Sitting of 8 May 1916

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Electric Lighting Provisional Order Bill,
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 1) Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.

TRADE BOARDS ACT, 1909.
Copy presented of Regulations, dated 2nd May, 1916, made by the Board of Trade under Section 11 of the Trade Boards Act, 1909, with respect to the constitution and proceedings of the Trade Board for the Linen and Cotton Embroidery Trade (Ireland) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
Copy presented of Minute of the Committee of Council on Education in Scotland, dated 8th May, 1916, continuing the operations of the Code of Regulations for Continuation Classes, 1915, with certain modifications [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
EAST INDIA (HOME ACCOUNTS).
Copy presented of Home Accounts of the Government of India [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.;[No. 70.]
EAST INDIA (FINANCE AND REVENUE ACCOUNTS).
Copy presented of Finance and Revenue Accounts of the Government of India for the year 1914–15 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

EAST INDIA (ESTIMATE).
Copy presented of Estimate of Revenue and Expenditure of the Government of
270
India for the year 1915–16, compared with the results of 1914–15 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 71.]

CROWN'S NOMINEE ACCOUNT.
Abstract Account presented of Receipts and Payments of the Treasury Solicitor, in the year ended 31st December, 1915, in the Administration of Estates on behalf of the Crown, and Alphabetical List of Intestates' Estates in respect of which Letters of Administration were granted to the Treasury Solicitor as Crown's Nominee, and of other cases (partial intestacies, etc.) in which accounts were opened in the Books of the Treasury Solicitor in the same year in respect of moneys received by him as Crown's Nominee [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 72.]
ARMY (TERRITORIAL FORCE).
Copy presented of Scheme made by the Army Council for the establishment and constitution of an Association for the county of Stirling, under the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act, 1907 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.
    MUNITIONS.

      WOMEN WORKERS (BLACKBURN).
      Mr. SNOWDENasked the President of the Board of Trade whether a number of women have been engaged by the Ministry of Munitions Shell Department at Blackburn through one of the ladies connected with the Red Cross work at Blackburn, and that these women are in a position where they do not need to work from necessity; and, seeing that at the time these women were given employment there were on the books of the Labour Exchange at Blackburn the names of a number of women desiring employment in such occupation as a means of livelihood, will he take steps at once to stop women of means from taking away the livelihood of poor women?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Pretyman): I understand that the facts are broadly as stated by my hon. Friend. I agree as a general principle that in cases in which duly qualified women of a class needing to work for their living are unemployed preference should be given to them in selecting candidates for munition work. I am considering what steps should be taken to secure this.
      Mr. SNOWDEN: In regard to this particular case, will the Board of Trade displace these women who do not need the work and give the places they are filling to women who are on the register and who do need the work?
      Mr. PRETYMAN: I cannot undertake that.
      Mr. SNOWDEN: What other steps can be taken?
      Mr. PRETYMAN: I have already answered that we will look into the question and see what can be done.

    AIR SERVICES.

      ENEMY RAIDS (INSURANCE).
      Mr. TICKLERasked the President of the Board of Trade if claims arising out of bombardment by enemy aircraft are being declined on the ground that the insured had also signed the coupon of a weekly paper, which paper refuses to accept liability on account of the claim not being made against it in the prescribed time; and, seeing that the Government refuse to pay the damage insured for until the insured has exhausted the funds of the weekly paper, will he say what action he now proposes to take?
      Mr. PRETYMAN: It is a special condition of the Government policy that the insured must exhaust his rights against any other subsisting insurance before claiming under the Government policy. A newspaper insurance coupon is a subsisting insurance, and I see no reason why the Government should relieve a newspaper of any liabilities which it may have legally incurred for its own purposes. The question of exhausting the funds of the newspaper does not, of course, arise.
      Mr. WING: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that the Department will
      272
      take some steps to bring these newspapers to book when they make promises and do not perform them?
      Mr. PRETYMAN: We have considered this matter carefully. The situation is a very difficult position. If my hon. Friend will give me particulars of any actual cases, we will look into them and see what can be done. It is very important to the insurer that where the newspaper is liable it should fulfil its liabilities; otherwise, the insurer is left stranded between the two parties.
      Sir W. BYLES: What newspaper is it?

      PRIVATE AIRCRAFT FACTORIES.
      Mr. LYNCHasked the Under-Secretary for War whether, in view of the advisability of developing to the fullest extent the air-power of the nation, he will take advantage of the services that various private aircraft factories, as, for instance, the Whitehead Aircraft Factory, are in a position to render and stimulate their efforts by suitable orders?
      The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): Yes, Sir.

      BRITISH ZEPPELINS.
      Mr. HOGGEasked the Under-Secretary for War how many Zeppelins we possess?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): It is not considered in the public interest to give the information desired.
      Mr. HOGGE: I asked for this information in secret and got no reply?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: That may be so, but I cannot add anything to my answer.

      LORD CURZON'S RECOMMENDATIONS.
      Mr. HOGGEasked the Under-Secretary for War what are Lord Curzon's recommendations for the Air Service?
      Mr. TENNANT: This question is now under the consideration of the Government. It would be premature to make a statement.

      ARAN ISLES (FISHING INDUSTRY).
      Mr. GINNELLasked the President of the Board of Trade why the Board selected the middle of the best fishing

      273
      season to stop fishing for a week off the Aran Isles for inspection of the steamer connected with that industry, when such inspection could have been made at a less inconvenient time; and what length of notice of the intended inspection was given, and to whom, to allow of the provision of other boats?
      Mr. PRETYMAN: If the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to give me particulars of the case he has in mind I will inquire into it.
      Mr. GINNELL: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the question on the Paper referring to the cable to the Aran Isles? Surely that is specific enough.
      Mr. PRETYMAN: No, we want some further particulars.
      Mr. GINNELL: Will the hon. Gentleman say what particulars he wants? The cable from the mainland to Ireland?
      Mr. PRETYMAN: We have not sufficient particulars in this question to enable us to deal with it.
      Mr. GINNELLasked the Postmaster-General whether there is any other reason than economic pressure in the interest of recruiting for leaving the cable to the Aran Isles inoperative during the best season for the fishing industry, to the serious detriment of that industry; whether the cable will be repaired before the season has wholly passed; and whether any other cable in the United Kingdom essential to a fishing industry is now inoperative?
      The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Pike Pease): I beg leave to refer the hon. Member to my reply of the 2nd March. It will be at least a month before the Aran cable can be repaired, owing to the number of cables which have to be maintained and the difficulty of carrying out such work at the present time.

      INDIA (EXPORTATION OF WHEAT).
      Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India has decided to remove existing restrictions upon the private export of wheat?
      Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS (Comptroller of the Household): The Government of India have recently decided with my con-
      274
      currence to permit private export of wheat to be resumed, subject to certain restrictions as to quantities and destinations.

      LAHORE CONSPIRACY.
      Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for India whether the Special Tribunal which recently gave judgment in the Lahore conspiracy case arrived at any conclusions regarding the participation in such conspiracy of German official or unofficial agencies?
      Mr. C. ROBERTS: The Lahore Special Tribunal in the first trial found indications that individual Germans, both officials and others, had communications with and gave assistance to Indian seditionists. That belief is strengthened by the findings in the recent supplementary trial.

      OLD AGE PENSIONS.
      Mr. SNOWDENasked the President of the Local Government Board if an old age pensioner who accepts temporary war employment will forfeit his old age pension if his earnings amount to more than the income allowed under the law; and, if so, will he consider an amendment of this part of the Old Age Pensions Act or in some other way overcome this difficulty in the way of the employment of old age pensioners during the War?
      The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Montagu): In accordance with the undertaking given by the Secretary to the treasury on the 18th May, 1915, action is not at present being taken for the reduction or revocation of existing old age pensions in consequence to temporary increases of means due to the pensioner's re-employment on account of the shortage of labour arising out of and during the War.

    MILITARY SERVICE.

      LOCAL TRIBUNALS.
      Mr. SNOWDENasked the President of the Local Government Board what reply he has sent to the letter addressed to him on 1st May by Councillor G. H. Bagnell, of Pendlebury, in which he points out that the local tribunal sent notes to the County Tribunal pointing out that the appellant

      275
      was a prominent member of the Independent Labour Party, and suggesting that he should be asked if he was a member of the Union of Democratic Control, as the opinion existed without any certainty that he was a member of that body; and will he say what steps he has taken or proposes to take to protect persons coming under the Military Service Act, 1916, against such treatment?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): I have replied that it is for Mr. Bagnell to place any relevant representations before the Appeal Tribunal, who are the legal authority for deciding his case.

      BOARD OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE (ASSISTANT CLERKS).
      Mr. SNOWDENasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that in the Statistical Office of His Majesty's Customs and Excise certain experienced assistant clerks of many years' service who have a conscientious objection to military service, but whose claims for exemption have been refused by the local tribunals, have since applied to the Board of Customs and Excise for certificates stating that they are engaged upon work of national importance and on that ground are entitled to exemption according to the terms of the Military Service Act, 1916, and that their application for such certificates has been refused, although comparatively junior clerks and officers of other grades in the Customs and Excise service, some of only a few months' experience, have been declared indispensable by their Department and are withheld from Army service; and whether he will make inquiries into the facts and will endeavour to secure uniform treatment for all officers in the employ of the Commissioners of His Majesty's Customs and Excise?
      Mr. MONTAGU: It is the fact that men of equal service have been retained in some branches of the Customs and Excise Department and released for military service in others, and, in view of the great variety in the work, this seems to me not only inevitable, but perfectly right. In some grades it is extremely difficult to find substitutes, exceptionally so in the case of the outdoor Customs and Excise service, of whose organisation and duties my hon. Friend has special knowledge.
      276
      In other grades it is comparatively easy, notably so in the case of the Statistical Office. In that Department it has been possible, since the War began, gradually to entrust the bulk of the work to temporary women clerks in order to release assistant clerks for military duties, and the Board are unable to certify that it is expedient in the national interests that the assistant clerks mentioned in this question should be retained in their present employment.

      RAILWAYMEN UNATTESTED.
      Mr. THOMASasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that an unattested man named Elihu Brown, of Carlisle, until recently employed in the locomotive department of the Maryport and Carlisle Railway Company, was called to the Colours under the Military Service Act, 1916, about eight weeks ago, but owing to the shortage of men was retained in the railway service; that on the 29th April he was summoned to the company's headquarters at Mary-port, and was taken by a railway official to the local recruiting officer, the latter being informed that Brown was a man who could be released from the railway service for the Army; that he was referred back to the recruiting office at Carlisle, where he was medically certified as suffering from irregular or smoker's heart, but nevertheless ordered to proceed to a certain military camp in the South of England; that the local railwaymen consider this is a pure case of victimisation of an unattested man, the railway being very short of staff and there being no fewer than four single firemen employed at Carlisle in the place of enlisted men, and who have been started since the outbreak of war, this being largely the reason why Brown did not attest; that incidents of this kind are causing apprehension among railwaymen in all parts of the country, who resent such discrimination as between attested and unattested men, more especially when the men retained on the railway are junior both in age and service to the men released; and, in view of this, whether he will at once make inquiries into the case of Brown and take such action as will effectively prevent any recurrence of such incidents?
      Mr. TENNANT: I am obtaining a report on this case.

      CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
      Mr. SNOWDENasked the Under-Secretary for War if he has received a memorial, signed by seventy conscientious objectors now attached to the non-com-hatant unit at Kinmel Park, asking that they may be put to work of national importance under the Board of Trade Committee scheme as agricultural workers, miners, joiners, weavers, spinners, electrical workers, education, forestry, which are occupations they are qualified to follow; and in view of the importance of national economy and the need for utilising the labour of the nation most usefully, will he allow these men to undertake such work instead of keeping them in prison and spending national money upon courts-martial and other forms of punishment?
      Mr. TENNANT: I am uncertain whether the seventy conscientious objectors in question were, or were not assigned for non-combatant military work by the local tribunals duly constituted by an Act of Parliament before which their cases came. In any case, I could not interfere with the decisions of the tribunal.
      Mr. SNOWDEN: Did the right hon. Gentleman look into this memorial? Did he notice it was from non-combatants, and did he assume that the men had been given non-combatant work?
      Mr. TENNANT: I did assume that. When I asked about the petition I was unable to get the information which I wanted. Perhaps my hon. Friend will see me about the case.

      MEDICALLY UNFIT FOR SERVICE.
      Mr. HOGGEasked the Under-Secretary for War whether under the new Bill it is proposed to medically re-examine men holding Army Form B 2505a, inscribed unfit?
      Mr. TENNANT: It is not intended to reexamine a man who rightfully holds a recognised certificate which shows that he is not fit for any form of military service.
      Mr. HOGGE: Does my right hon. Friend say that this Form B 2505a, will be accepted for all purposes?
      Mr. TENNANT: I do not think it would in all cases, because it is conceivable a man might be fit for some form of military service, but not for general service.

      NATIONAL RESERVE.
      Mr. TICKLERasked the Under-Secretary for War if he is aware that men of the National Reserve, who enlisted for local duties, such as guarding bridges, now find themselves scattered about amongst provisional battalions and having to perform physical drill, route marches, and general recruits' training; and if he will use them for the purposes for which they were enlisted?
      Mr. TENNANT: These men were enlisted into the Territorial Force with a liability for service in any place in the United Kingdom, and not merely for local duties. Towards the end of last year the supernumerary companies to which these men belonged were reorganised, when it was found possible to effect a considerable reduction of numbers. Some thousands of the surplus were found medically fit for garrison duties overseas, and are now voluntarily serving abroad. Of the remaining surplus men, many were found medically fit for more active duties than the guarding of bridges, etc., and were consequently posted to Home Service Provisional Battalions. It will thus be seen that there was no breach of contract in posting these men to provisional battalions, and the hon. Member may rest assured that no men would be required to perform; military duties which they were physically incapable of performing.

      ATTESTATION PAPERS (REFUSAL TO SIGN).
      Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether a refusal to sign attestation papers entitling the signers to pay is a military offence; whether A. Paice and J. S. Dunn are now at the Duke of York's Schools, Dover, awaiting court-martial for refusal to sign such papers; if not, whether these men have to answer any other charge before a court-martial; and whether there will be an inquiry into the desirability of retaining these men in the Army?
      Mr. TENNANT: My hon. Friend apparently suggests that there has been a failure of justice. If this has been so the matter must come before a reviewing authority, and, if necessary, it will come to the War Office. I think the matter may safely be left to be dealt with under the properly constituted machinery for this purpose.
      Mr. KING: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that an answer "Yes" or "No" to the first part of my question, instead of a long rigmarole, would have satisfied me?
      Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot expect to get an answer if he puts his question in that form.

      SOUTH AFRICAN RECRUITS.
      Sir J. D. REESasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether men who went through the South-West African campaign, and have come over to enlist, have been subjected to the same training as the ordinary inexperienced recruit, instead of being accepted and at once sent to the front according as they desired; whether many of them have returned to Africa owing to their disappointment; and whether there is any reason why their previous war service should be ignored?
      Mr. TENNANT: I believe that some men who went through the South-West African campaign have come over to this country and enlisted here, but I am not aware of any men having returned to South Africa owing to disappointment at not being sent without delay to the front. Such enlisted men would go through the ordinary training as recruits, which would naturally vary as regards the time devoted to it with the intelligence and military knowledge of the individual. I would remind the hon. Member that the fighting in Flanders has developed characteristics, i.e., trench fighting, which were not seen in South-West Africa, and that for this special training is necessary.

      PENSIONS COMMITTEES (LABOUR REPRESENTATION).
      Mr. HOGGEasked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been drawn to a resolution passed by the County Councils Association, Scotland, stating that it is not possible for labour to be represented on the county pensions committees; and whether he can now state publicly that no scheme of any such committee will be approved that does not provide for labour representation?
      Mr. HAYES FISHER: I have not seen any resolution in the terms referred to in the hon. Member's question. The Statutory Committee have been informed by the Association of County Councils in Scotland
      280
      that in their opinion each county should be allowed to provide for the representation of labour on the local committee in accordance with the special circumstances existing in the particular county. No scheme of any committee will be approved that does not provide for labour representation.

      LOCAL AUTHORITIES (ECONOMY).
      Sir J. D. REESasked the President of the Local Government Board whether the chairmen of the Nottinghamshire County Council and of the Nottingham City Council have announced reductions of 3d. and 5d., respectively, for the current year; and whether he will commend this example to county and borough councils throughout the United Kingdom in order that relief may be granted to the heavily taxed public which also pays the rates?
      Mr. HAYES FISHER: I think that the advertisement which the hon. Member has given the Notts County Council and the Nottingham Corporation is as good a commendation to other local authorities as he could wish for. As my right hon. Friend has stated, however, on other occasions, it is not always possible for local authorities to indicate the measure of their economies by reductions in the total of rates.

  DISTURBANCES IN IRELAND.

    SIR ROGER CASEMENT.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Attorney-General why Sir Roger Casement has not been brought to trial for the charge upon which he was arrested; and when the military authorities propose to proceed with the trial?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir G. Cave): There has been and there will be no avoidable delay in bringing Sir Roger Casement to trial, but my hon. Friend will realise the inconvenience of dealing with the matter at this stage by question and answer.

    POSTAL AND TELEGRAPHIC IRREGULARITIES.
    Colonel CRAIGasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that discontent is being occasioned by the irregularities in the dispatch and receipt

    281
    of postal and telegraphic communications in Ulster, where the situation has been and is quite normal; whether he is aware that telegrams are accepted in post offices in the ordinary way, and yet delayed in transmission for as much as twenty-four and thirty-six hours, without any notice being given to the senders; and whether he will give orders that information be given to senders of telegrams of any probable delay in transmission, and take steps to restore the full service as soon as possible?
    Mr. PIKE PEASE: Telegraphic communication with Ulster has been restricted as a result of the recent storms, and late events in Ireland have thrown additional work on the telegraph circuits still available. The delay to which the hon. Member refers occurred at a time when the extent of the "delay" could not be foreseen from hour to hour. As explained to the hon. Member for Mid-Armagh on the 5th April, "delay" is a variable quantity changing from hour to hour, and particulars of "delay" at a specified moment might shortly after be very misleading. The latest report I have shows a delay of telegrams to Ulster of about an hour and a half. Postal communication with Ulster is now practically restored to its normal conditions.
    Mr. GINNELL: Will the hon. Gentleman say why telegrams sent ten days ago to other parts of Ireland have not been delivered, and why no communication has been made to the senders?
    Mr. PIKE PEASE: If the hon. Gentleman will give me particulars of any cases I will inquire.
    Mr. GINNELL: I will send the hon. Gentleman the bill for the money paid.
    Mr. RONALD McNEILL: Would the hon. Gentleman be surprised to hear I received a letter this morning from county Antrim which was posted on Easter Sunday?
    Mr. PIKE PEASE: If the hon. Gentleman will give me particulars of any cases I will inquire.
    Sir H. NORMAN: Are private telegrams not received in Dublin?
    Mr. PIKE PEASE: I cannot say.

    CAVALRY ARMS.
    Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNERasked the Prime Minister whether the Government is aware that at the date of the
    282
    outbreak of the revolution in Ireland some 500 Cavalry were without carbines or rifles; and whether the searching inquiry which has been promised will inter alia. endeavour to fix the responsibility for this omission?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): The Reserve Cavalry Regiments are primarily draft-producing units. Rifles are allotted according to training requirements. The regiments in question contain a large proportion of recruits. The same practice is followed in this matter in Ireland as obtains in England.

    TRIAL OF REBELS.
    Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether it is intended to try any of the Irish rebels by the ordinary civil tribunals, or whether all will be tried by courts-martial?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The course to be adopted with regard to the rank and file of the rebels is at present under the consideration of the Government.

    INQUIRY INTO CAUSES AND RESPONSIBILITY.
    Mr. W. O'BRIENasked the Prime Minister whether, before the tribunal to inquire into the causes of the late outbreak in Ireland is appointed, the House will have an opportunity of discussing the names of the gentlemen who are to compose it and especially the scope of their investigation?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I would rather, if the hon. Gentleman would allow me, reply to this question to-morrow.

    CASUALTIES.
    The following question stood on the Paper in the name of Mr. W. O'BRIEN: (40) To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish, as soon as possible, a full list of the killed, wounded, and prisoners on the side of the insurgents in Ireland in mercy to their relatives?
    Mr. O'BRIEN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the cases of civilians entirely unconnected with the insurrection, large numbers of whose families, I am informed, are still living in a state of torturing doubt as to what will happen?
    Mr. TENNANT: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. I am afraid I could not give an answer offhand to the supplementary question of my

    283
    hon. Friend. As to the question on the Paper, I would say that no such list is at present available, but, instructions have been given for lists of the insurgents and civilians who have been killed and wounded to be prepared. I do not know whether that covers the point of my hon. Friend. A list of the insurgents made prisoners will also be prepared. I must, however, warn the hon. Member that these lists may take some time to prepare.

    GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS ARRESTED.
    Colonel CRAIGasked the Prime Minister whether he can state the number of Government officials arrested in connection with the rebellion in Ireland; and whether any and, if so, what steps have been taken to clear out members of the Sinn Fein Society from the Postal Service, Land Commission, and other Government Departments?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am not yet in a position to reply to the first part of the hon. Member's question. As regards the second part, steps were initiated on the 1st instant to ascertain which of the Government officials were in any way implicated in the recent disturbances with a view to action being taken with regard to them.
    Colonel CRAIG: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there may be a great number of officials throughout Ireland who are members of this society, but who have not taken an actual part in the rebellion; and will steps also be taken to clear them out of the Government service?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The inquiry will extend to everybody.

    CLEMENCY TO PRISONERS.
    Mr. JOHN REDMOND(by Private Notice)asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the continuance of military executions in Ireland has caused rapidly increasing bitterness of exasperation amongst large sections of the population who have not the slightest sympathy with the insurrection; and whether, following the precedent set by General Botha in South Africa, he will cause an, immediate stop to be put to military executions?
    Sir W. BYLEShad given private notice of the following question: To ask the Prime Minister whether the executions
    284
    and other punishments meted out to the Irish rebels have the direct and considered sanction of the Government, or are they the uncontrolled judgments of the Military Courts?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Before I answer the question, let me say that from the very first the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. J. Redmond) has strongly urged upon the Government—and his arguments have not fallen on unwilling ears—the importance of clemency to the rank arid file of persons engaged in this insurrection.
    In answer to this question, and to another of which I have received private notice from my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, I have to say that General Sir J. Maxwell has been in direct and personal communication with the Cabinet on the subject. We have, great confidence in the exercise of his discretion in particular cases, and his general instructions, which conform to his own judgment in the matter, are to sanction the infliction of the extreme penalty as sparingly as possible, and only in cases of responsible persons who were guilty in the first degree. No one is more anxious than the Government and Sir J. Maxwell himself that these cases should be confined within the narrowest limits, and cease at the earliest possible moment.
    Mr. LYNCH: Has Sir John Maxwell acted entirely on his own judgment or has he been in consultation with the Cabinet?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I said so.
    Mr. LYNCH: After the complete repression of the rising did he order these shootings in cold blood?

    MILITARY PRISONERS.
    Mr. GINNELL(by Private Notice)asked the Under-Secretary of State for War how many military prisoners were summarily executed in Dublin last week for participation in the rebellion there; what was the alleged offence of those of them who were neither leaders nor signatories of the republican proclamation; what was the length of interval between capture, sentence, and execution; what facilities were afforded them for religious preparation for death; whether all were allowed the ministrations of priests of their own choice; and whether any more are to be executed before this House is afforded an opportunity of discussing the matter?
    Mr. TENNANT: The hon. Member's question only reached my hands at twelve o'clock this morning. On the points mentioned I am not in possession of information other than that contained in the public Press.
    Mr. GINNELL: Cannot the right hon.-Gentleman answer the last clause of the question—whether any more are to be executed before this House is afforded an opportunity of discussing the matter?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I will answer that. I cannot give any such undertaking.
    Mr. GINNELL: Murder!
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Will my right hon. Friend keep constantly before him recent precedents in South Africa, with a view to seeing whether any lessons can be learned there which will promote the security and well-being of the United Kingdom as the security and well-being of South Africa have been promoted?
    The PRIME MINISTER: My hon. Friend may rest assured that we are keeping that most carefully in view.
    Sir W. BYLES: I have not got a definite answer to my question as to whether the first executions, at any rate, were decided by the Cabinet or by the military authorities uncontrolled?
    The PRIME MINISTER: They were decided by the military authorities.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Are all the officers and men now accounted for or is there still a large number missing?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I must have notice of that question.

    GERMAN SUBMARINES.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many German submarines have been put out of action by the Navy?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot add anything to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the First Lord to the hon. Member for Birmingham, North, on 30th September last, of which I will send my hon. Friend a copy.
    Mr. HOGGE: May I ask how a Member of this. House can get the information when
    286
    it is asked for in secret session and not given? How can he get it when the Prime Minister says the only way to get it is to-put a question on the Paper?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I am afraid I cannot add anything to my answer.
    Sir COURTENAY WARNER: Will the Admiralty consider the advisability of giving statistics up to the end of the year 1915, which could not possibly give any information to the enemy, so that the public may be reassured?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I will convey my hon. Friend's suggestion to the First Lord, but I can give no assurance regarding it.
    Mr. HOUSTON: Was not this information given to the Press by the First Lord in April?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I have said my right hon. Friend cannot add anything to the answer already given.
    Mr. HOUSTON: That is not an answer to my question.

    ADMIRALTY WORK (SUPPLY OF LABOUR).
    Mr. HOGGEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether all deficiencies in labour required for Admiralty purposes have now been made good?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: We are, of course, in continuous touch with all shops and yards doing work for the Admiralty, whether in Government or private establishments. The fortnightly reports we receive show shortages of labour specially adapted to shipbuilding. These are immediately reported locally to the Labour Exchanges and centrally to the Ministry of Munitions. Meanwhile, we are pressing dilution both in the Royal yards and in the private yards and shops, and to this end are working in the closest co-operation with the Labour Supply Department of the Ministry of Munitions and its Dilution Commissioners. As to this, generally, I should say that fair progress has been made in the introduction of women, in setting aside demarcation rules, in the employment of semi-skilled men on work hitherto performed by skilled men, who-are thus being set free to perform services which they alone can render, and in the recalling of skilled craftsmen from the Colours. But, undoubtedly, much more

    287
    will be necessary in these several directions if output of munitions of war generally and the building and repairing of merchant ships are to reach their maximum with the utmost expedition.
    Mr. HOGGE: How much has been made good since the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee made his charge in relation to this matter?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I am not aware that any charge has been made, but I cannot add anything to the answer already given.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the names of the Dilution Commissioners?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Mr. L. Macassey is the chairman and my right hon. Friend the Member for the Blackfriars Division (Mr. Barnes) is, I think, a member, but I will send the hon. Gentleman the names.

    HIS MAJESTY'S SHIP "NATAL" (EXPLOSION).
    Mr. HOGGEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is now in a position to report on the explosion on His Majesty's ship "Natal"?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by a public statement.
    Mr. HOGGE: Has not the inquiry been concluded?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Oh, yes!

    EXCHEQUER BONDS.
    Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, with the view of obtaining a large amount of the money required for the War by means of short loans, he will consider the advisability of authorising the issue of Exchequer Bonds either free of Income Tax or subject only to a fixed rate of deduction or to a proportion only, say one-half, of the current rate of tax?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. McKenna): I can assure my hon. Friend that all variations in the terms on which any future issues of short term securities may be made will receive careful consideration.

    INCOME TAX.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government proposes, by adopting the use of exemption certificates or some such expedient, to remove or mitigate the hardship involved in deducting Income Tax at the rate of 5s. in the £ from the possessors of small incomes derived from investments who are liable to a lower rate?
    Mr. McKENNA: I may refer the hon. Member to the replies I gave on this subject to questions by the hon. Members for Ealing and Islington on the 18th and 26th of last month.

    PRISONERS OF WAR (EMPLOYMENT IN GERMANY).
    Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether an estimate has been formed recently of the total number of prisoners of war which the Germans hold; if so, whether that number can be safely published; whether any large number are being economically employed by the Germans; if so, in what capacity, to what extent, and whether they receive any pay or other advantages in return; and whether there is any evidence that Irish prisoners in the hands of the Germans have been treated differently to other British prisoners of war?
    Mr. TENNANT: For the answer to the first two parts of the question I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the right hon. Member for the South Molton Division on the 4th May. A large number of the prisoners in Germany are being employed by the Germans in capacities and with pay which were stated in an answer given by my Noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in an answer he gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Plymouth on the 3rd of May. In reply to the last part of the question, there is evidence that earlier in the War the Germans differentiated in favour of Irish prisoners of war, but this differentiation has, it is understood, now ceased.
    Mr. KING: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that my question refers to all prisoners of war, including those taken from our Allies? I will put the question down again and make it clear.
    Mr. TENNANT: I did not gather that it did from the question on the Paper.

    WANDSWORTH DETENTION CAMP.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Under-Secretary for War what reply he has sent to Mrs. Larkman, who wrote to him about the treatment of her son, who is undergoing imprisonment at the Wandsworth detention camp; and whether he has made inquiries into the charges that the commanding officer told her that her son was being punished and would be punished every day of his life until he did as he was told?
    Mr. TENNANT: On the information contained in the question it would appear that the son has been guilty of some breach of discipline, and if this is the case his detention would be due to this. It is obviously necessary that soldiers should learn the vital necessity of military discipline. I cannot undertake to make any inquiries into this matter.

    MOTOE LICENCE DUTIES.
    Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Under-Secretary for War whether, in view of the present shortage of motors for dealing with the sick and wounded, and the certain and early reduction in their number owing to the increased licence duties, members of the voluntary aid detachment who keep cars for this purpose will be treated as on military service and exempted or excepted from enlistment in the Regular Forces?
    Mr. TENNANT: No, Sir.

    SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (SALARY).
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Prime Minister if he is in a position to say whether a day can be named for the discussion of the salary of the Minister of War?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid I cannot yet name a day for this discussion.

    EDUCATION AFTER WAR.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the movement amongst men of science to protest against the compara-
    290
    tive neglect of science in the teachings of the schools and universities of this country; whether he has considered how far such neglect has redounded in great material losses to the country during the present War; and whether he will consider the advisability of appointing an evening for the discussion of the Motion relative to scientific education standing in the name of the Member for West Clare?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Government are instituting inquiries into the whole question of education after the War, and I think it is desirable to defer discussion of the subject in this House until the Government are in possession of the results of these inquiries. In any case I doubt whether the hon. Member's Motion affords a suitable basis for such discussion.
    Mr. KING: Does that mean that the Departmental Committee which has been appointed by the Board of Education must be in a position to report before there is any discussion in this House?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I think it would be desirable in the general interest that it should be. It will not take long.
    Mr. KING: Is it not possible that a discussion in this House might assist the deliberations of the Departmental Committee?
    Mr. LYNCH: Was the attention of the right hon. Gentleman called to a meeting at the Linnean Society the other day of representative scientific men, where it was shown that even with regard to the actual conduct of this War the deficiencies of science had been a great detriment to the cause of the Allies?
    Sir J. D. REES: Did the right hon. Gentleman also see the counterblast signed by many eminent men on behalf of classical studies?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lynch) will send me a report of the meeting.

    BRITISH CASUALTIES.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister when it is proposed to issue the list of British casualties to date?
    The PRIME MINISTER: If the hon. Member or any other Member of this House cares to see these figures privately I shall be pleased to arrange for this to

    291
    be done. But I am advised by the military authorities that the periodical publication of these figures is undesirable for military purposes.
    Mr. HOGGE: My right hon. Friend will see that I was not asking for numbers. I only wanted to know whether we had now abandoned the usual practice of issuing monthly lists?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir, we have, for military reasons.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY SERVICES.

    PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
    Captain EDGEasked the Prime Minister if the Government intend to lay before Parliament a separate Bill for dealing with the provision of special allowances for men called up under the Military Service Bill; and whether this will embrace the creation of new machinery for deciding on individual cases?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: The Prime Minister has asked me to reply to this question. It is not at present contemplated that any legislation will be necessary.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is impossible for us really to discuss the Military Service Bill without knowing what provisions the Government are going to make; further, can my right hon. Friend say whether the Government could not put these provisions into a Schedule of this Bill, in order that we might know where we are?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: Full information has already been given to the House by the Prime Minister. I certainly cannot subscribe to the idea that the House cannot discuss this Bill unless it has further knowledge of this scheme. As to its inclusion in a Schedule to the Bill, that question ought to be addressed to the Prime Minister?
    Mr. HOGGE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that before now the tribunals have said that they have nothing to do with what the Prime Minister says in this House?
    Mr. WING: What is the machinery for carrying out the promise of the Prime Minister'? I am asking solely for information.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: We propose to set up tribunals practically covering the same areas as are covered by the Appeal Tribunals. These tribunals will probably be presided over by barrister-commissioners.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Will the members of the new tribunals be the same members who serve on the existing tribunals?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: No, Sir; they will be quite distinct.
    Captain EDGEasked the Prime Minister whether, in any proposals the Government may make for special allowances for men called up under the Military Service Bill, he will take into consideration the desirability of using the existing local tribunals as the primary authority on each individual case?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: The Prime Minister has asked me to reply to this question also. The suggestion has been considered, but it is not thought practicable to use the local tribunals for the purpose in question.
    Mr. HOGGE: How are these tribunals to know the local circumstances of these individuals?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: All the circumstances will be stated upon a form of application which will be made by each person who asks for this special form of relief.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is it not the case that the choice of men for the Army comes before the men chosen locally because they know the local conditions; and would it not be right that the men who are going to give—
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter for argument when the Bill is reached.
    Mr. HOGGE: On a point of Order. There is no Bill. That is the point.
    Mr. SPEAKER: When the Bill is reached—
    Mr. HOGGE: There is no Bill.
    Mr. SPEAKER: It will be reached when it is introduced.

