either do certain things by Act of Parliament, or, if they prefer it, by Provisional Order. The Committee does not think that the functions of Parliament should be delegated to the Railway Commission. However great a body they are we do not think that the power of this House over finance ought to be delegated to them. There can be no difficulty and no expense about an Act of Parliament. There are seven years in

    2013
    which the Government can make up their minds as to what they require, and there might be an Act in the first, second, or third year in which they might include all the sites which they desire to acquire in that given year. There might be required in any one year any quantity of sites, and you could have one Act of Parliament, and in cases like that you might have a Provisional Order I think we have done a great deal to meet the Government, and the Amendment of my hon. Friend is an exceedingly reasonable and extremely good one. Whether the remaining words as to a Provisional Order should remain in is another matter. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has gone far enough, because he said, "If it is practicable to do something." We know, from the speeches of the Solicitor-General and of the right hon Gentleman (Dr. Addison) that they do not think it practicable, and therefore I suggest that the latter should divide on these words if the Government cannot accept them, it being understood that on the Report stage, if the Government brought forward an Amendment, we would not oppose it if it met our view; but we must get something in the Bill to compel the Government to bring something forward.
    Sir CLIFFORD CORY: I really cannot understand the attitude of the Government on this Amendment. Surely it is very desirable that this House should have control. We have made no complaint during the War in regard to these matters, but after the War I should certainly object very much, for at present I hardly know whether I am managing my own business or whether the Government are managing it. The right hon. Gentleman who spoke just now from the Front Bench said very expensive buildings might be put upon 9 ½ acres, and the Government might desire to make a compulsory purchase of the land; but, at the same time, that would mean that you would have the right of interfering with a person's property, notwithstanding the large amount of expenditure on buildings that he might have made upon it. There might be spent £500,000 or £1,000,000 on a colliery property, and you might cut off the whole of the coal area on the other side. Surely some consideration should be given to people, so that they should not be mulcted to that extent through the action of the Government. I
    2014
    shall certainly vote for this Amendment, of which I hope the Government will see the reasonableness.
    Sir JOHN HARMOOD-BANNER: I rather think that the Committee has run away with the idea that there are no compulsory powers, but, from the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions, the position which he put was that we spend £480,000, and the Government have got to buy a piece of land of 91 acres at £500 an acre, and that only comes to £5,000 or £6,000. Surely it is ridiculous that we should go in for Provisional Orders or Acts of Parliament, each of which costs £500 or £1,000.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: Not an Act of Parliament.
    Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER: An Act of Parliament costs a good deal of money. [An HON. MEMBER,: " It is a public Bill!'' J Even a public Bill may go upstairs. A Provisional Order would undoubtedly cost a great deal of money. The major part of the money has already been spent. The great point is to find a ready, easy and cheap method of paying the small sums for the bits of land which are to be taken. I do not say anything about the prudence of the Government or Departments concerned in spending £480,000 on 9½ acres of land which they ought to have acquired before they spent the money. In one case I understand they spent £750,000 on land which is not worth £100,000. Those things have been committed and this is virtually a Bill to condone them, and what I ask is that in doing so we should take the course which is least injurious to the general welfare of the community. I think the Railway and Canals Commission will find difficulty enough in disposing of the amount of work before them. As far as the Bill ought to go we ought to try and look for true economy.
    Mr. SALTER: I am glad the Solicitor-General has come back, as we are approaching a Division and I am in some little confusion of mind on this matter. I take the view which is, I think, shared by a good many Members. I think we ought to keep control of these proposed transactions and not to hand over the control to the Railway Commission. I do not think we ought to keep control by Provisional Order, which is a clumsy and expensive method. I think we ought to keep control by the method of a periodical Provisional Bill. That being my view, I

    2015
    find myself in some difficulty as to what course to adopt. I cannot support the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dickinson) because he is in favour of a Provisional Order and I am against that. I cannot support the Amendment to the proposed Amendment because it gives the Government choice of a Provisional Order or an Act of Parliament. I do not think they should have the choice. If the right hon. Baronet (Sir G. Younger) will forgive me for saying so, it is nothing else than absurd to enact that somebody may do something by an Act of Parliament. It really is impossible. I shall be obliged if the Solicitor-General or somebody else will tell me what I ought to do. It appears to me that those who share the view which I have just expressed have only one logical course, which is to vote against the question that Clause 3 stands part of the Bill; for we are striking out Clause 3; we are putting aside the whole of the Government proposal and the whole of the alternative proposal to proceed by Provisional Order, and saying that the matter shall stand where it stands at this moment, when Parliament can authorise the Government Department to buy a piece of land.
    Mr. G. THORNE: I do not think sufficient regard has been had to the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary that he was prepared on behalf of the Government to consider some practicable proposal before the Report stage. It seems to me that that meets the dilemma put by the hon. Gentleman opposite. I am entirely opposed to the Amendment as it stands. A land Amendment supported by the right hon. Baronet (Sir P. Banbury), on the one hand, and the hon. Member for Hanley (Mr. Outhwaite), on the other, does not excite any great confidence in my mind. I hope that either the Amendment will be withdrawn so that the Government may propose what they suggest or that we shall have a Division and vote against it.
    Mr. DICKINSON: I do not see anything more astonishing in this Amendment being supported" by the hon. Baronet opposite and the hon. Member for Hanley, than in the Government's proposal being put forward by the two right hon. Gentlemen sitting side by side on the Treasury Bench. I am not necessarily wedded to the particular proposal that I make.
    2016
    I put it down because it seemed to me the most practicable way of raising the question: Whether, in these transactions, the House of Commons should have the ultimate voice, or whether it should be done by the Government Departments without reference to this House? I cannot help thinking that the opinion of the Committee has shown that whatever may be the views of the Government with regard to Government Departments, the House does not want to hand over fully and entirely its power to those—Departments'. I understand that that is somewhat in the minds of the right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench. I am quite prepared to accept the Amendment to my Amendment, because it is just as well that we should put as broad a proposal as possible for the consideration of the Government. I cannot say that I am satisfied with the words used by the Parliamentary Secretary. He says he is willing to consider any scheme which is practicable. Will the Government themselves undertake to try to devise some scheme to meet the difficulty, so that the House of Commons will have the last word in the question of the purchase of land? I disclaim any idea of having put forward this Amendment for the purpose of protecting landowners. Under the provisions of the Bill, with the Amendments of the Solicitor-General, the landowner is perfectly well protected. The only thing I want to protect is the right of the House of Commons. I hope hon. Members will agree to the words which have been suggested, and carry my Amendment as amended, so that the Government may know what is the feeling of the House on the general principle.
    Sir G. TOULMIN: I do not wish it to be understood that I objected to the control of this House. The control of this House, in my opinion, is absolutely secured by Clause 9. The Department will have to come here and ask for a Vote for these things. [HON. MEMBERS: " No, no!"]
    Mr. FLAVIN: As I understand this Bill it applies to Ireland. To Irish Nationalists it seems rather peculiar to see very wealthy English landlords and millionaire mine-owners coming here and appealing for their own protection against the acquisition of land either by agreement or compulsion, the intention of which is to give some little remuneration or pleasure to our wounded soldiers. [Laughter.] I

    2017
    was under the impression that the Bill had to do with that?
    HON. MEMBERS: No, no!
    Sir C. HENRY: Will the Government Departments have to come to Parliament to obtain sanction for the money to be spent—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—because after the War there will not be a Vote of Credit by which they can find the money.
    Sir G. CAVE: The money cannot be spent without Treasury sanction. The financial control of this House is not exercised by Provisional Order Bills, but in quite a different way.
    Amendments made:
    11.0 P.M.
    In Sub-section (1), paragraph (b), after the word "wholly," insert the words "or partly."
    Leave out paragraph (c).—[Sir George Cave.]
    Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move to leave out the following Sub-section:—
    Sir C. HENRY: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has not quite answered my point. Will this House have control before the purchase is completed? [HON. MEMBERS: "NO, NO!"]
    Words "Act of Parliament, or by" inserted in the proposed Amendment.
    Question put, "That after the word 'lawful' ['It shall be lawful'], the words 'for a Government Department by Act of Parliament or by Provisional Order confirmed by Parliament,' be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 37; Noes, 81.

    Division No. 46.]

    AYES.

    [10.54 p.m.

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Gretton, John

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. sir Frederick G.

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Bellairs, Commander C. W.

    Harris, Henry Percy (Paddington, S.)

    Reddy, Michael

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Horne, Edgar

    Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Bryce, J. Annan

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Walker, Colonel William Hall

    Coats, Sir Stuart A. (Wimbledon)

    Meagher, Michael

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Cory, Sir Clifford John (St. Ives)

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Ffrench, Peter

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Field, William

    Nolan, Joseph

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Gilbert, J. D.

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Dickinson and Sir George Younger.

    Grant, J. A.

    NOES.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Radford, Sir George Heynes

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

    Haslam, Lewis

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Rees, G. C. (Carnarvonshire, Arfon)

    Armitage, Robert

    Hill, James

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Astor, Hon. Waldorf

    Hinds, John

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Robertson, Rt. Hon. J. M. (Tyneside)

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Rowlands, James

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

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

    Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

    Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Jones, W. s. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Brace, William

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Shortt, Edward

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    King, J.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Tootill, Robert

    Butcher, John George

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Touche, George Alexander

    Cave, Rt. Hon. Sir George

    Middlebrook, Sir William

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Morgan, George Hay

    Watt, Henry A.

    Cochrane, Cecil Algernon

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Whiteley, Herbert James

    Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Wiles, Thomas

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

    Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir J. B.

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Du Cros, Arthur Philip

    Parry, Thomas H.

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

    Finney, Samuel

    Pennefather, De Fonblanque

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Galbraith, Samuel

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Prothero, Rowland Edmund

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, S.)

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Gulland and Lord E. Talbot.

    (2) Where any land or any interest in land is or has been so acquired any adjoining or neighbouring land (whether belonging to the same owner or not), or any right of access, or other easement or right which appears to the Commission to be required for the proper enjoyment of the land or interest so acquired, or any interest

