Sitting of 10 October 1916

Preamble
The House—resuming after the Adjournment on Wednesday, 23rd August, for the Autumn Recess—met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
NEW WRIT.
For the Borough of Winchester, in the room of Lieutenant-Colonel the Hon. Guy Victor Baring, killed in action.—[Lord Edmund Talbot.]
OLD AGE PENSIONS.
Copy presented of Treasury Scheme for the award of Additional Allowances to Old Age Pensioners suffering special hardship owing to the War [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

NAVY AND ARMY SERVICES, WARLIKE OPERATIONS, AND OTHER EXPENDITURE ARISING OUT OF THE WAR, 1916–17 (SUPPLEMENTARY VOTE OF CREDIT).
Supplementary Estimate presented of the Sum required to be voted for Navy and Army Services, Warlike Operations,
2
and other Expenditure arising out of the War [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 123.]

MATCHES.
Copy presented of Regulations, dated 15th August, 1916, made by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise under Section 3 of the Finance (New Duties) Act, 1916, with respect to the Manufacture and Importation of Matches [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
PERMANENT CHARGES COMMUTATION.
Copy presented of Return of Permanent Charges on the Consolidated Fund which has been redeemed in the period 6th August, 1913, to 30th November, 1915 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 124.]

PACIFIC CABLE ACT, 1901.
Account presented showing the Money issued from the Consolidated Fund under the provisions of the Pacific Cable Act, 1901, and of the Money received, expended, and borrowed, and Securities created under the said Act, to the 31st

3
March, 1916; together with a Copy of the Report of the Chairman of the Pacific Cable Board [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 125.]

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
Copy presented of Regulations, dated 28th September, 1916, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee, acting jointly with the Scottish Insurance Commissioners, entitled the National Health Insurance (Medical Benefit) Regulations (Scotland), 1916; [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Regulations, dated 11th August, 1916, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee and by the Scottish Insurance Commissioners, entitled the National Health Insurance (Insurance Committees) Consolidated Regulations (Scotland), 1916 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Regulations, dated 6th September, 1916, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee and the Welsh Insurance Commissioners, entitled the National Health Insurance (Insurance Committees) Consolidated Regulations (Wales), 1916 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Provisional Regulations, dated 27th September, 1916, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee, acting jointly with the Welsh Insurance Commissioners, entitled the National Health Insurance (Medical Benefit) Regulations (Wales), 1916 (No. 2) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Provisional Regulations, dated 14th September, 1916, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee, acting jointly with the Insurance Commissioners, entitled the National Health Insurance (Medical Benefit) Regulations, 1916 (No. 2) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Provisional Regulations, dated 16th September, 1916, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee, entiled the National Health Insurance (Arrears) Regulations, 1916 (No. 2) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Provisional Regulations, dated 16th September, 1916, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee, entitled the National Health Insur-
4
ance (Navy and Army Amendment) Regulations, 1916 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

DESTRUCTIVE INSECTS AND PESTS ACTS.
Copies presented of Orders numbered D.I.P. 370 to 372, inclusive, declaring the areas described in the Schedules thereto to be infected with Wart Disease and infected areas for the purposes of the Wart Disease of Potatoes (Infected Areas) Order of 1914 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
ARMY (TERRITORIAL FORCE).
Copies presented of Schemes made by the Army Council for the establishment and constitution of Associations for the counties of the cities of Dundee and Glasgow and the county of Kinross [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
GREENWICH HOSPITAL AND TRAVERS' FOUNDATION.
Copy presented of Statement of the estimated Income and Expenditure of Greenwich Hospital and Travers' Foundation for the year 1916–17 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 126.]
COLONIAL REPORTS (ANUNAL).
Copy presented of Colonial Report, No. 901 (Swaziland, Report for 1915–16) [by, Command]; to lie upon the Table.

SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copy presented of Order made by the Council of the undermentioned local authority, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department:—
City of Bradford
[by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Order made by the Council of the undermentioned local authority, and confirmed, with Amendment, by the Secretary for Scotland:—
City of Glasgow
[by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Order made by the Council of the undermentioned local authority, and confirmed by the Secretary for Scotland:—
Burgh of Dumfries
[by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

EAST INDIA (SANITARY MEASURES).
Copy presented of Report on Sanitary Measures in India in 1914–15. Vol. XLVIII. [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
JUVENILE EDUCATION (DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE).
Copy presented of Interim Report of the Departmental Committee on Juvenile Education in relation to employment after the War [by Command); to lie upon the Table.
NAVAL AND MARINE PAY AND PENSIONS ACT, 1865.
Copies presented of five Orders in Council, dated 7th September, 1916, and of three Orders in Council, dated 3rd October, 1916, under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
CROWN OFFICE ACT, 1877.
Copy presented of Order in Council, dated 30th August, 1916, approving Rules under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
FOREIGN JURISDICTION ACTS, 1890 AND 1913.
Copy presented of Order in Council, dated 7th September, 1916, applying the Colonial Probates Act, 1892, to the Nyassaland Protectorate [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
NAVY AND MARINES (PROPERTY OF DECEASED) ACT, 1865.
Copy presented of Order in Council, dated 7th September, 1916, amending the Order in Council of 28th December, 1865, made under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

PORT OF LONDON AUTHORITY.
Copy presented of Seventh Annual Report of the Port of London Authority for the year ended 31st March, 1916 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
Papers laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—

1. Courts (Emergency Powers) Act, 1914.—Copy of the County Courts (Emergency Powers) Rules, 1916, dated 23rd August, 1916, made by the Lord Chancellor under the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act, 1914 [by Act].

2. Church Temporalities (Ireland).—Copy of Accounts of the Irish Land Commission in respect of Church Temporalities in Ireland from 1st April, 1915, and from 26th July, 1869 (the date of the Irish Church Act) to 31st March, 1916, together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon [by Act]; to be printed. [No. 127.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.
    MILITARY SERVICE.

      CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
      Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for War how many cases have been, and how many are expected to be, referred to the Central Tribunal, of conscientious objectors who have proved their genuineness by suffering imprisonment; and whether he will agree to a Return showing the number of conscientious objectors punished and the number dealt with by the Pelham and Home Office Committees?
      The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Lloyd George): The number of conscientious objectors who have been tried by court-martial up to the present is 2,014. For information as to the number of cases which have been referred to the Central Tribunal and to the Home Office Committee I must refer my hon. Friend to the Departments concerned.

      REV. HERBERT DUNNICO.
      Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a

      7
      Baptist minister, the Rev. Herbert Dunnico, has been required to join for military service at Ilford, and that the officer Commanding at Ilford has told Mr. Dunnico that he was not excepted from the Act because there are notes against him and recent correspondence relating to him; and whether he will issue instructions to commanding officers that regular ministers are excepted from military service?
      Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: This gentleman was summoned for service under a misapprehension. As soon as his position had been made clear, the notice sent to him was cancelled.

      LUMBERING WORK.
      Captain BENNETT-GOLDNEYasked the Secretary of State for War if, as it is fully recognised that scientific lumbering and forestry have been but rarely practised in this country and that British officers have therefore had but few opportunities of becoming expert in this particular work, which has now assumed such unexpected importance both in Great Britain and in the British war zones in France and elsewhere, he will place the directorate of all war-lumbering work, both at Home and abroad, under experienced and trained Canadian lumbermen and engineers, who have already proved themselves so superior in this work in this country?
      Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I fully recognise the valuable assistance rendered by the Canadian Lumbermen's Battalions in the exploitation of forests in this country and it has already been arranged, for the proper co-ordination of their work, that all the battalions, whether at Home or abroad, should operate under the direct control of one expert Canadian officer. The suggestion made by the hon. Member that all lumbering work should be put under Canadian direction is being carried out as regards the cutting of soft wood in France, though it is not considered desirable to disturb arrangements for cutting other kinds of timber in the immediate vicinity of the zone of military operations. As regards operations in this country, I have communicated the suggestion to the Home-grown Timber Committee, who will doubtless consider it very carefully.