  BRITISH PRISONER CAMPS.

    MEDICAL OFFICERS' REPORTS.
    Mr. J. M. HENDERSONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will include in the forthcoming

    293
    White Paper on British Prisoner Camps in Germany the reports made by officers of the Royal Army Medical Corps who have returned from these camps?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord Robert Cecil): The White Papers hitherto laid before Parliament have included correspondence with the United States Ambassador and reports received through His Excellency only. The reports made by officers of the Royal Army Medical Corps, referred to by the hon. Member, have no relation to the period covered by the reports which will be included in the forthcoming White Paper, but relate to a condition of things at a previous date, nor could they now be included without very much delaying the issue of this Paper. A considerable portion of Major Priestley's report was embodied in the recently published Report of the Government Committee on the treatment by the enemy of prisoners of war on the conditions obtaining at Wittenberg during the typhus epidemic. The question, however, of the separate publication of the reports made by officers of the Royal Army Medical Corps who have returned from Germany will be considered.
    Mr. HENDERSON: Surely the reports from those men who have actually lived in the camps must be much more reliable and important than that of a report of a casual visitor.
    Lord R. CECIL: I quite agree, and the Government Committee was set up on purpose to consider all such reports and to get a true account of the condition of the prisoners drawn from those reports.

ROYAL FLYING CORPS.
Mr. HOGGE(by Private Notice)asked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he can now give the names of the Committee appointed to inquire into the administration and command of the Royal Flying Corps?
Mr. TENNANT: The names are:

Chairman: Mr. Justice Bailhache.

The hon. and learned Member for York City (Mr. Butcher).

The hon. and learned Member for Newcastle (Mr. Shortt).

J. H. Balfour Browne, Esq., K.C.

294

The Honourable Sir Charles Parsons, K.C.B.

Charles Bright, Esq.

Secretary: D. Cotes-Preedy, Esq., M.A., LL.M., Barrister-at-Law; and the address is 2, Elm Court, Temple, EC.

It is proposed also to invite a military officer of high rank to serve.
Mr. HOGGE: When will they begin to meet?
Mr. TENNANT: I believe to-morrow.
Mr. BILLING(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether, seeing that the compulsion question is now practically settled, he will, in accordance with his, promise, give an early day for a Debate on the Air Service, and, if necessary, follow the course adopted in the case of Daylight Saving, and set aside next Monday for the purpose?
The PRIME MINISTER: I have had no notice of that question. If the hon. Member will put it to-morrow I will answer it.
Sir H. NORMAN: Were the terms of reference published?
Mr. TENNANT: Yes; they are in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  DAYLIGHT SAVING.
  Sir H. NORMAN: I beg to move "That, in view especially of the economy in fuel and its transport that would be effected by shortening the hours of artificial lighting, this House would welcome a measure for the advancement of clock time by one hour during the summer months of this year."
  I am more than ever conscious, after eight years' advocacy of the course it proposes, that the proposal suffers from two great disadvantages. In the first place, it is too simple. To believe that great benefit can be conferred upon many millions of people, and an economy of millions of pounds secured, merely by putting the hand of the clock forward an hour, seems to those who have not given some careful thought to the matter to exhibit a ludicrous disproportion between effect and cause. They are as unwilling to be cured by a simple expedient of their wasteful use of daylight hours as was Naaman of his leprosy. "If the prophet had bid them do some great thing" they would have been more ready to obey. As the Syrian scorned the Jordan, so they scorn the hour-hand of the clock. In the second place, this simple proposal lends itself almost irresistibly to what the French call "la blague." Nothing is easier than to poke fun at it. All the professional wits of the French Press have revelled in it for a month. M. Painleveé, the eminent scientist, who as Minister of Public Instruction and of Inventions has officially championed the reform, and to whom its ultimate success in France will be chiefly due, is known as the modern Joshua. He has attempted to arrest the steeds of the chariot of Phœbus. In fact, the French wits have gravely discussed whether, on the whole, we should be better with or without the contents of the particular hour he proposes to steal. They have declared the proposal to alter our social habits by altering the clock to be as absurd as to try to change the weather by changing the barometer. We have had something of the same kind here. I remember the last time I spoke on this subject in this House, seven years ago, a friend of mine asked me the conundrum, What would twelve o'clock be—would it be eleven o'clock or one o'clock? Another
  302
  hon. Member asked me if I had ever milked a cow. An agricultural witness indignantly asked us at the Select Committee whether we really expected him to go to bed with the chickens.
  The very simplicity of the proposal constitutes its most attractive feature to those who have once grasped it. Certainly the tragic necessities of this year make any kind of fun on the subject distasteful to us all. Therefore we can approach the matter once more with entire seriousness, with a new and irresistible argument in its favour, and, this time, as it would appear, with an almost unanimous public support. The proposal is indeed very simple, but appreciation of it is hampered for many people by curious views about time in general. Therefore I would like to say a few words about time. Many people appear to regard time—I use the word in its horological and not in its metaphysical sense—and our method of reckoning it, as something peculiarly sacred, something irrevocably fixed in the order of things. Based as it is upon the heavenly bodies, it seems to them to possess an almost semi-divine sanction. I feel sure there are many worthy people who regard any proposal to tamper, as they say, with the hands of the clock as savouring of irreverence. Even the Prime Minister the other day seemed to suggest that there was something rather noxious about Central European Time, which, by the way, has been changed even since he spoke. I submit that there is no such thing as time in the sense in which I have defined the word; at least, I have come across no definition of it. If you ask an astronomer what is time he will probably reply, "It depends upon what time you mean. Do you mean sidereal time, or mean solar time, or apparent solar time, or Irish time, or Greenwich civil time, or legal time, or lighting-up time, or closing time, or what?" One of these times depends upon the hour-angle of the vernal equinox, another upon the sundial, another upon the longitude of Dublin, another upon the Statute Book, another, and the most familiar, upon an astronomer's fairy tale. Some hon. Member may be inclined to say, "None of your subtleties. What I mean by time is the system by which it is twelve o'clock when the sun is over the meridian of Greenwich." I am not trying to be subtle. I am trying, perhaps not with success, to be simple; but, as a matter of fact, there is no such system.

  303
  There is no accepted time system by which it is twelve o'clock when the sun is over the meridian of Greenwich, nor even when it appears to be over the meridian of Greenwich. As a matter of fact, the sun has an apparent diurnal irregular eastward movement, with the result that solar time constantly fluctuates, and you cannot fix a regular noon by its appearance over the meridian of Greenwich. Therefore, astronomers have adopted the clever device of inventing an imaginary sun, moving in an imaginary manner, whose wholly imaginary motion coincides with the celestial equator, and from the calculated movements of this imaginary luminary they have devised a very convenient but wholly conventional time, which they call mean solar time, and which we know as Greenwich mean time. Twelve o'clock by Greenwich time is mean noon, and that is what we set our clocks by. But this, again, is only a convention, because Greenwich Mean Time, used as we use it from the North Foreland to Land's End, may be locally wrong by something like three-quarters of an hour. I would like to add, as I may be thought to be speaking rather flippantly of Greenwich Mean Time for the purpose of illustrating my argument, that, of course, the calculations upon which Greenwich mean time is based are of the most complex, the most refined and the most beautiful character, and constitute, as the world recognises, a masterpiece of astronomy and mathematics. Having said that, I hope I shall not be misunderstood when I say that of sidereal time we must speak with the greatest respect, for it is, except for a negligible wobble of the earth on its axis, an accurate, scientific, and regular reckoning. But mean solar time, certainly the hours of it, we may treat with familiarity because we have made it ourselves. I fear that all this may possibly have seemed a wilful digression from the subject, but it is not really so. It is really essential for us to grasp the fact that time, in our ordinary sense—that is, the position of the hands of our clocks—is only a convenient compromise, except for astronomers, and they take good care to base their time upon an immutable star and not upon the irregular sun. Our clock time is largely a matter of social convenience, with a general reference to the periods of daylight and darkness. When a man, looks at his watch and sees that it denotes twelve o'clock, what
  304
  does that mean to him? All his life he has never given a thought to meridians, or equinoxes, or suns, real or imaginary. What he thinks is that the morning is nearly gone, and that in one hour it will be lunch time, that he has a train to catch, or that he has an appointment with his dentist, or some practical matter of that kind. Clock time, in a word, controls the time-relations of a man with his fellow men, and that fact is the justification of the action proposed in this Motion. If the hands of all clocks are moved simultaneously, the time-relations of men in our society remain unaltered.
  Therefore—and this is the conclusion of my argument—we are free to consider any other result that follows the simultaneous alteration of the hour hands of all our clocks. It is obvious to everybody that between five and six o'clock on a summer morning, when the sunlight is exquisite, the temperature is delicious, and the whole earth is at its sweetest, the vast majority of the inhabitants of the United Kingdom are asleep behind drawn curtains. At the other end of the day they are again behind drawn curtains, but they are burning artificial light. Could there be a more wasteful, more unhygienic, more senseless proceeding? The proposal before us is on Saturday night at the beginning of summer to advance the hour-hand of the clock by one hour, and on another Saturday night at the end of the summer to put it back again—that is, we should add one hour of daylight to our working time, and correspondingly transfer one hour of darkness to our sleeping time. That is, it would be as light at 9.30 at night as it is now at 8.30. Actually it would be done in this way, if the House sees fit to accept this Motion and the Government act on it: Next Sunday morning, or the Sunday morning after it—the method and time depend entirely on the Government—all public clocks, all railway and all post-office clocks when they reach 1 a.m. will be moved to 2 a.m., and when we wind our watches on going to bed we shall similarly advance them one hour.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Suppose we do not?
  Sir H. NORMAN: If the right hon. Baronet does not, then he will simply find himself out of gear with the whole human machine of which he is a distinguished part. What will be the result? We shall have one hour's less sleep that night. That will probably be no great matter, as most of us sleep too much in

  305
  any event. The trains then running, that is between 1 and 2 p.m. on Sunday morning, unless they increase their speed, will arrive one hour late. On the corresponding night in September we shall have one hour's extra sleep, and the trains running, unless they slow down, will arrive one hour early. Otherwise we should find no difference whatever whenever we get up, but instead of drawing blinds and lighting gas at eight o'clock we should find it light until nine. Everything else will be the same. The butcher, the baker, the milkman, the postman, will all come at the same hour as now. The trains will run at the same hour. Not a figure in Bradshaw will have to be altered. Banks and offices will open and close at the same hours as now. If this was done during the night without our knowledge, in all probability we should know nothing whatever of it during the day until the usual time of nightfall arrived, when we should say, "How light the evenings are becoming."
  Is there anyone of us who has not been struck by the pathetic sight of men, boys, and girls hurrying from works and mills to get a little play while daylight lasts, struggling for their meagre recreation against the fading light? This simple change will give millions of workers an additional hour's daylight every day—that is 130 hours more daylight during the summer months, or the equivalent of sixteen eight-hour days. Surely the health, the refreshment, the happiness of such a gift cannot be overestimated! It will substitute outdoor for indoor life during that time. It will take an hour off the frequentation of the public-houses. Indeed, it will do more than that, for a great many of the workers will be in their gardens or allotments or in the cricket field, or on bicycles, until it is dark and the time has come for them to go home to supper and to bed. There will be another advantage peculiar to this year. We have all, of course, 'been struck by the large number of street accidents in London, owing to the necessary darkening of the streets. That extra hour's daylight during the busiest hour possible of the evening will save scores of lives in London during the coming months. It is unusual in this world to get anything for nothing. Therefore the question naturally arises, What is to be the cost of this great gift? It will be very much less than nothing. It will be one hour less of artificial lighting to pay for, an hour less a day of
  306
  candle-light, gas, oil, or electricity. That is, the cost of seven hours' lighting saved to every family every week, and every railway company, every tramway company and every municipality and every mill and works which is this year accustomed to work late. Evidence was given that the' London County Council tramways would save £10,000 a year. The general manager of the London and North-Western Railway Company stated that the railways would save £92,000 a year. The chairman of the-Sheffield Gas Company said that the-people of Sheffield would save £12,000 on-their gas during the summer months. A very careful and detailed estimate was-made according to which the savings of our whole country would be £2,500,000.
  I do not present these figures with any claim to accuracy because only experience-can show what the economy will be, but it will certainly be great. If this proposal had been adopted eight years ago extra daylight amounting to 154 eight-hour days would have been secured, and something like £20,000,000 of fuel would have been saved which has simply been wasted. The greater part of artificial light, of course, is derived from coal. We are under the most urgent necessity this year of economising not only in coal but in its transport. The gas and electric lighting companies were recently ordered by the Board of Trade to secure 10 per cent reduction in their output. I do not know how they were expected to do that, but the adoption of this proposal would give-them instantly and automatically a much greater reduction than 10 per cent. If there were no other argument for the advancement of the clock than this certain economy, that argument, I submit to the House, would be conclusive this year. We are called upon to husband our national resources. This is a measure of direct efficiency, and it will be an Act, if adopted, of imperative patriotism. It is difficult to understand how anyone reading the striking letter of the Home Secretary—and let me say here that this measure, if it is adopted this year, will be due, more than to any other man, to the energy and courage of my right hon. Friend—can vote against this measure. The economy necessarily carries the social benefit with it, but, all other aspects apart, this measure is essential to our best national efforts this year. Next year, when we may have peace, all the results-will be on record to guide us for the future.

  307
  The opposition to this measure is negligible; in fact, some organs of public opinion, which were not very much in favour of it before, are convinced that they have always been amongst its warmest friends. In normal times there would have been certain difficulties connected with Continental mails and with Stock Exchange operations with New York. Those of us who are in favour of this measure think that neither of those objections is important, but they are practically non-existent this year. Some objection is taken on behalf of the agricultural interest. This will be dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto), who will second this Motion, and who will, of course, speak upon the matter with far greater competence than I could. With regard to navigators, to whom reference has been made by occasional opponents, they will be affected in no way whatever. When they are at sea they will do precisely as they do now. When they are in port they will adjust their ships' clocks to local time, as they always have been in the habit of doing. But there is one point only to which I will venture to draw special attention, though I am sure it will not escape for a moment the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. There may be a danger, there is a danger, that certain classes of employers, I should think few in number, may take advantage of this extra hour of daylight to get an extra hour's work out of their employés. Of course organised labour is well able to protect itself in that matter, but steps must be taken to safeguard unorganised labour from the action of unscrupulous employers, if such are to be found. I know of no other objections really worth considering, though there are still people, whose intelligence in other matters is trustworthy, who say, "If you want to get up earlier, why don't you do so? Why do you want the Government to make you get up?" I hesitate even to formally answer such an objection. It is obviously useless for the individual to alter his time-relations with his fellows unless at the same time they alter their time-relations with him. It is useless for a man to begin his own day earlier unless the milkman, and the baker, and the postman will call earlier, trains run earlier, and his office and bank and other people's offices open earlier. As Lord Dundreary sagely observed, "A bird cannot go into a corner and flock all by himself."
  308
  On the other hand, few proposals ever had such influential and widespread support. I will not weary the House with a long list, but I should like to mention that this proposal has the support of the Central Committee for the Disposal of Coal. The General Conference of Railway Managers support it. I have just had a communication from the National Chamber of Trade, who support it. The measure has also the support of five county councils, 746 city corporations and town and district councils, including great cities like Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham, Cardiff, Swansea, Dublin, and Belfast; the Company of Merchants of the City of Edinburgh, the Convention of Royal Burghs of Scotland, the Conference of the Urban District Councils of England and Wales, and eighty-eight chambers of commerce. The Associated Chambers of Commerce have passed resolutions in its favour for eight consecutive years. The measure also has the support of fifty-nine trade unions, forty-seven branches of the Shop Assistants' Union, and over 400 business, political, and other associations. The International Chambers of Commerce at Paris in 1914, representing thirty-one countries, and 642 organisations, also gave it their support. Public meetings of the citizens of London, the Lord Mayor presiding, have passed during these years resolutions in support of the measure. Members will have noticed the almost unanimous support of the Press during the past week. I have received a large number of letters, all, with one single exception, strongly in favour of it. Mrs. Illingworth tells me of one boarding-house which saved £7 last summer by adopting this plan. Another writer says:
  "I am sure that if you are successful you will earn the gratitude of thousands who, like myself, are shut up in shop or office all day."
  I have a number of communications of that character. Here is one from a gentleman who says that he himself can alter 5,000 clocks simply by adjusting about 100 master clocks. Another correspondent says:
  "With all my heart I wish yon success on Monday. To tens of thousands who, like myself, cannot leave business till 8 p.m. or later, an extra hour of daylight at the close of the day would prove to be a great privilege indeed, and would add years to our lives, to say nothing of financial gains that would accrue."
  This telegram was put into my hands this afternoon:
  "Swansea and District Grocers' Association heartily support proposed Daylight Saving Bill, and trust same will be passed to-day.—WEST, President."

  309
  Another telegram is:
  "South Wales Council, representing 1,200 grocers, in favour of Daylight Saving Bill.—PERKINS, Secretary."
  A further telegram from Hull is as follows:
  "National Chamber of Trade, in annual conference heartily and unanimously support Daylight Saving.—NICHOLSON, Secretary."
  There is one letter only which I desire to read in full to the House, as it appears to me one of the most instructive and weighty utterances I have seen on this subject. I have not the pleasure of knowing the writer personally. It is as follows:
  "University Observatory,
  Oxford.
  Dear Sir Henry Norman,
  A suggestion has reached me (from Professor A. M. Worthington, F.R.S.) that most of the objections urged by scientific men against 'Daylight Saving' would be met by the adoption of a new term 'Greenwich State Time' (G.S.T.), as distinguished from Greenwich Mean Time, or Civil Time (G.M.T. or G.C.T.), both of which have been used in other connections. I think the suggestion well worthy your consideration."
  Here is a very important part of the letter:
  "Astronomers as such (I have always contended) have little concern in the matter. Of the two hands of the clock the minute (and second) hand is very distinctly a concern of theirs, and it would be grievous to interfere with it; but the other hand belongs to the public and may be regulated to suit their convenience, as in the system of hourly changes in the United States.
  It should always be remembered that meterologists will suffer, as it is important for them to have certain information collected at hours regulated by the sun himself. But they will have, at most, a little extra trouble, which ought not to outweigh the public convenience.
  With good wishes,
  Yours very truly,
  H. H. TURNER. F.R.S.,
  Savilian Professor of Astronomy."
  4.0 P.M.
  I think after that letter, and I have a letter to the same effect from Professor Worthington, and remembering the support of Professor Rambaut and the late Sir Robert Ball, we need not trouble further over the so-called scientific objections. The situation as regards the advance of clock time in other countries is of importance. Unhappily our enemies have been quicker than ourselves to realise the great economy thus afforded. The advancement of clock time has been in operation in Germany, in Austria, and in Hungary since 1st May. It was stated in the discussions in the Bundesrath that an annual saving—and I am, of course, merely quoting the figures—of a sum approaching £8,000,000 would be made in Germany, and that a saving of a sum approaching £4,000,000 would be made in Austria. It would be equally amazing and regrettable if a measure of reform and economy born in this country and reborn in France
  310
  should profit only our enemies. As we have seen in the newspapers, daylight saving, or the advancement of clock time, as I prefer to call it, has been adopted in Holland and with the most striking success. Two letters on the subject have recently appeared in the Press. A correspondent of the "Daily News" writes:
  "Holland has adopted summer time. The Government has temporarily robbed us of an hour that nobody has missed, and has given everyone an hour's leisure that everyone has enjoyed. While some of you in England are discussing learnedly whether another hour's sunshine in your working day is good or bad for your vitality we, in Holland, are not bothering one whit about the theories, we are just enjoying the blessings and wondering why they were never realised before. The Dutch Parliament passed the Bill without debate; there will be a very big one if anyone tried to cancel it next year."
  There was a most interesting letter to the same effect from the Rotterdam correspondent of the "Daily Telegraph." As regards France, the situation is that the Bill was passed by the Chamber of Deputies and went up to the Senate, which rose on the very day it was received and before the case for it could be stated there. I have, of course, no authority whatever to make any statement on this matter, but I have had the opportunity of discussing it frequently with those in France most influentially concerned, and I have not the slightest hesitation in expressing the confident opinion, and in fact regarding it to all intents and purposes as a certainty, that the French Government will adopt it if we do. In that case it is very probable, and I speak with some grounds, that it would be adopted also in Italy, where eminent men are also strongly urging it in the public Press—such men, for instance, as the President of the Society of Italian Civil Engineers. In that case Switzerland would certainly hardly fail to follow suit, as it would be surrounded by countries which had made this change. I venture specially to commend this Motion to the House, because upon the decision of the House to-day depends this great extension.
  Nobody can speak of daylight saving on the eve, as I hope it may be, of its triumph, without a word of tribute to the memory of the late Mr. William Willett. It was he who originally conceived the idea. He gave years of his life and munificently of his means to the advocacy of it. He was wonderful in his seizure of every opportunity, great or small. No criticism daunted him, no defeat dismayed him. Apart from his own great business, he lived for daylight saving. I have never

  311
  known a more untiring, a more persistent, a more genial, a more disinterested advocate. Unhappily he is no longer with us, though his son, upon whom his mantle has not unworthily fallen, is listening to our Debate to-day. I venture to think that the time will come when the workers of this country will desire to erect to William Willett, in grateful memory, a statue on some peak where it will be gilded by the first rays of an April sunrise—one hour in advance of Greenwich Mean Time. I beg to move.
  Mr. PETO: I beg to second the Motion. With no part of the very able speech in which this Motion has been moved do I find myself in more complete agreement than that in which the senior Member for Blackburn (Sir H. Norman) dealt with this matter as a war measure and as one deserving of immediate attention in view of the public economies involved. All the arguments against such a proposal which were relevant in times of peace have either disappeared entirely, gone over to the opposite side, or almost ceased to have any validity whatever. Although I am sure the House would not have missed a single word of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, we may well bear in mind that this Motion is to be the forerunrrer in all probability of an emergency Bill, and that the advantages of the proposal which is before the House have been so ably stated from the scientific and every other point of view that the House would be well advised, in view of the national emergency and of the date, 8th May, which is already some eighteen days later than that on which really this measure ought to have come into operation, to pass this Resolution with a very brief Debate. I am going to deal with the agricultural side of the question, but I feel sure I shall only need to do so very briefly. I should like first to refer to one or two of the arguments which were not perhaps fully covered in the speech we have just heard.
  The right hon. Gentleman told us of some of the savings which would be effected. It may be of interest to know what the estimated savings will be in typical retail businesses, from which perhaps one can get an idea of the magnitude of the advantages in this essential commodity of light, which of course is the product of coal which we are bound to save. Messrs. Hitchcock and Williams, of St. Paul's Churchyard, estimate an annual saving of £347; Messrs. D. H. Evans, of
  312
  Oxford Street, £200 per year; and Harrods' Stores from £600 to £700 per year. Those are but three retail businesses in one city in this country, and those are the savings in coal, for that is what it comes to, which can be effected. I noticed that in the column next to the one in which the "Times" reported the letter of the Home Secretary which has been referred to, we find this Order from the Board of Trade, "Coal for lighting purposes must be reduced by 10 per cent." If we bear in mind that coal is the most important matter for us to economise in and that a vast proportion of the cost of the coal before it is ever turned into light is represented by the traffic charge over our railways, and that to do anything to relieve the congestion of the railways at this time is the most essential war measure which we possibly can adopt, then I really do not think that on general grounds there is any necessity for further argument. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackburn referred to the possibility of this meaning an extension of an hour at some of our works. I do not really believe there is any probability of such a result accruing in any industry whatever. Let the House just consider what the present conditions are. They are that all available labour, both male and female, in the vast majority of cases is concentrated upon work connected with the War. With that male and female labour alike the hours that are being worked are ungrudgingly the most that everyone can stand. What is proposed by this measure is to give an hour's additional daylight at the end of the working day so that there may be some time left to cultivate the allotments, the gardens in the vicinity of our towns, thus producing food right on the spot without cost of carriage and where it is most available for use in every household. That value alone as an agricultural measure is one well deserving of the consideration of the House.
  I am aware that two of the strongest advocates of the interests of agriculture in this House, namely, the hon. Member for the Rye Division of Sussex (Captain Courthope) and the hon. Member for the Wilton Division of Wiltshire (Captain Bathurst) are absent from this Debate on account of military duties they have undertaken. I therefore took the opportunity, so that their views of the question should not be unpresented, to look up the speech the hon. Member for the Rye Division made in seconding

  313
  the Amendment for the rejection of the Bill in 1909. I find that the arguments which he relied upon are easily relegated into four categories. First of all he dealt with the question of milk, and said:
  "All the big dairy associations say that they will find it absolutely impossible in the majority of cases to provide the towns with fresh milk nearer sunrise than at present. Of course, it would not really matter to us if the townspeople chose to drink last night's milk at breakfast, but it is quite clear, according to the definitely expressed view of daily farmers, that fresh milk cannot be supplied at an earlier hour."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th March, 1909, col. 1738, Vol. I.]
  I do not believe that the hon. Member if he were here to-day would put his argument in exactly the same form. He argued perfectly correctly with regard to the small towns all over the country, where it is possible to consume at breakfast milk that has been given by the cow that morning. But I took occasion this morning to see the managing director of a leading dairy company, so as to be able to inform the House what are the actual circumstances with regard to the delivery of milk in London. I found, as I had expected, that the bulk of the morning milk arrives in London at 10.30 or 11 o'clock. It has to be pasteurised and re-cooled, a short process not occupying more than about twenty minutes, and it leaves the dairy for the afternoon delivery between 12 and 1 o'clock. Some farmers now, owing to the shortage of labour and of horses, are delivering their milk only once a day—in the morning. The delivery of milk for breakfast goes out from the dairy at from 5.30 to 6.30, and that is the milk taken from the cow the evening before. Therefore there is no question of drinking stale milk, as the hon. Member called it, because that is what we do now. We do not get our milk at less than about twelve hours after it leaves the cow.
  With regard to the farmer's difficulty, there are various matters connected with the milk question which are quite uninfluenced by the proposal before the House. One of the difficulties the farmer has is that the ordinary yield of milk by a cow is about as twelve to eight in the morning as compared with the afternoon. Therefore, if we should milk an hour earlier in the morning, and at the present hour of the clock in the afternoon, we should shorten the night and lengthen the day. That would tend to equalise the yield of milk, and produce a very distinct benefit. There are interesting questions connected with the butter fat; according to law it
  314
  must be above 3 per cent., and there is a great tendency in the Shorthorn breeds to run almost short of the 3 per cent, in the morning yield of milk. These questions are more suitable for a meeting of agriculturists, and I mention them now only because they are appropriate to the Bill for this reason: All these questions are quite unaffected by this proposed change. It might induce several changes which would be a positive advantage from the agricultural point of view, but it cannot possibly affect the farmers so far as any of the real problems of the milk trade are concerned. The hon. Member for Rye dealt also with the question of reaping and binding machines. He rather twitted my hon. Friend with the fact that he was not a farmer on a large scale who had to use these essential machines on a large farm. He went on to say:
  "These machines are now used on a great number of farms, and anyone who has seen the machine used knows that it will not work unless the straw is dry, and it is the same with regard to grass."
  Immediately afterwards, the hon. Member destroyed that argument entirely by saying, with regard to harvesting operations:
  "They cannot begin until the hay or straw is dry, and they work as long as there is light. It would be impossible for them to finish work relatively an hour later than all the rest of the community engaged in other pursuits."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th March, 1909, col. 1739, Vol. I.]
  The hon. Member recognised, as all agriculturists must do, that harvesting operations are conducted now by the sun, and not by the clock. Nobody imagines that a farmer goes forth, pulls his watch out of his fob, and says, "It is now ten o'clock in the morning. I must begin to cart the corn." He would not think of doing such a thing. He would go and feel some of the shocks, and say, "The dew is off this corn; I can now let the wagons start loading." That has always been the practice, and sound agriculture can be conducted on no other lines. It will not matter twopence whether the clock says one time or another. Indeed, the hon. Member for Rye went further, and said as an argument against the Bill:
  "They (the agricultural labourers) take their time by the sun, and this Bill would take away their only timepiece."
  I could not follow his argument there, except in the case of an agricultural labourer who, living in the meridian of Greenwich, is in the habit of looking up and, when he sees the sun full over him, says, "It is now twelve o'clock" But if he happens to live a little way to the east of Penzance he will be twenty-three minutes

  315
  wrong now by Greenwich time. Therefore he cannot be in the habit of so accurately calculating his time by the exact position of the sun at noon. In any case, I am sure that he is sufficiently intelligent to be able to understand in a very little while that when the sun says eleven o'clock it is time to unhitch and take his lunch, instead of when the sun says twelve o'clock, as at present. The hon. Member for Rye also pointed out that in connection with many local live-stock markets you have to drive the stock a good many miles to reach the market. That means starting as soon as it is light, and the hon. Member said that you could not, without grave inconvenience, start earlier. What does that involve? At the very worst those who control the local market would have to say, "In view of the fact that the Government have altered the time, we think that the market, instead of starting at twelve, or one o'clock, or whatever it may be, had better start an hour later by the clock." That would not be a very serious alteration, especially bearing in mind that the agricultural population, important as they are, particularly in wartime, are only about 8 per cent, as compared with all the town-dwellers in the country. Really we cannot allow an argument of that sort to outweigh this enormous national advantage.
  I should like to say a word upon the "Do it yourself" argument. In the Debate in 1909 the hon. Member for the Tradeston Division of Glasgow (Mr. Dundas White) was very strong on this point, and referred to the case of Messrs. Crosfield of Warrington who had done it for themselves. He quoted what Messrs. Crosfield wrote as to the great advantage that had accrued to the firm from altering the clock by half an hour, and he said:
  "That is open to every other firm and every other employer to do. If they wish to encourage earlier rising in that way it can be done voluntarily. It needs no compulsion."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th March, 1909, col. 1754, Vol. I.]
  Unfortunately for that argument, and fortunately for the proposal that I am seconding, this particular firm, finding the half hour was a good thing, tried to extend it to the one hour as proposed by this Resolution, and Mr. Willett quotes their experience. He says:
  "I adduce the experience of Messrs. Joseph Crosfield and Sons, Limited, of Warrington, who state that having opened and closed their offices half an hour earlier and finding that the change had benefited the health of their staff, and that the work done showed an improvement, they considered the possibility of making a further altera-
  316
  tion in the same direction, but found that owing: to difficulties in regard to dinner-hour and train service it was impossible."
  That is one more of those arguments which have been used in one direction and now tell in exactly the opposite direction. It shows that the Mover of the Resolution is absolutely right in saying that it is quite impossible in this matter to do anything unless we all act together. As Mr. Willett says in his memorandum:
  "It is futile to say that these advantages can be secured by early rising. The exceptional exercise of this virtue usually calls forth more sarcasm than admiration or imitation. Leisure must follow, not precede, work, and earlier business hours are quite unattainable. The success of the proposed change entirely depends upon its initiation by legislative action."
  If that be true with regard to an ordinary peace time measure, it must be true in war. Even if there are some slight inconveniences which may be experienced by a small section of the community in adjusting themselves to something which is for the general good, for the public economy, and for the better conduct of the War, surely they are a very small matter compared with the great question involved in this proposal—the question of adopting; the change initiated in this country by Mr. Willett's ingenuity and foresight, and which has been already adopted by the enemies to whom we are opposed. I do not think it is very creditable to this country that long after Mr. Willett's proposal was put before the country here he took steps to bring it forward in Germany, and they so rapidly took it up there, that when it is a question of war, a question of life and death, when it is important to save every pound, Germany has had the start of us, and this Resolution can now be best argued in this House as being something which the enemy have already adopted. I am sorry that it is so. Some of us called the attention of the Government to the matter when there was still time to have made the whole saving possible in the year. On the 17th February I asked the Prime Minister whether he could see his way to move in this matter, and he said that he could not introduce legislation on "this contentious subject." I close with that. I only hope that the result of this Debate will be to show that we might have adopted this change before, and not after, our enemies; that it is not contentious; and that the Government will argue, as I believe the Home Secretary will do, that it is for the good of the country and for the better prosecution of the War that the proposal should be adopted.
  Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: The hon. Baronet who moved this Motion spent the first part of his interesting speech in giving us a scientific lecture. I do not propose to follow him on those lines. He told us, I think, that the earth wobbled on its axis, and that owing to that wobbling a certain alteration in time took place. That may or may not be so. I am prepared to accept the statement of the hon. Baronet, but I do not think that that has really anything whatever to do with the question now before us. As my hon. Friend (Mr. Peto) admitted, this is an extremely contentious and controversial subject, and I think it ought not to be brought on at a time like the present unless strong reasons can be adduced that the passing of the Resolution will do something to accelerate the War, and aid our country in carrying on that war. I therefore propose to deal only with the practical considerations which were stated by the hon. Baronet who introduced the Resolution. Before dealing with them I would like to say one or two words in regard to the agricultural position which was not dealt with by the hon. Baronet, who left it to my hon. Friend below the Gangway. In my view this alteration would deal a very serious blow to the farmers.
  Sir J. SPEAR: Hear, hear!
  Sir F. BANBURY: And it would do so at a time when it is very difficult for farmers to carry on their work and to obtain the necessary labour to get their work done. Let me first state the case of the dairy farmers and explain the question as it exists at the present moment in my own county of Wiltshire. The hon. Member (Mr. Peto) represents one of the Divisions. In my part of Wiltshire, a large part of which is considerably concerned in dairy farming, the milkers commence at five o'clock in the morning. This means getting up at half-past four. It cannot be doubted that getting up all the year round at half-past four is an arduous and hard task. For the greater part of the year these men get up in the dark. That is not a very pleasant thing to do. But during the summer, or at any rate during a greater part of the summer, they have the advantage of getting up more or less in the light. My hon. Friend below the Gangway and the hon. Baronet say, "Oh, no, you are not to do that; you are to get up practically all the year round in the dark." [An
  318
  HON. MEMBER: "NO!"] I beg pardon. They will have to get up at three-thirty instead of half-past four, and start milking at four o'clock instead of five. In our part of the world this has really nothing to do with the delivery of the morning milk for consumers to drink, because-the greater part of our milk comes to London, or goes to some other towns, though some of it goes to Slough. You: could not get up later or begin milking-later than five or you would not catch the train. You are going to put the trains an hour earlier, and, therefore, these men will have to get up an hour earlier to do their milking. But you cannot alter the milk trade or the allied trades, and the result will be that these people will have to get up in the dark all the year round instead of in the dark only a portion of the year.
  We come next to the question of the harvest. As everyone knows, after you have cut your grass, you cannot carry your hay when the dew is on it. At the present moment, if you are farming a mixed farm, as I am farming one myself—I do not do any milk except for my own house and the rearing of calves—it is very difficult to know on a damp morning in the hay harvest what to do with the men before the dew is off the grass. You will have another hour in which the men can do nothing. You may by an Act of Parliament alter the clock, but you cannot alter nature, and the dew will not go off an hour sooner because you have altered your clocks. It will remain on just the same, and there will be an hour wasted, an hour which has to be paid for by the farmer. It is quite true that in harvest time overtime is worked. I would point out to the hon. Baronet that the men, having got up an hour earlier than usual, and having done nothing, something may be given them to do, at five or four o'clock, when they leave off work, when they will be more tired than if they had got up later. An hour in the evening will be lost. Anybody conversant at all with agriculture knows that this is especially the time for carrying the hay. The work will be done by tired men. They will not be able to put as much energy into their work as they would have done if they had got up an hour later. The same applies to the corn harvest, with the possible exception of wheat. My hon. Friend behind me (Sir J. Spear) is thoroughly conversant with agriculture, and I think he will bear me out when I say,