    2019
    therein, may, with the consent of the Commission, also be acquired.
    That seems to be an enormous power to give to the Government Departments concerned, because, after all, what does it amount to? That where a Government Department has acquired a large portion of land and erected a large and expensive building upon it the Department may compulsorily acquire, without coming to this House for permission, any adjoining or neighbouring land, whether belonging to the same owner or not, which appears to the Commission to be required for the proper enjoyment of the land. The result of that might be that the Department might say, " We have acquired this land, erected a large factory on it, and we require to extend it, and to do so we require to take the adjoining land," and they can do that without coming to this House for any authority or informing this House that they are going to do so. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] Because the original function of this House was to exercise control over finance, but that function has been abandoned of late years to a considerable extent; and I hope it will be resumed. We were told some few years ago that the only people who should have any authority and power over finance should be this House, and the House of Lords were deprived of any power over finance not in order that the Government might spend the money, but in order that this House might have control. Therefore, the interruption of the hon. Gentleman in support of the Government is very inopportune, and I do not think it carries much weight even with his own friends.
    There must be a limit to the power which this House gives to the Government Department concerned to acquire land all over the place. The land need not even belong to the same owner. What is the definition of "adjoining or neighbouring?" I presume there will not be very much difficulty in deciding what is adjoining——it must be land which touches—but is land half a mile or a mile away neighbouring? Who is to decide? The Commission? It is for the House to decide whether the Government are to go wandering all over the country acquiring land which they may think necessary in the interests of certain factories which they have already set up. Perhaps the Government will see a little reason, and will not desire to obtain these enormous powers. What are the arguments which have been advanced in favour
    2020
    of this Bill and this particular Clause? What did the right hon Gentleman say? He said that we had spent £475,000 on a factory on a given site. That is a very large sum, and if it is necessary in order to preserve it that they should acquire the land nobody will object; but it is quite a different thing allowing them to go two or three miles to acquire more land.
    Dr. ADDISONindicated dissent.
    Sir F. BANBURY: That is what the Clause does.
    Sir G. OAVE: My right hon. Friend is a little extravagant in his language against this Sub-section. The Government Department is to have power to acquire land for Government purposes, and all this Subsection provides is, if it is necessary for the use of the land, that they should have the right of access or the enjoyment of some adjoining or neighbouring land—words which are well understood in the Law Courts—then the Commissioners may say whether they can have the land also. At present, of course, that is done. The Government Departments using land have all the easements they require by the same right by which they have the land. The only object of the Sub-section is to continue for the future the arrangement so far as the Commission think it reasonable. I am quite satisfied that the right of access must remain, but with regard to the words "adjoining or neighbouring" I have listened to what my right hon. Friend has said, and, though I do not give any promise to-day, I will consider whether we require those words as they stand.
    Mr. HORNE: My only anxiety is as to whether this Sub-section can operate further than the Solicitor-General has stated. If he can tell me that my fears are groundless, I do not wish to speak any further.
    Imagine that a hall or building has been put up for the purpose of some works. When the time comes for disposing of the hall it is found that the buildings are not wanted for works, but if the adjoining works can be obtained these buildings might form a suitable nucleus for, say, the public hall of a model village. If they could then buy the adjoining ground they would be able to sell the hall at a much higher price than if it was only a case of the material. Would it be possible to purchase land in order that they should be able to sell the hall they had built on the land at a larger price than would otherwise be obtained?
    Mr. FLAVIN: I congratulate the hon. Baronet the Member for the City (Sir F. Banbury) on being a new acquisition in opposition to control over finance by the House of Lords. I have always recognised in him a very able exponent of the monied landlord interest in this country. I should like to point out that under the Defence of the Realm Act there is power to acquire land for the purpose of erecting factories for munitions and other works necessary to carry on the War. I should also like to say that I understand a lot of this land at the present time is acquired by the Munitions Department on very short leases. Take five acres of land required by the Munitions Department for building on a short lease of five, ten, or fifteen years. As we know the land, as it exists in Ireland, on the expiration of the short building lease the whole of the buildings erected on that building land, whether by the State or by the tenant, is acquired in the usual course at the expiration of the lease, and is confiscated by the ground landlord.
    The ground landlord, I imagine, in this case would be the average English landlord who owns the bulk of the land in this country, and who, if he showed any patriotism, instead of attempting to oppose a Bill of this sort and putting in an Amendment, would in the interest of the State, the War, and the Empire, not charge the State a rent for this land or endeavouring at the expiration of the short building lease to confiscate the buildings. Say, we have buildings worth three, five, or ten thousand pounds erected on the fee simple of five acres of land, even at an average acre rental of one pound, it would represent five pounds a year, and taking that at twenty years' purchase the fee simple of that land would represent £100. If we expended on that £100 worth of building land property worth £5,000, or £10,000, in order to make munitions, I cannot see where the nobility and patriotism of the landlord comes in when at the end of the lease he is entitled to confiscate.the whole of it from the State whereas the State are the trustees of the nation. I wish we could get more munition factories in Ireland. We welcome trie intrusion of the Government who have certainly taken their fair share of taxation out of Ireland, and have given very little in return.
    The CHAIRMAN: That is a rather larger matter than is raised by this Amendment.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: I should not have risen if it had not been for the speech to which we have just listened, and the attack of the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury). The hon. Gentleman seems to have misconceived altogether the action of the hon. Baronet. At the present moment I have the honour of being able to support him in his action, because I believe it is in opposition to these land speculations, and the possibilities we are proposing in this of giving powers to this Department to go in at this time for large land speculations. I think at this moment the landowner would be able to get higher prices for his land than he would probably be able to get during the course of the seven years within which the Department would have the opportunity of purchasing. I think the purchase now would be bad business for the State, and to enable the Department with great State funds and without the control and knowledge of this House to go in for these speculations would be entirely detrimental to the public interest, and in the interests of the landowners. That is why I support this Amendment.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I propose to withdraw my Amendment on the understanding that the Solicitor-General will look into the question whether or not he cannot find some other words which will give what I understand is desired by the words "adjoining or neighbouring land." I quite agree that the right of access must be left in. That, after all, is only a small part. My hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Home) is right in thinking that under these words there is some possibility of a Department saying, " We think we can get a better price if we use the land or buildings for some other.purpose, and in order to do that we shall acquire some adjoining or neighbouring land, then, having acquired the adjoining or neighbouring land, we shall be able to sell the land we have for another purpose at a better price." I do not think that ought to be done. I am under the disadvantage that, not being a lawyer, I am not quite sure what interpretation a Court would put upon the words which the Solicitor-General says are well known in the Courts. I can only exercise my lay mind upon them. They are wider than is necessary. I understand from the Solicitor-General that he does not desire the words to do what was suggested by the hon. Member for Guildford, and on his assurance that he will endeavour to alter the Clause to

    2023
    meet me in that respect on the Report stage, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word "acquired" ["is or has been so acquired"], to insert the words "and is to be used for the same purpose as when originally acquired."
    This power should be limited to the land which is to be used for the same purposes as when it was originally acquired. My hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Home) raised the question in regard to the public hall. I notice that there is an Amendment in the name of the Solicitor-General to Clause 4 which seems to meet the point, and which says that the land is to be used for the purpose for which it was used during the War. There is no reason why those words should not also apply to this Sub-section. No one desires to extend the sense of Clause 2 so as to enable any Department to alter the purpose and then acquire additional land which had not been touched during the War.
    Sir G. CAVE: I do not think these words serve my right hon. Friend's purpose. It cannot be said at the moment for what purpose the land is to be used for ever afterwards. It might well be that land is used for one military purpose and might be required to be used for another military purpose. You cannot limit its use in this way. This is a matter which really arises not on this Clause but on the next, where we propose to define the purposes to which the purchased land may be put. If the right hon. Gentlemen agrees with me, I propose that we should postpone the discussion till we reach that Clause, where I have to propose words to limit the uses.
    Mr. ASHLEY: I quite see the point, but "another military purpose" might open a very wide scope unless there is some serious limitations put upon the powers of the Department. Supposing land has been acquired for a horse camp and the Department in their wisdom think they would like to have a large training camp added to it. It seems to me a very large draft upon our good nature to give the Department power not only to take land for extending the scope of the remount camp but as far as I can make out any amount of land. I understand there is
    2024
    no limit to the amount of land they can take for another military purpose. The Warx Office under this Clause can have gone to a part of the country and taken 200 acres for the purpose of a remount; camp. They may after the War quite legitimately want to take another few acres in order to have some neighbouring fields where the horses can be let out and to enable them to carry on the purpose for which they originally went there, namely, a remount camp. When the right hon. Gentleman says it may be for some other military purpose I join issue entirely that this Clause should give them power not only to take land for the purpose of extending the remount camp but any amount of land for a training camp as well.
    Sir G. CAVE: We discussed that point on a previous Amendment and I promised to consider it.
    Amendment negatived.
    Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER: I beg to move, at end of Sub-section (3) to add a new Sub-section:
    "(4) All mines of coal, iron-stone, slate, and other minerals under any lands acquired under this Act shall be deemed to be excluded out of the conveyance of such lands, unless they shall have been expressly named therein and conveyed thereby."
    Under Sub-section (3) land may be acquired with or without mines or minerals and either with or without any right of support for such mines, and as the word land includes minerals it ought to be expressly provided that mines and coal shall not be included in any conveyance unless they are expressly contained in it and intended to be conveyed. In the absence of such a provision, if no reference was made to mines it might be held that the conveyance of the land included also a conveyance of the minerals.
    Sir G. CAVE: This Amendment will not make any substantial difference to the Bill, but it is simply a question as to whether you are or are not putting in the conveyance of the land such additional words conveying the mines. I do not think there is very much in it, but in the Schedule of the Bill he will find that there is provision which does exactly what he wants to do by this Amendment. Therefore I suggest that he might leave the matter until we get to that point, and when we come to that we

    2025
    can consider whether to leave the provision as it stands or whether he desires this to go in in any case.
    Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER: On that explanation, I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. HARDY: I beg to move, in Subsection (4), paragraph (a), to leave out the words "whilst the Department is in possession," and to insert instead thereof the words "within two years after the termination of the present War."
    This Amendment relates to that part of the Clause where we are dealing with the time the Department has for deciding when it will purchase. In regard to other lands or rights which they have the power to acquire, they are to decide during the present War, or within twelve months after the termination thereof. It is clear that so far as these extra rights are concerned they will be able to decide within twelve months of the termination of the War; but with regard to the general land of which they are in possession they ask to have the whole seven years to decide whether they require it or not. I suggest that the two years in which they have absolute power of possession is sufficient for them. It is very hard in a great number of cases that owners of land should be kept on tenterhooks for seven years as to whether this land is going to be taken away from them or not. I think that if we allow the Department two years in which they have absolute possession, that ought to be time enough for them to make up their minds whether they are going to acquire the land or not It is a considerable hardship to have the thing hanging over for seven years, because it may bring great difficulties where a death occurs, or in case of a forced sale, and so on, it may stop the sale of land very considerably. I think we ought to give these landlords—who after all are not sinners, but have tried to be patriotic—relief from this prolonged suspension of decision, and to provide that two years should be the time limit, especially as that is the time fixed in the Bill for absolute possession of the land.
    Dr. ADDISON: I quite recognise that the conditions applicable to decisions in connection with Clause I do not necessarily apply with the same force to land which it is proposed or which it may be proposed to acquire. The point of the hon. Mem-
    2026
    ber's Amendment is that in the case of land which it is proposed or which it may be proposed to acquire the Government shall make up its mind at some period earlier than seven years', and he suggests two. There is considerable force in his contention that the Department should not require seven years to make up its mind on this particular point, but I cannot accept two years as being adequate, for the same reasons which I outlined when we were discussing Clause 1. We all hope that some of the factories and buildings which have been erected by the War Office and the Admiralty may be devoted to some permanent purpose of a useful kind, not necessarily of the same sort as at present; but during the process of demobilisation and reconstruction it will not be possible in many of these cases, for a considerable time, to decide whether it will be the wisest thing to let the land revert to other purposes or whether the State shall acquire it. Certain factories which manufacture chemicals would be applicable, I understand, to other industries of a kindred nature. In the case of several of them it would be undesirable for national reasons to divert them very rapidly from their present purpose, and two years would be too short a period. I think that I can promise to consult the officers of the Departments and see if we can put in a period which will be shorter than the seven years, but I am quite clear that the two years mentioned is too short. Perhaps the matter would be left over on this understanding to the Report stage.
    Sir F. BANBURY: The right hon. Gentleman says that the two years suggested by my right hon. Friend is too short a period, but he does not suggest any moderate alternative.
    Dr. ADDISON: One has to consult the Departments involved. The only promise that I can give now is to try to put some period.
    Mr. HORNE: Notice of the intention to purchase should be given to the owner so that he might know what was going to be done with the land.
    Mr. RUTHERFORD: This is a very important matter, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will not be induced either to modify or withdraw his proposal. It is said that the Government want seven years, or at any rate a great deal more than two after the end of the War, to make