      EXAMINING MEDICAL OFFICERS (LONDON AREA).
      Captain BENNETT-GOLDNEYasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he can now say whether the examining medical officers in the London area who have only received 24s. a day for responsible work occupying the whole of their time, as at Holborn and elsewhere, whereas other officers doing exactly similar work in the Western and Eastern Commands, in many cases for only a portion of a day, receive 40s. a day, will now be paid the full uniform rate; and if, as these examining officers in London, being liable to 24 hours' notice, are in no sense more permanently appointed than those elsewhere, he will take the necessary steps to expedite the settlement of the question?
      The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): I do not think that my hon. Friend states quite correctly the difference between the two cases. The 24s. rate is appropriate to employment which is more or less continuous and permanent. The maximum of 40s. is payable for occasional service only.

      ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.
      Mr. HOGGEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has now reviewed the effects of the Entertainments Tax on the cinema industry and is prepared to make any abatement?
      The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. McKenna): I have already received detailed statistics on a number of cases from my hon. Friend and others, but I understand that further information on the subject is being compiled by trade interests. Until I have had an opportunity of carefully considering the latter I must ask my hon. Friend to allow me to defer any definite statement on the subject.

      MILITARY OCCUPATION OF SCHOOLS.
      Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether he can state the number of schools in England and Wales which during the last three months have been occupied by the military; what number of children have been displaced; and how many have been provided for in temporary schools?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Lewis): The number of public elementary and secondary schools taken in whole or in part for military purposes in July, August, and September, 1916, was twenty-six, with 15,961 scholars. Arrangements for continuing the education of the scholars affected have been or are being made in all cases.

      COMMERCIAL INTELLIGENCE DEPARTMENT.
      Mr. BROOKESasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Commercial Intelligence Branch of his Department has been reorganised; and, if so, on what lines?
      The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): I have decided to combine the existing Commercial Intelligence Branch of the Board of Trade and the Exhibitions Branch into a new and enlarged Commercial Intelligence Department. The reorganisation of the Department is now proceeding.

      BOARD OF TRADE (STAFF).
      Sir EDWIN CORNWALLasked the President of the Board of Trade the number of the staff employed by the Board of Trade in March, 1906, March, 1914, and in September, 1916; and what were the duties of the Board of Trade in 1906, what new duties were added between 1906 and 1914, and what further duties have been added since the outbreak of War?
      Mr. RUNCIMAN: The number of the staff employed by the Board of Trade in March, 1906, March, 1914, and July, 1916, was 2,159, 7,014, and 7,187 respectively. The last figure is exclusive of 1,709 members of the staff serving with the forces and is inclusive of 2,514 women clerks, etc. The increase in the staff between 1906 and 1914 was principally due to the setting up of the Labour Exchanges and the introduction of unemployment insurance. A list of the different departments of the Board of Trade at the dates before mentioned will be printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT. [See Written Answers.]

      FRIENDLY ALIENS.
      Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether
      10
      he can state the number of friendly aliens who have enlisted in the British Army as such or under the scheme announced by him?
      The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Herbert Samuel): I am informed by the War Office that up to the beginning of this month the total number of Russians who had taken advantage of the scheme referred to by the hon. Member to enlist or attest for service was about 400.

      PEACE SOCIETY.
      Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the offices of the Peace Society have recently been subjected to outrage and damage and that this has followed on articles in the Press inciting to direct violence against this society, which includes members of the Cabinet; and whether incitements in the Press of this kind will receive attention and editors will be suitably warned?
      Mr. SAMUEL: I am informed that in August last a window at these offices was found by the police early one morning to have been broken and on two other mornings parts of the premises had been smeared with black or red paint or ink. If this is the "outrage" to which the hon. member refers, I have no evidence to connect it with any comments on the Peace Society which may have been made in the Press.

      CIVIL SERVICE (WAR BONUS).
      Captain BENNETT-GOLDNEYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, when the claims of the lower-paid classes of the Civil Service are being considered by the Government with a view to giving such men as the established and temporary messengers at the War Office and other Departments who up to now have received no war bonus at all, and are not paid for Sunday work at one and a half times the ordinary scale as is done for similar work at the Admiralty, he will take steps to urge the claims of the men in his own Department; and if he will at the same time recommend that the present war bonus paid to the Metropolitan Police shall be increased to meet their additional expenditure enforced by the rise in the cost of living.
      Mr. SAMUEL: The lower-paid staff of the Home Office share in the bonus granted to the Civil Service generally. The Metropolitan Police have already had a war bonus, but the case of nose on whom the present high cost of living is pressing most heavily is now under consideration, and I hope to be able to make a statement at an early date.