  319
  though you cannot carry oats and barley if they are wet, it does not so much matter for wheat, even if it is a little damp, if you are not going to thresh it immediately. Both barley and oats, however, have to be carried when dry, and you cannot use the binder for either wheat, barley, or oats when the straw is wet. Therefore, again during the corn harvest, the same objection will apply that I have just mentioned in regard to the hay harvest. From the point of view of the farmer, nothing could be worse than this particular measure, and that at a time when it is extremely difficult to obtain labour. It is not easy now to get milkers on account of the hard life. If you are going to make it harder by making them get up in the dark all the year round the result will be that the farmers will find that it will be more difficult than before to obtain the labour they need.
  What was the argument brought forward by the hon. Baronet in justification of his statement that money was going to be saved by this measure. He said that there would not be so much artificial light used, and then, almost in the same breath, he went on to use the argument which was advanced in the old days, that there would be an hour extra for amusements. If you have an hour extra for amusements it means you go to bed at the same time as now, and therefore you will have to burn just as much artificial light as now. [An HON. MEMBER: "NO!"] Certainly; you get up an hour earlier, and if you go to bed at the same time you save an hour's artificial light, but you would not have the extra hour for amusements, and if you have the extra hour for amusements then you will have to go to bed later.
  Sir H. NORMAN: No!
  Sir F. BANBURY: My hon. Friend says "No!" I do not agree with him. I think he will find that people will not go to bed in the light. As a matter of fact, the only result will be that people will, I presume, get up earlier if this Resolution is passed, and that they will not go to bed any earlier at all. I am only now talking about private people—private in the sense that they are private after they have finished their work. When, however, you come to deal with industries, banks, shops, and so on, in the summer, they are all closed now before eight o'clock. There will be no saving for them. If you go further to
  320
  manufactories, undertakings of that sort, and large works, which work double shifts, they will go on working two shifts as before. Munition works will go on working at night, and all these will use just as much light as they do now. I forget whether it was my hon. Friend below the Gangway or the hon. Baronet who said that Harrods, I think it was, or some particular store, reckoned that they would save £300.
  Mr. PETO: Six hundred.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Well, Harrods, so far as I know, close now at six o'clock, and how can they save if they close in the summer at six? The question of railways has been alluded to. I made some inquiries on Thursday from the office of the Great Northern Railway, of which I am a director. I asked our general manager what really had taken place. The railways at the present time have an executive consisting of eight general managers, and the general manager of the Great Northern Railway is one of those eight. We had heard nothing of this at the board, and I inquired what really had taken place. According to the statement of the general manager, all that has taken place has been that the eight general managers have stated that, under present circumstances, they would not be affected one way or the other by this proposal. That is the information given to me last Thursday. The general manager tells me they have expressed no opinion as a body—I do not know what individuals may have said—upon the merits of the proposed scheme. All they have said is that, so far as they are concerned, they do not think they will be injured by this particular measure.
  Mr. PETO: I do not know whether the right hon. Baronet wanted an answer to the question he put to me a moment ago as to how Messrs Harrods would save if they closed now at six or seven. The reply is that the work of a great store does not end when the shutters go up, any more than does the work of a bank after the public are shut out.
  Sir H. NORMAN: The right hon. Baronet refers to the testimony of the managing director of Harrods store. I beg to put it in a few lines before him.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I am extremely obliged to the hon. Baronet, but what I read on the Paper he has given me bears out what I said. A change is advocated,

  321
  not because it is going to save any money, but because it is going to give additional recreation to certain people. That is the argument which was used by the late Mr. Lyttelton. I remember I had a conversation with him upon this subject when I was sitting on the bench behind and he was sitting on this Front Bench. He had given me a promise to vote against the proposal when it was introduced on a previous occasion. Suddenly someone said, "Oh, a place like Harrods will be closed an hour earlier and there will be an hour extra of daylight in which the shop assistants can go and play cricket." Whereupon Mr. Lyttelton turned to me and said, "I am sorry, my dear fellow, but if they are going to be able to play cricket I must vote against you." And he did That, actually, in other words, is what the director of Harrods stores says:
  "They are not able on summer evenings to make use of the fourteen-acre recreation ground placed at their disposal; in fact, it is only on Saturday afternoons they can do so. If they could get an hour added daily to that which they now enjoy, there is hardly one evening in the week in summer in which they would not get sufficient time to take advantage of the athletic club and grounds."
  What about the lighting of the athletic club and ground? If the assistants stayed after their play to have tea or other refreshments or to discuss matters with their friends? This may be a very excellent reason for endeavouring to give extra recreation, but I venture to say there is nothing in it showing that there will be any saving whatever to Harrods store, or of any other similar business which closes at six o'clock or even later in the evening.
  There is another point with regard to agriculture. At the present moment agricultural labourers have their dinner between twelve and one, and that is the warmest time of the day; therefore, during the greatest heat of the day they are able to have a rest and go to their own cottages, if the work is near, or to sit under a shady tree and have their dinner. Now, you are going to make for the future the hottest hour of the day as the hour in which they are to work. I do not think that is an advantage either for horses or for men. There was an extremely interesting letter in the "Times" a day or two ago from Mr. Arthur Hinks, in which he pointed out:
  "If we are to be dishonest with the clock, let us at any rate make the change honestly. The advocates of daylight saving are adept in securing the consent of one body of opinion on the ground that some other body has adopted it with enthusiasm. Public opinion in Paris has just lately been misled by the false statement that Canada and
  322
  Australia have already made the change. We are told, in our turn, that the French have adopted it; whereas, in fact, it is still under examination by a Committee of the Senate, who are expected to reject it. The change to standard time at the Cape years ago was hailed as a beneficial application of the principle with which it had nothing whatever to do; and any attempt to begin work earlier in the day is acclaimed as a justification, not as a refutation, of the need of tampering with the clock, a childish expedient in time of peace, as it seems to many of us, and a very dangerous thing to do in war, when a mistake of an hour might be fatal."
  It is very difficult, of course, to tell exactly what effect a change of this sort would have, but I do not believe myself that it would save any appreciable amount of money or appreciable amount of coal. I believe that you cannot change the habits of the people. I believe that the real reason for the introduction of this Motion is, and I claim that the whole speech of the hon. Baronet was devoted to showing, that an extra hour would be gained for recreation. I am not sure that we ought to think so much about recreation at the present moment. We have got to deal with a very serious situation, and we should turn our minds and thoughts to dealing with that, and not try to take advantage of it to gain extra hours of recreation. It may be all right in times of peace, but it is not what is wanted now, and while we might possibly gain a little in enabling certain people to play cricket, or to amuse themselves—in all probability they will not play cricket, but will smoke, or do something of that sort which wilt injure them—I see no argument brought forward which convinces me, or, so far as I can see, convinces anybody, that there is going to be a saving in money, which, after all, is the chief thing at the present moment. I venture to submit that, unless it can be shown there is going to be an appreciable saving of money, we ought not now in time of war to bring forward what is a very controversial measure, and endeavour to juggle with the hands of the clock. Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman, supposing I do not put my watch back, what is going to happen?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Herbert Samuel): You will miss your train.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Supposing I do not want to go by train, is there to be any penalty for not altering your clock or watch, or is it at all likely that ordinary people—and, after all, the world is composed chiefly of ordinary people—are going to alter all their habits merely because a

  323
  certain number of people, honestly, no doubt, have taken up this faddish idea, as I think, and desire it should be done? Parliament can do all sorts of things, but why should Parliament interfere with the private life of the people? If in the past they had given less time to all these grandmotherly ideas and grandmotherly legislation, and had taken a little more trouble to see what was being done abroad, and what Germany and our other enemies were doing, we should be in a very much better position to-day. That is one reason why I object so very much to this Bill. Before the War we were always told we ought to do this or that, because the Germans had done it. I think if the Germans have done it, it is a very good reason why we should not do it. I myself do not want to have anything more to do with Germany in any way at all, and I think it is a very excellent reason, if true that the Germans have done it, that we should not do it ourselves. When I was told, that this old controversial measure was going to be brought forward again and the Government give an extra day for it, I could hardly believe my senses. I do not know whether the hon. Member for East Herts (Mr. Billing) is in the House, but he has been trying, and I have been trying, to get a day for the Air Service Debate, which was promised as soon as the financial business of the year had been closed. The financial business of the year closed on 4th April. We have not had the Debate, and we are being delayed to discuss whether or not some people who would like to get up an hour earlier in the morning are to compel everyone else to do the same thing. That seems to be childish. If I want to get up earlier I shall get up earlier without asking the right hon. Gentleman opposite to do the same, and if the right hon. Gentleman wants to get up earlier I shall be very pleased if he will do so, but I trust he will leave me to get up at what time I like. Under those circumstances, I earnestly trust the House will reject this Motion.
  Mr. TIMOTHY DAVIES: I have listened with interest to the speech of the right hon. Baronet who has just sat down, and I think if he went into the merits of the Bill he would come to the conclusion that it would be a very good thing even from his point of view. With regard to the advantages of playing cricket in the light, there is no doubt a great value in that, but the right hon. Baronet did not
  324
  think it would be a good thing to smoke. Well, we can smoke in the dark as well as we can in the light. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]
  Sir F. BANBURY: Does the hon. Member know in the dark whether his cigar or pipe is alight?
  Mr. DAVIES: I am sorry I trespassed on the smoking question because I do not indulge in smoking. The right hon. Baronet particularly wished to know if there was any saving in this Bill. I can assure him there will be a great saving. It is unfortunate, I think, that the Seconder of the Motion quoted certain houses which will benefit possibly the least by this Bill. Scores and hundreds of retail houses in London could be quoted which do not close until half-past eight at night, and, therefore, in each of those houses there will be a clear saving of an hour's lighting every night, which will amount to tens of thousands of pounds in the saving of light in their case alone. Therefore, I can assure the right hon. Baronet that there will be an actual saving of cash in this to the retailers, especially of London, and it is quite true, as the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto) said, that the shops, like the banks, when they close do not finish their work. Even large houses like Harrods are working in their packing rooms underground, where they have to use artificial light, and if they finish an hour earlier it will be a consideration. With regard to the argument from the agricultural point of view, as far as I am aware, representing an agricultural Constituency, there is no real objection. As to the objection which the right hon. Baronet has given with regard to sending milk to London from Wiltshire, it has already been shown that the milk from Wiltshire is not given to him for his tea that morning, but it is probably either the afternoon or the following morning that he gets it. I can assure him the milk which is milked at four or five o'clock in the morning in Wiltshire is not used for breakfast the same morning.
  Sir F. BANBURY: But it has got to go; it does not matter who uses it. If you make this alteration, the milk will still have to go at the earlier hour. You have got to milk the cow just the same.
  Mr. DAVIES: Is the right hon. Baronet aware what time the sun rises at this period of the year? If he had got up this

  325
  morning at half-past three he would have found it was not quite dark, and for at least three of the six months during which this Bill is in force milkers will find it is light. With regard to altering the habits of the people, I admit that if this Bill was for the altering of the clock for the whole of the year we would not realise the benefit; possibly the benefit would not result after the first year. But, having every year to put back the clock at a certain time when we get most daylight, it will become a habit, and I can assure the right hon. Baronet that it will be a benefit to a great many people. As one who has bad to work for many years by artificial light, and on behalf of many hundreds of thousands of men and women who are now working by artificial light in summer time, I say it will be a great boon to those to get out and obtain a, little sunshine after eight o'clock, and to get an hour extra in the parks, even if they do not play cricket. I think this House ought to adopt this Resolution unanimously, and I do not know of any objection. Even if the Central Powers have adopted a Resolution similar to this, in a case like this I am only too glad to follow them if it is benefiting our people. What we ought not to follow the Germans in is in things not of benefit to the people, but the other way. The case is so strong for this Resolution that it does not require much supporting, if each one will consider the question for himself. I can assure the right hon. Baronet my own lighting bill would be reduced by at least 15 per cent, if this Bill were passed, and that is a consideration. I will tell the House what it would do in my own case. It would enable me to spare for five months an experienced engineer entirely for the services of the State in making munitions if this Motion is passed. That is not the only saving for me and for many others in the retail business in London and elsewhere. There would be a saving of hundreds of thousands of pounds in this trade in London.
  5.0 P.M.
  Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: I confess I was rather surprised last week to find that this measure, which had been shelved for some time, was going to be revived today in this extremely active form. After all, the speeches we heard at the beginning of this discussion certainly did not give a clear view to the House of the attitude that has been taken on this question in past years. Some years ago we had this matter brought before us, and if
  326
  we go back to the time when the House gave some attention to this matter, I would remind hon. Members that the authorities in the House took a somewhat unusual action in connection with this subject. A Select Committee was appointed to consider the question, and afterwards another Select Committee was appointed which had the full advantage of the inquiry held by the first Committee, and heard further evidence, and even after that the second Select Committee declined to act, as they considered the matter was too controversial. The opinion of that Select Committee has not been seriously challenged up to this date, and if that is so, surely it is curious that a matter which was abandoned on the ground that it was contentious should be brought forward now and recommended as something upon which there is unanimity. So far as the past history of this matter is concerned, it is clear that this is a matter which should not have been brought before the House at the present time.
  Of course, we are all willing to listen to arguments, and if this measure is to be recommended by the Government as a matter essential for carrying on the War, then we give up our private opinion and go with the Government in taking any action which in any way will help the country in connection with the War. Therefore, when the Home Secretary rises to speak, I hope he will really give his attention to that aspect of the question. I should also like to know how far the Admiralty are in favour of this measure. I do not think they are often quoted amongst the authorities in favour of this proposal, and I believe there are very considerable difficulties in altering the clock in connection with a good many naval matters. After all, the sea is our chief concern, and it is very important that we should know exactly the opinion of the Admiralty on this question. With regard to the receiving of news, this question may be very important, and the pushing forward of the time will make the matter more difficult. No doubt we shall all suffer in regard to what we read every morning in the newspapers, but I agree that we cannot put that forward as a very serious matter if more serious arguments are brought forward. I desire to contest the opinion that has been given by my hon. Friend below the Gangway (Mr. Peto) in connection with agricultural questions in reference to this subject.

  327
  So far as agriculture is concerned the case was very clearly put by witnesses before the two Select Committees, and the evidence shows that there are very serious objections from the agricultural point of view. The case of London has been quoted as if it were the only one with which we are concerned, but there are a vast number of consumers who do get their early morning milk, and that will become almost impossible if this proposal is passed into law.
  There are many objections to pushing forward the carrying on of agriculture into the earlier hours of the day. The very best experts on the question, with only one exception, were all unanimous in connection with the disadvantages of this proposal as applied to agriculture, and under the present circumstances, I think, agriculture has a very strong claim. It must be, remembered that what we are proposing to do at the present moment is to endeavour to persuade those engaged in agriculture to employ female instead of male labour. There are very considerable objections to forcing female labour into the field at such very early hours, because females have their duties at home, and at the present moment it is very difficult for them to carry out those duties before they go to work in the fields, and it will make it more difficult for them if you put this additional pressure upon agriculture, and that fact ought to be taken into consideration. My hon. Friend seems to think this is a very easy matter, and he said that local markets would not want to meet an hour earlier by having the clock put back, but by doing that you would arrive at the same thing. It seems to me that that was not a very strong argument. In reference to the binders, if the corn is wet, the hon. Member says that the men may wait in the field. At the present time they have to wait, and these are not times when you ought to allow labour to wait, because you want to make use of it in every way, and if you are always to be finding odd jobs for the men before they can get to their real work it is the very worst way of doing business and most wasteful.
  In view of the shortage of labour in agriculture the difficulties will be increased under this proposal more and more, and it is on those grounds that I ask the House to consider whether it is advisable to pursue a contentious subject of this sort
  328
  at the present time. At any rate, we ought to be absolutely convinced that it is a war measure and that all our great Departments of State are in favour of it, especially the Admiralty. As this proposal, is limited in the Resolution to one year, we ought to be shown very clearly where the actual saving does arise. I confess I was not satisfied with the arguments used in connection with Harrods Stores, because early closing is in operation, and I do not see what light would be saved in connection with those stores. I also think that we ought to be very careful not to make this change unless we are quite sure that our neighbour, France, is going to do the same thing. If we act in this matter, at all events let us act together, because I think it would be very inconvenient if there was a different time in this country to that adopted by our Allies, when we are carrying on so many mutual actions together. I ask the Home Secretary to give his very serious consideration to this matter, and to state to the House most clearly the grounds upon which the Government regard this as a war measure.
  Mr. DUNDAS WHITE: Like the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, I was a little surprised to find that this measure should have been put forward at such short notice and apparently with the force of the Government behind it, because I assume that when the Home Secretary wrote that letter he did so as representing the Cabinet. I should like to have a much clearer statement as to what is actually intended by the promoters of this change. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Sir H. Norman) gave an interesting description of the various times; but there is no question about this point, that the time we contemplate throughout is solar mean time, and the only question is whether that should be Greenwich mean time or one hour before Greenwich mean time. I would like to point out that our present time standards rest upon a purely voluntary basis. It seems necessary to point out that difference, because this is the first time that a proposal has been made to apply direct or indirect compulsion. The question of how much compulsion may have to be applied is a point I propose to deal with, and on this point I would like to raise the question of convenience. As hon. Members know, in the olden days time was kept in various parts of the country by sun dials and the various local times varied. A difficulty arose owing to the railway system and it

  329
  became necessary to have some standard of time which came to be known at various places as railway time. Then differences arose with reference to the local time and railway time, and in 1880 this House passed the Statutes (Definition of Time) Act, not to enforce any time, but it was expressly an Act to remove doubts concerning the meanings of expressions and to provide two things. The first thing it provided was that where any reference occurs in Acts of Parliament, deeds and other legal instruments to the time, the time shall, unless otherwise specifically stated, be, in Great Britain, Greenwich mean time, and in the case of Ireland, Dublin mean time. The second Section gives the name of the Act, and that is the statutory basis of the present arrangement. It was purely an Act to avoid any doubt as to the meaning of time in Acts of Parliament and other documents, and by reasons of convenience alone Greenwich mean time has become general. In regard to Dublin, I agree with a letter from Lord Inver-clyde which appears in to-day's "Times," in which he says that he thinks it would be an advantage if Greenwich mean time could be adopted throughout Ireland as well as throughout England and Scotland. Greenwich mean time has been adopted not only in France, but in Spain and Portugal, which are as far away as Ireland. I would not dream of making a proposal of this kind for Ireland myself, because I think it ought to come from the Irish Members, but it would be a very considerable convenience if Greenwich mean time was used throughout the British Isles. Greenwich mean time is not only the basis for the countries I have mentioned, but it is really the basis of time throughout the world. The various cities of the world used to have their own time, but they have now adapted their time to Greenwich mean time by a system of time zones. Going eastward, for instance, mid-European time is one hour earlier, in East Europe two hours earlier, while Mauritius time is four hours earlier, Calcutta six, and Japan nine. Going westward, Atlantic time is four hours later, Eastern five hours, Central six, Mountain seven, and Pacific time eight hours later, and so on in this way until extremes meet at the Antipodes. I mention these things as showing that Greenwich mean time is not the standard for ourselves only, and I might also state that our telegraphic business proceeds on those lines. The adoption of those zones rests not on compul-
  330
  sion, but as a matter of general convenience it has been found to be the most convenient arrangement. Sometimes an attempt has been made to shift local time, as, for instance, in the City of Nelson, British Columbia, but they have found it inconvenient and have gone back again. It is simply a question of convenience all through, and as a question of convenience this has gradually come about. I am sure there is no desire to risk unnecessary divisions in this House, and in view of the position which the Government has taken up I do not think opposition to the proposal has very much hope, but I do think the difficulty should be fairly stated, and I want to put before the House some of the very serious difficulties which do exist. Those who do not think that this measure would be effective are not opposed to the greater use of daylight. We desire to see daylight better used and hours made more natural. The only question is whether this is an effective way of doing it. The letter of the Home Secretary, if he will allow me to say so, put things very clearly, and the House is probably aware of the key sentence in it. After speaking of the difficulty of practising virtue individually, he says:
  "Except in rare instances, no business or professional man, still less a working man, can alter the hours of his daily routine unless those with whom he is associated simultaneously do the same. Were he to attempt it he would find himself in a world by himself. Railways, posts, work-times, meal-times, recreations—nothing would fit. In our civilisation we are all so closely united with one another that, in a matter of this kind, we must either move together as one piece or not move at all."
  That is the argument; we cannot do it individually, and therefore, says my right hon. Friend, we must all move as one piece. I would like to remind hon. Members that there is a middle course. A great deal can be done, and a great deal has been done, by voluntary co-operation. I would like to join in the tribute which has been paid to the enthusiasm and disinterestedness of the late Mr. William Willett. His proposal certainly made people realise the advantage of having more convenient hours of rising, and it has already borne very considerable fruit in that direction. My hon. Friend the Member for the Devizes Division (Mr. Peto) quoted an instance to which I referred in this House some years ago, and said that although that firm had been able to expedite their operations by half an hour, they had not been able to expedite them, by one hour, owing to surrounding circumstances. The Select Committee of 1909, of which I had the honour to be a

  331
  member, had evidence before it that something like 1,000 firms had succeeded in doing this and doing it effectively. Various recommendations then made were considered very fully, and we may safely say that thousands of firms have already done this. It has extended to Government Departments as well. I believe the first Government Department to adopt it was the Scottish Education Department in 1910. It was proposed that those employed there should come an hour earlier and get away an hour earlier if they preferred it. The great majority said that it was very desirable and they fell in with the proposal. That is an example of the way in which it has been done by Government Departments. I believe that a very great deal more can be done on these lines, without any alteration of the hands of the clock, to persuade people to give a trial to earlier hours where and when they can be worked.
  Perhaps I might make a suggestion, which I put forward in a question some time back. Advertising has been largely used to urge us to save money, to economise in dress and other ways, and for many purposes, and it might be well for the Government to advertise that this should also be done wherever it can be effectively done in the interests of the country. This Resolution proposes that the clock should be put on one hour, but we do not know what measure of compulsion, or whether any measure of compulsion at all, is to be applied. The whole basis of the proposal is that if the hands of the clock are altered the whole community will move all their operations one hour forward, and will move as one piece, to use my right hon. Friend's words. If the community does not do that, then the result will be trouble all round and confusion worse confounded, because we shall not know where we stand. If this change is partial it will probably do more harm than good. I would, therefore, put this question to the House: Is there any reason to believe that the whole community will move forward as one piece? There are certain instances which lead us to think that the whole community will not be able to move forward as one piece. The whole idea has arisen among those whose hours are not quite so well suited to nature as they might be, and the places in which the change could be made are very con-
  332
  siderably limited, mostly to town life and businesses, offices, and various other institutions.
  I doubt very much whether the change is practicable as regards agriculture, and it must be remembered that we have about 2,000,000 agricultural workers in this country. It will be common ground among all those who know anything about agriculture that, as my hon. Friend the Member for the Devizes Division says, agricultural operations are conducted not by the clock, but by the sun. I remember one witness, who gave evidence before the Select Committee, saying that in the strawberry season the pickers waited, basket in hand, until there was light enough to pick. I agree that may be an extreme case, but they certainly could not begin any earlier. I very much doubt whether the cowmen could begin earlier. They often begin, as the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) said, about five o'clock. That means they have to rise about four. Under this proposal they would begin at what is now four o'clock, and rise about three o'clock. I wonder whether that would be for the benefit of their health, or whether it would not add to the arduousness of their labour. I would also like to know what the effect would be upon the animal itself. It does not necessarily follow, if a cow will milk well at one hour, that it will milk equally well at another hour. I have not the agricultural experience to speak about this, but the hon. Member for the Devizes Division might have dealt with that physiological side of the question. Hon. Members have already said that you could not begin weeding until the dew is off, and that it spoils crops to cut them wet. Automatic reapers and binders will not work. If these people got up an hour earlier it is said that they might do something else, but broken time to a great extent is wasted time. Agricultural operations, broadly speaking, cannot start much earlier than they do now, and, assuming the statement of the hon. Member for the Devizes Division to be that they will still go by the sun, they will begin an hour later, according to the clock, than they do now.
  It does not only affect agricultural workers. There are smiths, farriers, joiners, and many in other trades which are dependent upon agriculture, and that which applies to agriculture also applies to them. My hon. Friend spoke of the market, and said it would suit itself to the conditions. He said that if the

  333
  clock is put on the market will be put back for an hour. It will have to be; but that is an instance which shows that it is not so simple as the Home Secretary assumed. The market will not move forward with the rest of the community; it will stick at the hour at which it is now. The time of the market controls the time of various trains that suit the market, and these trains will also have to run at the same times as they do now. It will therefore be very difficult to work, because the considerations which apply to agriculture would have great weight. Then there is the case of industrial workers. Take the case of workers in shipbuilding yards and factories, textile and others. These people probably number about 3,000,000, and in the great bulk of cases they start work at 6.30 or 6. That means that they rise at 5.30 or 5 in order to dress, to have something to eat, and to find their way to their work. If they follow the example of the markets and go back an hour, then the proposal will have no effect upon them. If they, to use the Home Secretary's phrase, move forward as one piece, what will be the result? They will have to start work at 5.30 or 5 and they will have to get up at 4.30 or 4. Will that be good for their health?
  I might remind the House of certain important features in human physiology. Human life is at its lowest in the early hours of the morning; probably a couple of hours after midnight. Vitality is not so high at 3.30 as at 4.30, or at 4.30 as at 5.30, and I am very much afraid if these people have to go to work an hour earlier, taking the sun standard, it will have a considerable effect on their vitality and will seriously impair the efficiency of their work. It is quite possible if this proposal became law that there are millions of workers in shipbuilding yards and factories who would say, "We would like to go back to the old hours." If they did so, the workmen's trains which bring them to their work, would be thrown out of gear, and they would not move forward as one piece. Take another important class of workers—the munition workers. The Minister of Munitions, speaking on Saturday, gave the number of these workers at 1,900,000. These are all new established factories. Would it not be the simplest thing in the world for the Minister of Munitions to approach the workers in every one of the controlled establishments and put to them this question: "Are you
  334
  willing to begin your duty an hour earlier?" There would surely be no difficulty in doing that. I wonder if the Minister of Munitions, or any other Government official, has taken the trouble to put that question to them. Has it been considered whether changing the hands of the clock will make them do it?
  There seems to be a general idea that if you only alter the hands of the clock people will get up an hour earlier without knowing it. That, I believe, to be a totally mistaken view. It may have that effect in the case of the wealthier classes, but I believe the hours at which the great bulk of the people do their work have their foundations in, and are based on, reasons far more deeply rooted than those who are proposing this measure seem to think. I would like to have an answer to this question: What is going to happen if the people do not all move forward together? Take the case of girls working in shops. In many cases they have to begin duty at 8 or 8.30. That means rising at 7 or 7.30, or even earlier when they have a long way to travel. Will they not suffer in their health by having to start what is really an hour sooner? I do not express any opinion on that point, but I put it is a matter which ought certainly to be taken into consideration before this measure is adopted. I believe wealthier people might rise a great deal earlier; but we must remember there are many employed in domestic service, particularly in frugal households, who have to rise at a very early hour. Many of us have had to pass along the London streets at all hours of the night and early morning and I for one have been impressed by the early hours which a great many of these workers keep—the early hours, for instance, at which day-girls and step-girls begin their duties. I venture to suggest that this change might operate prejudicially upon their health.
  I would ask if the, question of street conveyances has been considered. We have heard of a conference with the railway-men; but it is not very clear what passed on that occasion. I would like to know what was the question put to the railway-men. Was it this: "Assume if the hours are changed, and the community alter their habits, can the trains be run to suit the new arrangement?" If that was the question put to them, I can quite understand the answer being in the affirmative. But is that assumption correct? It is an assumption which has been made by