    2027
    up their minds as to whether they are going to acquire out-and-out certain properties of which they shall be in possession at the end of the War. My right hon. Friend has moved a very serviceable Amendment. When you consider the circumstances in which large numbers of these properties have been taken it is reasonable to ask the Government to say within two years whether they are going to acquire this property. There may be some other Government Department which could make some use of this property and seek to acquire it in these circumstances upon very reasonable terms. Is a man to have his property taken away for another object altogether, simply because the Government just happens to be a tenant on it? Is he to be obliged to part with it under the oppressive conditions of this Bill, from one end or the other? I really think the Government are trying the patience of Members of this House. We meant to help the Government in this War, but we are not prepared to agree to their exercising further arbitrary powers after the War. Two years is ample time in which to make up their minds whether they are going to give the property back or not. Under the Bill they have got seven years, and during that time a man may be left entirely in the dark as to whether he is going to continue to own his property or not. A more unreasonable suggestion I never heard, and I hope my right hon. Friend will stick to his Amendment.
    Mr. FIELD: I support the Amendment. It appears to me to be an extraordinary position for the Government to say that they cannot make up their minds or explain what they want within the period proposed. Anyone who owns land to which the Bill refers wants to know what is to be done with it, and he should not be left in suspense as to whether or not the Government is to retain it at the last minute. The case is so plain and obvious that I hope the right hon. Gentleman will agree to the Amendment. After all it does not interfere with the Government keeping the land for seven years. We only ask them to make up their minds in two years whether the tenancy will be terminated or not.
    Sir G. CAVE: It may well be that in most cases the Government may go out of possession in six or twelve months, but the Amendment keeps them for two years after the War, though it might be that a
    2028
    year after the War they want to exercise the right of purchase. The matter really wants consideration as to its wording. My right hon. Friend has promised to put it before the Department to consider whether they cannot meet the wishes of hon. Members in a perfectly bonâ fide way.
    Mr. ASHLEY: I would like an explanation as to why, in paragraph (a), the Government can remain seven years, and under paragraph (b) they can exercise their right twelve months after the War. Why should there be this differentiation between the periods in the two paragraphs 2 If they can exercise their power under (b) twelve months after the War, why the longer period in the case of (a)?
    Sir G. CAVE: We will consider whether we cannot have one period.
    Mr. HARDY: I took the words in (b) as the subject of my Amendment in (a), and I thought I was acting wisely, not being a lawyer.
    As the right hon. Gentleman has promised consideration, and as he evidently regards the term as too long, I accept his promise to bring up an Amendment on Report.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment made: In Sub-section (4) (b), leave out the words "any Government Department" and insert instead thereof the words "the Admiralty, or Army Council, or the Minister of Munitions."—[Sir G. Cave.]
    Mr. HARDY: I beg to move in Subsection (5) to leave out the words "subject to the modifications set out in the Schedule to this Act."
    I think we ought to be given some information why there is to be a new Code in this case of a far more stringent character and why the Land Clauses Act has been departed from. The last Government, which was not very favourable to landlords, in the Small Holdings Act did not amend the Land Clauses Act to anything like the extent of this Bill, and except in one or two points did not establish a new Code. There is considerable reference in the Military Lands Act and the Defence Acts under which some land can be taken, but in none of those has there been this whittling down of the Land Clauses Act. When we come to the Schedule we can discuss the various Amendments desired. I move this Amendment to obtain a statement as to the

    2029
    drastic treatment adopted in reference to the Land Clauses Act, and whether this is to be a special occasion or a precedent.
    Sir G. CAVE: It would not be right for us on this Amendment to discuss the terms of the Schedule. The only point is whether we can import the Land Clauses Act without any alteration or whether some modification should be introduced into the working of that Act. From that point of view I do not think anybody would say we could import the Land Clauses Act without any modification. One reason is that if you did that it means that the Government will have to pay the full value of the land and the value of the Government improvements upon it. That would be the effect of this Amendment.
    Mr. HARDY: Clause 2 would protect you against that.
    Sir G. CAVE: No. I think not. If these words are carried we shall have to have a jury in every case instead of having some other tribunal much less expensive and less troublesome. There are parts of the Schedule which I am prepared to give up. I am not adhering to the whole of the Schedule, but I cannot discuss that now. I think I have said enough to show that there must be some modification, and therefore that these words must be retained.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: The Solicitor-General has given as one reason why he should depart from the Lands Clauses Act, the fact that otherwise the buildings on the land would become the property of the landlord, and therefore would be subject-matter of compensation. That I have met by an Amendment which has been on the Paper for some time. The point can be met perfectly well without the Clause in the Schedule. In fact the Clause in the Schedule goes a great deal too far because under the last Amendment the Government can exercise the option referred to, and they will simply pay the value which the land had before the occupation took place. The present Amendment is of vital importance. This habit of departing from the Lands Clauses Act in Bill after Bill has been the subject of many discussions in this House, and this is certainly not a case in which you should depart very far from the Act. These departures are wider than any before made. You have betterment in its strongest form, and various other matters into which I will not go in detail. The Solicitor-General said he
    2030
    was proposing to deal with the tribunal in the Schedule. The Railway Commissioners are to have the right to appoint a surveyor to act as arbitrator.
    The CHAIRMAN: We cannot discuss this matter twice over. On this Amendment we must surely deal only with the question, whether the Lands Clauses Act ought to apply in its entirety. "When we come to the Schedule we shall be able to discuss in detail the various proposals contemplated.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I thought I was in order in following the Solicitor-General who stated that he was making a particular alteration. I will not deal with it in detail. The point which he made is a specious point, and really has no substance at all. What he proposes to do is to have an arbitrator appointed by the Railway Commissioners instead of, as in the Lands Clauses Act, an arbitrator appointed by each party with power to choose an umpire. That is a very important matter. The Solicitor-General struck accidentally upon one of the main arguments against giving the latitude for which he asks. I read only two nights ago a most powerful speech upon that very point in which it was stated that the appointment of an arbitrator by a Government Department was—I forget the exact epithets, but they were very strong—I think it was unjust, and contrary to the principles of natural justice, or words to that effect. That speech was made by the present Solicitor-General when dealing with the Housing and Town Planning Bill.
    Sir G. CAVE: There is no such provision as that in this Bill.
    The CHAIRMAN: The arguments advanced by the hon. and learned Gentleman apply to the Schedule; would it not be better to wait till we get to that point?
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I cannot deal in detail with the example which the right hon. and learned Gentleman gave, but I respectfully differ from the interpolation that he made a moment or two ago. The only two reasons that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has given why we should depart from the Lands Clauses Act are to me unconvincing arguments. I venture to submit that it is certainly unsound policy to depart at all from the Lands Clauses Act. I must not go into detail in the way these alterations have been made in the Schedule, but the latter does depart from the Lands Clauses

    2031
    Act in many ways which are highly undesirable. We are on dangerous ground. It is a very easy matter to depart from the Lands Clauses Act. Doubtless some hon. Members approve it. They are strongly against the Act. But it really does matter, in cases of this kind, whether or not there is a pretence of giving justice. We have here a class of landowner who is having his land taken from him after he has, in the first instance, given it up from patriotic motives. He is having it taken away compulsorily, and it does seem right that he should have some protection—that he should, at the present time, be entitled to the whole protection of the Lands Clauses Act.
    Mr. ASHLEY: I want to support the Amendment of my right hon. Friend behind me. I do not profess, not being a lawyer, to understand all the intricacies of the Lands Clauses Act, but I see in a paragraph, which I will read in a moment, that in 1907, after the Liberal party, flushed with victory, and with a great majority, had returned to this House, they adopted, with one very small modification, regarding the Arbitrator, the Lands Clauses Act in its entirety in the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1907. I do not, therefore, see why, in the present circumstances, when we have a Coalition Government in office, we should be asked to consent to very considerable modifications of the Lands Clauses Act. What, in 1907, was good enough for the Liberal party, who were enthusiastic for reform, and could do anything they liked, is surely good enough for us. If they left the Lands Clauses Act in the Allotments Act, why should we now have all these proposed modifications? I find the Clause of the 1907 Act says:
    "The Order shall be in the prescribed form … and shall incorporate, subject to the necessary adaptations——
    not modifications
    "the Lands Clauses Act other than Sections 77–85 of the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845. Subject to this modification any question of compensation shall be determined by a single arbitrator appointed by the Board …
    The right hon. Gentleman has not given, in my opinion, a single reason why we should go a step further than what was considered to be good enough by the Liberal party in 1907, and some of us feel a little hurt that these modifications should now be suggested.
    Mr. RUTHERFORD: If this Clause applied simply to the present tenancies for the War I do not think there would have been the slightest objection. Nobody wants to insist upon the Government paying any extra money to anybody in connection with the War, but I hope the Committee will clearly understand that that is not the suggestion. The Post Office has to come here at intervals for a Bill to increase post offices, in Chester, Nottingham, and so on. Those properties are scheduled, and they have got to be bought under the provisions of the Lands Clauses Acts, with the trivial exceptions to be found in the provisions of the Post Office Act itself. Now the Government propose when this War is over that they should be relieved from the restrictive provisions of the Lands Clauses Acts. The main provision of the Lands Clauses Acts is that the man whose property is being taken away is entitled to the verdict of a jury. That is the principle of the law as embodied in the Consolidation Acts, which it has been the practice of this House to insist upon being incorporated in every Bill for more than half a century when land is being taken for public purposes, and now we are asked here to give exceptional facilities to some Government Departments to buy properties that have been used for purposes of parks, and the buildings may be taken down and the land used for some Government Department for the purposes of allotments. There is no restriction whatever in the Bill as to the purposes for which the land may be used. If this were a Bill for the purpose of allotments we would know the land could only be taken for allotments, but the hon. Member in charge of the Bill has very frankly told the Committee some other Department, for some other purpose, may find before the tenancy ends that it wants that property. I venture very respectfully to urge the Committee to insist that when this land is being bought after the end of the War, possibly for other purposes, the ordinary law of the land should apply. I think that every man is entitled to have his personal liberty dealt with by a jury, and it was the law of the land, as laid down in the Lands Clauses Acts, that he should have the value of his property assessed by a jury. The learned Solicitor-General has just told the Committee that he intends when the Schedule is reached to suggest some different kind of tribunal from that mentioned in the Schedule.
    Sir G. CAVEdissented.
    Mr. RUTHERFORD: Then I misunderstood the words, because the words which the right hon. and learned Gentleman used were that when the Schedule came along a different tribunal would be suggested. I understood that was so, and so did my hon. Friends.
    Sir G. CAVE: When the Schedule comes to be dealt with it will be found that there is a difference.
    Mr. RUTHERFORD: It is not unnatural under the circumstances that some misapprehension should arise. It has always been the practice to put in a separate Clause dealing with this question, and there is no reason why an elaborate Schedule should be prepared. If the Gov-
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—[Sir G. Cave.]
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.
    The remaining Orders were read and postponed.
    ernment insist upon the attitude disclosed in this Bill, and if when the Report stage is reached there is not some very substantial modifications, and if we are going to have all these alterations from the Land Clauses forced down our throats, I can predict a very stormy career for this Bill before it finds its way to the Statute Book, and it will take a very considerable time to analyse the Amendments which will be put down to the Schedule. I am against any Schedule being provided, and I am opposed to any provisions of the Lands Clauses Act being departed from.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 55; Noes, 22.

    Division No. 47.]

    AYES.

    [12.4 a.m.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke

    Gulland, John William

    Rowlands, James

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Armitage, Robert

    Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, S.)

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Shortt, Edward

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Haslam, Lewis

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Bellairs, Commander C. W.

    Hill, James

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Brace, William

    King, Joseph

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Whiteley, Herbert James

    Buxton, Noel

    Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.

    Wiles, Thomas

    Cave, Rt. Hon. Sir George

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    Pratt, J. W.

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

    Cochrane, Cecil Algernon

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

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

    Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Rees, G. C. (Carnarvonshire, Arfon)

    Du Cros, Arthur Philip

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Finney, Samuel

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Bridgeman and Mr. Geoffrey Howard.

    Gilbert, J. D.

    NOES.

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Keating, Matthew

    Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Touche, George Alexander

    Coats, Sir Stuart A. (Wimbledon)

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Walker, Colonel William Hall

    Ffrench, Peter

    Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

    Younger, Sir George

    Field, William

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Gretton, Colonel John

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

    Harris, Henry Percy (Paddington, S.)

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

    Laurence Hardy and Mr. Rawlinson.

    Horne, Edgar

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Whereupon, it being after Half-past Eleven of the clock upon Thursday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
    Adjourned at Twelve minutes after Midnight, Friday, 28th July, till Monday next, 31st July, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 22nd February last.