  DISTURBANCES IN IRELAND.

    IRISH PRISONERS AT FRONGOCH.
    Mr. HAZLETONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases of Irish prisoners detained at Frongoch have been individually revised since the Advisory Committee first concluded the consideration of the list and how many men have been released as a result of such revision?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I have not hitherto felt justified in reopening individual cases so soon after they had been examined by the Advisory Committee and continued internment recommended. After consultation with the Irish Government, however, it has now been decided that some among the prisoners may be released on their undertaking not to engage in any act of a seditious character or any act calculated to hinder the successful prosecution of the war. Sureties will be required for their good behaviour if such a course appears advisable in the public interest. Steps are being taken to give an opportunity to those among the prisoners on whose behalf application has been made for release, and who could safely be released under these conditions, to give the undertaking and to obtain the sureties which will be required.

    MAJOR PRICE.
    Mr. LUNDON(by Private Notice): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether any investigation has yet been held into the charges made by Mr. John McNeill against Major Price, and, if so, whether he is in a position to state the nature of the inquiry and the result; and whether any evidence has been sought for from Mr. McNeill, and what further steps he proposes to take?
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    STATUTORY AND MUNICIPAL COMMITTEES.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Secretary to the Local Government Board whether he
    12
    can state the results of the conference between the Statutory Committee and the Municipal Committee with regard to local funds?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): Two conferences have taken place, and at the second many details were discussed in a very friendly manner. The Statutory Committee are satisfied that they, will now be able to make satisfactory arrangements with regard to local funds. The Lord Mayor's Committee had unanimously resolved that no grant made out of any fund raised locally or by way of voluntary gift should be taken into account by the local or Statutory Committee, or treated as "other income" as defined by the Regulations, provided the same does not form a permanent addition to the income of the recipient. This has been accepted by the Statutory Committee, and words to the above effect have been inserted in the Instructions accompanying their Regulations.

    TREATMENT OF DISABLED.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Secretary to the Local Government Board whether he is now in a position to report upon the methods by which the Statutory Committee propose to deal with the care, training, and employment of disabled soldiers and sailors; and, if so, can he give the details?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: The methods which the Statutory Committee propose to adopt in dealing with the case of disabled men, including provision for their health, training, and employment, were set out in the circular which was issued to the local committees on the 27th July last. Individual cases must necessarily be dealt with locally, and I am glad to say that all the schemes for constituting the local committees in England and Wales and Scotland have now been approved. Meanwhile the Statutory Committee have agreed with the Insurance commissioners upon a scheme for the medical treatment (including specialist advice) of all disabled sailors and soldiers, whether previously insured or not.
    With regard to training, in addition to the special schemes, such as those in operation at Roehampton, Brighton, and St. Dunstan's, the Statutory Committee propose to utilise, so far as possible, the training which is afforded by the local education authorities, and information as

    13
    to the facilities which can be offered for such training has been obtained from the great majority of technical institutions throughout the country and communicated to the local committees. Further, the assistance of the Chambers of Commerce has been sought by means of a circular sent to them through their association. The Statutory Committee are approaching the Treasury with the view of obtaining sanction for payment of an adequate maintenance grant for the man during his period of training, in addition to the allowance for his wife and family. With reference to employment, the Statutory Committee have made special arrangements with the Board of Trade as to the use of the Labour Exchanges, and of the Department's professional classes register for officers. I may add, however, that the demand for labour is so great and work is so plentiful that there has been little difficulty in employment being obtained.
    Mr. WARDLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the scheme which he says has been sanctioned is to cover the whole of the country?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: The scheme which has been sanctioned by the Insurance Commissioners has yet to receive the assent of the Treasury, and covers, as I understand, the whole of the country.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: In the event of any disabled soldiers wishing to emigrate, will funds be forthcoming from the State?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: That is possible under the regulations of the Committee. It is a matter for the local committees to recommend in the first place and for the Statutory Committee to decide.
    Sir EDWARD CARSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there will be any opportunity afforded to this House to consider the scheme?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I think that the Bill must shortly be introduced to place the Statutory Committee in possession of the five millions of money which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has promised to them, and then I think a very adequate debate can take place on the whole question of pensions.