  335
  various advocates of the Bill, but it does not seem to me it is well founded. We cannot be so sure that, if all the clocks are changed in this way, the people will in fact change their habits. That is a point to which I would invite the Home Secretary to direct his attention when he speaks, because unless the point is well made it does not seem to me that the case for the Bill is made out. I know that the railway companies are very powerful, and that individuals are told that they must suit their time to the time of the trains, but it must not be forgotten that the times of the trains are calculated to suit the convenience of the bulk of individuals. And on that particular point Mr. Willett, when before the Select Committee, speaking of the railway companies and the new system, said
  "Their mill would grind everybody very small who did not fall in with it."
  I venture to think, however, that in arranging their time service the railway companies would be compelled to have some regard to public convenience, especially in the matter of the running of market trains. They would have to run those trains to suit the convenience of the people as a whole. There is another point to be borne in mind. We have a Cheap Trains Act, and under that Act cheap trains are run up to 7 a.m. Greenwich mean time. If this proposal is carried, the benefits of the Cheap Trains Act will cease to be available after 6 a.m., and as a result workers who stick to their present time would suffer serious disadvantage. Again, in many Statutes hours are fixed. The Home Secretary knows well that in the Factory Acts, in the Shops Act, and in various other Acts, there is reference to specific times. Are these times to be kept, or will they also require to be altered? Is it proposed that they shall run concurrently with the summer season times?
  I thoroughly agree with those who are pressing this Bill forward that it is easier to make the change in war time, because of the dislocation of our trade arrangements. Our trade with America just now is no doubt less, and that with the Central Empires is of course non-existent. A good deal has been made of the fact that Austria and Germany have adopted this change as and from the 1st of May. It has been referred to as a daylight saving measure. What have we in these Central Empires? We have four important States, Germany, Austria, Turkey, and Bulgaria, and they are all working together. In
  336
  Germany and Austria Central European time is taken; in Bulgaria and Turkey they have Eastern European time. But they naturally find that for warlike operations a uniform time throughout is essential and more easy to work, and therefore they are adopting the Eastern European time throughout. There may be an element of daylight saving, I agree, but I put it that there is also a military element, which is a very strong consideration. Then as regards Holland. One must remember her geographical position in regard to one of the belligerents, and it will seem it is only natural that German hours should be adopted. It has been stated that the change has been carried out with very marked success. It seems to me rather early to make such a statement, seeing that the change was only made a week ago, and we ought to wait and see what its effects are likely to be. Although our Eastern European trade is much less than before the War, we have a considerable trade with America, and I very much doubt whether the business houses and firms which deal telegraphically with America will be willing to sacrifice the last and most important hour for telegraphic communication in order to fall in with this scheme. Indeed, I think many might fail to fall in with it.
  The Resolution is drafted in very vague terms, and I hope that when the Home Secretary rises to speak he will tell us what is exactly proposed. There is talk of compulsion, and the hon. Baronet opposite asked whether it was proposed to make it an offence for him to keep his watch at Greenwich mean time. I do not suppose there is any idea of doing that. But I do ask the Home Secretary if it is intended to require, under penalty, that all railway clocks and public clocks shall keep summer season time? I do not expect an answer to that question at the moment, but I hope the right hon. Gentleman will deal with it in his reply. This is one of the questions considered by the Select Committee, and it is one on which we differed. The hon. Baronet the Member for Blackburn (Sir H. Norman) held that the Bill, as it stood, would simply establish summer season time, and by providing that summer season time should be the times referred to in Acts of Parliament, it would be sufficient. I, on the other hand, having given the point some consideration, held that if the change was to be effective it would require some measure of compulsion, and that is the point I now put to the

  337
  Home Secretary. It is essential the House should know whether it is proposed that to keep at Greenwich mean time railway and other public clocks is to be punishable by a fine. Is it to be legislation along the lines of the Daylight Saving Bill, or is there to be a measure of compulsion enforceable by penalty? I want it to be known if that is so. I would also like to know whether it is to be compulsory on the railway companies. Are they to be required to maintain the present times of the trains or put them an hour forward Take, for instance, the case of market trains or milk trains. Are the hours of those to be altered? If so, it will involve a considerable alteration of the railway; time-tables. The railway time-table is by no means a simple work. It is full of complexities, and unless the measure is generally adopted its advantages may be lost.
  I should like to know whether it is to apply to Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman will no doubt bear in mind that Ireland's most important industry is agriculture, and if the Bill is made to apply to it, it may give rise to very great grievances. If it does not so apply, then Irish time will be more out of touch with British time j than it is at the present moment. We have not only to consider the time-tables. We must also have in mind the tide-tables, and there may be a considerable amount of confusion as a result of this change. We must remember that this country is the greatest maritime nation in the world, and in connection with our work at sea there may be no small inconvenience created if our shore time is out of gear with our ship time.
  I quite recognise the power of the Government in this matter. But there is one appeal which I should like to make to my right hon. Friend. I have seen it suggested in the papers that if this Resolution is passed it will practically be treated as the Second Reading of a Bill we have not yet seen, and there is talk that in that case it may be enforced by administrative Order. I suggest, in view of the very j general terms of the Resolution, the Government should proceed not by administrative Order under some Act which was never intended to cover such an administrative Order as this, but that it should I proceed by way of Bill, and that a Bill should be put before this House stating clearly what is proposed, and whether there is to be any penalty for keeping Greenwich mean time. I appeal to the right
  338
  hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to proceed by way of Bill, so that the matter may be fairly considered by the House. After all, the House is very largely guided by what the Government do, and I can assure my right hon. Friend there would be no great waste of time if he adopted this course. It is proposed that if this Resolution is carried the administrative Order could be brought into force next Sunday, and it would not take more than another week to get a Bill through with the backing of the Government behind it, especially if the Bill was put forward in the form of a workable measure. But I submit that the House should have the proposal before it more clearly than it has now, and I very much doubt whether if such a measure were to become law we should find that the people would all move forward together. I can assure the House that my objections to this Bill are not based on any preconceived notions, and that I have given what consideration I can to it, and have come to the conclusion that the Resolution would not bring about the object of those who are promoting it, bat, broadly speaking, it would create confusion in the matter of time and produce very great inconvenience.
  Mr. BARNES: I have been in this House now for over ten years, and I have developed a great admiration for the power of the average Member of this House, when he is so disposed, to magnify small points into mountains of difficulty; but I must say that that admiration has been greatly enhanced to-day because of the amazing amount of history, science, philosophy, and all the rest of it, that has been pushed into the opposition to this microscopically modest proposal. What is proposed? One would almost think there was a revolution on hand. The proposal, as I understand it, is to put forward the clock one hour as from a given day a few days hence, until a given day about five or six months hence. That, to my mind, is the beginning and end of the whole proposal. Yet we have been treated upon that microscopically modest proposal to all sorts of discourses on science, history, and all the rest of it. I am going to support heartily the Resolution now before the House as a little measure of practical utility and war economy. I am much surprised to find the hon. Member (Mr. Dundas White), who is my colleague in a political sense, in the same camp with the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury). I have always been accustomed

  339
  to regard my hon. colleague as a pioneer, yet I find him in the same camp as the right hon. Baronet, who is always in a minority in regard to any change of any sort or description that is proposed.
  I am not qualified to enter into the question from the agricultural point of view. I have heard that view expressed from the opposite side of the House, and have listened to it with great respect. I am not going to deal with the agricultural aspect of the question, except in regard to a small matter of production, but there is one aspect of the agricultural question which I hope will be dealt with by the right hon. Gentleman, namely, the question of the hours of labour of agricultural servants. That is the only point with which I am concerned. I do not think it amounts to a great deal, because, as a matter of fact, I am disposed to think that the farmer takes all he can get out of the agricultural labourer now, therefore, inasmuch as you cannot take a quart out of a pint pot, I am not at all disposed to attach a great deal of importance even to this point. There may, however, be something in it. I think it was the hon. Baronet the Member for Blackburn (Sir H. Norman) or the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto) who expressed the fear that the agricultural population, being more or less disorganised or unorganised, would be made to work an hour later at night by the farmer. At all events, it was said that being comparatively helpless as compared with the town population, the agricultural population might have to work an hour longer. I do not think there is much in it, because the agricultural labourer now works from early morning till late at night. If there is any fear on that head, I would ask the Home Secretary to make provision in the Bill—I agree with my hon. Friend that we ought to have a Bill—whereby these people will be protected. I support the measure. I have always assumed that we shall shift forward together. Anything else is absolutely impossible. We live in a closely packed community, and we must all live together more or less, so that in this matter we must all go forward together. I am going to support the Bill on several grounds. First—and here I refer to the agricultural aspect—we have been told, and quite properly told, that the agricultural problem is getting more acute from day to day. I know that that is so because it happens that I am on the Central Tribunal, where
  340
  we are dealing with agricultural appeals every day. Whereas prior to the War it used to be customary to have a sort of standard for agricultural labour of one man to 30 or 40 acres, it has now, by a gradual process, mounted up to 60 acres, so that a man on a farm has now to look after 60 acres. That is a rough standard. Even with that, farmers are losing their men and we are pressing women into their service. We all know that the Board of Agriculture has circularised farmers, telling them of the absolute necessity, from a national point of view, of maintaining agricultural production up to the 100 per cent, standard. This Resolution has an important bearing upon that.
  What do we find? All round our manufacturing centres the workmen have their gardens. As we know, workmen just now are working overtime. I will take the case of my own son. It happens that he is working in the centre of London and starts work at seven, so that he has to leave before six in the morning. He does not get home till dark, except on Saturday and Sunday. He works the whole Saturday and Sunday in the garden, where he is growing cabbages, potatoes, and all sorts of things whereby to make provision for the time later on in the year to maintain his family. His case is that of hundreds of thousands of working men throughout the length and breadth of this country. The Bill will give every single one of these men an additional hour of daylight in the evening, an hour which they cannot use now because it is dark when they get home. If a Bill founded upon this Resolution were adopted, they would get the benefit of that hour of daylight in the evening to put in work in their gardens, and thereby increase the amount of agricultural produce about which the Agricultural Department is so much concerned in the agricultural districts. In addition to that, even supposing there were no increased agricultural production as a result of the measure, is it not extremely important that the workman should have an hour's additional daylight when he gets home for his amusement or to take his children out? From the human point of view there is everything to be said for the Resolution. That is one of the most important things about it.
  Let me say a word with regard to the plea put forward from the opposition and repeated by my hon. Friend, namely, that this Bill should not be pressed forward if

  341
  it is going to partake of the character of a contentious measure. I believe it is a very modest proposal, and one that ought to have the support of everybody in the House, but if there be any considerable number of Members in the House who have any fears about it, if there be any considerable number of Members of the House who share the doubts—philosophic1 doubts, shall I call them?—of my hon. Friend and colleague, then those doubts ought to be dispelled before we go forward. With the great admiration I have for the logical and oratorical powers of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, I have every hope that when he gets up he will dispose of those doubts and that they will disappear as snow melts before the rising sun.
  I now come to my main point. We are at war. We have been told by all the authorities that we are to make use of all the resources of the country during the War. I have been saying so myself, being a member of the War Committee set up under the auspices of the Government. In normal times I have no great regard for thrift. Thrift has been preached and sometimes practised by people who would have done far better if they had spent all their money in putting better things on the backs of the children. Still, we are living in a condition of things in which values have acquired quite a new standard altogether. It is not now a question of every man living as he likes; it is a question of every man contributing his quota towards making the very best possible use of all the forces of the country during this War. That is what we have been preaching, and this Resolution and the Bill founded upon it will have an important bearing upon that aspect of the matter. Let me again argue from the particular to the general. I take my own case. I was talking with my wife a day or two ago about this Resolution, and asking her what it would mean to us in the way of lighting. She told me it would mean about 6d. a week—that is to say, inasmuch as we pay now so much for electric light and gas—it happens that we have both—our electric light and gas bill will be 6d. a week less than it has been during the usual summer months. I take my own house and expenditure as a unit of 4,000,000 of similar houses throughout the country. Four millions is not the total number of families, but probably mine is a little above the average so I take 4,000,000 of householders. My house
  342
  is one of 4,000,000. We save 6d. per week, that is one-fortieth of a £. If you divide 4,000,000 by forty you get £100,000 a week. The number of factories is 40,000—it may be a little over or a little under. I take the saving on light at each one of those factories at £1 a week. That means £40,000 per week. I take the street lighting of the municipal authorities and other bodies of that kind and put the saving at another £40,000. That is merely a guess. I take it that there will be a saving of something like £180,000 per week as a result of the adoption of a Rill founded upon this Resolution.
  6.0 P.M.
  In the name of common sense, why should we not save that £180,000 a week, or whatever the sum may be I It does not mean that I shall merely have sixpence a week more to spend. That is not the proper aspect of the case. It is a question of the number of men that are now employed giving us that useless addition of sixpence per week, or whatever the sum is—the men who are now employed carrying coals to the gasworks or to the various power stations of the electric light companies and on the various services which are now being wasted and ought to be saved. That is the aspect of the matter that appeals to my mind. [An HoN. MEMBER: "Discharge them!"] Is not everybody gaping for labour from one end of the country to the other? Why talk about discharging them? We are not now living under normal conditions. We are not now living as we were some years ago, when it was difficult for men to get a job. We are looking for men to do all sorts of jobs, and seeking to release men so that they may be used at the front or in the various services of the country that serve the Army and Navy. We are absolutely gaping for them to support our men in the Army, therefore the interjection of the hon. Member has no bearing upon the matter at all. The simple point is that we get up now in the morning two or three hours after daylight. I have not sampled it, by the way. I suppose daylight begins at three or four o'clock. The ordinary factory starts work at six o'clock. Under the new conditions which will be established under the Bill people will start in the morning at daylight. At present they get home at six, seven, or eight o'clock and find that they have very little daylight remaining—indeed, in the bulk of the cases, now that the people are working overtime, they may get no daylight at all—whereas by this saving of an hour's

  343
  daylight at the end of the day the men to whom it will make no difference in the morning will have an hour's additional daylight in the evening. It is a sensible, modest proposal. I hope, as the result of ample discussion, all the doubts of those who are now opposing it will be dissipated, and that we shall proceed to put it into operation.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I quite agree with the hon. Member that it would be absurd to treat this as a grave proposal, supposing it to be limited, as he suggests, to the present year of War, but I confess to disliking it exceedingly. I dislike it, in the first place, because of the extraordinarily fanciful character that is attached to it. Why people cannot put forward a simple reform without imitating the methods of the lowest class of journalism I have never been able to understand. You call it daylight saving, which has really no meaning, and you really mean that people should get up and go to bed a little earlier in summer. I should rather like to know whether the thing will work, after what we have heard from hon. Members since I have been in the House. It certainly will not work unless there is really a great gain in convenience generally felt. You may make the clock what you please, but people will not follow the clock unless it suits the general circumstances of their industry and their way of life, and I am very suspicious that there is a want of general demand for such a change which would be a justification for it. If there was this general need for getting up earlier and going to bed earlier in the summer, should we not see very large numbers of people doing it without any alteration of the law or any alteration of the clock? Should we not see a wider difference between the summer hours and winter hours among ordinary people who are in a position to choose for themselves? We see nothing of the kind. I am, of course, entirely under correction about industrial matters from the hon. Member, who knows so much more about them than I do, but I should certainly have supposed that, if there was a great desire among the working people to get up and to go to bed earlier in the summer, that would find expression in their trade union organisations, and long ago arrangements of that kind would have been made. Is there not in all the schemes of getting up and going to bed earlier this great difficulty, that,
  344
  whatever they do with the earlier hours of daylight, everyone wants to use the later hours of daylight as much as possible in the open air; therefore they always put off their supper in the summer, and they never want to go to bed immediately after supper. You will always have, therefore, a rather late bedtime and supper in summer whatever you do with the clock. Therefore I believe the hours that people follow are, as a matter of fact, the hours they like, and unless there was some strong evidence to believe that there was a great number of people who wanted to do otherwise, but were prevented by some cantakerous minority who would not adjust their hours to meet their wishes, I do not think there is any case to state.
  I think he question of machinery is a very difficult one. I earnestly hope the Government will not accept the suggestion of doing this under the Defence of the Realm Act. That would be a most flagrant abuse of authority. The Defence of the Realm Act certainly was not intended to force upon the country all the little devices that philanthropic crotcheteers may invent from time to time. Unless the Government can honestly say it really does make a difference to the Defence of the Realm it would be a most scandalous thing to use the machinery of that Act for enforcing it. If you do not enforce it, and it is merely a friendly arrangement with the Post Office and the railway companies, how are you going to deal with all the other public clocks? Although in time probably the Post Office and the railways will carry the matter without much difficulty, in the country districts there is no reason for thinking they will at all. The church clock is the common public clock in a country village, and you will find it extremely difficult to persuade people in remote country districts to change the time of the church clock, to which they are accustomed, unless you make it compulsory. You will have large districts where the time will not be changed, and there will be the utmost possible inconvenience of no one knowing what time is the local time by which people's arrangements are governed. I should like to know one or two details of how it is going to work. How is it going to work in regard to the Standing Orders of the House? Are we supposed to have, without any legislation, alterations put into our Standing Orders? Surely not. Then our Standing Orders will refer to Greenwich

  345
  mean time. In that case we should have this House going by the old time while all the rest of the world goes by the new. Are you going to alter liquor control? I dislike liquor control exceedingly. I never, dislike it more than when it obliges my lunch at a particular hour, if I have any alcoholic liquor. If the time is to be altered in relation to liquor control you will be obliged to get up at a certain hour, to go to bed at a certain hour, and take your meals at certain hours. That seems to me to mark the maximum of fussy interference with the ordinary living of the public with a minimum of result.
  It is quite true, as the hon. Member says, that one easily exaggerates these things, but there is one aspect of it which seems to me to raise, if not a grave issue, one which is of some importance. If you are going to allow the State to interfere with these very personal matters and with individual habits most remote from general political importance, where are you going to restrain the State from interfering? It is always true that the acts of one individual affect the acts of another. If you are going to accept the position that the State is entitled to interfere wherever it can be shown that if you do not interfere those who do not accept your view will be a hindrance to those who do accept your view, might not you interfere with the rates of wages? The rate of wages in every employment affects the rate of wages in every other employment, and here you have a precisely similar case. It might be said that unless the State regulates the rate of wages in all employments you cannot proceed piecemeal because the other employments are affected by any particular employment, therefore whenever wages on the whole go up you must have an Act of Parliament to put them up, and whenever on the whole they go down you must have an Act of Parliament to put them down. There is no hon. Member who would welcome an application of that kind, but if you are once, going to adopt the view that the State is to interfere, wherever its interference would carry out some supposed advantageous change, to get uniformity or action, there is no limit to the control you are going to have at all, and it is dawning on everyone during the present war that the control of the State, instead of being the control of the people, the control of this House, or the control
  346
  of anything which any of us deeply respect, may come to be a bureaucracy animated by the most active and least trustworthy influences on public opinion, and may indeed, if the system be extended to times of peace, wreck the liberty of the subject without contributing in the slightest degree to the efficiency of Government or to the prosperity of the country. Therefore I earnestly hope the right hon. Gentleman will not tell us he is going to adopt this plan unless he can really show that there is a substantial benefit for the purposes of war, and, secondly, that he will give us a most definite assurance that it is not intended to commit us in time of peace to a measure which is certainly of a controversial character, and, as I think, is open to very grave objection.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The Noble Lord has asked for an assurance that the Government will not support this-measure unless there is reason to think that it is in the nature of a war measure, and the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury), who opened the opposition to this Motion, asked for an explanation why it was that the proposal, which had hitherto been contentious, should have had an opportunity afforded to it by the Government in this sitting of the House of Commons unless it were definitely adopted as a war measure. The Government would not have dreamt of favouring this measure or of inviting the House to consider it unless it had reason to think that it was essentially advantageous for war purposes. The question of our coal supply is one which is giving us serious concern. A large number of miners in the early part of the War were enlisted for the Army, and although the output per man has increased owing to the greater regularity of labour, to working the best seams of coal, and owing to other causes, the fact remains that the output, nevertheless, is declining and has declined considerably from the normal. Our Allies are in urgent need of increased supplies of British coal. We are casting about in every direction for means to increase our coal supplies, and when a proposal is made which, we believe, and indeed are convinced, would lead to a large economy of certainly many hundreds of thousands of tons of coal in the course of a year, we cannot regard that as a matter of indifference. The question was first brought prominently to my

  347
  notice, so far as official bodies are concerned, by the Expert Committee which has been set up to advise the Government on the disposal of our coal output. That Central Committee on the Disposal of Coal unanimously passed a resolution urging the Government to adopt this plan which has been known as daylight saving in order to save this large consumption of coal, and recently, as the House is aware, the Board of Trade found it necessary to urge upon all gas and electric light companies a reduction in their consumption of coal. That is the prime reason why at present the Government looks with a favourable eye on the Motion of the hon. Baronet.
  Further there will be a distinct economy to the nation if, as we believe will be the case, the expenditure upon the fuel necessary for providing artificial light for something approaching 150 hours is saved to the nation. How much that economy is is exceedingly difficult to estimate, and I should be very sorry indeed to tie myself to any figure, but all the facts that I have seen indicate, to my own mind at all events, that the saving is more likely to be a question of millions than of hundreds of thousands of pounds, and at a time when we are urging the nation in every way to economise expenditure, in order to have more money to place at the disposal of the Government for the prosecuting of the War, that again is a fact which must weigh very heavily in the balance. It is continually said by individuals throughout the nation full of patriotic ardour, unable themselves to take their places in the fighting line, "What more can we do? Let the Government only tell us what more we can do and the nation gladly and unanimously will follow." Now, when the Government suggests one thing which can be done to save some hundreds of thousands of tons of coal and to save probably some millions of money, we have all kinds of minute, meticulous, theoretical objections raised in opposition to a proposal of this character. It is true, further, that this measure would give better opportunity for recreation to large numbers of working people. It is true, on the other hand, that in these days none of us are very much disposed to trouble about opportunities for recreation for their own sake. We must concentrate our whole minds upon the War and not upon further opportunities for amusements.
  348
  But this has to be remembered in that connection, that healthfulness and cheerfulness do have their value in maintaining the moral of the whole nation. Therefore, indirectly though it be, this consideration also plays a part in this connection. The right hon. Member (Sir F. Banbury) said that, as a matter of fact, if people did get an extra hour for outdoor amusement and recreation it would be at the expense of their sleep. I submit, very respectfully, that that is not necessarily so. People in the summer now get more hours for recreation outdoors than they do in the winter time, but they do not necessarily go to bed later. Instead of having one hour indoors in the evening, from early summer to late summer, reading by artificial light, they would have one hour outdoors playing games, or amusing themselves in other ways, and going to bed at the same time, if the clocks are altered, and they get an extra hour, not at the expense of their sleep, but at the expense of their indoor occupations.
  As far as the impracticability of the measure is concerned, let it be remembered that great States have, in fact, put it into operation, and are living under the changed conditions of time at this very moment. Not only Germany and Austro-Hungary, but also Holland, have adopted this change. And let me on this point say that it is an ingenious, but not an acceptable, theory of my hon. Friend the Member for the Tradeston Division of Glasgow (Mr. Dundas White) that Germany and Austro-Hungary have adopted this measure, not for its own sake, or for the economy it brings, but in order to bring themselves into uniformity as to hours with Bulgaria and Turkey.
  Mr. WHITE: I only suggested that as one of the reasons, and that daylight saving was not the only factor.
  Mr. SAMUEL: At any rate, I, do not think that it is an hypothesis which is likely to commend itself to the House. In the discussions in Germany and Austro-Hungary I do not think anyone has said that it was really necessary to alter their time in order to be in keeping with the time of their invaluable Allies in the East. Holland also has adopted the changed time, and, as my hon. Friend who moved this Motion (Sir H. Norman) has pointed out, the French Chamber of Deputies has adopted it at the motion of the Government under the leadership of a very distinguished scientist, the Minister of Instruction and Public Works, and

  349
  it awaits the consideration of the Senate. I know also that in Denmark, Sweden, and Norway the same plan is at this moment under consideration of the Governments, and although no decision has yet been reached, it is regarded by those, who are competent to speak that it is at least probable that within the next few days those three Governments may announce simultaneously the adoption of this measure. It will be unfortunate, but by no means unprecedented, if the United Kingdom, which was the first to originate this idea, should, owing to its slowness to move, be the last country in Europe to adopt it.
  We have heard nothing to-day from the standpoint of the trade interests of the gas and electric light undertakings, which were represented strongly before the Select Committee of the House which considered this proposal some years ago. That is, of course, to the credit of those interests, but an hon. Member has asked me what will be the position of corporation gasworks, which will lose a part of their revenue, and the deficit will have to be made up by the ratepayers. He reminds me of the famous mock petition of the candle and lamp makers in the book of economics against the unfair competition of the sun. That most amusing supposititious document was presented by all the interests concerned in artificial lighting, who protested strongly against their being called upon to wage such an unequal struggle with that formidable competitor, the sun, and urged the State to protect them by requiring curtains and blinds to be drawn all through the daytime. The gas and electric light companies and the corporation departments exist for the service of man, but man does not exist in order to be a customer for gas and electric light concerns. If the suggestion in itself is good and practicable, the interests which depend for their incomes upon the supply of artificial light must adapt themselves to the changed circumstances. As a matter of fact, I think that at this moment, when the price of coal is so high and the supply is so restricted, that the gas and electric light companies will be rather glad to be relieved of the obligation of maintaining their coal supply at the same point as at present.
  We now come to the main argument of the opponents of this Motion, which has been very forcibly put by the Noble Lord (Lord Hugh Cecil), and which was put in
  350
  very clear and effective language by the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury), and which was also put by the hon. Member for the Tradeston Division. The right hon. Baronet said, with his ingenuousness, "if a man wishes to rise an hour earlier in the morning and go to bed an hour earlier at night, why should he not do so without the assistance of a maternal, or grand-maternal Government?"
  Sir F. BANBURY: I said "Grandmotherly."
  Mr. SAMUEL: Of course, if the individual is to have an extra hour before his breakfast and is to have an hour less after his dinner or supper, as the case may be, nothing is simpler but, if he wishes to move the whole routine of his day forward by one hour he simply, as a rule, cannot do it, unless the rest of society, or at all events that society with which he is in touch, does it also. Take the position of the ordinary business man who lives in some suburb, or some place in the neighbourhood of a great town. He might think, foolishly, acting on the advice of the right hon. Baronet, that he would see what he could do in the way of individual daylight saving. He moves his whole day an hour forward in order to show that he is quite independent of the State and of the rest of the community, and will carry out and manage his own life on his own lines and in his own way. He comes down an hour earlier to breakfast. The first blow that will probably strike him is the fact that the mikman has not yet been. Therefore he must have his morning coffee without milk. The newspaper has not yet arrived, and he is unable to lean it in a convenient place on his breakfast table, and, as he is accustomed to do, get his day's news over his morning meal. He finds that his letters have not yet come, and in all probability the postman will not arrive until after he has left his house and gone to his business. Next, he goes to catch his usual train and finds that the express by which he is accustomed to travel will not go for another hour, and that he has got to go to his place of business by some slow train, stopping at every station or junction. If he is fortunate enough to arrive at the office an hour, or nearly an hour before his usual time, he will find that his clerks are not there, that his letters have not been opened, and that the whole of his daily routine has been upset. When he leaves an hour earlier than usual

  351
  to go to luncheon at his club he finds that the luncheon is not yet served, and when he determines to return home at four o'clock in the afternoon instead of five o'clock he discovers next day that many of his customers or correspondents have called, as usual, between four and five, an hour after he left, and that he has missed a great deal of valuable business. If he wishes in the evening to go to a theatre, it is no use presenting himself there an hour before the doors open, and if he determines to take an evening's amusement at the play he will find that he has to do it only at the expense of an hour's sleep at night. As to the working man, the whole routine of his day depends upon his working hours. His mealtimes and his time for sleep depend entirely upon the hours of the place of employment at which he works, and to imagine that he, as an individual, can determine for himself the hours of his daily routine is absurd. If he were to present himself at the factory or workshop an hour before the gates opened, or if he seeks to leave his bench or his machine an hour before the factory or workshop closes he will soon find that daylight saving on the basis of individual action is an utter impossibility.
  Sir G. REID: I think we had better not get up at all.
  Mr. SAMUEL: If there was one method of doing it which would be worse than another it would be the method suggested by the hon. Member for the Tradeston Division of Glasgow, namely, to try to persuade each particular factory, one by one, to adopt this measure. Leaving the trains, the post, the production of newspapers, as it is, you would simply introduce universal confusion throughout the whole of our social and industrial system, and the world would say, whatever harm there may be in adopting daylight saving by a single Act and altering the clocks, nothing could be worse than to try to get everyone to adopt gradually those hours in proportion as you were able to persuade them to do so. My right hon. Friend who moved the Motion has disposed of the argument that altering the clock is something in the character of flying in the face of nature. There are, I believe, some people in this country who think that anyone who supports this Motion is almost in the nature of a new presumptuous Joshua who would say:
  "Sun stand thou still upon Gideon, and moon in the Valley of Ajalon."
  352
  Clock time is, of course, a purely artificial thing. Most people's clocks and watches do not correspond with sun time at all. The hon. Members who come from the West of England are always a quarter of an hour or twenty minutes in advance of sun time. When they look at their watch and say, "It is twelve o'clock," it is not twelve o'clock at all by the sun, but it is about twenty minutes to twelve. Those of us who are accustomed to travel know quite well that, for example, when you go from France to Switzerland you constantly have to alter your watch by an hour. You have to alter your watch from Greenwich time which France has, to Central European time. No one imagines that if there are two villages side by side, one on one side of the frontier and the other on the other side of the frontier, that the time in those two villages is really an hour different; there is nothing approaching an hour's difference in sun time. When you travel, as I recently did, across Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific, you first go through a belt of Atlantic time, then a belt of Eastern time, then of Central time, then one of mountain time, then finally of Pacific time. You pass through five separate zones of time in the journey from one ocean to the other, and the people living at the edges of each of those zones are half an hour away from sun time every day of their lives. Greenwich time will be untouched by a measure of this kind. Greenwich time for scientific purposes, for the purpose of navigation, and as a measure for the times which depend upon Greenwich in the other countries of the world, will remain absolutely untouched. Let us remember that this proposal, as my right hon. Friend (Sir H. Norman) said, has the support of many of the greatest scientists in the world, and although the present Astronomer Royal is not personally in favour of it, the late Sir Robert Ball expressed an opinion entirely in its favour,, and men of the distinction of Sir William Ramsay see no difficulty and no objection in its adoption.
  I will now come to the objection raised on the part of the agriculturists. It is true that the milkers will have an hour's more darkness during the summer months than they had before. What does that amount to? The sun in the spring rises each month about one hour earlier than it rose the month before. In May, for example, it rises an hour earlier than in April, and if the clock is altered as we propose, all

  353
  that will happen will be that the early milkers and the women workers on the land and others will have just as much darkness in May as they had in April. They would simply have this experience that they had in the previous month in ordinary circumstances, and that is the whole of the inconvenience to which they will be exposed. If it be said that some of the fruit pickers may be inconvenienced with respect to the packing of the fruit that is despatched by the early morning train, that may be so. I do not deny that there may be inconvenience to the strawberry pickers, but that is a consideration which must yield in these times to the wider and more important considerations which favour this proposal. And even if we do receive our strawberries in this year of war not so freshly picked as we had them in time of peace, I think that that is a hardship which we can put up with in consideration of the wider arguments in favour of this Bill. While the Board of Agriculture, which has been consulted in this matter, admits that it may be inconvenient to agriculturists, it does not oppose the adoption of the measure, and the hon. Member for the Wilton Division (Captain C Bathurst), whom we are always accustomed to listen to here as an exponent of the views of agriculture, has to-day written a letter to the Press—he is unable to be here on account of military duties—saying that in consideration of the war arguments advanced in favour of the Bill, though he himself opposed it in the past on behalf of agriculture and gave evidence against it before Select Committees, he could not now conscientiously oppose such a measure in existing circumstances. "The paramount necessity of economising fuel and falling into line with our Allies is, on balance, the more important consideration in these critical days."
  The hon. Member for Ashford spoke of the difficulty to which newspapers had been subjected. I believe that possibly they may be put to some inconvenience in respect of the receipt and publication of news, but most patriotically one finds that practically all the newspapers in the country are now strongly advocating the adoption of this measure. The Postmaster-General informs me that he too, is in favour of it, though the Post Office opposed it previously, partly on account of Continental mails: but if France and Holland adopt the measure that argument works the other way. Such interference as there would be would
  354
  arise from retaining a different hour from the hour adopted by our neighbours across the Channel. But the mails from the Continent are so irregular just now that that consideration has very little weight either on one side or the other. The Railway Executive Committee which is managing the railways on behalf of the Government has written saying that as a body it is favourable to the proposal. The Stock Exchange Committee, which previously was active in opposition, has written that it does not oppose it in existing circumstances, especially since the Stock Exchange now closes at three o'clock in the afternoon, and the point which was emphasised previously that the one hour in which the London and New York Stock Exchanges were open simultaneously would be taken away no longer applies because, as the House already knows, there is no hour of the day when the New York and the London Stock Exchanges are simultaneously open. A very large number of municipal authorities associations have declared in favour of the proposal, and I receive from day to day hundreds of resolutions from local authorities, chambers of commerce and other bodies in favour of its adoption.
  Turn to the method which the Executive would propose to adopt if the House should indicate its support of the proposal. At the present time the railways are under the control of the Government, and it would merely need an administrative Act to alter all the railway clocks and simultaneously alter the trains throughout the country. The whole of the railway service system could adapt itself easily to the new time. In the Post Office it can also be adopted in the same way. There is an Act which fixes hours and which defined "hour" in any Statute as Greenwich mean time in Great Britain and Dublin mean time in Ireland. In conformity with that Act there are fixed the hours in factories and workshops in which women and children are employed, licensed houses also have their hours fixed by law, and a number of other establishments are compelled by law to keep the time which the law requires. The law must necessarily be altered in order to secure that the new time should have legal validity. As soon as that law is altered to that effect all the factories and workshops and all the licensed houses must adapt themselves accordingly. The rest of the public-houses must necessarily follow suit. If you alter all the times of the railways and of the