WAR.
  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND.
    MINISTERIAL APPOINTMENTS.
    MINISTERIAL APPOINTMENTS.
  TREASURY BILLS.
  TREASURY BILLS.
  LAND VALUATION DEPARTMENT (FORMS).
  LAND VALUATION DEPARTMENT (FORMS).
  GEEAT BRITAIN (REVENUE).
  GEEAT BRITAIN (REVENUE).
  INCOME TAX (NAVAL OFFICERS).
  INCOME TAX (NAVAL OFFICERS).
  EXCHEQUER BONDS (REGISTRATION).
  EXCHEQUER BONDS (REGISTRATION).
  HERRING FISHING (HOWTH).
  HERRING FISHING (HOWTH).
  SOLDIERS ON LEAVE (TREATMENT).
  SOLDIERS ON LEAVE (TREATMENT).
  WAR OFFICE QUESTIONS (AWAITING REPORTS).
  WAR OFFICE QUESTIONS (AWAITING REPORTS).
  BRITISH TROOPS IN SALONIKA.
  BRITISH TROOPS IN SALONIKA.
  WAR OFFICE WOMEN CLERKS.
  WAR OFFICE WOMEN CLERKS.
  DISCHARGED SOLDIERS (RE—EXAMINATION).
  DISCHARGED SOLDIERS (RE—EXAMINATION).
  ARMY SERVICE CORPS (CIVILIAN CLERKS).
  ARMY SERVICE CORPS (CIVILIAN CLERKS).
  NERVE-SHAKEN SOLDIERS (CONVALESCENT HOMES).
  NERVE-SHAKEN SOLDIERS (CONVALESCENT HOMES).
  WOOL.
  WOOL.
  MILITARY SERVICE.
    MEDICAL RE-EXAMINATION.
    MEDICAL RE-EXAMINATION.
    LOCAL TRIBUNALS.
    LOCAL TRIBUNALS.
  MUNITIONS.
    MRS. FLORA DRUMMOND.
    MRS. FLORA DRUMMOND.
    WOOLWICH ARSENAL (DILUTION OF SKILLED LABOUR).
    WOOLWICH ARSENAL (DILUTION OF SKILLED LABOUR).
    IRISH DISTILLERIES (RESTRICTIONS).
    IRISH DISTILLERIES (RESTRICTIONS).
    WOMEN'S PROCESSION.
    WOMEN'S PROCESSION.
  EXCISE ADVISORY COMMITTEES (INDIA).
  EXCISE ADVISORY COMMITTEES (INDIA).
  MESOPOTAMIA CAMPAIGN.
  MESOPOTAMIA CAMPAIGN.
  GERMAN LANGUAGE.
  GERMAN LANGUAGE.
  DISTURBANCES IN IRELAND.
    MARTIAL LAW.
    MARTIAL LAW.
    REBUILDING OF RUINED ABEAS.
    REBUILDING OF RUINED ABEAS.
    ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
    ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
    PRISONERS' CORRESPONDENCE.
    PRISONERS' CORRESPONDENCE.
  IRISH NEWSPAPERS (DELAYED DELIVERY).
  IRISH NEWSPAPERS (DELAYED DELIVERY).
  Irish Services (Expenditure).
  Irish Services (Expenditure).
  Agricultural Rates (Relief).
  Agricultural Rates (Relief).
  Naval Writers (Promotion).
  Naval Writers (Promotion).
  Albourne Church School, Hassocks.
  Albourne Church School, Hassocks.
  Tuberculosis Order, 1914.
  Tuberculosis Order, 1914.
  Stromness Mail Service.
  Stromness Mail Service.
  Sheep Detained.
  Sheep Detained.

RETURNS, REPORTS, &c.
Miscellaneous, No. 24 (1916)—Correspondence with the United States Ambassador regarding the relief of Allied territories in the occupation of the enemy:
Education (Scotland)—Amendment of the Superannuation Scheme for Teachers, 1916:
Aeronautics—Report of the Advisory Committee for Aeronautics for the year 1915–1916:
Presented (by command) and ordered to lie on the Table.
Supreme Court of Judicature (England)—Rules of the Supreme Court (Vacations in Courts and Offices), 1916, dated 25th July 1916:
Public Records (Supreme Court of Judicature)—Schedule containing a list and particulars of classes of documents existing or accruing in the Office of the Registrars of the Chancery Division and in other Departments of the Supreme Court of Judicature which are not considered of sufficient public value to justify their preservation in the Public Record Office:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and ordered to lie on the Table.

CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES.
The LORD BALFOUR The LORD BALFOUR appointed to take the Chair in Committee of the Whole House this day.

LARCENY BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BUCKMASTER): My Lords, in making the Motion that the House do resolve itself into Committee on this Bill, I think it right that I should call your attention to the position in which the Bill now stands. Your Lordships may remember that you granted a Second Reading to the Bill upon the statement that I made that it was designed to consolidate the existing law with regard to larceny, and your Lordships accordingly referred it to the Joint Committee of both Houses whose business it is
964
to consider Consolidation Bills and report upon them. The Joint Committee have considered this Bill and made a Report. They have proposed a number of Amendments to the Bill as it was originally drawn, and these proposed Amendments are grouped under three heads. With those under the first head I do not think your Lordships need be troubled, because, in fact, they are nothing but verbal Amendments for the purpose of making clear what the law undoubtedly is.
The second class of Amendments stand in a different category. They are designed to remove certain inequalities and anomalies in the existing law, and they undoubtedly effect a slight alteration of the law. If your Lordships thought fit, after I have placed before you the nature of these Amendments, to permit them all to be inserted together in Committee, it would be a convenient course; but that is, of course, entirely in your Lordships' hands, and must depend on the weight and importance which your Lordships give to these Amendments. I will refer briefly to the Amendments under the second head. The first is an Amendment in Clause 26. As the Bill was drawn, it provided that every person who breaks and enters any dwelling-house or any building within the curtilage thereof and occupied therewith, or any school-house, shop, warehouse, or counting-house, shall have committed a felony. That is the way in which the law stands now. The proposed Amendment, which I trust your Lordships will think is a reasonable one, is to add "office, store, garage, pavilion, factory, or workshop, or any building belonging to His Majesty or to any Government Department or to any municipal or other public authority." The effect of that Amendment is merely to extend the definition of a "building"; it does not really affect the offence. It must be just as much an offence to break into a garage as into a counting-house. The Amendment is in effect an extension of the definition of "building" to what is more in accordance with the needs of modern times. There is another Amendment of the same class in Clause 27, where the same words are introduced for exactly the same purpose. There is also an Amendment in Clause 31. That clause provides that every person who with intent extorts valuable property from any person, or induces any person to confer or procure for any person any appointment or office of profit or trust shall be guilty of a misdemeanour,

965
and, on conviction thereof, shall be liable to imprisonment "for any term not exceeding three years." The joint Committee in their Report point out that the term of three years' imprisonment is obsolete, and that in practice the period of two years is never exceeded. It is therefore proposed to reduce the maximum punishment to two years' imprisonment. The only other Amendment under the second head is in Clause 34. This clause provides that every person who corruptly takes any money or reward, directly or indirectly, under pretence or upon account of helping any person to recover stolen property shall be guilty of felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be liable to penal servitude for any term not exceeding seven years, and in addition, if a male under the age of eighteen years, to be once privately whipped. In all other offences for which whipping is a punishment the age is sixteen and not eighteen years. It is proposed, therefore, to alter eighteen years in this clause to sixteen years. I cannot help thinking that your Lordships will agree that if the punishment of whipping is to be administered at all, most of its objections are taken away if it is administered to young people. Those are the proposed Amendments which are grouped under Part II of the recommendations of the Joint Committee. If your Lordships thought fit, after this short explanation, to permit these Amendments to be inserted, I would, with your Lordships' permission, move them en bloc in Committee, and then, if your Lordships thought they were matters which required further consideration, that could take place on Report.
Finally, a further set of Amendments were included in what is called Part III of the Report of the Joint Committee. Those of your Lordships who were present when I moved the Second Reading of this Bill may remember the peculiar position in which I stated that the law of larceny stands. Speaking generally, it is not larceny to steal a wild bird that is not fit for human food, but it is none the less larceny to steal a hawk, which I think no one would suggest was a suitable subject for human food; and in the same way it is larceny to steal the eggs of a hawk, but it is not larceny to steal the eggs of a swan. As the law stands, a lark is, but a canary is not, capable of being stolen at Common Law, because the latter is not fit for human food. The proposed Amendments will alter this, and leave the law in what I cannot help thinking is a much more sensible form.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[Lord BALFOUR, OF BURLEIGH in the Chair.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I move that the Amendments be agreed to.
Moved, That the Amendments proposed by the Joint Committee be made.—(The Lard Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
The Report of Amendments to be received on Tuesday next, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 80.)

REGISTRATION OF BUSINESS NAMES BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
LORD SOUTHWARK: My Lords, I move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill. The Bill has gone through the. Select Committee appointed by your Lordships, and is now printed in an amended form. I propose, when the House is in Committee, to move that the Amendments made by the Select Committee be adopted en bloc; and, with your Lordships' permission, I would propose taking the Report stage on Tuesday, August 8, which will give noble Lords an opportunity of putting down any further Amendments they may think desirable.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Southwark.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[Lord BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH in the Chair.]
LORD SOUTHWARK: I move that the Amendments be agreed to.
Moved, That the Amendments proposed by the Select Committee be made.—(Lord Southwark.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
The Report of Amendments to be received on Tuesday the 8th of August next.