    NATIONAL RELIEF FUND ARBITRATION.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister whether the arbitration between the War Office and the National Relief
    14
    Fund has now been concluded, and, if so, what amount of money is to be refunded by the War Office?
    Mr. FORSTER: No, Sir; the arbitration has not been concluded.

    PENSIONS AUTHORITY.
    Mr. BROOKESasked the Prime Minister whether the Government has taken into consideration the question of the establishment of one pension authority for the entire country; whether he is aware of the strength of the demand among the public for such a body; and whether he will state the nature of the objections, if such exist, to the suggested innovation?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Bonar Law): The question of the establishment of one pensions authority for the United Kingdom has received attention, and it is hoped that a statement may be made shortly as to the intention of the Government.

    ALLIES' ECONOMIC CONFERENCE.
    Mr. BROOKESasked the Prime Minister if he can make any further statements as to the progress which has been made to carry into effect the recommendations of the Allies' Economic Conference at Paris?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The Expert Committees which have been appointed to advise the Board of Trade as to the steps to be taken to secure the possession of various important trades after the War have made considerable progress with their investigations, and a General Committee have been set up, under the chairmanship of Lord Balfour of Burleigh, to report on British commercial policy after the War, with special reference to the Paris recommendations. It has been arranged that the Conference of Technical Delegates to consider the laws relating to industrial property, which was provided for by one of the various resolutions, shall meet at an early date. Progress has also been made in other directions, especially with a view to safeguarding important key industries, but I am not yet in a position to make an announcement on the subject.
    Sir E. CARSON: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether any legislation will

    15
    be introduced to prevent, in the event of peace, in accordance with the Paris resolutions, the dumping of German goods?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have not looked into that. Probably it may be necessary, but that particular point has not yet been considered.
    Mr. G. TERRELL: When may we expect to have Lord Balfour's Report?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I know that the Committee is sitting very frequently, and the chairman hopes to be able to issue a Report or Interim Report in a very moderate space of time.
    Mr. MACMASTER: As this is a matter which interests the whole Empire, may I ask whether any arrangements have been made for the representation of the Dominions Overseas on this Committee?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It has already been pointed out to the House more than once that it is intended when the Committee has presented its Report to summon a conference representative of the whole of the Dominions, as well as of the Mother Country.

    TRADE AND COMMERCE (ORGANISATION).
    Sir EDWIN CORNWALLasked the Prime Minister if he will state when the House will be given an opportunity of discussing the question of providing a more active and efficient national organisation for dealing with the new conditions of trade and commerce throughout the world?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade hopes shortly to be in a position to make a statement on this subject. I would suggest to my hon. Friend that the question of discussion might stand over until that statement has been made.

  EDUCATION.

    RECONSTRUCTION COMMITTEE.
    Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether he can give any information concerning the investigations which have been instituted by the Government into the various aspects of the education problem; and who is presiding over the superior Committee which reviews the results of the different inquiries?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: With regard to the first part of the question, I cannot, at present, say more than that the committees appointed to deal with the various educational questions are pursuing their inquiries. In reply to the second part of the question, my Noble Friend the Lord President of the Council is, at my request, acting as Chairman of the Reviewing Committee, which position he undertook before he was appointed President of the Board of Education. I propose to circulate the terms of reference of this Committee with the OFFICIAL REPORT.—[See Written Answers.]

    SPECIAL REGISTER BILL.
    Captain BENNETT-GOLDNEYasked the Prime Minister if he can say what steps will be taken when the Clauses of the Special Register Bill now before Parliament are amended to safeguard the interests of the civilian officials who will be called upon to undertake the extra labour involved in the preparation of the new register; if he is aware that officials are now under a penalty if such work is not complete within a stated period and that with depleted staffs it will be increasingly difficult to find persons to make a house-to-house canvass to ascertain particulars of those entitled to be registered; if he is aware of the additional difficulties which may arise in the preparation of the registers by a given date owing to the restricted supply of paper and the inability of printing firms to undertake extra work; and whether, in view of the increased work under the Pensions Act and the amount of labour involved by the regulations of our national registration legislation, which requires an incessant issue of cards and re-registration of addresses, whenever, for instance, a domestic servant changes her employment, he will make some provision for due payment to all officials who will be called upon to undertake the new registration work?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Long): The Prime Minister has asked me to reply to this question. I am well aware that the preparation of the Special Register will impose additional labour on the officials concerned, but I am sure they will do their best with this as they have done with other work which the State has in these times of stress called upon them to perform. Under