  355
  post offices, factories, and workshops, and, not least important, of the public-houses, you will find that the mass of mankind will alter their clocks and watches in conformity. There will be no penalty by law on individuals, such as the hon. Baronet, who, in dignified isolation and stubborn individualism, would refuse to conform, but he would very quickly find that he was subject to a penalty, though self-imposed. He would be out of step with the rest of mankind. He would find himself an hour late for everything, and he would very soon discover that it was necessary, however reluctant he might be, to alter his watch in accordance with all the clocks about him and the watches of other people.
  To enable the public to recognise that the change was being made, it is proposed that notices should be prominently placed in the post offices and elsewhere, and local authorities would be invited to alter town clocks and church authorities would be invited to alter church clocks, and the assistance of the Press would be invoked to impress upon the mind of every individual throughout the nation that on a specified night and a given time the hour would be altered, and in their own interests they would be well advised to alter their domestic timepieces. The Government, of course, would be unwilling to effect a change of this kind without the approval of the House of Commons, and that is why this Motion was moved. It was thought that it would be possible to effect the change without legislation by Order in Council, since this is only a War measure adopted for War purposes, but on the whole it has been thought advisable to secure the sanction of Parliament in a more regular fashion by a short Bill, and if the House approves of this Resolution and indicates by a considerable majority that it desires the measure to proceed that Bill can be introduced to-morrow. It would be for the period of the War only, in order that the matter may be considered after the War is over in the light of the experience beginning this year. If the Bill is passed this week, as we should hope it may be, if the House generally is favourable to the measure, I should propose that the change would be effected in the night of Saturday-Sunday, May 20th-21st, that is to say, next Saturday week. If it is to be done at all, the sooner it is done the better. Every week that passes lessens the advantage to be derived from it. I
  356
  should propose also that normal time should be restored during the night of Saturday-Sunday, 30th September-lst October. Then I confess that that is the moment when I am inclined to think the greatest difficulties may arise, for though the public may readily welcome an extension of daylight during the spring, when they find that the evenings shorten with a jerk, at the end of September, some objection may be raised in certain quarters. However, in view of the advantages to be derived from the measure, I am hoping that that inconvenience will be endured without much complaint.
  Mr. TYSON WILSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any information with regard to the experience of countries that have adopted this system, and whether they have reverted back to the old system?
  Mr. SAMUEL: I have not known any case of a country which has adopted it and has gone back. I believe that individual towns have tried it, and found that they were out of step with the surrounding towns, and therefore it was not very successful in these cases. But I have not any definite information on that point. I may add that the hour which is suggested is the hour of two o'clock on Sunday morning, that being the time chosen by the Railway Executive Committee as being the most convenient from the point of view of railway management. In this matter I think that the railways should have a decisive voice in choosing the moment of effecting the change. In respect of time in Ireland and the advantage of securing the uniformity of British and Irish time, Irish time, as the House knows, is twenty-five minutes behind British time. It has long been felt in many quarters that it was exceedingly desirable to unify the time throughout the British Isles. When I was Postmaster-General I supported that proposal from the standpoint of the Post Office, to which it would be a very great convenience, and among many other interests there was a general desire to secure uniformity. I cannot, however, propose that measure at this moment, for two-reasons. In the first place, because it is impossible, owing to recent events in Ireland, to ascertain what is really the opinion of the Irish Government and the Irish public. The matter must be considered from the standpoint of Ireland, as much as from the standpoint of England, and we must wait until

  357
  more normal times before we can express an opinion upon the legislation which is now proposed as legislation for the War only, while the unification of Irish and British times would be effected by a Statute which would remain permanently upon the Statute Book.
  But it would be a very convenient moment to effect that unification, if at all, when the daylight saving experiment of this year comes to an end, whether it continues for another year or not, because Irish time could be unified with English time in this way: The 1st of October comes. If the clocks in England are put back one hour and the clocks in Ireland were put back thirty-five minutes instead of one hour it would be found that Irish time had been unified with British time. It would not be necessary to effect any change in Ireland. It could be done with one change, and if Irish public opinion is favourable to the measure I have little doubt but that the House of Commons will be willing to pass a special short Bill between now and the 1st of October which would enable that unification, in my view very desirable in the circumstances, to be carried out. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Motion was good enough to make some kind remarks with respect to the part I have played in forwarding this proposal, but the credit which is due to me is small indeed. If this measure finds favour in this House and is carried into effect, the credit rests rather with him and with my hon. Friend the Member for the Louth Division (Mr. Timothy Davies), whom we are so glad to see here, and other hon. Members of this House who, in season and out of season, have pressed forward this measure. Above all, the credit will be due to the late Mr. William Willett, who, I think, devoted not only his ingenious mind, but an infinity of time, trouble, and money in promoting this measure. How often has it happened that a great architect has died just before the building which he designed has been completed, or the musician has passed away before his chef d'œuvre has ever been performed. There are many instances of that kind, and amongst them will be ranked the pathos of the death of Mr. William Willett, who for so many years laboured in this cause, just at the moment before it was being adopted over a large part of Europe, and, I for my part hope, in the country in which he himself originated it. This proposal has behind it an almost
  358
  unanimous Press, which, in a matter of this kind, is an indication of public opinion. It is favoured, I believe, by authoritative representative bodies of all kinds throughout the country, and the opposition to it is small indeed. The Government commends it to the House as advantageous for the better prosecution of the War.
  Sir J. SPEAR: The right hon. Gentleman stated that this measure is necessary in the interests of the conduct of the War, and when he states that it makes one hesitate about arguing the matter further. But I am so convinced that the passing of this Motion will not bring the country or the Government that assistance which they believe they will obtain, especially in regard to the question of food production, that I feel I must ask the House to allow me to give my reasons for differing from what has been submitted to Members of the House in regard to this proposal. I cannot admit that the right hon. Gentleman has successfully refuted the arguments brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London, who, I think, showed very conclusively that the saving of money under this Bill, if it be adopted, will be very much smaller than what is perhaps expected by the Government. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary advanced an argument in favour of the Motion by pointing to the desirability of greater opportunities for recreation being afforded to our workers. I quite agree that it is most desirable that our workers indoors should have as much open air as possible after their work is done. The right hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten, however, that this Bill, when passed, will seriously interfere with the open-air opportunities of a large number of workers. It has been the object of social reformers to get our workers into the country to live, to enable them to dwell in healthy positions and healthy cottages. It is a very strong argument which relies for support on social well-being, which should be encouraged. I submit, however, that in passing this Bill you will discourage the movement in that direction. It must be remembered that the men who live in these outlying districts have already to leave their homes at a very early hour in order to get to their work. If this Bill is passed they will have to leave one hour earlier.
  My chief reason in rising is to show what I believe will be the case that a very

  359
  serious increase in the price of food will result from the operation of this measure. The right hon. Member for the City of London, and an hon. Member for a Division of Kent, have spoken so ably on the agricultural question that I do not propose to follow the arguments which they have addressed to the House, but every one of which I fully support. I submit that the enactment of this measure would so handicap the growth of corn and the production of milk that it will seriously increase the cost to the consumer of these two most important and desirable commodities. With regard to corn, it has been fully shown that the farmers cannot deal with corn very often until ten o'clock in the morning because of the heavy dew; whereas they have to go on very late after the corn has got into a condition in which it can be dealt with. It would be extremely serious at this time when we are being denuded of agricultural labourers in the rural districts to have this additional burden placed upon the farmers. The result will be the laying down of more arable land into pasture, and a greater decline in corn growing—which is already seriously menacing the State. Although I admit there are some advantages in the Bill, still, it should not be forgotten that there are these disadvantages to which I have referred. In regard to the binding of corn, the binder cannot commence his work until it is sufficiently dry, so that the one hour taken away in the afternoon is of more value in securing corn and food for the people than would be two hours in the earlier part of the day. Therefore, this proposal must add to the difficulties connected with the growing of corn very considerably.
  Then, in regard to women working on the farm. We all know that it is most desirable, at least as far as possible, to have the assistance of women in order to make up for the absence of men, so that the land may be as fully used as possible to bring forward the greatest amount of food. But it is impossible that women can go out earlier in the morning to do, for example, the work of hoeing. We admit that women render great services in the hoeing of crops, potatoes, and so on, but they are not able to work in the early morning because of the heavy dew, which would make their clothes wringing wet and cause them great inconvenience,
  360
  not to speak of the menace to their health from having to work under those conditions. With reference to fruit growing, the right hon. Gentleman admits that this measure would seriously handicap that industry. The fruit has to be picked at a time when it can be sent to market in fair condition. The stock men have to be up now at four o'clock to prepare the stock for market, and to get up an hour earlier will have a serious effect.
  Another fact which has to be taken into consideration, when we are considering this measure, is the supply of milk. One of the most serious menaces to our food supply at the present moment is connected with the milk supply. An unfortunate circumstance in connection with the producing of milk, in recent years, has been the great difficulty in getting men to milk the cows, with the result that it has caused a great many farmers to give up dairy farming, so that milk is becoming more and more scarce, while the price has gone up very seriously during the summer. Indeed, if this goes on very much longer, the poorer classes of the community will get no milk at all, and we say that this Bill would seriously aggravate the situation in regard to the milk supply. At one of the milk-producing farms where the milkers, as it is, get up at four o'clock, I put the question how they would like to get up an hour earlier in order to catch the morning trains and get the milk into London for breakfast purposes. I found that they were utterly against such a proposal, and, difficult as it has been to get milkers under existing circumstances, I am satisfied that the difficulty will be so enhanced that a large number of dairy keepers will give up keeping cows entirely, and then we shall have such a decline of the milk supply as to bring about a serious menace to the health of the people. I would like to read a letter which I have received from the president of the Devon Farmers' Union. He is also chairman of the Devon Agricultural Committee; he is a level-headed gentleman, and, from his position as an agriculturist, he is entitled to consideration. He writes on the 6th May:
  "The Devon Farmers' Union have passed a resolution against the Daylight Saving Bill, and I think you may safely assume that they are still opposed to it. An hour in the afternoon, as you are well aware, is of far greater value than an hour in the morning. Another point affecting agriculture is the supply of milk to the towns. At present the milking on many farms has to commence at five o'clock in the morning, in order to deliver in time in the towns for breakfast It is difficult to get milkers now on account of the early hours, Sunday included. If milkers are required to

  361
  come at four o'clock a.m., the difficulty will be increased, and the dairies will be given up. The general objection to bringing in a disturbing element of this nature, which would affect everybody when most people are distracted in other ways, will not be lost sight of. I hope that you will be able to get the Bill postponed until after the War, when we will be better able to adapt ourselves to it, if necessary."
  Though I admit some advantages in the Bill, yet I do urge that the further increase in the price of food, which is already too high, and the fact that the production of milk will be affected and will be decreased, are matters which deserve very serious consideration. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in the Bill, it would be possible to exclude agriculture from its purview? It seems that some differences of view exist about it, and I have just received a very pressing letter from a large farmer in Devonshire this morning urging that agriculture must be left out of the purview of the Bill. I do not know whether that is practicable, but if the right hon. Gentleman thought he could effect that object I think that at least it would be better than to force the industry to come under the conditions of the Bill—conditions which would result in diminishing the food supply, undoubtedly a most serious question just now, especially in connection with the successful carrying on of the War. I hope the right hon. Gentleman may find it possible not to include agriculture in the Bill. All I can do is to enter my protest, while saying that I believe that the farmers, if the Bill does become law, will do their best in the circumstances. But I am satisfied that with the great dearth of labour both for milk production and the cultivation of the land the result would be a further considerable diminution in the output of those two classes of agricultural produce.
  7.0 P.M.
  Colonel CRAIG: I think the speech of the Home Secretary this afternoon has convinced all of us, practically, of the necessity of this change at the present moment. Although many of us perhaps thought it was an ill-timed moment to introduce a Bill on the subject, those of us who have heard the arguments from all sides of the House will now be quite willing to back up the Government in the proposed measure. I am sorry to differ from my hon. Friend who has just spoken on the question of agriculture. I represent an agricultural community myself, and I know that they are very anxious that this Bill should get through. My reason for intervening is to express keen disappointment that the right hon.
  362
  Gentleman has not seen fit to take this most excellent opportunity of synchronising the time in Ireland with that of England. For years and years past we have endeavoured in this House to get away from that anomaly that when we travel from here to our own homes in Ireland we have to change our watches going and coming and to feel that there is a difference between those two parts of the United Kingdom. I presume, first of all, that the Bill does apply to Ireland.
  Mr. SAMUEL: Yes.
  Colonel CRAIG: Then I say it will be very simple for the right hon. Gentleman to make a clean sweep of this difference.
  Mr. SAMUEL: The Bill is only to be operative during the War.
  Colonel CRAIG: If it is an advantage to this country during the War it would be an advantage in Ireland, and let us try even during the period of the War to bring the United Kingdom into a real United Kingdom so far as the time is concerned. I know the right hon. Gentleman is in favour of it himself, but I am only putting forward that plea. He says that the sole and only reason why the times are not to be synchronised is that because of what has recently occurred in Dublin and the South and West of Ireland he is not able to ascertain opinion in that part of the country, and therefore he denies to us what we consider would be an inestimable advantage. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that we have three times in Ireland, separate and distinct, at the present moment. First of all, the Post Office sends out its telegrams with English time upon them, and when you are dealing with the Post Office you are dealing with Greenwich or English time. When you get to Dublin you have what is called railway or Dublin time, and when you get to other parts you have a time which is two minutes different from what it is in Dublin. Why all these different clock times throughout Ireland, and would it not be perfectly simple in this Bill to say that the time laid down by the Bill shall be applicable to the whole of the United Kingdom? Could anything be simpler or fairer? Certainly nothing could be more satisfactory to those of us who live in the North, where we have been making this endeavour for many

  363
  years past. If it is impossible for the right hon. Gentleman to ascertain the feelings of the people in the south and west end of Dublin, will he take it from me as to the feeling in the North? The Belfast Chamber of Commerce, which is well recognised as representing all classes, industrial and agricultural, throughout the North of Ireland, is, he may take it from me, most anxious that this particular psychological moment should be taken to make a standard time throughout the whole of the country.
  If it is impossible to make this Bill apply to the whole of Ireland, will he not allow us in Ulster, who are more nearly allied to the rest of the United Kingdom than any other part of the country, to have this change. We are certainly most anxious in Ulster to have English time in the future, even if only for the time of the War. I understand that when the War is over this Bill will again come under consideration, and that if it has proved to be a success it might be adopted in time of peace. I think it was one of his chief arguments that this would be a trial. If it is to be tried during the summer months during the War, I ask what on earth is to prevent Ulster from having a trial at the same time, so that when the War is over we shall be able to judge whether it is worth continuing or not? All the arguments in the one case are equally applicable in the other. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will use his influence and go a step further than he has gone. I and my Friends who are working with me are very anxious in this matter. We refrained purposely from putting down any Amendments to the Motion because we did not want to imperil the Bill or to prevent it being carried unanimously, so as to show that the House of Commons was desirous of backing up the Government in doing anything which would help on the War. I think, as a slight reward for that, we might ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the point I have raised. This is a matter which we have very few opportunities of raising, and there may not be another opportunity for a long time. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to give the matter his favourable consideration, and I can assure him that we in the North of Ireland would appreciate it very much indeed.
  Mr. NEVILLE: I desire to refer to some of the war economies which are to be effected by this Resolution. I am pleased to be able to support the Resolution which comes from my own borough. I am speaking on behalf of the gas industry, and I think the House ought to know that there are some other considerations besides those mentioned. I should like to point out that war explosives today are coming from the gas industry, toluol and benzol, two substances which the Government are subsidising every gas company to make. Therefore if you cut down the manufacture of gas you are cutting down the manufacture of explosives and of benzol, which the Government are doing their best to secure. That is an argument that has to be put on one side as against the suggested advantages. Speaking on behalf of industries that are interested in the making of gas, I may say we do not think ourselves that this proposal will have any prejudicial effect upon them. Small companies may find themselves prejudiced, but in the case of the big companies and the municipalities, they are not supplying gas for lighting purposes at present to anything like the extent to which they are supplying gas or light to munition factories which work right throughout the dark hours. Therefore, I do not think in those cases this would have the economy that has been suggested, or anything like it. When we are told, as some speakers have stated, that the only difference of putting on the clock is that there will be as much darkness in May as in April, I should like to point out that the position is this: One of the most profitable times during which gas is produced and used is the hour before the working men go to work. Owing to the prevalence of slot meters in industrial areas, the most useful time for the working man is when he is getting up. He gets shaving water made hot and his breakfast in the hour before he goes out to work. Therefore, so far as there is any economy in the consumption of gas by altering the time, I am afraid you will not find it in that case, because that is the time when the working man uses gas.
  There is another important matter which has got to be considered. So far as the Home Secretary was speaking about the gas companies, I quite agree with him when he said that those who are interested in gas production are afraid for their deliveries of coal owing to the shortage of tonnage and of trucks, and

  365
  of miners, and owing to railway difficulties. The great difficulty we have at the present time is to get delivery of coal. We should welcome, as the Home Secretary said, any scheme which would have the effect of making us less anxious about the delivery of our coal. Most of the advantages and the economies, as I understand it, are expected to come from the gas industry. I daresay electric light will be hit, and that oil may be affected, and that tallow chandlers may also be affected, but I do not think he will find that there will be any really great economy in the consumption of coal so far as gas is concerned. The pity of it is that coal which is being consumed in private houses cannot be made available for producing toluol and benzol which the Government are doing their best to get made. If this should have the effect of reducing the consumption of coal for gas, then there will be a corresponding shortage of toluol and benzol, which is the most important matter. Benzol is now largely being used as a substitute for petrol. It is a substance made in this country, and renders us independent of outside supplies of oils. I think the House ought to consider these important matters before coming to a conclusion?
  Mr. BOLAND: The Home Secretary, referring to the case of Ireland, dealt with the matter, to my mind, in a far more reasonable way than the hon. and gallant Member for East Down (Colonel Craig). It is quite true that for many years there has been a good deal of division of opinion as to the synchronising of English and Irish times. If the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member were carried out, whereas you in England would have an additional hour to change, we in Ireland would have an hour and twenty-five minutes to change. The Home Secretary made a far better suggestion, and that is that between this and the 30th of September, if there is a general measure of assent to the synchronising of the time between England and Ireland, that it should be done on the 30th of September, rather than now when the Bill is brought in, because there would only be a question of twenty-five minutes change, whereas now a change of an hour and twenty-five minutes would have to be made. In this Debate we have heard a good deal about agricultural interests. I speak as one who, from the moment Mr. Willett produced it, always approved of the idea, and was most anxious to see it
  366
  brought into operation. As a War measure, I think it is an extraordinarily valuable time in which to adopt it. Seeing that many people in this country have raised objections to the moving on of the clock in Englnd by one hour, yet if the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member for East Down were adopted we would have to move on the clock in Ireland by an hour and twenty-five minutes in order to synchronise English and Irish time, since Irish time is twenty-five minutes behind English time. I hope that the suggestion of the Home Secretary will be considered favourably, and that opinion between this and the 30th of September will be canvassed in Ireland as to synchronising English and Irish time, but that no effort will be made in a War measure such as this to put forward a proposal on which a number of people in Ireland have different opinions.
  Captain Sir OWEN PHILIPPS: As a shipowner I should like to mention one effect which this change will have. Shipowners, as the House knows, very often have to work overtime to get a mail steamer away. The country at the present time is very much concerned owing to the shortage of shipping. That shortage is brought about partly by delays at the ports. In normal times when a mail steamer wants to get away you work overtime at night to complete the loading. On several occasions recently our mail steamers have been delayed in the port of London because the Government, quite rightly in my opinion, say that when there is a possibility of a Zeppelin raid we must not have lights in the docks. Therefore work has to be stopped as soon as it becomes dark, and the ship is delayed. I am not bringing before the House the loss caused to the shipowner by the delay. But tonnage can only do a certain amount of work, and every day you delay a steamer accentuates the shortage of tonnage. Therefore I believe that this Resolution, if carried into effect, will materially help the nation in the present shortage of tonnage. Another point of great importance is that of reducing the consumption of coal. We all know how this country and the Allied nations are suffering from the present shortage of coal, and we are aware of the high prices that everybody has to pay for coal in consequence. Therefore by reducing the consumption of coal by gas and electric lighting companies you will, in my opinion, be performing a very useful service. This

  367
  Resolution is recommended to us by a representative of the Government as a war measure. Members of the Cabinet have been criticised from time to time for not recommending things unanimously unless they had a crisis. I understand that this is recommended unanimously by the twenty-three members of the Cabinet; therefore it will receive my very warm support.
  Mr. T. WILSON: I believe that the benefits supposed to accrue from this change have been greatly exaggerated, but as it is only for the perod of the War I shall not vote against it. I should like to suggest, however, that the Government should make the time synchronise with the time tables which the railway companies have already issued for the month of May.
  Mr. H. SAMUEL: I think my hon. Friend misunderstands the proposal. The trains will run exactly at the times in the time tables.
  Mr. WILSON: What will be the position of men in munitions works who have to go an hour earlier when the clocks are put back? [HON. MEMBERS: "Put forward!"] Many men in munition works will not put their clocks back or forward, and the result will be that the first morning or two after the change comes into operation a large number of these men will be locked out. I think that more time should be given for the men to get accustomed to the new conditions. In many works men are fined if they are late. Therefore the Minister of Munitions and the Home Secretary ought to come to some arrangement with the firms for which these men work, so that no punishment shall be meted out to the men if they are late owing to this measure. In cotton mills, for instance, if men are not at the mill by six o'clock they cannot start work until after breakfast. That will occur in thousands of instances the first few days this change is in operation. I hope that arrangements will be made whereby inconvenience and loss to these people may be avoided.
  Mr. SAMUEL SAMUEL: So far as the agricultural position is concerned we have heard from those who are able to give an opinion that the cows will give us our milk an hour earlier when this alteration is made, and the farmers will go to market an hour later. I am interested more in the industrial and mercantile position. We have at the present time, in many cases, offices open earlier in the summer
  368
  months voluntarily, but for the sake of upsetting the whole business of the world we are asked to consider the advisability of changing the clocks twice a year. One hon. Member has very rightly pointed out that immediately after the passing of this measure you will have a day of twenty-three hours. Who is going to lose one hour of the ordinary twenty-four which are worked in shifts in mines and in many industrial concerns? Somebody has got to lose the one hour's pay; is it the master, or is it the man? It may be that the community will gain very considerably by the decreased consumption of coal for gas and other purposes, but individuals will suffer, and probably the loss to the nation will be just as great as the gain. Again, in October, when you revert to the old time, you will have a day of twenty-five hours. Who is going to pay for the hour overtime? You have an eight hours' law in mines. Either the men in the mines will have to stop work for an hour or one of the shifts will have to work an hour longer. Are they to be paid for that hour at the overtime rate? If not, in what manner are they to be compensated?
  There is also a serious matter which concerns the railway companies. You have long-distance trains, which leave at night and arrive at their destination in the morning. Take, for instance, trains between Scotland and England. Trains on the main line, which ordinarily arrive at seven or eight o'clock, will arrive at eight or nine o'clock. Those trains must interfere with the local and suburban traffic. Twice a year you will have the whole railway service disorganised by long-distance trains coming in just as the working classes are going to their work. The same thing applies to tramways and omnibuses, where the men leave off at half-past twelve or one o'clock in the morning. They will go off an hour in advance, and the public will be stranded. I hope the Home Secretary will provide for all these contingencies in his Bill. I do not suppose that the Government will be defeated over this matter, as it is put forward as a war measure; but if the system is to be continued after the War I would suggest that in future years it should come into operation at midnight on 31st March, so that when we found people who had been to the theatres and other places, going to catch their five minutes past twelve train, we should have the advantage of being able to tell them that it was five minutes past one on the, 1st of April.
  Colonel YATE: I wish just to say that I have lived under this system for several years, and I should like to give my testimony that I know of no one who ever suffered by it. In India the time is always taken from the Madras Observatory. The capital of the province of which I had charge was some 900 miles distant, and the difference in time was 57 or 58 minutes, but we were able to live under that system all the year round without ever feeling any inconvenience from it. In England
  it is proposed to have the change only in the summer. We did not find that it affected shipping in any way. The shipping at Bombay was never affected by the difference in time between Madras and Bombay. I think that the shipping in this country will be able to accommodate itself equally well. I am certainly in favour of the Resolution before the House.
  Question put.
  The House divided: Ayes, 170; Noes, 2.

  Division No. 6.]

  AYES.

  [7.27 p.m.

  Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Gretton, John

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Griffith, Rt. Hon. Ellis Jones

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Gulland, John William

  Phillips, Sir Owen (Chester)

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

  Pratt, J. W.

  Barnes, Rt. Hon. George N.

  Harris, Henry Percy (Paddington, S.)

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

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, S.)

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Bellairs, Commander C. W.

  Hazleton, Richard

  Reid, Rt. Hon. Sir George H.

  Bird, Alfred

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

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Bliss, Joseph

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Durham)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Henderson, Lt.-Col. Hon. H. (Ab'don)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Brace, William

  Hewart, Gordon

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Hinds, John

  Rowlands, James

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Hogge, James Myles

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

  Broughton, Urban Hanlon

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Houston, Robert Paterson

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

  Butcher, John George

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

  Buxton, Noel

  Hudson, Walter

  Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir F. E. (Walton)

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Hume-Williams, William Ellis

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Carew, C. R. S.

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Stanton, Charles Butt

  Cave, Rt. Hon. Sir George

  Jacobsen, Thomas Owen

  Stewart, Gershom

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A.

  Jones, William S. Glynn- (Stepney)

  Swann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Joyce, Michael

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Coats, Sir Stuart A. (Wimbledon)

  King, Joseph

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

  Cochrane, Cecil Algernon

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts., Cricklade)

  Tickler, T. G.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

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

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Cory, James H. (Cardiff)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Turton, Edmund Russborough

  Craig, Col. James (Down, E.)

  Layland-Barrett, Sir F.

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

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Wardle, George J.

  Crooks, Rt. Hon. William

  Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Dalrymple, Hon. H. H.

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

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

  Watson, Hon. W.

  Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Lundon, Thomas

  Weston. J. W.

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Whiteley, Herbert J.

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Maclean, Rt. Hon. Donald

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)

  Macmaster, Donald

  Whitty, Patrick Joseph

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Wiles, Thomas

  Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir J. B.

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

  Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Edge, Captain William

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Wills, Sir Gilbert

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Fell, Arthur

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Wing, Thomas Edward

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Worthington Evans, Major L.

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Field, William

  Money, Sir L. G. Chiozza

  Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Moore, William

  Young, William (Perthshire, East)

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Morgan, George Hay

  Younger, Sir George

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Morison, Hector

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Gardner, Ernest

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Sir

  Gilbert, J. D.

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Henry Norman and Mr. Peto.

  Glanville, Harold James

  Nolan, Joseph

  NOES.

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— Sir

  F. Banbury and Lord Hugh Cecil.

  Resolved, "That, in view especially of the economy in fuel and its transport that would be effected by shortening the hours of artificial lighting, this House would welcome a measure for the advancement of clock time by one hour during the summer months of this year."

DEFENCE OF THE REALM ACT.

  PUBLICATION OF CABINET PROCEEDINGS.
  Sir HENRY DALZIEL: I beg to move, "That, in the opinion of this House, the interest of the public requires that an immediate and material modification should be made in the new Regulation 27A issued under the Defence of the Realm Act."
  ["27a. If either House of Parliament, in pursuance of a Resolution passed by that House, holds a Secret Session, it shall not be lawful for any person in any newspaper, periodical, circular, or other printed publication, or in any public speech, to publish any report of, or to purport to describe, or to refer to, the proceedings at such Session, except such report thereof as may be officially communicated through the Directors of the Official Press Bureau.
  It shall not be lawful for any person in any newspaper, periodical, circular, or other printed publication, or in any public speech, to publish any report of, or to purport to describe, or to refer to, the proceedings at any meeting of the Cabinet, or without lawful authority to publish the contents of any confidential document belonging to, or any confidential information obtained from any Government Department, or any person in the service of His Majesty.
  If any person contravenes any provision of this Regulation he shall be guilty of an offence against these Regulations."
  At the end of Regulation 62 there shall be inserted the following paragraph:
  "For the purposes of these Regulations printing includes any mechanical mode of reproduction."]
  During the last week or so the House of Commons, and more especially the unofficial Members of the House, have been severely criticised for not raising this very important matter before. We have been told in certain quarters that we have been guilty of masterly inactivity, while there has been a splendid vigilance for the
  372
  people's liberties in another place. As the House knows, that is ill-informed and unjustifiable criticism. In this House the Government is in possession of the whole time, unlike the other place, where unofficial Members can bring forward a Motion at any time. We have had to wait until to-day, before, with the permission of the Government, we had any opportunity for raising the matter. I thank the Government for the opportunity they have given us, but we who are responsible for bringing the matter forward did not lose a single moment, when this Regulation was first promulgated before we placed ourselves in communication with the Government and pressed them to give us an opportunity for discussion. One other word before I come to the terms of the Regulation itself. Is it not ludicrous that in an important matter of this kind, affecting, as even the Government will admit, the right of free discussion in this country, that the House of Commons was not even supplied by the Government with an official copy of the Regulation. In order that Members may inform themselves what the Regulation is we have had to go and search the file copy of an obscure newspaper, which has the distinction of being the Government organ, the "London Gazette." I do submit that in matters of this kind the Government would be well advised to take the trouble to lay a copy of Regulations upon the Table of the House. I would especially appeal to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. As he knows, when the Defence of the Realm Act was passed the disposition of the House was to do nothing that would in any way interfere with the passage of the Bill. The House was anxious to give the Government all the powers they desired for the successful carrying on of the War. Therefore on that occasion it was not made obligatory on the part of the Government, as is often the case, to lay these Regulations on the Table of the House. I do however, appeal to the Home Secretary himself to take the initiative, and, if any further Regulations under the Defence of the Realm Act are to be made, to take such steps as may be necessary to lay them upon the Table of the House, not necessarily for debate, but for the information of Members of the House. I myself have been compelled, owing to the interest of Members in the matter, to have the Regulations specially printed for their information. If any hon. Member who has not yet been supplied with a copy

  373
  desires one, he may apply to the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) who, I believe, has still some copies in his possession.
  This Regulation is undoubtedly an important one. It creates new offences. I might summarise for the information of Members exactly what are the new offences. In the first place, it ought to be remembered that there are very severe penalties imposed, including that of six months' hard labour, and some even more severe. Anyone who refers in future to the Secret Session, either outside of this House or anywhere else, is liable to action under this Regulation. Any newspaper will also, of course, be liable. In future it will be an offence to refer, either in a public speech or in a newspaper, to the proceedings of the Cabinet, to publish confidential information obtained from any Government Department, or to publish any information obtained from anyone in the service of His Majesty. I would make a few brief comments on each one of these new restrictions. In the first place, I have nothing to complain about with regard to the Regulation respecting the Secret Session. If the House decides to have a Secret Session it ought to be secret. I only refer to this matter to have a statement from the Government as to what were their intentions when they framed this particular part of the new Regulations. The House will observe that no penalty attaches to any Member of the House who is present at a Secret Session communicating by word of mouth to another individual what transpired at that Session. Therefore hon. Members are perfectly free, so far as penalties are concerned. They are still under the obligation of honour, which I have not the slightest doubt will be observed generally. They are free from penalty if they communicate what transpired in Secret Session by word of mouth to any individual person outside. There is also no penalty against any Member of this House present at the Secret Session addressing a private meeting, say, of his committee or the executive of a trade organisation. No reference, therefore, having been made to that with regard to penalties, I take it there would be no penalty if anybody took that course. I imagine, of course, a newspaper that printed any remark that might be sent to it afterwards would be liable to prosecution under the Regulation. As I understand, hon. Members of this House are per-
  374
  mitted to make reference to the Secret Session, so far as Mr. Speaker would give them authority to do so, and, as I further read this Regulation, it would not be proper for any Member to make any public statement outside. I think it is in the interest of Members and of the Press that we should know from the representative of the Government exactly how far that restriction applies. I think we ought to have it, not so much perhaps for the last Secret Session, but for guidance for the future should any further Secret Session be held.
  The second new offence is, of course, much more important. Any Member is liable to the penalties attached to this Regulation if he refers to the proceedings of the Cabinet. Here let me say I see no natural connection whatever between this part of the new Regulation and the other part dealing with the proceedings of the Secret Session. It was obvious that some step had to be taken in order to see that the Session was really kept secret, but I cannot understand why the opportunity should be taken advantage of to pass this far-reaching and important Regulation in regard generally to the proceedings of the Cabinet. It looks to me as if the Cabinet had been discussing the Secret Session and one of them had remarked, "The Press has not been very kind to us lately: cannot we have a smack at them at the same time?" It is obvious that it must have been the subject of complaint before the Regulation was brought forward. What is the real basis of this restriction with regard to reference to Cabinet proceedings? It must be that the Cabinet themselves are of opinion that some of their number are in the habit of describing the proceedings of the Cabinet to representatives of the Press. The Press cannot give an account of Cabinet proceedings unless they are communicated by a member of the Cabinet; so, therefore, the very basis of this Regulation is that some members of the Cabinet must be guilty of practically violating the oath which they took. The draftsmanship of this Order is rather singular. It reminds us of an incident of the Jubilee in 1887, when the Lord Justices proposed the presentation of an address of congratulation to Her Majesty Queen Victoria. The opening sentence was, "Conscious as we are of our own defects." I think it was Lord Justice Bowen who suggested the alteration, "Conscious as we are of each other's defects." So it is, I think, with the