POLICE, &c. (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 1:
Retention by ex-constables of pensions whilst employed for the purposes of the war.
1.—(1) Where for purposes connected with the present war a constable in receipt of a pension under the Police Act, 1890, has, whether before or after the passing of this Act, enlisted or entered or been granted a commission in any of His Majesty's forces, or obtained employment under the Admiralty or Army Council or the Ministry of Munitions, or entered or re-entered the service of any police force, subsection (2) of section thirteen of the Police Act, 1890 (which relates to the suspension of pension in cases of appointments to new offices) shall not apply and shall be deemed never to have applied except to such extent as the police authority may otherwise determine.
(2) This section shall apply to Scotland with the substitution of references to the Police (Scotland) Act, 1890, for the references to the Police Act, 1890.
LORD BERESFORD: I move the insertion, after subsection (1) of Clause 1, of the new subsection standing in my name. I brought this forward in the House of Commons last year. It was agreed to by the Minister of the Crown, Mr. McKenna, but he did not insert it in my words. The point I want to bring before your Lordships is this, that it should be perfectly clear that any police officer who joins the Army, and who has earned a pension in respect of the time during which he served in the Police previously, should not lose that pension owing to any offence he may commit in the Army.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 1, after subsection (1) insert the following new subsection:
(2) Where a constable entitled to pension under the Police Act, 1890, has been retained under section two of the Police (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1915, and has, whether before or after the passing of this Act, left the Police Service under circumstances which would not render his pension liable to forfeiture had he been in receipt of his pension under the Police Act, 1890, such pension shall be payable from the date of his leaving in like manner as if he had retired on medical certificate or with consent of the chief officer of Police.—(Lord Beresford.)
LORD SANDHURST: By the Police Act, 1890, a constable of twenty-five years service is entitled to retire on a pension, and this pension can be forfeited only in certain cases which are defined by the Act—that is, if he is convicted of an offence
968
punishable with penal servitude or three months imprisonment, or if he knowingly associates with thieves, and so on. The Police (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1915, suspended this right and enacted that constables who have served more than twenty-five years should not retire during the war except by special permission. But it reserved their right to pension after the war—that is to say, a man retained after twenty-five years service, if subsequently dismissed for any cause for which his pension would be forfeited, will remain entitled to his full pension after the termination of the war. This provision has been shown to be of great value. It has retained in the Police a large number of men who would otherwise have retired on pension, and these men have, almost without exception, accepted the requirement loyally and continued to serve most faithfully. The result has been that no fresh recruiting in the Police Forces has been necessary, and hundreds, if not thousands, of men have thus been left free for military service. There was, however, one exception. A constable who wished to retire and was refused leave to do so deliberately disobeyed orders and had to be dismissed. But at the end of the war he will receive his pension; in the meantime, however, he is not entitled to it. The effect of my noble friend's Amendment would be to give this man his pension at once, and to do the same for any other man who might choose to disobey orders. Its effect would be to nullify altogether the provision of the Police (Emergency Powers) Act to which I have referred, because any constable to whom permission to retire was refused and who disobeyed orders and forced the Police authority to dismiss him could claim at once his full pension. The result would be disastrous to the discipline of the force. Were the proposal in the Amendment sanctioned, it might lead to a large number of retirements of elder men whose places would have to be taken by younger men, with the result that the fighting power of the country would be proportionately diminished. I submit that these are sound reasons against the Amendment, and I hope the noble and gallant Lord will not press it.
LORD BERESFORD: After what the noble Lord has said, I beg to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2:
Payments to constables serving in the naval and military forces and their dependants.
2.—(1) Where before the passing of this Act a police authority has resolved, promised, sanctioned or agreed to make to any constable serving in His Majesty's forces for the purposes of the present war, payments in excess of the amounts authorised by the Police Constables (Naval and Military Service) Acts, 1914 and 1915, any such excess payments up to the date of the passing of this Act, or such later date as may be determined by the Secretary of State, shall be deemed to have been lawfully made, and the Secretary of State may, if he thinks fit, sanction the continuance of such excess payments after such date as aforesaid, and shall do so in any case where it appears to him that the constable joined His Majesty's forces in reliance on such resolution, promise, sanction, or agreement, and that the amount of the excess is not unreasonable.
(2) In the case of any constable who dies or has died whilst employed on naval or military service in respect of whom no pension or gratuity is payable from the Police Fund the police authority shall have power to return to any of his dependants, as defined in section one of the Police Reservists (Allowances) Act, 1914, the rateable deductions which have been made from his pay towards pension.
(3) This section shall apply to Scotland with the substitution of a reference to the Secretary for Scotland for the reference to the Secretary of State.
LORD BERESFORD: I move to insert in Clause 2, after subsection (2), the new subsection standing in my name. Reservists and policemen specially selected by the Admiralty or the Army Council were granted police allowances for their wives and dependants, but men who from purely patriotic motives enlisted in the Navy or Army without the consent of the chief officer of the Police Force to which they belonged were compelled to resign altogether their connection with the Police Service. Their wives receive no police allowance, and the men have no legal claim to reinstatement in the Police Service after the war. I think it is rather hard that these men should suffer owing to their patriotism in joining His Majesty's Forces, and I therefore move the Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
Clause 2, page 2, after subsection (2) insert the following new subsection:
(3) For the purposes of section one of the Police (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1915, any police constable who enlisted in His Majesty's Forces prior to the passing of the above Act, and who resigned from the Police Force for the purpose of so enlisting shall be considered to have; enlisted with the consent of the chief officer of police of the force to which he belonged.—(Lord Beresford.)
LORD SANDHURST: The Police Constables (Naval and Military Service) Act of 1914 provided that if a police constable enlisted with the consent of the chief officer, and subject to other conditions, an allowance in addition to the military separation allowance might be made to his wife from the Police Fund. This provision was re-enacted in the Police (Emergency Powers) Act, 1915, and made wider by the omission of some of the conditions previously imposed; but it still retained the condition that the enlistment must be with the approval of the chief officer. It is clear that it is necessary to impose this restriction on the enlistment of police constables. Chief constables have generally been very ready to allow as many as possible of their men to enlist. More than 25 per cent. of the whole of the Police Forces have joined the Army; but it is absolutely necessary, it is considered, in order to prevent the Police Forces being depleted to a dangerous extent, that they should be able to retain a sufficient number to keep the peace and carry out the numerous and arduous duties imposed upon them by the war. One case occurred in the Metropolitan Police, where a constable had been definitely refused permission to enlist and chose to resign and join the Military Mounted Police. It had been made perfectly clear to him before he did so that he would be entitled to no allowance from the Police Fund for his wife. It would be extremely desirable not to alter the law and require the Police authority now to grant an allowance in this case. I may point out that this man has suffered no hardship, for his wife is entitled to the full separation allowance granted to the wives of other soldiers; and perhaps I might add that there are hundreds of other men just as anxious as this constable to join His Majesty's Forces, but who loyally continue to serve in the Police Force on being required to do so, and it would be unfair to them to give one particular man a certain privilege. I hope that in the circumstances the noble and gallant Lord will withdraw his Amendment.
LORD BERESFORD: I would point out that this circumstance occurred to more than one man. It was before the Act of 1915 that men resigned the Police and joined the Army. Those are the men for whom I am pleading. The Act of 1915 presses very hardly on those men who did not know that it was coming.
LORD SANDHURST: The point is that a police constable must not join the Army without the leave of his chief officer. That is the point of my objection.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BERESFORD: I move the insertion in Clause 2 of the other subsection standing in my name. I understand that if a police officer is promoted while serving with the naval or military forces, his wife gets a reduced allowance.
Amendment moved—
Clause 2, page 2, insert the following new subsection:
(4) The allowance from Police Funds granted to the wife of a police officer shall not be reduced on account of her husband's promotion while serving with the Naval or Military Forces.—(Lord Beresford.)
LORD SANDHURST: I submit to my noble and gallant friend that this Amendment is not necessary. When an allowance to the wife has been granted under Section 1 of the Police (Reservists' Allowances) Act, it is not liable to reduction because the man has been promoted to non-commissioned rank; and as regards a man promoted to a commission, there is a declaratory clause in the Police (Emergency Provisions) Act which runs—
"For removing all doubt, it is hereby declared that the privileges to which a man may be entitled under the Police (Reservists' Allowances) Act and the other emergency Police Acts shall continue and may be renewed notwithstanding that the man is granted a temporary commission for the purposes of the present war in His Majesty's naval or military service."
The Amendment, therefore is not required.
LORD BERESFORD: I beg to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Can the noble Lord in charge of the Bill give me an answer to the question which I asked in the Committee stage—namely, how long the vote binds those workers who come into the works after the vote has been taken, with regard to certain things which are ordered by this Bill.
LORD SANDHURST: The reply I have to give to my noble friend is that these and other matters must, it is considered, be left to be worked out in connection with
972
particular Orders and particular cases. Different provisions might arise in different circumstances, and it is impossible to lay down a general rule to govern every case that could be inserted in the clause. I venture to remind the noble Lord that the Orders requiring contributions will relate to provisions of additional and special benefit to the workers, the whole cost of which it would be unfair to place upon the employer; and it would also be unreasonable to require an employer in a certain case to lay out a large sum of capital, and then in a year or two to find that the workers no longer wished to contribute. I might emphasise what I said the other day, that cases where these contributions may be required will be very exceptional, and only where a strong case can be made out and it can be shown that the proposal is workable and likely to be of permanent advantage. I would point out that the Secretary of State has power to revoke an Order, or to make a fresh one; so that if a good case were made out for rescinding an Order, that could be done.
LORD MUIR-MACKENZIE: I wish to ask my noble friend whether he will be so good as to consider, before the next stage of the Bill, whether the title ought not to be altered. The title of a Bill generally is a sort of label that gives one an idea of its contents. This Bill is labelled "Police, &c. (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill," and nobody would dream for a moment that there were in it a page and a half of provisions relating to factories, and also a provision, the full scope of which it is difficult to ascertain merely from reading it, with reference to lunacy. The fact is that the title, instead of being "Police, &c. (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill," ought to be "Miscellaneous Provisions (Police, &c.) Bill," and I suggest to the noble Lord that before the next stage he should consider whether the title ought not to be altered so that people may know that provisions relating to factories and to lunacy are to be found within the Bill.
LORD SANDHURST: I will represent to the Secretary of State what the noble Lord has said. I am sure that in putting all these matters together in one Bill the Secretary of State had the idea only of general convenience and the convenience of public business. The clauses relating to the Police were very necessary. The clauses relating to factories were also necessary

973
because of the large influx of women who have come into factories of different descriptions owing to the war. In regard to the particular clause which the noble Lord mentioned—Clause 11—which has to do with the powers of the late Lunacy Commissioners, the reason for putting it in was this. In the case of a Member of Parliament who unfortunately becomes a lunatic, his seat cannot be vacated without a report from two Lunacy Commissioners. Now that there are no Lunacy Commissioners, it was considered advisable as soon as possible to get this power put in. But I will lay before my right hon. friend the wish of the noble Lord, and will let him know Mr. Samuel's opinion at the next stage of the Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not believe that the long title of the Bill can be altered at this stage, but I think the short title can. In my opinion the noble Lord opposite is justified in the suggestion be has made. It might be extremely misleading to any one who wanted to find out what had been done on this lunacy provision, for instance, if he could not find the provision because it was concealed under the ample folds of a Police Bill. He would not expect to find it there. I think that in the interests of the study of legislation there should be some phrase at the beginning of the title, such as "Miscellaneous Provisions," as the noble Lord proposed, so that there may be warning that under that heading there may be found these various provisions relating to the Home Department. The title should be made to conform with the contents of the Bill.
Bill to be read 3a on Tuesday next.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
House to be in Committee on Tuesday next.

BRITISH PRISONERS IN GERMANY.
LORD BERESFORD LORD BERESFORD had the following Question on the Paper—
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they can give the House any information as to the treatment of British prisoners in the internment camp at Güstrow, Germany; whether British prisoners at this camp are now supplied with greatcoats; whether it is not a fact
974
that during the whole of last winter these British prisoners were without greatcoats; whether they are still under canvas; whether beds have been provided in place of straw; whether they have now been supplied with shirts and boots; whether a Report on this camp was sent to the War Office on 15th July, 1915; whether a reply has been sent to this Report; and what answer has the German Government given to the demand of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for a reply to be sent within a week as to the better treatment of British prisoners in Germany.
The noble and gallant Lord said: My Lords, before my noble friend answers the Questions standing in my name, there are one or two points which I should like to bring to his notice on which he may, perhaps, be able to give me further information. Is he aware that the prisoners in this camp were constantly bayoneted, and that many of them had to go to hospital from bayonet wounds? Is he aware that there was an order posted in this camp, stating that—
"On refusal to work, the guards have been directed in the future, if occasion arises, to make use of their weapon";
and that this further order was also posted up—
"Guards are especially enjoined energetically to keep the prisoners at work. Should the attitude of the prisoners demand the use of the weapon, this should be employed without regard to consequences. In the first place the bayonet only is to be employed."
I should also like to ask my noble friend whether it is the fact that this camp is the worst camp of all in Germany in which military prisoners are interned, whether the brutality has not been most pronounced, and whether the facts with regard to this camp were not put into the Report sent home in July, 1915.
LORD DEVONPORT: My Lords, before the noble Lord the Paymaster-General replies to the questions addressed to him by my noble and gallant friend opposite, I would like to say a few words with regard to the last paragraph in the Notice on the Paper. My noble and gallant friend there asks "what answer has the German Government given to the demand of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for a reply to be sent within a week as to the

975
better treatment of British prisoners in Germany." That demand has reference to the treatment of civilian prisoners at Ruhleben. Consequently I embrace this opportunity of saying a few words as regards the position of the civilian prisoners at Ruhleben. I am afraid I have already unduly trespassed on your Lordships' patience on this subject. My apology must be that the matter is serious, and one that we cannot allow to drop.
Three weeks ago we were debating the question on a Motion of my own. We were then mainly directing the attention of the Government to the very serious Report (circulated as a White Paper) from Dr. Taylor, the food expert employed by the American Embassy in Berlin; and that debate came suddenly to a close because the noble Lord sitting below me (Lord Newton) announced that there had been a reply received from Germany on the point which I have just read from my noble and gallant friend's Question, but that he had not had an opportunity of examining it carefully. Indeed he had, he said, only become aware that the reply had been received since he entered the House that afternoon; but he informed us that he was able to gather, from a communication that had been made to him from the Foreign Office, that the reply was not entirely hostile to the demand of our Government that the prisoners should be released or exchanged on some basis. I think the words that he used were, "The answer from the German Government is not a categorical refusal." We have since heard no further details of this correspondence, beyond what was related the other day in the House of Commons by Lord Robert Cecil, as to which I will say a word or two in a moment. But my object in taking advantage of this opportunity is to ask the noble Lord whether he is in a position to give us information as to what is the net result of this correspondence—in fact, what is the actual position that has proceeded from the communications which have passed between the respective parties.
The other day when we were discussing this matter I felt it my duty to express in the strongest possible terms my objection to any idea of retaliation, and I think your Lordships endorsed that view. I gave reasons then, and I am not going to repeat them now, except to say that if we attempt to enter into competition in the way of
976
retaliation with the German nation we shall be hopelessly beaten and out-distanced. I was sorry to notice that Lord Robert Cecil made a statement the other day in the House of Commons which gives colour to the idea that the Government are harbouring the view that retaliation is the right policy to pursue. A supplementary question was put to the right hon. gentleman, in which he was asked—
"May we take it that the policy of reprisals is abandoned?"
Lord Robert Cecil replied—
"No, sir. The House must not arrive at any such conclusion. The Government hold themselves perfectly free to retaliate if that proves to be the only way to obtain justice for our prisoners."
I would like to know whether that represents the Government's attitude, because if it does I venture to say that it is impossible to conceive a more foolish one, and one that exhibits, in my opinion, so palpable a lack of judgment and of appreciation of the consequences which will follow if the Government insist upon it.
The Germans have given you a forecast and a foretaste of what the consequences will be if you attempt even to diminish the ration that you are giving to German civilian prisoners in this country at this moment. They tell you what they intend to do at once. They will first of all withdraw the permit which they have recently given to you, enabling you to send collective supplies on behalf of the civilian prisoners in Ruhleben who are receiving no parcels individually from their friends, because, I assume, they have none. And, further, they will stop the individual parcels that are sent to civilian prisoners. It is made abundantly clear that these civilian prisoners are being kept from starvation solely and wholly through the parcels that are sent by their friends here, and it would be an outrageous thing if our Government were to attempt to apply a policy of retaliation when they know—they have been told in a Despatch—what the German attitude will be. You have to consider the sort of people with whom you are dealing. You are dealing with barbarians, not with a civilised nation; and they will stop at nothing if you give them only half an opportunity.
If you attempt to indulge in retaliation, what will be your position? In the first place, you will never have the courage to