    17
    the existing law officials are only liable for wilful misfeasance or wilful acts of commission or omission.
    Mr. HAZLETONasked the Prime Minister if it is the intention of the Government to proceed with the Special Register Bill?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer is in the affirmative.
    Sir E. CARSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any information as to when the Bill will be taken?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot say the date, but perhaps my right hon. Friend will put a question to the Prime Minister.

    ENEMY AIR RAIDS.
    Mr. BILLING(by Private Notice): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is now prepared to make a statement as to the type of airship brought down at Cuffley on the night of 3rd September?
    Mr. FORSTER: I do not know whether this question reached my right hon. Friend. It did not reach me.
    Mr. BILLING(by Private Notice): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he considers it necessary or dignified that monetary rewards should be offered by civilians to soldiers or sailors for the fulfilment of their duties; whether he is aware that on the occasion of the first Zeppelin being brought down by an airman the First Lord of the Admiralty refused to allow Sub-Flight Lieutenant Warneford to accept the monetary rewards offered, and whether the War Office and the Admiralty view the dignity of the Services from a different standpoint?
    Mr. FORSTER: What I said with regard to the previous question applies to this one also.
    Mr. BILLING(by Private Notice): I beg beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact of the exceptional individual heroism necessary and peculiar with the duties of an airman on active service, more especially in engaging a Zeppelin in darkness, he will advise His Majesty to create a special distinction for airmen?

    WAR FINANCE.
    Sir ALBERT SPICER(by Private Notice): I beg to ask the Chancellor of the
    18
    Exchequer whether the issue of 6 per cent. Exchequer Bonds may be taken as an indication that the future policy of the Government is tot finance the War by short-date borrowing, or whether a long-term loan in respect of which the conversion rights attaching to the 4½ per cent. War Loan and 5 and 6 per cent. Exchequer Bonds can be exercised will be issued at an early date?
    Mr. McKENNA: The decision to issue 6 per cent. Exchequer Bonds was taken because the moment did not appear to be the most favourable one for the issue of a long-date loan. I cannot, of course, give any definite pledge to issue such a loan at any particular date, but it is my intention to recommend such an issue to Parliament at the first suitable opportunity.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Is the right hon. Gentleman considering the question of a forced loan at a reasonable rate of interest, so that the State cannot be blackmailed by the moneylenders?
    Mr. McKENNA: I should like to have a definition of the term "forced loan" before I answer that.

    WHEAT AND FLOUR SUPPLIES.

      ROYAL COMMISSION.
      Sir JOHN McCALLUM(by Private Notice). asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can make any statement as to the steps taken to ensure that the supplies. of wheat for the United Kingdom will be maintained during the coming year?
      Mr. RUNCIMAN: Since the outbreak of war the Government have taken measures, which have progressively become more comprehensive, to ensure that the stocks of wheat in the country are sufficiently maintained to guard against any temporary interference with oversea supplies.
      In 1914 the Grain Supplies Committee was formed to undertake the purchase of wheat as a reserve against the risk of a. temporary interruption of supplies, but the regular trade was left in private hands. Early in 1915 the Indian Wheat Committee was formed to secure, in co-operation with the Indian Government, that the surplus of the Indian wheat crop was brought to the United Kingdom at a time when by reason of the delay of the harvest in North America imported supplies were somewhat short.