  375
  Cabinet. They were aware of the defects of some of their own members in regard to talking to newspaper representatives, and they have decided to punish the newspaper that dares to publish communications that must have been given by members of the Cabinet. I should say the first thing is to have some regulation governing their own action. They ought to have found out, if any communication was being made, who was making it, and deal with him as they thought best.
  Here let me ask, is this Regulation to apply to members of the Cabinet as well as Members of the House of Commons and the public Press? If it is, I would like to ask the learned Attorney-General whether he has taken any steps to deal with Lord Curzon and the Minister of Munitions since this Regulation was issued, especially Lord Curzon, who has communicated to the public some very important information. He has told us a military demand was made for a certain thing, and that the question of peace has never been discussed in the Cabinet. Surely that is communicating the proceedings of the Cabinet. Then we have the Minister of Munitions referring to differences in the Cabinet with the Prime Minister. Therefore I maintain, if you are going to deal with this even-handedly, you are bound to deal with members of the Cabinet as well as Members of the House of Commons. Are we to be told in regard to this Regulation, brought forward, I presume, in the public interest—I would rather say the Cabinet interest—that members of the Cabinet are to be allowed to go up and down the country talking about their differences, talking about the proceedings in the Cabinet, and no action is to be taken against them, but when a private Member of Parliament says a word against it he is liable to be prosecuted, and, if any newspaper refers to it, immediately its plant will be seized and the editor placed under arrest. I say this is an unwarrantable interference with the liberty of free discussion. I say no case whatever has been made out. If action has been taken by any newspaper or any individual that is against the public interest, let us have the instances. I do not want a general statement, "Oh, yes, we all know the Cabinet has been discussed." That is not good enough for the House and it is not good enough for me. I want from that bench quotations which would have been sup-
  376
  pressed, the authors against whom action would have been taken, if the Government had had the power under this Regulation. I think they ought to make out the case before consenting to use that power they are taking.
  Consider the far-reaching character of the Regulation. Sooner or later—sooner, I hope, rather than later—this House will be discussing peace negotiations. Can the House perceive of a position where, day after day, week after week, the Cabinet is discussing terms of peace, and possibly you have one section of the Cabinet disagreeing with the proposed terms, and another section willing to accept them, and all the time this difference is going on no Member of the House will be allowed to allude to it either in this House or outside, and no newspaper will be allowed to refer to it. Why, in the interest of the Cabinet itself, under such conditions, free discussion would be helpful. The opinion of the country, of representative organs of opinion, and of representative men, would no doubt help it to come to a decision. But the country is to be deprived of all that, and some fine day we are to hear, without any preliminary discussion, the terms of peace come to by a majority of the Cabinet. This proposal takes away also a very old and traditional right of the House of Commons itself. I refer to the case of a member of the Cabinet resigning. It has always been customary for a member of the Cabinet when he resigns, when he has had differences with the Cabinet, to give his full reasons from a non-official bench as to what his differences with the Cabinet were. Now that is obviously impossible in the future under this Regulation, because no person is allowed to refer to the proceedings in the Cabinet, and it would be impossible for a Minister who resigns to inform this House what his differences with the Cabinet were, and why he thought it necessary to take the extreme course.
  I say that the whole proposition, so far as the Cabinet is concerned, in prohibiting discussion, is very dangerous. I do not think the Cabinet ought to be immune from any criticism, and I complain the more about it at the present time because we have no regular Opposition in this House. The Cabinet represents all parties, and therefore there is no strong party to criticism them in any action they may take with regard to the carrying out of this particular proposal, and we ought to remember, after all, that the Cabinet

  377
  are the Executive of this House. The House creates the Cabinet, and it is not possible, and it is not reasonable, in my opinion, for them to make rules to prohibit the Members of this House from discussing their actions in any way. Who is to interpret this Regulation? Who are the people who are to put it in force? The judges are not called in; there is not a jury to decide. A police constable, the local military authority, is provided for in the Defence of the Realm Act, so that any police constable—I suppose any special constable—who imagines that this Regulation has been violated, say, by a morning newspaper, can at once order the seizure of the plant, suppress the edition, and practically ruin the proprietor. I cannot compliment the Government on the manner in which they have conveyed the decision to the editors of the great morning and evening newspapers throughout the country. Will the House believe that within a few hours of this Regulation being issued a police constable called on every editor in London and throughout the whole country, asked to see him personally on behalf of the Government, warned him, and read to him the Regulation, hoped he would realise the seriousness of it, and explained that if any reference was made to the Cabinet the paper would be immediately suppressed, the plant would be seized, and the editor himself, in all probability, would be arrested! I will give the cases if my right hon. Friend wants them.
  Mr. H. SAMUEL: Where was this done?
  Sir H. DALZIEL: In London.
  Mr. SAMUEL: Will the right hon. Member say what newspapers received it?
  Sir H. DALZIEL: I have information from more than one newspaper. I shall be glad to give it privately. I do not think I ought to give it without permission. My right hon. Friend may take it from me, as a Member of this House, there is no trouble about giving a number of instances. Does he deny that a police constable went to every editor in London?
  Mr. SAMUEL: It is the first I have heard of it.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: Ring up any editor in London; he will tell you it was so. It shows how careful the Government is going to be in administering their own Regulation. I can give my right hon. Friend notes of conversations that took place. A police
  378
  constable called privately to ask every editor how early he could have a copy of the issue.
  Mr. HOUSTON: He asked for the first copy.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: He wanted the first copy before any newspapers were issued, and if there was anything in it which violated the Regulation he was going to suppress it at once.
  Mr. SAMUEL: The police were instructed on the occasion of the Secret Session to obtain early copies of newspapers in order to see if any editor had evaded the instructions with regard to the Report of the Secret Session.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: I can assure my right hon. Friend, if he did not give this instruction, the police have exceeded their authority. I can assure him they pointed out one by one what the effect of the Regulation was, and warned them what would happen if they violated it in any way. I say that is a very serious thing indeed.
  Mr. MORTON: Without trial or anything?
  8.0 P.M.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: This Regulation does not provide for trial. There are great powers already under the Defence of the Realm. Representatives of military authorities in different parts of the country have already suppressed newspapers without any trial whatever. Only last week two newspapers were suppressed in London, and up to this minute the proprietors and editors have not been informed, nor have they any information, why they have been suppressed. It may have been under the general Defence of the Realm Act argued that they were remarks calculated to injure the public interest. I do not want to advertise those papers by mentioning their names, but I believe they were "The Voice of Labour" and "Freedom." So much for that. The Government are taking powers in this respect which they ought not to be granted by this House. With regard to informing editors, I would like to know what have they done to be insulted by a police constable calling upon them, asking to see them personally, and conveying to them the intentions of the Government? The ordinary method of supplying information through the Press Bureau ought to have been adopted. Editors are supposed to have a little intelligence, and

  379
  they read the Regulations and are well able to form their own opinion. Now I come to the question of the publication of confidential documents, and that is a new offence. It means, I presume, a confidential document obtained from a Government Department. Will the representative of the Government tell us what is a confidential document? Can the right hon. Gentleman refer to any case where confidential documents from a Government Department have been published which they have not the power to deal with without this Regulation? What have the Government got in mind? Is it a document like the Danish Agreement, which is confidential in this country but is published in Denmark? I would presume it is a case of that kind which the Government have in mind, because we were able to read extracts from that document showing that the Government had arranged under certain conditions that goods should be supplied to the enemy in Germany. Would the Danish Agreement be regarded as a confidential document? I think we ought to have an instance of the kind of document which has been published to suppress which this Regulation is considered necessary.
  The last new offence is the publication of any confidential information received from any person in the employment of His Majesty. I beg the House to notice how far-reaching that is. It is brought in at the end, but I am not at all sure it is not of equal importance, if not more important, in reference to the serious restriction of discussion in the Press. Of course, it would apply to all persons in Government offices, all persons in the Army, and to all persons in the Navy. It will apply to all persons employed in dockyards and Government offices, and it is doubtful whether it would not also apply to controlled establishments so far as munition workers are concerned. I say that that is of a very far-reaching character, and I think we ought to have some definite statement as to how it is going to operate. I want to ask one or two questions about the real operation of this new Regulation. I want to ask, in the first place, if it would apply to a case like the publication, for example, in the "Times," of the shortage of shells, information supplied by a person or persons in the employment of His Majesty? Would that have been punishable under this Regulation? I think that disclosure practically saved this
  380
  country from a humiliating defeat. I want to know whether in future information of that kind derived from officers and men in a position to know—there is no other way of knowing because correspondents are not allowed—would that be an offence and punishable acordingly? Again, with regard to Gallipoli, where no Press representatives were allowed. In regard to the information some of us obtained from officers and men when we stated to the House that hundreds of men had died owing to the absence of water during the first few days of landing, would that be an offence? I read this Regulation as meaning that we would not be able to say that in this House, and no newspaper would be able to print it. The same in regard to information about Mesopotamia. Would it be an offence to publish the information about the breakdown of the medical service? I read this Regulation that it would be an offence.
  Many hon. Members received communications from officers and men at the front; in fact, that is the only way we can get information. I want to put a definite case to the Home Secretary, or to whoever is going to reply. I have been in frequent communication myself from the beginning of the War with officers at the front, and I have taken some interest in this question of the supply of helmets, and I have very good reason for this, because some of my friends have been killed owing to the absence of these helmets. I would like to ask the Home Secretary whether it would be a punishable offence for any newspaper to publish that information or for anyone to read it at a public meeting? Here is a communication I have received from the front:
  "We here were immensely tickled to hear that Mr. Tennant had stated in the House that we all had helmets in the trenches. We, the gunners in this division, who have been in and out of the trenches throughout the year, have not one issued, and how he dare make such a statement I do not know. If—, a fine young gunner, had had one when he was hit he would not have been killed, because the splinter only smashed his skull, and did not break the skin."
  Another case is mentioned of another gunner who would have been alive if he had had a helmet. I wish to know if I would have been justified in publishing that statement in a newspaper at the present moment. I have a dozen other similar cases, but I will not weary the House with them. Would I have been justified in reading that in a public speech, and would any newspaper have been justified in reporting it? Of course, it was information derived from a person

  381
  in the service of His Majesty. I say that, in the light of this Regulation, is prohibited because it may be read as being confidential information. We want to know, and the object of this Motion is to find out, what the Government regard as confidential. A Government under this Regulation, anxious to get a case, could regard that as confidential. It might apply to information about the grievances of our soldiers, because all that is confidential information, and we want to know exactly where we stand. Would hon. Members representing dockyard constituencies, and speaking for great masses of workers in the employment of the Government, if they gave to this House some very important information which may be regarded as confidential with regard to the working of the dockyard or some other internal matter, come under this Regulation? Are newspapers to be prohibited from reporting such information if an hon. Member gives it in a public speech? I think we ought to have a very clear statement. These powers are much too drastic, and they can be carried to an extraordinary extent by any Government keen to put them into effect, and they ought to show good cause why we should give them these powers. There are one or two things the House should keep in mind in coming to a decision on my Motion. The Government ought to make good their case, and show that they have not sufficient powers under the Defence of the Realm Act without this new Regulation to deal with these things in the public interest. I say that they have got to make out the necessity for increased powers and prove that the country has suffered because they have not the necessary powers, and that it is necessary for them to have the powers they ask for under this Regulation. They have the Official Secrets Act, which is a far-reaching measure, under which no one can give any information of a secret character which is likely to be information of use to the enemy, or indeed to anyone else, without being liable to a prosecution and six months' imprisonment. That is an extraordinary power, which, in my opinion, would have been quite sufficient for the Government. The difference between the Official Secrets Act and the new Regulation is that under the former the Government have to have a trial, but under this new Regulation the Government are prosecutor, judge and jury, and everything else themselves.
  Mr. MORTON: And executioner!
  Sir H. DALZIEL: My hon. Friend had better ask that question of the Government. I ask the House to remember that the Press has been loyal and patriotic from the beginning of this War, and scarcely any request that the Government has made to the Press has ever been refused. Such requests are made daily, as my right hon. Friend knows. Every week an urgent and important request is made on behalf of the Government that papers should not comment on this, and that they should avoid discussion of that. Although it has been denied in this House it is still true that only last week the Press of London were asked not to comment on the Irish situation, and after that the restriction was withdrawn and they were asked not to publish any facts; without the aproval of my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. SAMUEL: When was it denied?
  Sir H. DALZIEL: It was denied by a Minister at Question Time.
  Mr. SAMUEL: By whom?
  Sir H. DALZIEL: By a representative-of the Government, and I can easily refer to it. The right hon. Gentleman admits that the Press were asked not to make any comment on the Irish situation.
  Mr. SAMUEL: I said when the rebellion first broke out on the first day that a general instruction was issued by the military authorities to the Press not to comment on the facts until the Government knew more of what was happening, and the next day that was entirely removed.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: My right hon. Friend recollects that he said the restriction was made by the military for military requirements.
  Mr. SAMUEL: I am quite sure of my facts. The question has been raised before, and I said it is the case that at the outbreak of the rebellion a general instruction was issued at the request of the Irish Office. The next day it was removed, and only so much of the restriction as the military authorities thought was necessary was then imposed.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: The fact remains that the papers, at a serious moment like that, were prevented by the Government from making any comment on the Irish

  383
  situation, and I think that is a very tall order for the Government to make. Requests of that kind were made in regard to Turkey, and we were not allowed to discuss the situation in the East at all for a very long time. On no occasion has the Press refused to respect the wishes of the Government, and they do not deserve to be treated in this way. Another method is that when trouble arises, Ministers frequently send invitations all over the country to editors to come and have a talk with them about the situation, and surely that is a very serious condition of things, because in this way Ministers supply information to the Press which has never been given to this House. What I say is if the Press have helped the Government in that way, if they are worthy of being trusted with vital secrets with regard to this War, is it right that they should be treated in the manner which this Regulation proposes to treat them? It will be a very bad day for this country when you have a spoon-fed Press which is unable to say anything without the permission of the Government, especially in time of war. I think it is good for the Government that occasionally they should be criticised. What attitude are the Government going to take up to-night? Are they going to revise this Regulation or make any modification of this very far-reaching proposal? I know this request has been refused in another place by a member of the Government. We know it has been refused to a body representing a great number of the newspapers of the country, and no concession of any kind has been promised. There are one or two things which I hope the Government will not say. I hope they will not tell us that in war time we must have war measures and stand by the Government, and must not ask for any liberties whatever. We reply that you have the Defence of the Realm Act, and that is as much as you require. I know they are anxious that no information of value to the enemy should he published, but this can be dealt with under the Defence of the Realm Act. What they are anxious about under this Regulation is that no information of value to this country should be allowed to be published. I hope they will not tell us to-night that they are going to administer this leniently. We do not want that sort of interpretation placed upon the manner in which it is going to be carried out. I say that the existence of the Regulation
  384
  even if it is never exercised at all, will have a terrorising effect upon the whole of the Press of the country. How will it work? Every editor will know when a piece of news comes to him that he must refuse to insert it, although it may be of the most vital importance. "When in doubt leave out." When you have built up a valuable property which represents perhaps hundreds and thousands of pounds, you cannot risk suspension of publication under the operation of this Regulation, because in these days of competition two days loss for publication practically means the life of the newspaper. The effect of it will be to terrorise the Press, and without any operation at all it will have the effect of stopping free discussion. The newspapers will be unable to discuss vital questions of importance. We cannot destroy liberty in Germany by killing liberty here, and I say that if this Regulation is passed it will be a vital blow at the freedom of discussion in this country. In my opinion, it will have disastrous and far-reaching effects, and it will be bad for the well-being of the nation. The House has a responsibility in this matter. It can refuse its sanction. I have tonight given them the opportunity, and I hope they will support the Motion which I have now the honour of moving.
  Mr. WALTER ROCH: I beg to second the Motion of my right hon. Friend.
  Unlike my right hon. Friend who, of course, speaks as a prominent member of the Press with many years' experience behind him, I cannot do so, and I only propose, quite briefly, to approach this Regulation and this Motion just as an ordinary Member of Parliament. I feel sure that the Home Secretary will be glad of the opportunity which has been given him to-night of explaining quite fully to the House and to the country what is the reason which has made this new Regulation necessary, and what is the new necessity which has arisen for issuing this Order in Council. First of all, with regard to the Secret Session, I think my right hon. Friend is agreed, as I am, that we must accept it. Opinions vary very much as to whether anything very secret was divulged or not, but it is obvious, and I think everyone will agree, as it was a Secret Session, it is desirable that it should be kept a Secret Session. But, having said that about this new Order in Council, I do hope the right hon. Gentleman will tell us quite frankly and

  385
  fully what is the necessity which has arisen, and what is the reason for the issuing of it. The object of this Regulation is to stop the publication of information with regard to what goes on in the Cabinet, and it strikes the ordinary onlooker that it is very unfair, because Cabinet Ministers reveal matters which are secret to the newspapers, that the person who publishes the information should be punished, while the person who gives the information and who is the chief offender should go scot free. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will tell us quite frankly how he justifies that as between man and man, because, mark you, the right hon. Gentleman, or whoever is the executive of the Cabinet, has got the fullest power now of dealing with the offending Cabinet Minister. There is the most stringent Regulations laid down by the Official Secrets Act of 1911, under which any Cabinet Minister can be dealt with. I must say that I was glad, when this matter was raised in another place, to hear the Lord Chancellor most emphatically say:
  "Give us the name of the man from whom yon get your information, and when that is once done. I do not think I am divulging any Cabinet secrets when I say that the punishment will be swift."
  I propose to give the right hon. Gentleman a hint or two in pursuing that line of investigation, because I am sure he will agree, when this week when we are discussing a matter of discipline for the whole country, and when equality of sacrifice between man and man is so strongly advocated throughout the country, that discipline should begin at the very top. I would refer him to a speech made by a late member of the Cabinet, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Sir E. Carson), who used these words:
  "I have an additional reason for objecting to speaking" at the present time. I was until recently a member of the Cabinet or at all events a part of it though how much I never quite knew, but to whatever part we belonged we were all subject to the Officials Secrets Act as I advised the Government in my capacity as Attorney-General."
  No doubt that advice was very much needed. I would suggest, in the interests of the fair administration of the law, that when the right hon. Gentleman is asking for such unexampled powers for the punishment of the Press, and he is pursuing his inquiry—I do not know whether he has had a hint from the right hon. Gentleman as to whom he was referring—that would be a useful line for him to explore. There is a still more recent instance than that. I would refer him to
  386
  a statement made by the Minister of Munitions. The Minister of Munitions was very indignant with the "Westminster Gazette," which had made sume suggestions as to the line he took in the Cabinet. The right hon. Gentleman authorised the "Daily Mail" to issue the following statement of his views. This is what they say:
  "Mr. Lloyd George asks me to publish the following from him. This statement is a complete travesty—'
  That is, the statement as to the attitude he took in the Cabinet—
  "of what happened, and is evidently inspired by the same individual who has issued similar misrepresentations … I regret to say that I can trace its origin even from its very inaccuracy."
  Let the House mark that. He then proceeds:
  "This has been going on for some time, and I am afraid it Hill be my duty to take an opportunity of warning the country against these distorted revelations of what takes place at the Cabinet, whose deliberations every member is sworn to regard as secret."
  There is a plain indication that the Minister of Munitions knows the man who has been guilty of disclosing a Cabinet secret. That is all I have got to say with regard to the proposal to punish under this Regulation one person for an offence which is committed by another person. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to explain what is the necessity for this Regulation at all, except so far as the Secret Session is concerned? The right hon. Gentleman has got the completest powers of dealing with any really vital matter under the existing Regulations. We are all agreed that it should be a serious offence to give any information to the enemy, be it a Cabinet secret or be it matters of our own observation or anything else. That is most stringently protected by Regulation 18. Then there is Regulation 27, under which
  "No person shall by word of mouth, or in writing, or in any newspaper, periodical, book, or circular, or other printed publication spread false reports, or make false statements, or reports, or statements likely to cause disaffection to His Majesty, or to interfere with the success of His Majesty's Forces by land or sea, or to prejudice His Majesty's relations with Foreign Powers,"
  and so on. Any newspaper which gives any information to the enemy of a naval or military kind, any newspaper or any individual who publishes anything likely to cause disaffection, likely to injure the cause of the Allies, or likely to imperil our relations with our Allies can be most stringently dealt with already. What on earth is the necessity for having this wide Regulation? I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that really the Regulation as it stands row is unworkable, because, as my right hon. Friend has said,

  387
  we have had two speeches since the Regulation was issued by two Cabinet Ministers in the country, and two only, and both of them have committed a flagrant breach of this very Regulation. Here you have a Regulation which says you must not refer to any matter arising in the Cabinet. It reads:
  "It shall not be lawful for any person or newspaper periodical, circular or other printed publication, or in any public speech, to publish any report of or to purport to describe or to refer to the proceedings at any meeting of the Cabinet."
  I would ask the right hon. Gentleman what has Lord Curzon done? In his speech at a Primrose League meeting he told us that the decisions of the Six—the Council of War—are seldom if ever questioned. He told us about proceedings in the Cabinet; he told us that the decisions of the Six are circulated in the Cabinet. He explained the entire working of the machine. I do not suggest he has done any harm by that. I am sure it is very desirable that the public should know how the great governing machine of this country is working at the present crisis. But Lord Curzon was guilty of an offence under this regulation, and every single newspaper that published an account of his speech was liable to have its plant seized, without being able to say a single word in its defence. Another member of the Cabinet, the Minister of Munitions, has also broken this stringent Regulation. He has told us, in terms of which no one can complain—and I do not suggest a single complaint in regard to anything said by these two Cabinet Ministers—but in discussing what a very unwieldy machine a Cabinet of twenty-three is, the right hon. Gentleman has told us that he has had differences which he has honestly fought out with the Prime Minister in the Cabinet, in perfect good taste and with perfect good feeling. I venture to say that these two illustrations show that this Regulation with its wide scope is really unworkable.
  From a public point of view I suggest that at this moment this Regulation is most undesirable. To start with let us clear our minds of a great deal of cant and hypocrisy with regard to the subject of Cabinet secrets. After all, Members of the Cabinet are ordinary men, and to tell any practical man of the world that twenty-three men trusted with all kinds of information, every one with the exception of two being married men, would keep everything a dead secret and allow nothing whatever to leak out, is really to
  388
  make a large order on him. While it is not at all desirable that really vital things, such as plans of campaign, statistics as to forces, and Budget secrets, should be disclosed, I am not at all sure that any reasonable man will take the view it is undesirable that Cabinet Ministers should within certain limits indicate their views to the public, especially at this present moment, when there is a greater need than there ever was for such information. Let us be quite frank. The Cabinet of to-day is really living in a balloon, high above the ordinary public. I do not think that is an unfriendly remark to make. Members of the Cabinet, absorbed in their work, necessarily live in a balloon just now, and it is really impossible for them to keep in close touch with Members of the House of Commons and with the country except by close co-operation with the Press, and that co-operation and that means of disseminating their views in a manner quite legitimate under ordinary conditions is doubly necessary in the case of a Coalition Government. We have in the Coalition differences and cleavages, and it is desirable that there should be some means by which the public may be educated in regard to the policy being developed under the Coalition. We are now deprived of any opportunity for legitimate criticism of the Government. We have not a responsible Opposition, and we can never get a day for the discussion of vital matters. The Government really exist without vital criticism of any kind, and if the House is prohibited in this manner from getting information and criticising it, then it will find some other means of securing it, and of having it discussed freely and fully.
  For these reasons I think the need for this stringent Regulation requires to be made out by the Government and by the Home Secretary. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman why is the Press to be subjected to what I think is the humiliation of this Regulation? Why should it be? I was told by a newspaper editor only to-day to ask the Home Secretary whether the Government since the beginning of this War had not frequently given editors of big newspapers most confidential information, and if he can produce one case in which there has been the smallest publication or leakage from that newspaper of the highly confidential knowledge trusted to him. If the right hon. Gentleman can trust newspaper editors to that extent, why should he lay down this stringent

  389
  Regulation, which, as I have pointed out, will not apply to the very people who are the chief offenders against it? The right hon. Gentleman may well say that the Regulation is in wide terms. I hope, incidentally, he will suggest some modification of it. He may well say that while it is in wide terms it will not be rigdly or unfairly enforced. I think that is a very doubtful argument. To start with, the enforcement of the Regulation against the Press is to be done without any trial. Any newspaper now is at the mercy of the Government of the day. A police constable, or a competent military authority, may call at its offices, seize its plant and stop the issue of the paper, and the paper thus closed down will never be able to breathe a single word in its own defence.
  If the Government have powers like that, and if they are enforced, the right hon. Gentleman will never be able to escape the charge which will arise in men's minds that it is not fair. We have had instances already where that feeling has been created in cases in which weak papers have been mercilessly treated and never been allowed to say a word in their own defence. I will ask the right hon. Gentleman, if he is going to insist on this Regulation, to, at any rate, modify its terms and to provide that where it is enforced the freest trial shall be allowed. I really cannot understand why, under the Defence of the Realm Act, the Government is, with growing frequency, using their power to deny people the right of trial. I believe that is defeating the very object which the Government have in view. If a newspaper or individual is prosecuted under this Regulation scores of men—hundreds of men—who have not the smallest sympathy with the paper will, although the case is well founded, have their sympathy transferred to the offender simply because he is denied the elementary right of trial. Therefore I say these powers should not be given without insuring to the person accused the freest and fullest chance of being tried.
  I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell us what on earth he can lose by giving a trial. If a newspaper offends, if it has published facts which it ought not to have published, if it is going to be seized, why not give it an opportunity for explanation and fair trial? The right hon. Gentleman is, I think, entitled to ask those who are supporting this Resolution: What are you afraid of happening under this Act? Newspaper men, who are quite ready, as Lord Burnham said, to look at
  390
  everything in the red light of war, are honestly afraid of this Regulation. They are afraid that their powers of comment, their powers of influencing public opinion in a legitimate way, will be absolutely or seriously curtailed by this Regulation. I will tell the right hon. Gentleman what I am afraid of arising under this Regulation. I will give him quite candidly and freely what I conceive to be not a probable but a possible case which may arise. Assume that the question of peace crops up and the terms of peace come to be considered. Look at it from this point of view. Suppose the Cabinet is driven by circumstances which they cannot help to consider terms of peace which the general public would look upon as humiliating. I say that information as to that would be a Cabinet secret, but it might also equally come to the newspaper editor through a neutral country—from America, Holland, or even from France—and it would be impossible for the Government of the day to say whether the newspaper editor who made use of that information for the legitimate purpose of influencing public opinion was making use of a Cabinet secret—
  Mr. SAMUEL: There is nothing in this Regulation about that.
  Mr. ROCH: Supposing a newspaper editor were to say, "We believe there are negotiations going on between Bethmann-Hollweg and the Cabinet of the day." Those are proceedings that would clearly come within the Regulation.
  Mr. SAMUEL: No!
  Mr. ROCH: Will the right hon. Gentleman say that that is not so definitely? On the plain reading of the Regulation it is obvious. Supposing the "Times" were to say. "We understand that the Government is now discussing negotiations as to the terms of peace with the German Chancellor." Surely the right hon. Gentleman will not say that that would not come within the Regulation. What is the use of the Regulation if it did not? For what does he want it? Surely the right hon. Gentleman in all candour would admit that such information as that would clearly come within the Regulation. Further, it could not be suggested that it was confidential information which the paper had obtained from any Government Department or from any person in the public service. It would not only be right, but it

  391
  would be the duty of the editor of a newspaper which had that information to publish it, and so ascertain what was the opinion of the public. Let us quote the argument of peace from another point of view. Let us suppose that terms were offered from Berlin which to many people would be acceptable; let us suppose that the alternatives with which the Cabinet was faced were the acceptance of terms of settlement which many people would look upon as achieving all that they set out for in waging this War, or an advance on the Western front which might cost five hundred thousand lives. That information might well come from a public servant, from a Cabinet Minister, from France, or from America, or any other neutral country. In a case like that it would not only be legitimate but it would be the duty of any newspaper or individual through the Press or the platform in either of these cases to make use of such information in order to influence opinion, so that the Cabinet should be prevented from coming to a decision which many people believed to be contrary to the best interests of the country.
  Let me put a case which I hope will not arise. Suppose that the Government were once again to embark upon another foreign expedition with all the feeling that has grown up in this country against gambles like Gallipoli and other places. Let us suppose that an enterprising individual, an editor or a journalist, were to get wind of it. It would be suggested at once that he got it from a Cabinet Minister, or it would be suggested that it was confidential information which came from a public servant, but equally an intelligent man might have gathered it from other sources from which he would draw that inference. Again, it would be not only right, but his duty, to agitate against embarking upon yet another foreign expedition. Under this Regulation the result would be that if there was the smallest idea in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman or of the Government that that was going to take place the newspaper would be seized, the paper would be wrecked, and the editor would not have a single chance of saving his paper or of stating the real source of his information. There is a further point. Take the very urgent case now of merchant shipping. I see the hon. Member for the West Toxteth Division of Liverpool (Mr. Houston) in his
  392
  place, and that has brought it into my head. Mark the difficulty that arises here! A great many of the vital facts in regard to merchant shipping are as well known to the hon. Members as to any member of the Cabinet. There has been a gathering of editors—seventy or eighty newspaper editors have been gathered together to receive secret information in regard to it. If my hon. Friend or if these newspaper editors—feel it their duty to agitate the public on this question so as to influence the Cabinet to a certain line of policy, how can my right hon. Friend draw the line as to where the ordinary information which was in the possession of these men begin and where the secret information which they have received from a Cabinet Minister ends. Surely the scheme is unworkable as a whole, because the line which exists between what is confidential information and what is well-known to the ordinary well-informed man is one that in practice cannot well be drawn.
  Let me take another instance. Supposing a crisis were to arise in the Cabinet, that a Cabinet Minister were to feel it his duty to resign on a matter vitally connected with the conduct of the War, and that he wanted to influence public opinion and thought it right so to stir up public opinion so as to destroy the Government which he had left. How would he be able to do it? I do not suggest he should reveal Cabinet secrets, but if he carried on his agitation through the Press and through the country, which it would be his duty in these circumstances to do, how could anybody draw the line and tell him, "You may say this because it is not a matter of Cabinet secrets. It is true it was revealed as a secret in the Cabinet, but it is a matter of information which you can get from another source." In a crisis like that—God forbid it should ever arise—the Government could determine to suppress discussion, it could determine, if one might use an offensive term, to save its own skin, and immediately put that man in prison, suppress the paper and say, "You shall not agitate this matter, and the public shall not know what is vital to it." These are the considerations which arise on this Regulation. I do not suggest that the illustrations I have given are cases that will necessarily arise, but we are living in curious times. We do not know what may be before us in the next six months. Mark this! The more the Government

  393
  gets out of touch with the country, the more the feeling arises that they are not representing the policy which the country desires; the more that feeling grows, the more the tendency is bound to grow to suppress discussion. It is just as well to be frank with each other. I do not desire to cast any slur on the fact that the Cabinet are twenty-three. I do not use it as a term of opprobrium, but the more the twenty-three fail to meet with success in this War, whether owing to their own or another's fault, the more they are legitimately criticised, the more they get out of touch with the country, the more will their determination grow to suppress that criticism. It will be a bad thing in the long run for the twenty-three. It will be a bad thing for the country. Public opinion cannot be suppressed in that way. It will find some other vent and some other means of achieving its objects far less worthy or desirable than the legitimate means of criticism, publication and discussion that so long have been used in this country. That is why I, approaching this matter as an ordinary member of the public, venture to put it before the right hon. Gentleman. I hope I have said nothing which casts any slur upon any member of the Government, and that I have said nothing except honestly and in good feeling, but there are these serious considerations to which the Government should give attention. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will announce some modification in the form and the wording of this Regulation which will prevent what are not only the possibilities but even the probabilities of difficulty and even of danger to the country which may arise under it.
  Mr. SALTER: The House is indebted to the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. and learned Friend who have brought this matter forward. It is impossible to look at a newspaper without seeing that a considerable portion of the Press, and I think a small portion of the public, entertain honest apprehension in connection with this Order. I am not myself able to understand their apprehension. I think it is based upon a complete misreading of the terms of the Order itself, but it is obviously honestly felt and therefore it is clearly right that this House should take careful notice of the matter. This Motion asks not for the repeal but for the amendment of this Regulation, and I regret that neither of the admirable speeches to which we have listened should in the slightest
  394
  degree have attempted to specify what amendments are desired. It puts us all in a rather baffling position. The two speeches to which we have listened have been admirable examples of the kind of thing which we have all read in the last ten days—vague and vehement denunciation with very little reference indeed to the actual terms of the Order.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: Of course the Regulation is not before us, and we cannot amend it. If the hon. and learned Gentleman wants my view, I should like the withdrawal of the whole of it except the first part dealing with the Secret Session. In a matter of this kind some object to some and some to the other, and I have made it as broad as possible in order to get as much support as possible.
  Mr. SALTER: We should have been in an easier position if the right hon. Gentleman had indicated more definitely the Amendment that he desired. I do not think myself that the Press have treated the Government quite fairly in connection with the agitation which they have carried on against this Order. I have read scores of articles denouncing this Regulation. Hardly one has quoted not merely the article but a single line or a single word of the Order. If these newspapers when they published strongly abusive articles about this Regulation had printed the Regulation itself at the same time, so that the reader could form his own judgment and could read the thing attacked when he read the attack, I do not think this agitation would have had a very long life. We are all relieved from discussing the first three matters, quite unconnected matters, I agree, with which this Regulation deals. No attack is made upon that part which refers to the Report of the Secret Session. That brings me to the second part, to which so much public attention has been directed, the prohibition of reports, descriptions, and references to proceedings at any meeting of the Cabinet. I suggest that the House should pay attention to these words. I think myself that there was a grave evil which had to be dealt with, and that the second part of this Regulation deals with it as reasonably as it could have been dealt with. If I had thought that this part of the Regulation imposed penalties on the journalist who publishes certain information and did not impose those same penalties on the Cabinet Minister who gave him that information for publication—if I thought that was the meaning of the Order I would