977
carry the thing to its conclusion. And what is its conclusion? To put every interned German civilian in this country on precisely the same dietary that the British civilians are on in Ruhleben. You would never have the courage to put it through. Secondly, if you were to attempt to put it through, the country would repudiate your action. That is the dilemma in which you will find yourself if you attempt to resort to retaliation. I do not know whether Lord Robert Cecil was the official mouthpiece of the Government on that occasion to which I refer. I hope sincerely that he was not. Or it might be that the Government consider that threats may be conducive to good results. That is what is called "bluff," and it is a very poor hand to play, if that is the intention of the Government. I do not say it is. I only suggest that if they do not mean what they say they had better not say it.
Let us consider for a moment what the conditions at Ruhleben are as we know them. There is given to these civilian prisoners a dietary which is intentionally framed and scientifically reduced to such a point that life cannot be sustained upon it. To quote the words of a Minister in another place, "Were it not for the parcels that are sent, these men would starve." Secondly, I have known for a long time, and so has the noble Lord the Paymaster-General, that the housing conditions at Ruhleben are intolerable, scandalously inadequate, and insanitary. Indeed, the state of affairs is terrible. It was so bad that the American Ambassador in Berlin, Mr. Gerard, addressed a letter to Sir Edward Grey on the subject. Sir Edward Grey, in his reply, rather indicated that this communication from Mr. Gerard had brought the matter to his attention. I know perfectly well that Sir Edward Grey must have known of it. But that is the indication which his reply gives. We have known of the housing conditions in Ruhleben for over eighteen months. I will read to your Lordships an extract from Mr. Gerard's letter to Sir Edward Grey—
"The barracks at Ruhleben are overcrowded. The Imperial authorities, after nearly two years of war, have certainly had ample time to provide accommodation for the prisoners. It is intolerable that people of education should be herded six together in a horse's stall, and in some of the lofts the bunks touch one another. In the haylofts above the stables—
I may explain that these poor creatures are housed in horse boxes, the Ruhleben camp
978
having been the race-course of Berlin, and that over the horse boxes are hay-lofts. Mr. Gerard continues—
"In the hay-lofts above the stables the conditions are even worse. For example, in Barrack No. 2 one halfsection of the loft is at the centre about 10 ft. from the floor from the highest point, and the loft slopes downwards, so that at the sides it is only 4½ ft. above the floor; the floor of this part of the loft is about 10 metres 20 by 12 metres 80. The beds are so close together that they touch. In this confined space 64 men live. The light from the little window is so taint that prisoners eyes will be seriously injured, if the sight is not permanently lost, and this semi-darkness will undoubtedly cause depression and mental trouble."
There were published in the newspapers last week the results of the impressions formed by representatives of the London Press who were invited by the Government to inspect the civilian interment camps in this country. I have no doubt your Lordships read those descriptions. These representatives visited the camp at the Isle of Man, the camp in Leicestershire, the one at the Alexandra Palace, and another at Islington, and at all these places they found an abundance of comfort and of food, and good treatment all round. Contrast that with what I have just read to your Lordships. Sixty-four men herded together in a sloping hayloft and down below! Many of those young fellows were simply spending their holiday in Germany; yet they are treated in this disgraceful way. What makes it far worse—I know that Lord Newton subscribes to this view—is that these civilians have had none of the excitement and glory of war. There they are, imprisoned and treated worse than any combatant prisoner. Dr. Taylor makes that quite clear in his Report. The authorities have reduced the dietary until it falls very much below the standard given to combatant prisoners.
What is the history of this civilian internment? I give this for a reason that I will explain in a moment. The Germans, at the beginning of the war interned nobody, or very few—a person or two whom they suspected of spying, or something of that kind, but generally civilians were not interned in Germany, nor were German civilians here interned. But in October, in response to a great agitation in this country—I am not complaining of it—the Government began to intern on a large scale. They were not consistent; they did not carry the thing through to the bitter end. When the Police delivered to them vast quantities day after day,

979
about 5,000 a day for about six days, the Government said "Stop," and they have never resumed internment on a wholesale scale, there being at the present moment probably 20,000 Germans still uninterned in this country. Anyway, the Germans did not commence to intern until we began it here. They took the view, so I have been informed, that all civilians at the outbreak of the war should have been allowed to return to their respective countries. That did not happen. But in the early days of the war—I do not assert this, but it is my impression, and I have it on fairly good authority—the Germans offered to exchange our civilians in their hands against theirs here, and the Government refused. Again I make no criticism; I simply state the fact.
I understand that in this last communication the German Government still offer to exchange the British civilians whom they have interned in Germany for the Germans interned here. His Majesty's Government, apparently, are not inclined to accede to this offer. They are standing out, I believe, on the ground that there are 26,000 German civilians here and only 4,000 British civilians in Germany, and they do not feel inclined to deal on those terms. Meanwhile what is happening? Our unfortunate countrymen at Ruhleben would be absolutely starved were it not for the parcels. They are herded together in an overcrowded and insanitary compound. I ask the Government, Do you prefer that this shall continue, that men shall, as Mr. Gerard suggests, lose their reason and their sight, that their constitutions shall be permanently impaired, all because you are sticklers for what I may call arithmetical proportion, and that, rather than exchange on a basis of six to one, you will leave these poor creatures to their fate? If that is the position of the Government I do not think it is a creditable or dignified position for a great country like this to take up. What would be the harm, what should we suffer, if we said to the Germans, "Take your 26,000 men and let us have our 4,000 back"? Would that be a very serious thing? Of the 26,000 Germans interned here, if the opportunity were accorded them to go back, I do not believe a very large proportion would go. But make the offer, try and arrange things on that basis, and release these 4,000 unfortunates from a terrible condition.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD NEWTON): My Lords, the circumstances with regard to the camp at Güstrow are more or less in accordance with those indicated by my noble and gallant friend in the course of his Question, but it is hardly necessary for me to point out that the reports upon which my noble friend's statement was made deal with an early period of the war and do not extend beyond March of last year. The case of Güstrow is very similar to the cases of camps generally in Germany. The conditions in Güstrow, as in almost every camp in Germany, were abominable in almost every respect; but those conditions, as everybody must now be aware, have largely changed. I might say that the noble and gallant Lord was correct in his statement about the notices which were placed in this particular camp, and they are typical of the views which prevail in Germany with regard to the custody and guarding of prisoners.
This camp at Güstrow, which the noble Lord was justified in saying was one of the worst camps in Germany at an early period of the war, was visited on April 10, 1915, by Mr. Jackson, of the American Embassy at Berlin, and his Report upon that occasion was generally favourable. Evidently considerable improvement had taken place. He stated that the barracks were well lighted with electricity, that they were heated, that there were good washing facilities, that the hospitals were well arranged, that clothing was issued if asked for, and that there were workshops where money could be earned. He also added that men complained of rough treatment immediately following their capture, as unfortunately was so often the case, but he stated that the commandant was anxious to improve matters as much as possible.
At the end of January of the present year the same gentleman, Mr. Jackson, again visited the camp and reported further improvements. He stated that a new bakery had been built, that the barracks were warm and dry, that the men were generally well clothed, that he had tasted the food and found it satisfactory, that there were theatres, orchestras, and a circulating library, and also that he was able to talk freely with the prisoners without being interfered with by the German guards—a state of things which unfortunately does not prevail in all the camps at the present moment. Then on February 12 of the present year, in consequence of the reports

981
to which my noble friend alluded with regard to alleged bayoneting of prisoners, the camp was again visited by a member of the American Embassy, Mr. Osborne. Mr. Osborne did not announce his visit beforehand; he talked to the men out of hearing of the Germans, and the men with whom he spoke were unanimously of opinion that if any British prisoners had been bayoneted they would have heard of it. Of course, that is not conclusive. We have never been able to ascertain for certain whether bayoneting actually took place, although there is not the smallest doubt that there was a considerable amount of brutality at this camp, more especially in the early period of the war.
In April of this year the Government Committee for the investigation of the statements of returned prisoners sent us further evidence with regard to this camp, and we asked, through Mr. Page, that the camp should again be visited, and that we should be furnished with a further Report. That Report is not yet to hand, but no doubt we shall receive it before long. To sum up the case of Güstrow, I may repeat that it is a typical case where, as I stated in the earlier portion of my remarks, the conditions were abominable at the first, but they have now greatly improved, and there is no reason, so far as I know, to class Güstrow amongst the really bad camps at the present moment.
With regard to Ruhleben, I do not feel that I am in a position to add much to the general information upon the subject. The circumstances have been explained, more or less fully, in the House of Commons. The noble Lord behind me (Lord Devonport), as he has done before, related to your Lordships the absolutely deplorable conditions which have always prevailed at Ruhleben, and which I have been one of the first to acknowledge. I have never concealed my opinion that the men who are imprisoned there are, for reasons which I am not going to repeat to-day, more to be pitied than any other body of unfortunate prisoners in Germany at the present moment. I accept fully all the statements that have been made by the noble Lord behind me. In fact, there cannot be any doubt as to their correctness, because he has only been quoting from Reports which are available to the whole world.
The noble Lord again took the opportunity to denounce any question of retaliation, and criticised to a certain extent the statement made by my right hon.
982
friend Lord Robert Cecil in the House of Commons a short time ago. With regard to the general principle of retaliation, everybody will, I think, be in agreement with the noble Lord behind me. At the same time I cannot help expressing the opinion that it would be an extremely rash proceeding for the Government to announce to the whole world that in no circumstances would we resort to any means of exercising pressure upon the German Government. It does not require any great ingenuity to realise that there are means of exercising pressure upon the German Government which would not necessitate cruelty to any individuals in this country.
Lord Devonport also had something to say about the question of a general exchange. As he correctly stated, the German view of a fair exchange was that we should hand over our 26,000 or 27,000 German civilians here in return for the 4,000 British civilians in Germany; and the noble Lord thinks that it would not be a bad bargain from our point of view. I am disposed to agree with him that it is conceivable that a not large proportion of the German civilians interned in this country might be very desirous of returning to Germany, Germany possessing at the present moment few attractions of any kind to anybody, including Germans interned in foreign countries. But this is one of those questions upon which there is a great deal to be said; and in view of the negotiations which are going on I think it would be rather rash on my part were I to examine too closely this proposal.
As the House is aware, our reply to the German Government was an offer to release an equivalent number of civilians here, and I cannot believe that there would be any question of any very nice and particular—as the noble Lord called it—arithmetical calculation with regard to the exchange. As I said just now, I do not like to say too much upon this point, because I do not want to say anything which would imperil the present negotiations; but I think that without being unduly indiscreet or optimistic, I can hold out some hope that before long we may at all events arrive at an exchange of the older men—I am speaking of men over 45—and if we only succeed to that extent as a first instalment it will be admitted on all sides that we have done something useful and beneficial, for these are the men, above all others, who most deserve our sympathy.