  395
  join with all my heart with the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. and learned Friend in suggesting that, at any rate, we have found one Amendment which we must clearly have, and that we must make that clear. But that is not my reading of the Order at all. The Order provides that a person who publishes in a newspaper certain information shall be guilty of an offence against the Regulation. I have no sort of doubt that if a Cabinet Minister goes to a journalist and violates his oath, and discloses to that journalist proceedings at a meeting of the Cabinet, knowing that they will be published in the paper, and disclosing it in order that it will be in the paper, any authority would hold that he published that matter in the newspaper just as much as the journalist who himself sends the manuscript which is set up. I have not the slightest doubt about it. I observe that the Lord Chancellor so read the Order, and I think it will be found as this Debate proceeds that there will be no difference of opinion and that that is so.
  What is it that is forbidden? It is forbidden to publish in a newspaper or a public speech a report, description, or reference to the proceedings in a meeting of the Cabinet. From the earliest time in our history, privacy has been the very essence of the Privy Council of the Crown. The very name Privy Council is itself sufficient. There has always been the greatest distinction between that small body of intimate Councillors whom the King gathered round him to advise him on affairs of State and the great Council of the Nation which always debated in public, and privacy is quite essential to the Privy Council as is publicity essential to Parliament. If a man in a great position has changed his mind about some matter he may often hesitate to say so in a public speech, but if he has fear to speak his full and inmost mind in the Cabinet—the fear that some colleague will turn round and expose him outside—the value of his counsel, to my mind, is greatly lessened; and I think that the Privy Councillor's oath is not a matter of etiquette, nor is it a matter even of honour; it is a matter of the public welfare, and the Privy Councillors' oath and its rigid observance are, to my mind, matters of the greatest importance. We all know that all our greatest constitutional authorities—Mr. Gladstone himself, notably—attached the
  396
  deepest importance to the rigid observance of the Privy Councillor's oath. Nor are there any Privy Councillors to whom that obligation attaches more strongly than to the members of the Cabinet, who form a most important Committee of the Privy Council. I rather regretted to observe the other day, in a Debate in another place, that Lord Burnham spoke in a somewhat easy manner of the violation of the Privy Councillor's oath where journalists are concerned. I think it was unfortunate. It was referred to by the Lord Chancellor, and I gathered that he said that where newspapers were concerned in modern times these disclosures had become so common that the Privy Councillor's oath might be regarded as not what at one time it was. I so understood it; I hope I do not do him any injustice. That would be a most unfortunate view There never was a time when the Privy Councillor's oath was more essential than it is now. What, then, do we find? I think we find that before the promulgation of this Regulation a state of things had come into existence which was, in my judgment, a national scandal and a national danger. Here we are in these days, when the authority and credit of the National Government are not matters of faction or of party, and not a domestic matter at all. These are matters, world matters, affecting our national position with our Allies, against our enemies, and against the neutrals who wish us well, and affecting the part that we can play. The position of the National Government is, therefore, far from being a domestic matter. What do we find in these circumstances? You cannot take up one of the great newspapers of the day—I am not making any distinction between one and another—without seeing what are, to my mind, shameless publications, published without the slightest indication of any feeling of shame in doing it, publications which imply in every line that there had been a disclosure to the writer, which should never have been made, by a Cabinet Minister, not of the private views of that Cabinet Minister, however confidentially, but of what had actually taken place in the Council, within the walls of the Council Chamber. I will not trouble the House by quoting it at any length, but this is the kind of thing one reads:
  "The meeting of the Cabinet yesterday was again a very important one. It is understood that at both meetings of the Cabinet, on Friday and yesterday, Mr. Lloyd George declared—"

  397
  Then follows what he said, and the statement goes on to declare that he was supported by Lord This and Mr. That, and that he was opposed by. Mr. So-and-so. I will now quote from another newspaper of the opposite opinion:
  "The Cabinet held a critical and decisive meeting yesterday. They decided on one, two, three and four. That course was strongly opposed by a minority. The Cabinet was divided into two distinct parties, Mr. So-and-so—"
  Then follows a list of names.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: Who supplied them?
  Mr. SALTER: Supplied in the most disgraceful maner, if they were in fact supplied, by some Cabinet Minister in breach of his oath. I endeavoured to preface my observations on this particular case by saying that I would not take the line that I am taking unless I am satisfied that the meaning of this Order is that the Cabinet Minister and the journalist should stand in the dock together. I understand that to be the Order. [HON. MEMBERS dissented.] If not, it ought to be the Order. If that is not the meaning of the Order it ought to be amended.
  Mr. ANNAN BRYCE: There is no trial. It is an Executive act.
  9.0 P.M.
  Mr. SALTER: What was the position as it stood? It was a grave danger. The Government were getting discredited. I have some reason to know the kind of observation that the common public were making about it. The working man on his way to work did not say "How glorious is this publicity and how magnificent is this freedom of the Press." He said, and he says, "There is a cad in the Cabinet." That is the sort of thing he said. It is a very serious matter. What then does the Order provide under these circumstances? It is limited, as I think, and I think my hon. and learned Friends will take this view, to publications of that kind which assume that there has been disclosure by a Cabinet Minister to the writer of the actual proceedings at a particular Cabinet meeting. It is limited to that kind of publication. When that sort of thing appeared, either such disclosure had been made or it had not. Supposing it had been made, then the Cabinet Minister had behaved disgracefully and the journalist, for his own profit, had availed himself of that disgraceful disclosure. In my opinion the guilt of the Cabinet Minister was the worst, but they were both very guilty and j very deserving of punishment. I believe
  398
  that in a great number of these, cases where that kind of article was published that there had been no disclosure at all, and that the journalist was simply bluffing and going on guess-work. Supposing that was the case. That is an even worse position than the other, because the whole Cabinet are put under undeserved suspicion, they are induced to suspect one another, their credit and authority are unjustly assailed, although there has been no wrongful conduct on the part of any one of them. What then is to be done?
  I cannot understand the objection to this part of the Order. It says that where a Cabinet Minister has betrayed his trust and the journalist has availed himself of that treachery, or where a journalist has had the impudence to pretend that such trust has been betrayed and is thereby destroying the credit of the Cabinet by statements that he knows to be false, that in either of those cases an offence shall be deemed to have been committed. I cannot understand the objection to that. The only observation that occurs to me about this part of the Order is that it reflects very little credit on the Cabinet or on journalists that any such Order as this should ever have been made. I saw the other day a letter in the "Times" from a very distinguished journalist, in which he said that this Order would prevent what he called guarded and confidential intercourse between statesmen and the newspapers. I would point out, with great respect to that eminent gentleman, that this Order does not in the least prevent any amount of confidential intercourse, provided the intercourse is honourable as well as confidential. I read an hour ago in the "Globe" newspaper an article, which I think has been read by other hon. Members, in which they take the illustration which has been used once or twice in this Debate. They say, "Supposing peace was in the air, and it was thought that there was a strong party in the Cabinet in favour of an inconclusive and undesirable terms of peace. We cannot have an agitation about that. We cannot make speeches about that without breaking this Regulation." I do not so read the Regulation myself, not in the least. They would not be disclosing any proceedings in any particular meeting of the Cabinet. Any man is absolutely entitled to go about the country and comment on any public matter. If he thinks the Cabinet are divided about it, he can say, "I am afraid

  399
  that the Cabinet are not at one on this matter. I wish they were. They had better resign, or they had better send out some of their Members." There is nothing in this Regulation which prevents any amount of public comment of that kind. We had the case put to us of the resignation of a Minister and his statement in this House. My hon. Friend who raised that point is quite wrong about that. There would be no infringement. The Minister would make his statement here. Whatever is said here is privileged, and it would appear in the newspapers and would not be a report of a Cabinet meeting, but a report of a Debate in this House. The hon. Member is under a misapprehension altogether. Let me take one or two instances. The Minister of Munitions made a famous speech in this House some months ago which certainly led to the suggestion that some of his colleagues were more dilatory, in his view, than he was. I did not understand that he was revealing the proceedings at any Cabinet meeting. My right hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Trinity College (Sir E. Carson) spoke the other day here, and he said that he had been in the Cabinet and he had desired to back up the military advisers, but he found there was no military advice to back up. That was not disclosing the proceedings at any meeting of the Cabinet.
  Mr. ROCHmade a remark which was not audible in the Reporters' Gallery.
  Mr. SALTER: Not referring to the proceedings of any meeting of the Cabinet, Certainly not. The Minister of Munitions spoke at Conway on Saturday. He said that he and the Prime Minister had not always seen eye to eye, and that they had been the better colleagues for it. Everybody knows that those differences come out sometimes at private interviews, and sometimes in the Cabinet. That is not reporting the proceedings at any Cabinet meeting. The last matter which I think the most important part of the Order is the part which prohibits the publication—not report or reference this time—of confidential documents or confidential information received by the person who publishes from persons in the service of the Crown There again I think that there is a complete misapprehension. There must be a publication of that which was communicated to the person who discloses it in the circumstances which make it dishonourable for him to disclose it. It must be in-
  400
  formation which has been handed over to him by his official superior on his honour not to disclose it. I read this last part of the Order as covering no case which is not already covered by the Official Secrets Act. If that is right it creates no new offence.
  What it does is to enact an alternative method of procedure. What it does is to say that in the case of these particular crimes, many crimes punishable with two years' hard labour for the last five years, while the War lasts the Government shall have an alternative and more summary method of proceeding. I am very much attached myself to the older methods of our criminal procedure, with its deliberation and care and accuracy. They are great safeguards to the nation, and I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the onus is upon the Government to show that the circumstances of the day are such that they want a speedier method. At the same time a crime of this sort is certainly much more dangerous in war than in peace, and if the Government tell us that they require a prompter and speedier method Parliament should not be prepared to deny it. But what in the world has this got to do with liberty and freedom of the Press? There is the Order. I honestly think, and I have always thought when I read these articles, evidently so honestly written, that it was remarkable that so many honest, keen and well-educated men should not have been able to understand the meaning of so short and simple a document as this is. I venture humbly to suggest that the more Members of this House read this document and consider what it means, the narrower will its meaning seem to them. I do not for a moment minimise all that the Press has had to put up with during the War. So have we all. We have all endeavoured to submit with good sense and loyalty, but this Regulation adds nothing to those restrictions. There is nothing to object to in the Regulation, and the fears which have been honestly entertained with regard to it have been the result of mere misapprehension.
  Mr. GORDON HEWART: I certainly do not yield to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy in admiration of the vigilance, the public spirit, and the admirable discretion of the newspaper Press of this country during the War. But, after all, the existence of the exception proves the existence of the rule, and this new Regulation 27 A, if I understand

  401
  it aright, aims and, as I respectfully submit, wisely and prudently, aims at the removal of an undoubted blemish upon a certain part of the newspaper Press. In order to see exactly what the Regulation means, I think that it is a little important to consider not only the words of the Regulation itself, but also the context in which the Regulation appears. There was already a certain Regulation No. 27, to which it has been decided to affix the new Regulation as 27 A. What is it that No. 27 is aimed at preventing? It is aimed at preventing the publication of false reports or false statements, or reports or statements likely to cause disaffection, or likely to interfere with the success of the land or sea Forces, or likely, among other things, to prejudice recruiting. In other words, the pre-existing Regulation sought to prevent the publication of reports and statements which were likely to prove a handicap in the great national task of winning the War. Further experience has suggested an addition to those prohibitions.
  I waited but waited in vain to hear from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir H. Dalziel) or from my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Roch) what was the immediate and material modification in the new Regulations on which they were insisting. We got no hint of it until, in answer to an observation made by the hon. and learned Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Salter), it was indicated that the desire of the Mover and of the Seconder of this Motion was that the whole of the second part of the Regulation should be omitted. What is complained of is the provision as to the publication of proceedings of the Cabinet. For the sake of clearness, I refer to the very words of the Regulation. They are these: "It shall not be lawful for any person"—and I think "any person" includes amongst others a Cabinet Minister—"in any newspaper, periodical, or circular, or other printed publication or any public speech, to publish any report of, or to purport to describe, or to refer to the proceedings of any meeting of the Cabinet." The subject matter of that portion of the Regulation is the proceedings of any meeting of the Cabinet, the proceedings that have taken place at a particular meeting of the Cabinet held on a particular day. What is desired is the prevention of the publication of any report, or what purports to be a report or something falling within the same category
  402
  with a report of the proceedings of a Cabinet meeting. It was said, why introduce the words "refer to"? I cannot help thinking that those words were introduced—and, if I may say so, wisely introduced—for the purpose of preventing what would otherwise be an obvious defence to proceedings under the Regulation. I mean it might be said by a defendant in such cases, "What I have written is not a report of these proceedings; it is not even a description." "No," the prosecution will say, "but it is a reference to those proceedings, of the same kind, and produces the same mischief as that which would be produced by description or report." That being so, I wish to ask, is it right that a Minister should disclose to a journalist in the Lobby the proceedings of any meeting of the Cabinet? I gather that the Member for Pembrokeshire, at any rate, deplored and condemned that proceeding. The point he made was that it was hard lines indeed that, where a disclosure had been made and the journalist who had published the matter might be incriminated, the Minister should go free. The question I should like to ask is: Is it right that either of them should go free?
  Mr. ROCH: It was provided that the Cabinet Minister would have a trial, while the journalist's property would be destroyed, without his being heard in his defence.
  Mr. HEWART: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for making that observation, but the reply to it is that he and the right hon. Gentleman who preceded him have paid too little attention to the provisions in this Regulation with regard to "Press offences." I am glad to know that is the point in the mind of the hon. Member. But if it is wrong for a Cabinet Minister to disclose the proceedings of a particular Cabinet meeting, how can it be right for a journalist to publish a report or description of those proceedings, or a reference to those proceedings in the nature of a report or description? I cannot see on what ground of morality or of public advantage any such proceeding can be defended. I gather that it is suggested that toleration of the mischief against which this Regulation is directed in some way conduces to the harmony of the Cabinet. I cannot understand how that kind of publication, that kind of mischief, can be regarded in any other light than as a public evil.

  403
  As to the supposed attitude of the public, my opportunities of observing it are limited, but, so far as I can gather, I venture to think that the feeling of the public is not a feeling of surprise that this Regulation should have at length been made, but that this increasing laxity should so long have been permittd. Consider what has been going on. We know from reports cases where prosecution of newspapers has taken place, and what can be more absurd, what can be more thoroughly unreasonable than that, while one newspaper is prosecuted, it may be, for the unguarded insertion of a letter and another is prosecuted for the publication of an unfortunate picture, day after day and week after week prominent newspapers should be publishing most mischievous accounts, or what purport to be accounts, of proceedings in the Cabinet, likely to cause the most acute division and likely, I should have thought, so far as many of them are concerned, to prejudice recruiting as much as any public statement could. It seems to be assumed that the part the journalist plays in this matter is simply to write for his newspaper an account that is given to him by a Minister of proceedings that have in fact taken place at some meeting of the Cabinet I do not know whether that is the case or not. We have heard of intelligent anticipation on the part of gentlemen of the Press, and we can imagine that there is sometimes intelligent reconstruction. I shall not attempt to fix a percentage, whether it is 90 per cent, or 20 per cent., of the paragraphs and articles one reads, purporting to describe what A says to B when nobody else is there, or what takes place in a private and confidential meeting of the Cabinet, that are anything more than the ingenious and intelligent productions of experienced brains. But, whether they be true or false, the mischief which they do, I submit, is apparent, and I think it is high time that the mischief was grappled with.
  From the point of view of the journalist, for whom I have the greatest respect, I would go one step further, and say that I cannot imagine anything much more humiliating to any professional journalist than that he should be called upon to play the part of eavesdropper at Cabinet meetings. The difficulty is this, that if one astute or popular journalist, or, it may be, a journalist in close relationship with
  404
  a Minister, is able to get, I do not say an account, but materials for an account of some critical Cabinet meeting, he outdistances in that particular field of enterprise his brother journalists, who feel that they must go and do likewise, and the temptation is at least to appear to do likewise, and, therefore, from that point of view, the Parliamentary journalist, I think, may be disposed to welcome this Regulation as relieving him from an odious and unworthy and humiliating task. It puts an end to that class of competition, for it makes that class of journalism no longer worth while. It may well be that we can imagine hard cases, but hard cases make bad law, and this Regulation is directed to the mass of these matters which are complained of. I agree, if I may say so, with the hon. Member for the Basingstoke Division, that it would be mischievous indeed if this Regulation had the object, or were likely to have the effect, of preventing criticism of the Cabinet. The Mover of this Motion based the main part of his argument upon the assumption, the wholly unproved assumption, that the object and the effect were to prevent discussion of the Cabinet. We all know that the Cabinet can be discussed. It is one thing to discuss the work of the Cabinet or the policy of the Cabinet, but it is quite another thing, either upon information or in the absence of information, to present to the public, either in the morning papers or in the papers which shed a gloom over lunch, an account of what is said to have taken place at a meeting of the Cabinet.
  There is only one further observation I would like to make. It has been assumed throughout, on the part of the Mover and the Seconder of this Motion, that if a paragraph or an article of the kind which is here forbidden appeared in a newspaper, the police would immediately enter the premises, seize the printing machinery, and suspend for a time the publication of the newspaper. I see no such necessity in these Regulations, and one would think that it was a course extremely unlikely to be taken. The Regulations contain careful and elaborate provisions that where there is evidence in a proper case there may be a Civil trial in a Civil Court. With regard to the rest of the Regulation, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy appeared to make a considerable dialectical success by speaking as though what was prohibited was the publication of any document belonging to

  405
  a Government Department or of any information obtained from a Government Department. The force of that argument was entirely due to the fact that it omitted the epithet "confidential." It is clear that what the Regulation refers to is the publication of confidential documents which are the property of a Government Department or the disclosure of confidential information coming from a Government Department or from some person in the service of His Majesty. I cannot believe that except for the purpose of maintaining an argumentative position my right hon. Friend has any doubt at all as to what is a confidential document and what is not, or as to what is confidential information and what is not. One thing at any rate is certain, and that is that in any trial before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction or in any trial in which a jury had to give a verdict the onus would be upon the prosecution to establish that the document or the information in question was confidential within the meaning of this Regulation. Therefore, much as I should deplore, if I may say so, any attempt—if attempt were made—to save the Government from legitimate descussion or to impair the proper liberties of the Press, I welcome this Regulation, and I welcome it as an instrument prudently designed—and not too soon designed—to prevent what I believe in all quarters of this House is recognised as having been a great and growing evil.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: I rarely intervene in Debate now, but I should like to refer to this Regulation, and especially the second Clause. I am pleased to see my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General is present. I have heard some complaints of the draughtsmanship of this Regulation, but whether those complaints are justified or not I will not say. There is one thing I can say, and that is that the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the first time in the whole history of Parliament has introduced and made a legal term, and placed in a legal document the word "Cabinet," and that will always be associated with his name. If I may say so, I think he is constitutionally accurate and correct. He has reversed a decision of the House of Lords, passed some 250 years ago, in which they said that the word "Cabinet" was unknown to the law. It is now very well known to the law and extremely well known to us. Let me talk to the Cabinet as a candid friend about one aspect of this question. In the first
  406
  place, I ask, is this right? The Home Secretary this morning favoured the House with a quotation, admirably appropriate to his subject. Let me give the House a quotation from the New Testament, which is, I think, admirably appropriate to the Ministerial attitude in reference to this Regulation, and especially the second Clause. My quotation and my motto is, "Physician, heal thyself." No Cabinet secret is or can be published unless it leaks out from the Cabinet; Some way or another, the Government of twenty-three have made in this Clause a kind of armoured motor car for themselves. A very clever Minister can indicate a secret to an able journalist who can publish that secret. The effect of the communication of the Cabinet Minister of the secret to the journalist is nothing, but the publication by the journalist is held to be everything.
  I heard my hon. and learned Friend above the Gangway (Mr. Salter) talk of the wonderful secrecy of Cabinet proceedings. Let me say that that is a custom observed rather in the breach than in the practice. For once let me agree with Lord Burnham—I have not agreed with him for twenty years, since the time I stumped a Home Rule constituency for him when he was a Home Ruler—let me agree with him when he says that Cabinet secrets are given away. They have been invariably given away. I shall give instances of delinquencies in times past of Cabinet Ministers, and how they betrayed secrets, and especially how Ministers made a most delightful arrangement of giving information received in the Cabinet to Members of the House of Commons who were to flagellate the Government into the views acceptable to the gentleman who supplied the information. I shall give one illustration to show how curiously this principle of secrecy has been begun and has flourished and has developed. The secrecy has always been when the secret, if published, might be injurious, not to the country, but to the Cabinet itself. The Cabinet oath, the official oath of which we hear so much, is the ordinary official oath which provides against the betrayal of secrets. The right hon and learned Gentleman will remember a celebrated letter of the then Baron Kelly in reference to secrecy in Privy Council proceedings. In opposition to and in contravention of an observation of Lord Chancellor Cairns, who passed some strictures in reference to

  407
  the Baron telling his dissent from a decision of the Privy Council, he simply ridiculed the idea that he was bound by any official oath. One of the greatest exponents of Cabinet Council secrecy was Lord Melbourne. He was such an advocate, and such an apostle of the absolute preservation of secrecy in the Cabinet that he actually in a letter published in his memoirs, as far as a subject and Prime Minister could, rebuked King William the Fourth for publishing, without the consent of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet, correspondence between Lord Durham of the day and Lord John Russell and the Cabinet, and secrets on which that correspondence was based. Lord Melbourne said that the veil of secrecy, absolutely in-penetrable, is wholly essential for the discussion of the counsels of the nation, it they are to be protected.
  That is an excellent doctrine. How has it been observed? I will show. First of all this oath of the Privy Councillor had been as valid or invalid in the early years of the reign of George the Third as at the present time. The Attorney-General, who knows more about constitutional law than many gentlemen who have occupied his position, will recollect that in the Debates between 1760 and 1770 at the beginning of the quarrel with America, Cabinet Minister after Cabinet Minister got up, sometimes in the House of Commons, sometimes in the House of Lords, and related the arguments which he had urged on his colleagues in the Cabinet. It is absolutely true that there was secrecy in the Cabinet Councils only in proportion as Members of Parliament wished to know what was going on. There are cases of amazing indiscretion, sometimes cases of amazing cunning, and sometimes cases of amazing cunning coupled with simplicity. As many lawyers have taken part in the Debate, perhaps I may give a legal example. The first great betrayal of a Cabinet secret was by Lord Chancellor Thurlow. The question arose as to what should be done in the event of King George III's dying. The decision was divulged, but the Lord Chancellor was not tried. So far from being punished, he remained some years longer a member of the Cabinet. Let me give a case concerning indiscreet gentlemen who aspire to be under-secretaries or who are under-secretaries and hope to get into the Cabinet.
  408
  Some of these gentlemen commit amazing indiscretions. In 1829 a young gentleman in some minor office went to his constituents and told them the whole story of certain Cabinet proceedings. He was not prosecuted; he merely lost his office. Then there is a case of amazing cunning coupled with simplicity. Sir John Pakington was a member of a Conservative Cabinet. In 1867 it was arranged that the Conservative party should introduce a Reform Bill. Mr. Disraeli came down and introduced a Reform Bill, but dropped it almost immediately. It was stated on the 18th of March that a fresh Reform Bill would be introduced. In the meantime no fewer that three Cabinet Ministers resigned—General Peel, Lord Cranbourne, and Lord Carnarvon. There followed the ordinary kaleidoscopic arrangement of offices, and in the rearrangement Sir John Pakington was to be appointed Secretary for War. Sir John said that the arrangement was that there were to be two Conservative Reform Bills, one a mild specimen and the other more drastic. Before the Reform Bill had been introduced at all Mr. Disraeli brought before the House a set of virtuous Resolutions on which reforms should be granted. The first and mild Bill had none of these virtues, the second had them all. They determined to go the whole hog and produce the second Bill. In the meantime Lord Cranbourne had changed his mind, General Peel had followed Lord Cranbourne, Lord Carnarvon wished to be a martyr, and the three said they would resign unless the stringent Bill was introduced. A meeting of the Conservative party was to be held at half-past two, presided over by Lord Derby, and the House was to meet at four. Sir John Pakington related all that to his constituents. Could there be anything more calculated to show up the Cabinet? Was he prosecuted? Not at all. He was merely transferred to the War Office, and then packed off to the House of Lords. It is useful that poor gentlemen in tribulation like members of the present Government should know that other political saints have suffered in exactly the same way. I was reading quite recently the autobiography of the Duke of Argyll, which gives a description of Cabinet differences, of attacks made on Ministers by the Press, of leakage in the Cabinet, and of a gentleman taking notes in the Cabinet and communicating them to Members of

  409
  the House of Commons. It might almost relate to the present day. This is what the duke said:
  "There was a magnificent cartoon in 'Punch' representing the British lion listening at the door of the Cabinet, with his ear applied closely to all the available ruptures that he might hear what we were about to do in the way of investigation. The Cabinet at that time was rather leaky. Things got out. We did not quite know how, and reports not very correct were circulated as to the part taken by individual members. I believe—"
  and here is the juice, and this is how the leakage occurred—
  "I believe that the explanation has been that Moles-worth was in the habit of taking down in a pocket book notes of what passed at the Cabinet discussions. On one occasion Granville stopped in what he was saying, and intimated he would not go on till Molesworth laid down his note book. If note books were accessible to anyone their contents may have reached the ears of Charles Villiers, or Kinglake, or others. That would have meant circulation in the press and in the clubs of London. This I believe to have been the result of a great deal of small talk full of misrepresentations."
  Surely that is a description of what has gone on at present!
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir F. Smith): Let me ask the hon. and learned Gentleman what was the one historical occasion when Mr. Gladstone prevented the taking of notes in his Cabinet?
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: I am glad my right hon. Friend thinks of reading a lesson to his colleagues at the next Cabinet meeting. If I may be permitted to continue a little longer, may I say that Mr. Gladstone, of all people in the world, was the most careful, even to the point of ascerbity, in preventing any explanation from a resigning Minister, except so far as that resigning Minister placed his explanation before Mr. Gladstone, to be placed in the hands of the Sovereign, and with Her approval. On the Second Reading of the first Home Rule Bill, in April, 1888, Mr. Chamberlain desired to make an explanation of his retirement from the Cabinet. Mr. Gladstone rose up and kept him narrowly to the point at which he had been allowed by the Queen—of course, through the Executive—to explain, and no further. One word more, and that is in relation to a Cabinet secret which was well kept, and which I say now, with all earnestness and in all sincerity, I wish to Heaven had been betrayed. It was kept, I think, wrongly, wrongly for the country, and wrongly for both sides. If we had known it, it would have altered the course of history and changed the political parties in this country. When Mr. Gladstone resigned in 1894, it was the usual course,
  410
  known to the Cabinet, that he should recommend to the Crown his successor. Mr. Gladstone, to the knowledge of the Cabinet, was not asked to do so. If Mr. Gladstone had done so, also to the knowledge of the Cabinet, it would not have been Lord Rosebery, but Lord Spencer. Everything would have been changed if that had taken place. That is a bad instance of secrecy in the Cabinet. If there had been some disorderly Pressman at that time to have told us, we would, I believe, have got a man of the people's choice.
  There is another Cabinet offence which; I would be delighted to see arranged for, and for which I would beat three times; the air to see in this Bill. It is the Cabinet offence of telling the secrets of the Cabinet to Members of the House of Commons in the hope that those Members of the House of Commons will use that knowledge in a way, if not to attack the Government, at all events to promote the interests of the person who conveys that information; to counteract the work of colleagues in the Cabinet, while it may be that the man who has received the information has received it perfectly honourably. I do not want to revive recollections of the past, and past controversies. We are all friends now. Bitterness of feeling has disappeared, and we all have regard to the common cause and the common interests of our country. I am certain; that acerbity in counsels will never comeback, whether the party system is or is not revived. I would ask pardon of the House for so long trespassing on the attention of Members, but what I would say is that I think, on the whole, that too much, is made of this policy of secrecy. I think it would be better if the proceedings of the Government were practically open. Certainly any man in the Cabinet who* betrays its secrets is unworthy to be a member of it, and unworthy to be a member of this House of Commons. So long, however, as the rule obtains, I imagine it to better to have the thing completely and absolutely open. May I just say one word about the illustration which has been used, and which, I think, is an imperfect illustration. There is a far more perfect argument, and it is this: Foreign policy and the Government's relation to it has been frequently spoken of. There is Cabinet secrecy there. The House of Commons has nothing to do with it, and can have nothing to do with foreign policy. If that be so, the more is the necessity that

  411
  foreign policy should be known and discussed by a free Press. I thank the House for the kindness with which Members have received the observations of one who is now, perhaps, more a student of history than a party politician. I hope that this Regulation may be amended in the way I have indicated. In the whole history of the criminal law a Cabinet Minister has never been betrayed for giving away secrets, or how many guilty men there would be!
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I would like to get from the Attorney-General, if he is going to speak—if not from him, from the Home Secretary—a further statement in expansion, and perhaps an explanation, of what which he gave the House on the evening of the day when this Regulation was first promulgated. He was asked, in the course of Debate, what would be the effect of this Regulation on a Member of Parliament, first of all speaking in this House, and secondly, addressing his constituents? Speaking, as he confessed, entirely on the spur of the moment, he said that he thought any statement made in this House by a Member was privileged, and with that, I think, everyone in the House agreed. Secondly, he went on to add—and I hope I am not misinterpreting him—that any speech made by a Member of this House to his constituents would also be privileged, but he said he spoke upon the spur of the moment, and that he would desire more careful and full reconsideration of that subject. Two or three Members of the House who spoke afterwards in the Debate differed from the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and nothing that has been said in the course of this Debate—and I have listened to the greater part of it—seems to have further elucidated that point. This Regulation is of wide-reaching effect, but no relation of political life is more affected by this Regulation, or might be more affected by this Regulation, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman's first opinion is not his second, than the relation between a Member of this House and his constituents. We are here, not in our individual capacities as Mr. A. of Mr. B., but as the Member for Kirkcaldy, or Bristol, or Darlington, or whatever it is, and we are here because our relations with our constituents are such that they have confidence in our opinion, that they look to us to inform them on the political events of the day, and not merely to record our vote in this House, but subsequently, if necessary, to explain our conduct to our
  412
  constituents and to justify the vote we have given in this House. That is the position that affects every Member of Parliament on whatever side he sits, and if anything is done to interrupt that relation between constituent and Member, the whole raison d'être of the Member of Parliament falls to the ground.
  What does this Regulation No. 2 say? I am not concerned, as was my right hon. Friend who initiated this Debate, with the relation of the Press to the Regulation, neither have I the knowledge, nor the learning of my hon. Friend who has just spoken to discuss it from the historical aspect; but I find, in the second part of this Regulation that it is not lawful for any person in any public speech to refer to the proceedings at any meeting of the Cabinet. Now the whole policy of any Government is based upon, and proceeds from, the discussion of events and the decision as to events by the Cabinet, and if I am precluded as a Member of the House of Commons, or if any of my fellow-Members is precluded, from going down to his constituents and stating what has taken place, as is known by the policy adopted in the Cabinet, referring to the decisions of the Cabinet, referring to the action which I myself or the Member concerned has taken in regard to that decision, and if he is liable to pains and penalties for making this reference in a public speech—we have not yet had the authoritative pronouncement of the learned Attorney-General—and if that protection is not afforded to Members of this House, then our whole position in this House of Commons is falsified and nullified, and it is quite unnecessary for constituencies to return Members to this House. I attach the greatest importance to the explanation which I suppose my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will give upon this point. I hope and I trust that the opinion pronounced by the learned Attorney-General will be confirmed by my right hon. Friend, and that those of us who are sincerely anxious as to what the effect of this Regulation may be between the Member and his constituents may be cleared up, and that it may be quite clear that the relation between the Member and his constituency, which cannot be confidential and must be public, will be as protected in the future as it has been in the past.
  6.0 P.M.
  Mr. H. SAMUEL: I must ask the forgiveness of the House for inviting their attention on the second occasion on the