RUSSIAN REFUGEES AND MILITARY SERVICE.
LORD SHEFFIELD LORD SHEFFIELD had the following Question on the Paper:—
To ask His Majesty's Government whether, by the powers contained in Section 12 of the Aliens Restriction Consolidation Order or otherwise, any pressure has been put through the Police on Russian subjects in this country to return to Russia; whether Russian and other alien friends are made aware by the authorities that there is no obligation on them to return to their own country; whether the policy of the Government is as indicated by the Home Secretary in the House of Commons on 11th July, to present to refugees here the alternative of deportation to their own country or military service in the British Army; and whether, in the event of His Majesty's Government abandoning the policy of asylum for political refugees which has long been the settled practice of this country, persons whom the British Government desires to expel will at any rate be left a free choice among the countries that do not close their doors to political refugees.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Question standing in my name is one which I am very sorry should have to be raised, and I regret extremely that the action of any Minister should have laid the foundation for the points to which I wish to call attention. There is no material dispute about the facts. We have had a case in the Law Courts, and its latter phase is reported this morning in the newspapers. I will not discuss the exact legality of the action of the Home Secretary, because that question is challenged and will come before the High Court. In fact, I do not raise this question as one of mere legality. Under the Defence of the Realm Act we have given to the Government the very widest powers to act for the security of the nation. We have given them powers to intern people on suspicion, and to do all sorts of things; and the wider the powers we give to the administrators the more important it is that those administrators should bear in mind what the tradition of the English Government and of English policy has been, and should keep a severe check on themselves not to use those powers one atom beyond what is necessary for the defence of the country, and not to be led away into acts of violence which are apt to be mistaken as being acts of strength.
The question which I am raising principally relates to Russian refugees, and among these mostly Jews. But I do not raise this subject simply in the interest of Russians or of Jews, but in the interest of the time-honoured custom of this country that it should be an asylum for political and other refugees from other countries. But as to the facts, they must be illustrated mainly from the conditions of these Russian Jew refugees. Although, of course, one might do so, I do not in the least wish to raise the question of the propriety of the acts of any foreign Government, even in time of peace. To my mind, nations ought to be their own critics; and the less one nation makes itself an ethical critic of another the better. And if that is a wise policy in time of peace, I feel it is more obligatory on me in time of war not to raise a discussion which should attack the policy and legislation of a country with which we are in alliance. But, quite apart from that, I do not think that anybody will dispute that these Jewish refugees view with apprehension, and, I may say, even terror, the prospect of being deported from this country and sent back to Russia.
May I just mention—this is incidental, but it illustrates what I think is the thoughtlessness of the Home Secretary—that the great mass of these Jewish refugees are said to come, not from Russia proper, but from Poland. They were inhabitants of that district which is now over-run by the German Armies and under the control of the German Administration. As your Lordships know, Jews are not allowed to settle freely in any part of Russia. Many of these men have come with their wives, others have left their families behind, but in either event it is quite impossible for them, if sent back to Russia, to re-enter the district where they lived and where their associates are; and they have no legal status to stop in other parts of Russia. How incongruous it is for a people which has behind it the traditions of this country to attempt to put these refugees in the position which I have described.
It ought to be stated at once—I think Mr. Samuel mentioned it in the House of Commons—that no invitation or request whatever has come from the Russian Government for us to take this action. It is a purely spontaneous and gratuitous act on the part of the Home Office here. As I have said, it has been our boast for centuries that this country is a hospitable

985
refuge for those who flee from other lands. At the time of the Massacre of St. Bartholomew in 1572 and of the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685, we were the refuge for the Huguenots. To come to more modern times: Mazzini found a refuge here when he fled from Italy; Victor Hugo came to Jersey to escape from the despotism of Napoleon III. We have never inquired into the antecedents of those who have sought a refuge here, but have received them; and they have been subject to the common law—answerable for their actions, but not for their opinions.
But what has been the action of the Home Office? It is obvious that there is no legal obligation on an alien to serve in the British Army. But by the threat of expulsion—not expulsion to the wide world, but expulsion to Russia, from which these people have fled—the Home Secretary has endeavoured to force them to do a tiling which he had no legal right to demand, namely, to enter the British Army. It was alleged by the Home Secretary in the House of Commons that he first of all invited these people to enrol themselves voluntarily, and that it was because he met with practically no response that he had fallen back upon these threats. Even if he had met with no response, he had no right to fall back on threats; but I am advised that this statement of this invitation to enrol voluntarily was a very deceptive and superficial one. I understand that a few notices were posted up in the Tower Hamlets, but that they were rapidly pasted over with other notices. There was really nothing to bring it home to these people to enlist. And what is more, it was not enough to invite them to enlist; they should be invited to enlist under fair conditions.
What is associated with the obligation of military service? I take it that it is connected in the minds of all with the rights of citizenship. Mr. Samuel has indicated that the idea might be entertained that any Russians who came forward and enrolled themselves in the British Army should at the expiration of the war, were their conduct satisfactory in the Army, be accepted as British subjects, with a waiver of the fee of £5 which is at present charged for naturalisation. That as a basis of negotiation would, I am told, secure a large number of recruits and would be equitable. But this statement would need to be supplemented.
986
If a man is incapacitated by wounds or sickness before the expiration of the war, he should have the same credit, the same right of naturalisation, as if he had gone through the war, and if he is killed or dies of sickness his family should be able to come in just as if he had survived. These men should also have the same rights and privileges with regard to allowances for their dependants. It has been suggested that so long as a man is an alien he has no right to Poor Law relief in this country. For a time he has, but after a while there comes in the question of his removal. If these people are invited to enlist, they should be invited with a large-handed frankness and a willingness to allow them to become naturalised. The action of the Home Office has created a deep sense of mistrust of the offers that have been made to these people, and any further offers would require to be made much more definite and with much more adequate guarantees of genuineness than these people consider previously to have been the case.
Although it is not necessary for my argument—for, as I say, our traditional policy has been to receive these people freely and treat them hospitably until, by some definite act here, they forfeit their right to asylum—I should like to say what has been the reputation of these men in the East End of London. I have had a good deal of experience of them in connection with the late School Board for London. A large number of these people came from a country where their social and mental development had not been cared for. They came here not speaking a word of English, and almost with the elements of barbarism attaching to them What has been our experience of them in the East End of London? They have sent their children to school with excellent regularity; far more regularly than the British inhabitants sent their children, although they had become acclimatised to the School Board system under compulsion for years. The children of these refugees made good progress; they were intelligent, and did well in the scholarships that were awarded by the County Council and other bodies. As to the home, everybody will tell you that the Jewish family relations in tills crowded and poor part of London have been of the highest standard. Their infant mortality is much lower than that amongst the other people round them. They are

987
religious. As to cleanliness, they keep their tenements cleaner than do the others round them. They are also industrious. So far as there has been any distress they have been relieved by the Jewish Board of Guardians, which has endeavoured to set them on their feet and not allow them to sink into the slough of pauperism. To sum up our practical experience, I would say that they have been industrious, sober, fond of their families, and anxious to get on.
Some say that these people are all socialists and revolutionists, and that they are very dangerous members of society. If you want to create revolutionary sentiments you can do it as easily as an epidemic of disease can be engendered in an ill-drained and ill-scavengered town. You have only to get the germs of social repression to produce acts of social revolution. As everybody knows, the longer these people have been here the more their revolutionary feelings wear out and the more anxious they are to be merged into the life of England. As soon as they can save the £5 which is necessary, these men rush forward for naturalisation. If you would do away with the strong suspicion which has been created through, to put it mildly, the impolitic action of the Home Office I believe very satisfactory results would be obtained. According to the figure given to me, there are in London not more than from 5,000 to 6,000 of these men of fighting age; but, whatever the numbers, surely we have not come so low as to seek them by coercive or fraudulent means. Were they approached properly, a large number of them would undoubtedly enlist. And if they are to be enlisted, let me say that I hope they will be invited to enlist in the general movement of the Army—I do not want a military Ghetto. Our object is to get these people to take to the idea of English citizenship. They may have pride in their race and religion, but a true sense of citizenship of the country of adoption can flourish side by side with the, racial peculiarities of the Jews. We see it in France, though it has been set back by the anti-Semitic feeling which has grown up there, and we also see it in the United States. It is said that every country gets the Jew it deserves.
To these people who have paid us the compliment of feeling that our country was an asylum and refuge for the oppressed we owe it to live up to that character and not go back from it. We ought not, by
988
a cruel, oppressive, and abusive use of very vague and extensive powers granted for the defence of the Realm, to offer these people the sort of pirate's alternative, "Either be killed by me on deck or walk the plank." There is very little difference between that alternative and saying to these people that they must either be deported to Russia or join the British Army. Any one who has read the recent remarks of the Home Secretary in the House of Commons might think that I was exaggerating the situation, that I was, as the French say, bursting in an open door. He might say that the Home Secretary has conceded a great deal. That is one of the faults I find with the Home Secretary—namely, that his words and his acts do not correspond. Your Lordships will see from The Times of this morning that about ten days ago, almost at the moment that the Home Secretary was saying that no person had been evicted or forced back to Russia, the Police—and many of these poor people with Russian experience think that when a policeman enters the house it is the law itself coming in—the Police had been set to work illegally and without due authority and had said to these people, "You have to go back to Russia. Here is your ticket; you are to be at Euston Station on such and such a day."
I will illustrate this by the case of Charles Sarno, who, three years ago left Russia and came to this country seeking refuge. An order was served upon him; he was to be deported to Russia. That order was challenged by moving for a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that the order was valueless, not being signed by the Home Secretary. When it came to argument the representatives of the Crown abandoned the case. They admitted that there was an illegality, and Charles Sarno got his discharge. The Court, however, refused him his costs against the policeman who had illegally imprisoned him. What happened? On, I think, Tuesday last Charles Sarno appeared in Court and was set free. Immediately on leaving the Court he was again arrested at the door and told that he was to be put on board a ship bound for Russia. Now the Home Secretary, on Monday, said distinctly that it was quite false that he had ever ordered any man to go to Russia and that there would be no deportations. I must leave it to the Home Secretary to reconcile his action with his words. I am not surprised that the Jews in the East End of London

989
want something more than the words of the Home Secretary as to how they are to be treated in the speculative regions of the future. As a matter of fact, Charles Sarno moved for a second writ of habeas corpus. His contention and that of his friends is that whereas Section 12 of the Aliens Restriction Consolidation Order enables the Secretary of State to deport a man, it does not enable him to determine the place to which that man shall be deported. I hope that your Lordships and the Government will see that a very grievous mistake has been committed by the Home Department, and that we shall have from the Front Government Bench what we are entitled to demand—namely, a vindication of the traditions of English freedom and hospitality. We ask that people's past in other countries shall not be raked up against them, and that no attempt shall be made to penalise them.
I think it would not be a bad thing for these men, if they were perfectly willing and free, to show their manliness and courage, their sense of recognition of the hospitality this country has extended to them, and their willingness to accept the obligations of citizenship—which I have said the great mass are only too glad to take up—by enrolling themselves voluntarily. But we have no right to intrude any element of coercion into that which ought to be a voluntary act. Let the Home Office attempt recruitment on frank and candid terms, and they will get these men—if they attach importance to them. I do not personally attach importance to them—a mere 5,000 or 6,000 among many millions. I attach importance to our own conduct.
We are not alone in this matter. This question was raised in France by the anti-Semitic party. It was carefully discussed, and a Committee was appointed to investigate it. I have the Report of that Committee in French, and I dare say the Home Office have it. If not, I am perfectly willing to give the Government representative on the Front Bench a copy of this Report, which has been drawn up by a member of the Sorbonne. The French Government refused to apply coercion to aliens who had taken refuge with them. We have a lot of hard cases here. We have a number of Russians who had taken refuge in Belgium, and who, when Belgium was overrun by the Germans, came to this country; and now they are,
990
to be driven out of here, not to be set free like the dove from the Ark, to find any place where they can rest their feet, but to be driven into what is to them the anteroom for Siberia. I put this on the ground of our self-respect, and not on the ground of what we owe to anybody else. But I am told that this action of the Home Office has created grave disquiet in Salonika. The great mass of the population there are Jewish, and the people are hovering on the border of friendliness to the Central Powers or the Allies. Therefore any harsh action we may now take will show the Jews in Salonika that we are no friends of theirs, and they will think that we are not very much better than the Germans. I am told that articles have appeared in the American Press, and that our action is having a very bad effect upon the possible future good relations between us and America. But it is not because our action makes others condemn us that I have called attention to this matter. It is for ourselves and our own good name that I raise my voice—
Pudet hœc opprobria nobis
Et dici potuisse, ct non potuisse refelli.
There is still time for the Government, as a responsible whole, to say that there has been a Departmental mistake, that the Cabinet have not had full consideration of the matter but are not going to be false to the traditions of English freedom.
It is necessary that this question should be raised in order to escape the disgrace, as I think it, of being false to our traditions. If, however, this country, through its official representatives, is going to run away from the most honourable traditions of the English people, do not let us be guilty of sending back refugees to the country from which they have fled, but let us at any rate say that the whole world is open to them. There is Holland, Switzerland, and America; all these countries would give asylum if we do not. Do not let it be supposed for a moment that in order to terrorise these people into joining our Army we are holding over them the threat of what would be a living death owing to the legal severities they might experience elsewhere. These people will go back to a country where they have practically no legal or civic rights; they will go back to a country—I think this is the least I can say about it, and I am obliged to say it—where we know that through official oppression and pogroms their lives have been made a torture. Mr.