  413
  same day, but the question of the relation between the Government and the Press is one that touches very closely the duties of my office, and for that reason I feel it incumbent upon me to reply to the case that has been made by right hon. and hon. Members to-night. I hope, however, the learned Attorney-General will have an opportunity before the Debate ends for dealing with specific points, particularly questions of interpretation such as those raised just now by my right hon. Friend opposite, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and one or two others. With reference to the Regulation itself, it divides naturally into three parts. To the first—that which deals with the publication of proceedings of the Secret Session of either House of Parliament—no exception has been taken to-night. It has been generally agreed that that was a proper—indeed a necessary—Regulation to make if the House resolved to hold a Secret Session at all; but my right hon. Friend who moved this Motion took some exception to the procedure which he understood was adopted by the Government through the police with a view to the enforcement of that Regulation. He complained that police constables had been sent round to interview personally the editors of important papers, to warn them that they must not publish any of the proceedings of the Cabinet, and to inform them of the pains and penalties they would incur, and the methods that would be adopted against them. The only instruction that was issued by the Government to the police was that on the day after the Secret Session they were to obtain early copies of the newspapers in order to take necessary action if any newspaper had ventured to print a report of the Secret Session. That was the only instruction issued to the police by the Government, and I am sure that the House will see that if we were to have a Secret Session, if the Press were prohibited from publishing the proceedings, it was the bounden duty of the Government to see that effective steps were taken to render that prohibition absolutely effective. Nothing could have been worse than for Parliament to hold a Secret Session and for the Government, through inertia, to allow some unscrupulous paper in some part of the country to come out, even at the risk of suppression for the time being, with a true and full account of what had occurred within these walls which would rapidly be distributed throughout the country. Therefore, I my-
  414
  self, on my own initiative, gave instructions to the police throughout the country to obtain these copies. Though I fully expected that the Press, as in honour and in duty bound, would observe the requirements of the House of Commons and of the Regulation, nevertheless I thought it necessary to be on the safe side in case any infringement should take place. No instructions were given to policemen to interview editors personally, or to say anything to them whatever with reference to the publication of proceedings of the Cabinet.
  The second part of the Regulation which deals with the publication of the proceedings of any meeting of the Cabinet has, however, been condemned from several quarters to-night, sometimes on the ground that it is wrong in itself to attempt to enforce strict Cabinet secrecy. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy said that, after all, the Cabinet is the executive of Parliament, and it is right that Parliament should be in a position to discuss their proceedings. The hon. Member for South Donegal (Mr. MacNeill) actually suggested that the proceedings of the Cabinet should be open. I do not know whether he would suggest that reporters should be present, but he urged that there should be no attempt to secure secrecy, and that all the world should know what transpires at Downing Street. This doctrine was advanced by several hon. Members. After all, if there is leakage, it may be very useful, and the public may gain by the publication, unauthorised, of what happens at Cabinet meetings. That, however, is a wholly new and, in my opinion, a most mischievous doctrine. It was the ancient rule of the Constitution that all that passes within the walls of the Cabinet room passes under the seal of absolute confidence, that every man there may say whatever is in his mind without feeling that whatever observations he may make may become public property, and be put to improper purposes. For my own part I have now had nearly seven years experience of Cabinets, and I feel absolutely convinced that it is in the highest degree essential that the secrecy of Cabinet proceedings should be maintained in all cases quite inviolate. In the process of framing policy necessarily and properly many tentative suggestions have to be made, and they are discussed and examined, the best of them in the

  415
  view of the Government being agreed upon. If these embryo ideas, or any of them, be prematurely brought to the notice of the public—the author may have thrown them out by way of suggestion for the consideration of his colleagues and they may afterwards be withdrawn—if the author feels that at any moment in the eyes of the whole country he may be declared the author of proposals which, perhaps, after fuller explanation he is not prepared to stand by, the inevitable result would be that men would enter Cabinet discussions unwilling to state anything but well considered and finally adopted conclusions, and the process of deliberation and the gradual moulding of policy would be hampered or indeed stopped, and most of the usefulness of the Cabinet itself would come to an end. I am indeed amazed that at this hour of day the suggestion should be seriously made in the House of Commons that the secrecy of Cabinet proceedings is to be regarded as a mere ancient superstition to be thrown on the scrapheap, and that not only no attempt should be made to enforce it, but that the doctrine should be abandoned in the face of the whole world. I could imagine what short shrift hon. Members would have received from Mr. Gladstone if he had been in the House to-night and heard this heresy propounded. He would have told hon. Members that the secrecy of the Cabinet is as essential and necessary a part of the working of our democratic Constitution as the publication of the proceedings of the House of Commons.
  Mr. McNEILL: Mr. Gladstone insisted on secrecy being observed.
  Mr. SAMUEL: Hon. Members have proceeded to-night on two quite contrary lines of argument. In the first place, they say Cabinet secrecy is not really necessary, and that public service may be done by premature and unauthorised disclosures; and secondly, they say that Ministers have violated their Cabinet oaths and their oaths as Privy Councillors, and that they are the persons who ought to be impugned and condemned. Those two arguments contradict one another. Let me turn to the second argument. If it is true that Ministers have been unduly communicative, then unquestionably the Minister concerned is to he condemned without qualification—
  Sir E. CARSON: Does he come under the Order?
  Mr. SAMUEL: Certainly he does, and I will draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to this, that the Regulation says that anyone who, without lawful authority, communicates any confidential document or information, comes under the penalties of the Regulation. Where the Regulation deals with Cabinet proceedings those words are omitted, and were deliberately omitted in order to show that there could be no lawful authority in any quarter for the disclosure and publication of the proceedings of the Cabinet. Therefore, Cabinet Ministers unquestionably come within the four corners of the Regulation. If the disclosures, if the accounts which have appeared in newspapers so freely of recent months, contain true information, they were mischievous, because they interfere with the freedom of Cabinet deliberations; but if they contained, as many of them did contain, false information, then they are doubly mischievous, it is not possible to print denials of these false accounts, and they are accepted by the public as correct representations of what transpires at meetings of Ministers. It has been assumed on all hands this evening that the purpose of this Regulation is to prevent the printing in newspapers of true accounts of what happens at Cabinet meetings, but the main purpose is to prevent the publication of half-truths, quarter-truths, and complete falsehoods with respect to what transpires at Cabinet meetings.
  I remember there was a meeting summoned for last Boxing Day (Bank Holiday after Christmas) to consider certain matters relating to recruiting and military service. On the following day (Tuesday) there appeared in one great newspaper a column and a half of a minute account of all that had transpired at the Cabinet meeting. It gave the views expressed by one group and another group of members, and a statement that the position was serious if not critical, and it stated that the Cabinet was to meet again on the following day in circumstances of great anxiety. Every detail was given of the views of certain sections of the Cabinet on the question of the Military Service Bill, which it asserted that Cabinet had been summoned to consider. As a matter of fact, on that day a very urgent and

  417
  difficult matter relating to the War required the attention of the Cabinet. (Laughter.) Perhaps I am offending myself, but I will undertake that any newspaper which prints my speech shall not be proceeded against on that ground. On that occasion this urgent and difficult matter relating to the War came before the Cabinet for attention, and not one word was said from the beginning of the meeting to the very end with respect to the Military Service Bill. A special meeting of the Cabinet was summoned for the following day to undertake the discussion which had been intended to take place on Boxing Day. That is the kind of thing which must necessarily mislead the public, and the Government have come to the conclusion, not without deliberation, that the time has come, and, indeed, it arrived very long ago, when this ought to be resolutely and effectively stopped, and although it may be that some journalists may find a part of their occupation gone, I am convinced that the mass of the nation will most cordially approve, and will heave a sigh of relief when they knew that these pseudo accounts of Cabinet proceedings, or even meetings that show an intelligent anticipation of what proceeds within those walls, will no longer be permitted; I also believe that this House of Commons will still have regard to the old traditions and methods of government and the rule of Cabinet secrecy, and will support the Government in preventing the publication or reference to any proceedings at meetings of the Cabinet. Let us, however, have regard to the real scope of this Regulation. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Clavell Salter) has indeed stated the case so clearly and effectively that little remains for me to say. The Regulation does not say that the Press may not publish the decisions of the Government. Indeed, within a few days of this Regulation being issued, and since it has been in force, you may have seen in almost any newspaper that it was anticipated that the Government would introduce a measure for general compulsory military service. No newspaper was proceeded against. They were not reporting the proceedings at any meeting of the Cabinet. After all, the Regulation says "proceedings at any meeting of the Cabinet."
  Sir E. CARSON: "Or purports to describe."
  Mr. SAMUEL:
  "It shall not be lawful for any person in any newspaper, periodical, circular, or other printed publication, or in any public speech, to publish any report of, or to purport to describe, or to refer to, the proceedings at any meeting of the Cabinet."
  To say "It may be anticipated," as every newspaper did say, "that the Government are going to introduce a Military Service Bill for general compulsion" is not to report the proceedings at any meeting of the Cabinet. Then the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Roch), in his very able speech, gave in illustration, a speech the other day by the Lord Privy Seal, Lord Curzon, who stated that the War Committee had a free hand in dealing with matters of strategy and so forth, and that the Cabinet did not intervene. I cannot imagine how anyone, especially a man with so acute a mind as my hon. Friend, can conceive that to be publishing a report or referring to the proceedings at any meeting of the Cabinet any more than if we were to say that the House of Comons transacts part of its business by transferring it to Grand Committees.
  Mr. ROCH: He went further than that. He said that the opinions of the War Council were circulated and that very rarely were they even discussed.
  Mr. SAMUEL: That is a question of procedure, and is a very different thing from reporting the proceedings of any meeting. Another hon. Friend strained the Regulation so far as to even suggest that if a Minister after his resignation desired to explain to the House the facts that led him to differ from his colleagues and to resign his office on grounds of policy it would be covered by the Regulation. There is nothing to prevent any Minister from declaring his dissent on grounds of policy from his colleagues. That is not reporting the proceedings at any meeting of the Cabinet. If a Minister were to say, for example, "I am in favour of Home Rule and my colleagues are not and therefore I resign," I cannot conceive how anyone could imagine that would be an infringement of the Regulation. So far with regard to that part of the Regulation, which I feel quite confident must on further examination have the approval of this House. The third part is that which deals with the publication of confidential information. This has been described by the right hon. Gentleman who moved the Motion as a new offence and as a far-reaching provision. The procedure is new, but the offence is already covered

  419
  completely by the Official Secrets Act. The Official Secrets Act says, in Section 2. Sub-section (1)—I leave out irrelevant words—provides that, "If any person having in his possession any information which has been entrusted in confidence to him by any person holding office under His Majesty or who has obtained owing to his position as a person who holds or has held office under His Majesty, if he communicates such information without authorisation or except in course of his duty, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour which renders him liable to two years' hard labour, or a fine, or both." The essential words are, "Any person who communicates any information entrusted in confidence to him by a person in the employment of the Crown is guilty of an offence." What does the Regulation say? That a person is guilty of an offence if he without legal authority publishes the contents of any official document belonging to or any confidential information obtained from any Government Department or any person in the service of His Majesty. Therefore the ground covered by the new Regulation is precisely the ground covered by the Official Secrets Act. There is no definition in the Act or Regulation of what is meant by confidential. It has been left open and vague—almost as open and vague as the terms of the Resolution we are now discussing. I am informed that no difficulty has ever occurred in regard to the interpretation of the word "confidential."
  Mr. D. MASON: The penalty in one case differs.
  Mr. SAMUEL: Precisely, and I was going to refer to that in due course. But I want the House to continue to discuss this from the point of view that this Regulation creates no new offence and is in no degree wider in its scope than the Act of Parliament which was passed by this House and by the House of Lords some time ago. The difference is a difference of procedure. Under the Act, publication can take place, the mischief can be done, and the Executive can only intervene afterwards. Under the Regulation, steps can be taken the moment publication is discovered; they can stop its circulation and prevent its dissemination. If action has been taken wrongly—if it is not really a confidential communication, if the editor can show he has obtained the information from no confidential source, he has his remedy and can sue for damages and a redress.
  Sir E. CARSON: Sue whom?
  Mr. SAMUEL: The Government.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: No.
  Mr. SAMUEL: He can sue the Executive authority that has taken the action.
  Sir E. CARSON: The policeman?
  Mr. SAMUEL: At any event, the Government is responsible. The right hon. Gentleman surely will not suggest that action of this kind would be taken by a constable out of the street on his own initiative? He would get his instructions and the authority which took the action would be responsible for the course adopted. The difference is that under the Official Secrets Act, before the Regulation was passed, a confidential communication, unless indeed it were of the kind relating to movement of troops already prohibited by Regulation—a confidential communication could be published, and the naval or military authorities, or any other Government Department concerned, would have to sit still and see it circulated broadcast throughout the country, and could only take the action which the cumbrous procedure of the Official Secrets Act provides against the editor, and unless the case were one of exceptional gravity in all probability it would not be thought worth while to take such action. Here, again, I think hon. Members have rather misunderstood the scope of the Regulation and also how far it expands the ground already covered. My hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke said, "Suppose a newspaper gets hold of the fact that the Government think of launching a new expedition abroad; that it is intended to send a large body of troops to a distant part of the world on an expedition which might be as unhappy as the expedition to the Dardanelles." He actually declared that, in his view, the editor who gave that information would be rendering a useful public service by informing all the world, including the enemy, that that expedition was on its way.
  Mr. ROCH: I think he would be doing his duty, if public opinion did not think it was right, in trying to prevent it.
  Mr. SAMUEL: There is no doubt, whatever his motive might be—it might be as good as possible—that his method would have to be that of informing all the world of the secret information he had obtained that a body of troops was about to start for a

  421
  particular destination. In the first place, it is obvious to the House that under no circumstances could such a thing be tolerated, and that no editor could be allowed to exercise his own judgment as to what military information he is going to make public and what military information he is not going to make public. In the second place, if he did so, he would probably be proceeded against, not under this new Regulation, but under one which my hon. Friend has quoted as already existing, which forbids any newspaper from giving any information of any kind as to the movement or distribution of troops. Secondly, my hon. Friend gave as an illustration the hypothetical case of the Government engaging in peace terms on lines which might be disapproved by some section of the public and an editor obtaining information of the fact, say, from France or some neutral country, and publishing it. He might, again, be proceeded against under an already existing Regulation, which prevents the publication of anything likely to prejudice our relations with our Allies. If the information was obtained, not from any confidential source in this country, but from some foreign source of information, obviously the present Regulation would not cover it and no proceedings could be taken under it. If proceedings were taken under it, the editor in question could secure damages for the wrong which had been done to him.
  Lastly, under this head my hon. Friends have said, "Hitherto the Press have been most loyal. They have not published anything the Government desired should not be published, and, indeed, it is the practice from time to time, when occasion justifies or requires it, for Ministers to see editors, even a considerable number of them, and give them information which is not intended to be conveyed to the public, in order that they may be guided in the policy which they are advocating in the Press," and they ask to-night whether any newspaper has ever broken the confidence so entrusted to it, and, if not, why take these stringent measures against the Press? I am happy to say that so far as I am aware no newspaper has ever broken any confidence of the kind entrusted to these editors. Such information as has been given them has been most honourably and loyally withheld from any public use. But I think my hon. Friends have forgotten that while some editors have been chosen—a large number of editors
  422
  have had information from time to time—as they have said, there are editors and editors. There are newspapers and newspapers. Like all Regulations of a semi-penal character, they are intended not for the oppression of the well-behaved but for the suppression of the ill-behaved. My hon. Friends have fallen into a very well-known logical fallacy. They say, "The Government shows confidence in editors. This man is an editor. Therefore the Government must show confidence in this man." But it does not follow that because the Government shows confidence in some editors or many editors, therefore it shows confidence in every editor, and although many newspapers may well and advisedly be trusted with information of a secret character, it does not follow that there may not be some who cannot be so trusted and who may misuse confidential information which they have obtained. And for the protection of the rest, for the protection of those who are loyal, for the protection of those who are most scrupulous in what they publish, it is necessary that they should be saved from the unfair competition of less careful and less scrupulous newspapers, which would not be chary of printing for the advantage of their publications any information, no matter how deleterious its publication might be, which they might surreptitiously be able to obtain.
  For my own part, I am most averse—I say this quite sincerely and deliberately—from any action with regard to the Press which would suppress the criticism of Ministers. There may be many who think that criticism of Ministers is carried too far, possibly Ministers may think so themselves, but I for one regard it as vital that there should be freedom for the organs of public opinion to criticise the conduct and the administration of Ministers, and no action would be taken by me so long as I have any responsibility in this regard which would shackle the Press in performing that function. On the contrary, since I have held my present office I have done my utmost to extend the means of Press publication. I was fortunate in securing the assent of the military and naval authorities, for example, to the free publication of all reports relating to air raids. Previously they were only permitted to publish brief official communiqués. Now they are allowed, subject to certain necessary and fully accepted limitations, to publish what they choose as to the damage done by aircraft. My right hon. Friend

  423
  gave an illustration of the withholding of news from Ireland the other day. As soon as the matter came to my knowledge I went to see the military authorities and those concerned, and arranged that the Press should be perfectly free to publish whatever comment they chose upon events in Ireland. The future that my right hon. Friend has drawn of a shackled Press, silent, tongue-tied, oppressed by a Government at once timorous and tyrannous, is a picture which I think can be disproved by anyone who chooses to go to any bookstall and spend a penny or a halfpenny on almost any organ. Fortunately, hitherto there have been very few occasions on which it has been necessary to take proceedings against any newspaper. I believe it will be the same in the future, and although I should not hesitate a moment to take action if necessity arose, or any serious case occurred, against any newspaper, no matter what its position might be, I can assure the House that of course the Government would not with a light heart take proceedings under this Regulation against any publication, and that the new Regulation which they have thought it their duty to make under the Defence of the Realm Act will certainly not be harshly or oppressively administered.
  Sir RYLAND ADKINS: I think all hon. Members will agree that my right hon. Friend (Sir H. Dalziel) has done a useful service in raising a Debate on this question. So many things, particularly in war time, if imperfectly understood, are taken to be injurious and are misinterpreted, that I think this Debate will be of real public service in clearing up what is the meaning and what is the extent of this new Regulation. Those who heard the argument of my right hon. Friend and my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Roch) will not need to have this argument, so far as their interpretation of this Regulation is concerned, dealt with again after hearing the speeches of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Salter) and my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Hewart). To those who heard those speeches, and to the public, which I am sure the Press will graciously allow to read those speeches to-morrow, it will be perfectly clear that this Regulation does not mean what, I am quite sure, my right hon. Friend (Sir H. Dalziel) and my hon. Friend (Mr. Roch) sincerely thought it meant, and as my hon. Friend still thinks it means, and I am per-
  424
  fectly certain there is nothing in the Regulation to prevent all those great gifts of journalism which we admire in my right hon. Friend being exerted in the future, with as much rhetorical force and as little unnecessary restraint as has been the case previously. The effect of this Debate is surely to make it clear that there are only two points at issue. One is whether there should be these Regulations in regard to references to proceedings of the Cabinet, or whether there should be this sharp and more stringent method in regard to the last mentioned in the Regulations. With respect to the first, is there not general agreement in this House and in the country that while there should be ample scope for general criticism, it helps no one, and merely disturbs the public mind to have statements made in the Press of what is said to have happened in the Cabinet, particularly when what is said to have happened in the Cabinet is untrue? I am glad that the speeches we have heard tonight, and the acknowledgment of the Home Secretary make perfectly clear what I should not have thought was in doubt, that the same penalty awaits a member of the Cabinet who breaks his oath and gives this information for publication as would await a journalist who makes use of it. I think we must, probably, all agree that if there were no listeners there would be few speakers, and if the communication of secrets by indiscreet statesmen were not sure of publication that would be a practice which would very soon drop. I would be the last person to compare the frailties of Cabinet Ministers or journalists to the frailties of another part of the community who claim our attention in the law, but some of us have been taught that in that department of life the receiver is worse than the thief, and that if you can get rid of the receivers in any locality the light-fingered gentry are soon conspicuous by their absence. If there is to be no publication of these indiscreet revelations the indiscreet revelations will cease. However much we enjoy these things when we read them, it is a kind of enjoyment which diverts the attention of people from the great business of getting on with the War and doing all that possibly can be done, each in his place, to help the War. I doubt whether my right hon. Friend (Sir H. Dalziel)—whose sympathies for journalism I ask leave to be allowed to share, because I am interested in journalism and anything

  425
  that gives journalism success is a matter I rejoice in—fully realises the extreme difference between the state of war which we are now in, and a state of peace, or the state of previous wars through which we have gone. The long and amusing list of Cabinet frailties which the hon. Member for Donegal (Mr. Swift MacNeill) gave to the House referred to times in which these indiscretions did have and could have far less injurious effect than the publication of indiscretions at the present time. When one realises the magnitude of the issues which are now being decided, the stronger the difference which is marked between rights and powers now and in times of peace, and the proper restrictions to impose—the more that is marked the more will the public understand the extreme gravity of our national position and realise that these Regulations are in themselves wise, that they do not hinder proper criticism, and that they in no way make a precedent for the time to which we all look forward when the widest criticism, however keen, however barbed by strong passions, will be as valuable as it was in times of peace.
  Sir F. SMITH: The only reason why I trouble the House is that questions have been rather pointedly addressed to me by several important Members, and I am not willing that it should be supposed that I am not inclined to answer them as far as I can. The Debate has ranged under three heads. My right hon. Friend who introduced the matter made no particular complaint of this Regulation so far as Secret Sessions were concerned, and I think it obvious that no reasonable complaint could be made. My right hon. Friend who pointedly put a question to me on that point was very much concerned to know what was the position of Members of this House in relation to proceedings of this House in Secret Session, and he was anxious to know whether I adhered to the opinion which I expressed during the Secret Session when a question was addressed to me on that point. I never attached either then or now any great importance to this question, for the excellent reason that when the House meets in Secret Session it meets in circumstances which from the very nature of the case impose an honourable and conscientious obligation upon every Member of this House that, in my humble judgment, is far higher and far more binding than any sanctions of the law. Therefore, in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred I would con-
  426
  ceive the discussion to be an acedemic one. But if I should be asked the question, I should have no hesitation in saying I adhere to the opinion which I provisionally expressed, adding the proviso that the matter must not be regarded as free from difficulty. I was asked to advise the House upon two points as to the position of Members of Parliament who spoke in this House, in Session which was not secret, of matters which had been discussed in Secret Session. On that point I had and have no doubt that the privilege of Parliament was a complete protection in the case of those speeches. Then I was asked the question, "What was the position of a Member of Parliament who in his own constituency referred to matters which had been discussed in this House in Secret Session?" and I said that I thought then that those Members of Parliament who spoke in their constituencies are also protected.
  I could not conceive of Members of Parliament thinking it right to speak in their constituencies of matters which they may have heard under the obligation of secrecy, but if Members of Parliament do so speak in their constituencies they are protected. The reason on which I base my opinion is this. This Regulation is good only if it is within the preamble and the scope of the Defence of the Realm Act. It must be intra vires to that Act. It is quite reasonable and necessary to take measures to make persons who are not at the moment answerable to a tribunal so answerable if they publish anything which Parliament declares should not be published; In the ancient history of this House Members were already answerable to a tribunal than which none could be higher, or more ancient, or of greater authority—I mean this House itself. In the old days when this House did not permit the publication of its Debates, if a Member published the Debates or gave notes of it to a reporter the Court which corrected that abuse of its procedure was this House itself and this House could still deal with any Member of Parliament who committed a breach of what this House thought was a privilege. My opinion was and is that it could not be presumed that a Regulation of this kind would come within the preamble to the Defence of the Realm Act. I am told that one or two of my hon. and learned Friends take a different view of that matter. That is not an uncommon occurrence, but it so happens with this case that my

  427
  opinion is most important, as it is I and I alone who can direct prosecutions, and, holding the views which I hold, I do not propose to do so. I pass to the second part of the Regulation which prevents references to the proceedings at Cabinet meetings. I have listened with great care to almost all the speeches made in this Debate, and I appeal to those who have listened like myself, whether I do an injustice to the broad disparity of opinion which has developed in the course of the Debate, that there was only one real controversy as between those who say that the Cabinet proceedings ought to be public and those who say they ought to be private. I put the question to my right hon. Friend, is it his view that they ought to be public, or is it his view that they ought to be private?
  Sir H. DALZIEL: Our view is that they ought to be private, but if Ministers themselves are not to be controlled, the danger to the Press is very great, and they ought to be treated accordingly.
  Sir F. SMITH: My right hon. Friend has not answered the question: Ought the proceedings to be public or private?
  Sir H. DALZIEL: Private, beyond a doubt.
  Sir F. SMITH: Then we are all agreed that so far, at least, as the greatest public agency of the country is concerned, namely, the Press, those proceedings shall be private. My right hon. Friend admits it. Let me carry it a little further. I understand him to take the view—the same point that was raised by my hon. and learned Friend opposite (Mr. Swift MacNeill), who always illumines discussions with very good knowledge—which has run through every speech to-night—"Physician, heal thyself." My hon. Friend himself, in no small part of his speech, made the same point. What does that mean? Does my hon. Friend also agree that Cabinet proceedings ought to be private?
  Mr. ROCH: Really private.
  Sir F. SMITH: I do not deal with subtleties; I am only a lawyer. I suppose that a thing which is private is really private. It is complained against the Government that they have not succeeded in preventing their colleagues from giving these communications to the Press.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: No, it is not.
  Sir F. SMITH: It is.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: They are terrorising the Press in view of the fact that they are private, and the Press is deterred, because there may be immediate action from giving even information which would be useful to the public.
  Sir F. SMITH: What does that mean? My right hon. Friend told me that these discussions ought to be kept private. Any sensible man, in time of war, must take' that view; and his argument is that because they are not kept completely private, because some Minister dishonourably commits breaches of confidence, the Press ought to be allowed to publish them.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: No!
  Sir F. SMITH: If that is not the case, what is it? There is no other case. What he says is that his grievance is that if any Cabinet Minister is guilty of so dishonourable an act as to give information to the Press—I cannot be expected to make admissions about my colleagues—but if any Cabinet Minister does so, that Cabinet Minister is undoubtedly guilty of most disgraceful conduct. What is the grievance of the Press? That they are not to be allowed to publish what they think themselves are scandalous breaches of honourable conference. But my right hon. Friend as a Junius does great discredit to himself as a newspaper proprietor. I will establish it. For the purpose of arming myself with some knowledge about this Debate, I sent out my secretary tonight to buy a number of newspapers in a period described as a Cabinet crisis. I obtained a large number of newspapers. They gave in parallel columns, and in some cases the most elaborate accounts of the speeches which were supposed to be made by Cabinet Ministers. "Mr. So-and-so was quite undaunted by the opposition which the last speaker's observations aroused," and "Mr. So-and-so, on the other side, made a most resolute opposition to them," with the greatest detail, and not merely in one paper but in papers representing many different schools of thought. As my right hon. Friend (Sir H. Dalziel) has introduced this subject, I thought it might be of interest to find out what the paper with which he is associated contained. I got copies of his paper for the last six weeks, I am sorry to say I have not read them all. Will the House believe that there was not in any single issue of one of those papers before our Order in Council any reference to any

  429
  proceeding or any Debate in the Cabinet, not one. My right hon. Friend's papers have never been offenders, but can anyone say that he has not given the Government the sustenance of his criticism? Then my right hon. Friend, a Member with his experience, comes down and holds out this horrible picture that in days when a week and divided Cabinet shall be making a peace of which the nation does not approve, all those debates and discussions may take place, and the Press of this country will not be allowed to criticise or refer in any way to the proceedings of the Cabinet during a peace which does not carry the whole nation with it, and that peace may be concluded behind the backs of its representatives and the Press. Could any sane man put a picture of that kind before the House without being conscious of the gross and ludicrous exaggeration of which he was guilty? Is the House of Commons going to be closed? Can my right hon. Friend not come down here and by question and answer to Ministers ascertain not, indeed, what is going on at any Cabinet meeting, but what is the policy of the Government?
  Sir H. DALZIEL: It would be in the public interest not to tell me.
  Sir F. SMITH: If it is in the public interest not to tell the House of Commons, how can it be in the public interest to speculate about it in the columns of newspapers?
  Sir H. DALZIEL: The Minister would say so.
  Sir F. SMITH: We are sometimes told that the Government is weak. It may be weak—I do not know—but I tell my right hon. Friend this, that it is the intention of the Government and, I believe, with the approval of the great majority of the House and of the majority of this country, to see that, whereas the meetings of the Cabinet are intended to be secret, whereas we are all agreed that they ought to be secret, whereas they are protected by the oath which a Privy Councillor takes, that at least no newspaper shall publish the tittle-tattle, the inaccurate accounts which purport to be given day by day of what takes place in the Cabinet to be retailed, to the prejudice of this country, in neutral and foreign countries. If this House is convinced, as I believe the House is, that it is right that they ought to be secret, the House will not be deterred from registering that conviction, if it be necessary, in the Lobby
  430
  by the fact—if it were a fact—that there were men even in high positions who had forgotten their solemn obligations that they have undertaken by their oath to fulfil.
  Question put, and negatived.

COURTS (EMERGENCY POWERS—AMENDMENT) BILL.— [LORDS].
Considered in Committee.
[Sir F. BANBURY in the Chair.]

COURTS (EMERGENCY POWERS—AMENDMENT) BILL.— [LORDS].
  CLAUSE 1.—(Modification of Principal Act as Respects Members of His Majesty's Forces).—Ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Power of County Courts to deter mine leases to Members of His Majesty's Forces)
    Any officer or man of His Majesty's Forces who is the tenant of any premises under a tenancy from year to year, or for any longer period, may apply to the county court, or in Scotland the sheriff court, for the district in which he usually resides, or in which such premises are situate, in such manner as may be prescribed by rules or directions under the principal Act, for leave to determine such tenancy, and upon any such application being made, the Court may in its absolute discretion, after considering all the circumstances of the case and the position of all the parties, by order authorise the applicant to determine the tenancy by such notice and upon such conditions as the Court thinks fit, and thereupon such tenancy may, notwithstanding any provision in the tenancy agreement or lease, be determined accordingly.
    Mr. DENNISS: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add the words,
    "Provided that if in the case of any tenancy to which this Section applies the landlord shall give notice in writing to the tenant offering to determine such tenancy at the expiration of three months from the date of the notice and the tenant shall not, within one calendar month after the date of the notice, accept such offer, then this Section shall cease to apply to such tenancy."
    I will not make any observations, as I understand that the Solicitor-General is prepared to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. HOGGE: It is difficult to know what these words mean. I have not a

    431
    copy of the Emergency Powers Amendment Bill in my possession just now. We were not told—
    It being Eleven o'Clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.
    The remaining Orders were read and potstponed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 22nd February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
Mr. HOGGE: May I ask the Patronage Secretary, with regard to to-morrow's
432
business, is it the intention of the Government to move the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule? Can he also say if it is the intention of the Government to give a day between the Committee stage and the Report stage of the Military Service Bill? On the Report stage there is, following the Committee stage, opportunity for further amendment. Many Amendments are not put down for the Committee stage in order not to overweight it. These may reasonably be taken on Report. A day between is, therefore, valuable.
Mr. GULLAND (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): In regard to the first question of my hon. Friend, we will move to-morrow to suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule. As to the second question, I am sorry I cannot make any promise.
Question put, and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Three minutes after Eleven o'clock.

WAR.
  CHARITY COMMISSION.
  CHARITY COMMISSION.
MILITARY SERVICE.
  MARRIED MEN ABROAD.
  MARRIED MEN ABROAD.
  INCOME TAX (NAVAL OFFICERS).
  INCOME TAX (NAVAL OFFICERS).
  DISTURBANCES IN IRELAND.
  DISTURBANCES IN IRELAND.
  VACCINATION OF TROOPS.
  VACCINATION OF TROOPS.
  ATTESTED MARRIED MEN.
  ATTESTED MARRIED MEN.
  5TH EAST LANCASHIRE REGIMENT (COURT-MARTIAL).
  5TH EAST LANCASHIRE REGIMENT (COURT-MARTIAL).
  WARWICK GAOL.
  WARWICK GAOL.
  PROMOTION EARNED IN FIGHTING LINE.
  PROMOTION EARNED IN FIGHTING LINE.
  MEN MEDICALLY UNFIT AFTER RETURN.
  MEN MEDICALLY UNFIT AFTER RETURN.
  DUTCH RIGHTS OF SCHELDT.
  DUTCH RIGHTS OF SCHELDT.
IRVINE'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Order for the Second Reading To-morrow, discharged.