991
Samuel said the other day, when asked whether he was going to take any action with regard to Armenians because they were Turkish subjects, "Why bring out the formality that they are Turkish subjects when the Armenians have suffered as hardly any other nation has suffered?" But is he not threatening the people to whom I have referred with something almost as bad as the treatment that has been meted out to the Armenians? I beg to put the Question standing in my name on the Paper, and hope to receive a satisfactory answer.
LORD SANDHURST: My Lords, my noble friend will forgive me if I do not follow him in every channel of the speech which he has just made. He speaks with a great knowledge of the East End of London, and we know the labours that have engaged him for a lifetime in the educational work of this great city. With regard to the particular case that he mentioned, I cannot claim to be familiar with it. I think I might say, in regard to what the noble Lord said about the invitation to these Russians to enlist, that there were posters in Yiddish and English. This the noble Lord admits, although he does not seem to be quite satisfied with the publicity they obtained.
LORD SHEFFIELD: I said they were promptly pasted over.
LORD SANDHURST: Who pasted them over, I cannot say. But I may add that leading men were taken into counsel, and recruiting offices were opened in Lord Rothschild's office, but the results, as regards the invitation to join the British Army, were not at all satisfactory. It is not the case that any pressure has been put through the Police on Russian subjects in this country to return to Russia. There have been a few cases in which it has been found necessary to expel a certain number of Russian criminals or men of bad character from this country, but there has been no pressure put on Russians of good character living in this country to leave it.
Alien friends living here are not required by the British Government to leave this country; but if the Question of the noble Lord was intended to suggest—which I am sure it was not—that the British Government can excuse Allied subjects of military age from the obligations imposed by the law of their own country, it is impossible for
992
the Government to take any action in this direction. It is obviously desirable in the interests of the Allied cause that the most effective use should be made of their resources in men, and very properly the British Government, in response to requests by the French, Belgian, and Italian Governments, lend their assistance for the purpose of securing that subjects of these Allied Governments who are in this country return to do their duty in their own national Army. If a Frenchman, Belgian, or Italian in this country who is liable to join his national Army refuses to do so when summoned by his own authorities, the British Government consider on the merits of each case whether to make him return to his own country, by force if necessary. This has not been done in the case of Russians, who are being exceptionally treated by being permitted by the Russian Government to serve in any of the Allied Armies.
Those who consider that the British Government propose to present to refugees here the alternative of deportation to their own country or military service in the British Army overlook one fact, and that is that Russian subjects will be given an opportunity of applying to a public Tribunal for exemption from service. And I may say that in the case of these people all reasonable steps will be taken to ensure that applications for exemption from service are considered by Tribunals having as members people specially qualified to deal with the cases before them. The desire of the Government is to enlist Russians in the British Army, and not to refuse hospitality to those who have been living here. It is impossible to apply by legislation the provisions of the Military Service Acts to Russians in this country, and the power which exists under the Aliens Restriction Act to require an alien to leave this country is the only convenient sanction for making service compulsory. If a Russian Jew is ready to enlist here, no question of his return to Russia arises; and the intention is that he shall be given facilities for making application to a Tribunal for exemption from service on exactly the same grounds as are open to a British subject under the Military Service Acts. All Russians in this country are not refugees, and it is obviously unfair to British subjects who are compelled to fight that Russian subjects of military age who have taken up their residence here should not make equal sacrifices in the common cause.

993
There is no question of the abandonment by the British Government of the policy of asylum for political refugees. The British Government have no desire to expel any one, but at the present time, when the restrictions on immigration are closely enforced everywhere, it is impossible to allow any person whose conduct makes it necessary to require him to leave this country to embark for any country except his own; and it is doubtful whether there is any country which would welcome the Russian who was leaving this country because he refused to take his share in the common burden here.
EARL LOREBURN: My Lords, I do not think the reply a satisfactory one at all. I think it admits everything that has been said by Lord Sheffield. Let me make clear what my view is, so that I may not be misunderstood. I do not in the least object to any one being required to serve his country or the country where he has taken refuge, if you can make him do so by law. That seems to be a reasonable duty to impose on all of us. I should not myself object to saying to a man, "We do not allow you to take the benefit of the defence that is being made by Englishmen and to do nothing yourself when you choose to come and reside here." But what I think is a startling proposition is that you should say to a Russian Jew, "Unless you will give your service in the Army you shall be sent back to Poland or to Russia, where you came from, and to no other country." That seems to me to be wrong. I remember about ten or eleven years ago being asked to take the chair, because I was a Christian and had no connection with the Jews, at a great meeting which was held to protest against the treatment of Polish Jews in Russia. I shall never forget the terror and affliction felt by these people and brought home to my mind by what I saw and heard at that enormous meeting. Now what is being done by Mr. Samuel—if you please!—of all people? If I were a Jew or bad a drop of Jewish blood in my veins, I would sooner cut my hand off than say to one of these men, "If you do not enlist in the British Army you, being a Polish Jew, shall go back, not where you like, to any part of the world, but to Poland or to Russia." That is admitted, apparently, by the noble Lord. This kind of thing will only kindle feelings of bitterness among Jews, who are admirable citizens and have strong racial feelings. I respectfully
994
submit that it ought not to be done, and I hope that the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, will use his influence against such an impolitic, such an unworthy, course of action, so widely departing from the past traditions of this country.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, the noble Lord who answered this Question is so suave and courteous in his manner that the House might have thought, from the reply received, that we were discussing some trumpery matter of an Irish sub-postmastership or something of that sort; and the Front Bench did not think the matter of sufficient importance to leave a representative here through the greater part of the speech of my noble friend Lord Sheffield. But we do not want smooth words and smooth phrases. We want a considered answer to a very serious question—a question which has excited feelings of concern in all of us who have any care for the old traditions of British freedom. No amount of glozing over will remove the necessity for a plain answer. The question is, Are you going to deport to Russia Russians who, when they get there, will be dealt with by their Government for political offences? The noble Lord has admitted the first part of the charge made by Lord Sheffield. He has admitted that to these Russians of military age the alternatives have been presented: Either you must serve in one of I he Allied Armies or you shall be deported to Russia.
LORD SANDHURST: Subject to the Tribunal.
EARL RUSSELL: Certainly.
LORD SANDHURST: On which carefully selected people are placed.
EARL RUSSELL: That has nothing to do with it. This is a matter, not for Tribunals, but for Parliament. If such laws were required they should not be carried out by administrative action but should be passed by Parliament in a Statute. This seems to me to be a dangerous introduction into this country of that method of punishment by administrative action which has been looked upon as a curse in Russia and as the greatest possible menace to freedom. Lord Sandhurst has not told us—except in regard to the Tribunals,

995
for which I care nothing—what safeguards His Majesty's Government have taken to see that these men are not political refugees and will not be punished for political offences when they return. I dare say they will not accept the man's own statement, but steps should be taken to have it corroborated as far as possible. The noble Lord has not told us that if the man is a political refugee the Tribunal ipso facto will excuse him.
But there is another very simple precaution which could be taken if His Majesty's Government were in earnest in this matter. They could easily obtain an assurance from the Russian Government, particularly now that we are allied with them, that no man who was returned under this system would be tried for a political offence until he had been placed in as good a position at any rate as he was in before he was deported. It is all very well to say, "Here are men who have taken refuge in this country; they are of military age"—that is true, but they are not our subjects and they are not subject to our Military Service Acts—"they are not bearing the burden which their fellow-countrymen and which our own countrymen, under the Military Service Acts in this country, have to bear." That is the sort of argument which is relied upon. But to these men we have an obligation, the obligation of the host to his guest. A host may request a guest to leave his house, but it is his duty to see that his guest returns to the same position of safety and freedom as he enjoyed before he entered his house. But the noble Lord is not giving a chance to these men to go where they like. They are to be deported to Russia, and not to the part of Russia where they lived before, and where they have friends, but to any part of that vast country. If such a great change is to be made in the right of asylum, it should not be done by administrative action; it should not be done by any Home Secretary or by any Cabinet; it should be done by the considered judgment of Parliament, after the matter had been discussed in the ordinary way by both Houses and the measure placed on the Statute Book.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords. I came to the House this afternoon expecting to deal with a very different subject—namely, a Motion which was on the Paper in regard to the Declaration of Paris, but which has been postponed—and
996
I have not considered the question which has been raised by my noble friend Lord Sheffield. It is impossible to have listened to the speeches which have been delivered without realising how deep and sincere is the feeling to which this question has given rise in the minds of the noble Lords who have spoken. I fully appreciate the point on which they have concentrated their attention. I understand that what they desire in particular to secure is that no refugee in this country shall be placed in the dilemma of having either to serve in the Army of this country or to return to another country in which he may find himself liable to pressure or harsh treatment on political grounds. I am quite sure that it is not the intention of those responsible for this policy that any person who has taken refuge in this country should be placed in that dilemma. I will not, however, pursue the subject further to-night; but I can assure the noble Lords who have spoken that I will make it my business to inquire into the matter, and if on some future occasion they are pleased to revert to it my noble friend or I will be prepared to deal more fully with the question.
LORD SHEFFIELD: With your Lordships' indulgence I should like to say that I accept the offer of the noble Marquess and I feel that a consideration of the matter by the Cabinet as a whole will be of the greatest value. I addressed this Question to the Leader of the House, because I wanted to know whether the whole Government were conscious of, and were making themselves responsible for, the action of the Home Office. We have had an answer merely from the noble Lord who represents the Home Office. I do not want to enter too much into controversy, but I may say that he was not accurate in his statement of the facts. I would refer Lord Sandhurst to the categorical statement made by Mr. Samuel on the 11th of this month—column 175 of Hansard:
"Russians of military age settled in this country will, unless they prefer to return for military service in Russia, be required to enlist in the British Army…. The details of the scheme are now being worked out…"
Lord Sandhurst referred to the power to go before a Tribunal to get excused. May I say that I consider it utterly worthless. In the first place, the whole force of the Tribunal attaches to the fact that the applicant is liable to military service unless he shows that he should be exempted. These

997
men are not liable, and you have no right by a side wind to mate out that they are liable when they are not. But what shocked me most was the distinct assertion that these men would be sent back to Russia and not allowed freedom to go to any other country. It was suggested by the noble Lord that they were sending back only criminals and people of bad character. But you are not to take away a man's character by administrative decree on secret Police information. If a man is dangerous, the Government have the power to intern him during the period of the war; and they have power to deport a man if he is convicted of an offence and if the Judge thinks fit to recommend that such a step should be taken. But Heaven preserve us from the blackening of character by administrative decree! That is opening the door to the most ghastly scandal of Continental bureaucracy, from which I earnestly hope we shall always be free. In view of what the noble Marquess has been good enough to say, I trust that we shall soon have a satisfactory assurance with regard to this whole matter.
EARL RUSSELL: I suppose the noble Marquess will promise the House that there shall be no deportations meanwhile?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I will make inquiries.

STATE WOOL PURCHASES.
LORD HARRIS: My Lords, I had hoped to have had the opportunity of asking a question on the subject of wool. I sent a letter this morning to the noble Marquess the Leader of the House saying that I trusted, if it was not inconvenient, I might be given the opportunity, although I had put no Notice on the Paper, of asking a question. But I understand that he has not yet received the letter. It is very unfortunate. I do not know what Department is dealing with this subject, whether it is the War Office, the Board of Agriculture, or the Treasury The last intimation that we had some weeks ago was in the public Press, to the effect that a deputation representative of agricultural interests had been received at the Treasury. Not knowing which Department was concerned I wrote to my noble friend Lord Crewe, but as he has not received the letter I must postpone my question. I am sorry for that, because this matter is getting very urgent. The position is that Colonial owners of wool are permitted to sell their wool but British owners are not, and a great deal of inconvenience is being caused. But I will put the question down for next week.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past Six o'clock, till to-morrow, Eleven o'clock.