      19
      At the end of that year the Government suggested to the French and Italian Governments that co-operation was better than competition between the Allies in the wheat markets, and as a result a Joint Committee was formed comprising representatives of the United Kingdom, France and Italy, which has since met daily in London, and made such purchases of wheat, flour and maize as were requisite for the three countries.
      The possibility of large quantities of wheat, which are at present locked up in some grain exporting countries, being freed as the result of military operations has led to a disinclination on the part of the trade to hold more stocks than an absolute minimum, and it has become clear that the supplies during the coming year cannot safely be left to private enterprise.
      The Government have accordingly endorsed a conclusion arrived at by the Cabinet Committee on Food Supplies that we must now provide for a further development of importation by the State. The King has approved the appointment of a Royal Commission entrusted with full powers to take such steps as they may deem necessary and desirable to ensure adequate and regular supplies of wheat and flour for the United Kingdom in co-operation with the Committee which, since the beginning of the present year, has been purchasing wheat and flour for the Allies.
      This means that the importation of wheat into the United Kingdom will have to be undertaken largely, if not entirely, under the control of the Royal Commission, which will in many respects avail itself of the experience of the Sugar Commission.
      In anticipation of this step the Government have made a very large purchase of Australian wheat. The competition of the world for tonnage last season was greater than the eagerness for wheat, and the Commonwealth Government, who had purchased the whole of their crop, found themselves with granaries full, but short of facilities for reaching the European markets. Steps have now been taken to provide all the tonnage required for the conveyance of the wheat purchased by His Majesty's Government.
      Tonnage for the carriage of wheat across the Atlantic has been provided for nearly a year, with excellent results, by the Requisitioning (Carriage of Foodstuffs)
      20
      Committee. As the import of wheat into this country will in Suture be in the hands of the State and the full benefit of reduction in the cost of carriage will accrue to the State and not to private individuals, the system adopted by" the Committee will be continued, with the addition that vessels so requisitioned will be required to provide the space necessary for State importations at fixed and not variable rates of freight.
      Further details for the guidance of the Corn Exchanges will be published expeditiously, and arrangements have already been made in co-operation with the trade to prevent any interruption in the regular and adequate supply of wheat to the British and Irish mills during the short transition stage.
      Mr. LOUGH: May I ask whether this is the statement we were to have to-day, and whether any further statement is to be made during the sitting, and whether the House will have an opportunity of discussing the important statement which has just been made?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The statement made by my right hon. Friend is the statement referred to. If the House desires to discuss it, a question may be put to the Prime Minister to-morrow.
      Mr. W. THORNE: Have the Board of Trade power to make British shipowners carry wheat and flour from New York in preference to other goods which are not so essential?
      Mr. RUNCIMAN: They have that power and have been exercising it in the Requisitioning (Carriage of Foodstuffs) Committee.
      Mr. WARDLE: Are any definite steps going to be taken to ensure that when the wheat arrives in this country no increase of prices, beyond what is reasonable, is made by the retailer?
      Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, certainly. The Government have no intention of bringing wheat here under these conditions, and then allowing the advantage which they hope will be derived by the consumers to be filched from them
      Mr. G. TERRELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the names of the members of the Royal Commission?
      Mr. RUNCIMAN: I do not carry them all in my head, but I may say that the Commission is an expert Commission, and

      21
      the connecting link between the Commission and the personnel of the Government is—

      Lord Crawford, who will act as chairman;

      Mr. Alan Anderson, a well-known business man, will act as vice-chairman;

      Sir George Saltmarsh,

      Sir Henry Rew, and

      Mr. Royden, who have already done many services for the Government in expert capacities, will sit on the Commission; and there will also be

      Mr. Oswald Robinson, President of the Millers' Association;

      Mr. J. F. Beale, and

      Mr. H. W. Patrick.

      I think I have given the whole Commission.

    FRANCHISE AND ELECTORAL REFORM.

      PARLIAMENTARY CONFERENCE.
      Sir WALTER ESSEX(by Private Notice) asked whether any statement could be made about the proposed conference on Franchise Reform?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The terms of reference are as follows:—
      To examine, and, if possible, submit Agreed resolutions on the following matters:

      (a) Reform of the Franchise.

      (b) Basis for Redistribution of Seats.

      (c) Reform of the system of the registration of electors.

      (d) Method of elections and the manner in which the costs of elections should be borne.

      Mr. Speaker has been kind enough to consent to preside over the conference, which will hold its first meeting on Thursday next at eleven a.m., at the office of the Local Government Board. I will circulate the names of the members of the conference with the OFFICIAL REPORT.—[See Written Answers.]

NEW WRITS (ISSUED DURING RECESS).
Mr. SPEAKERinformed the House that he had issued, during the Recess, the following New Writs, namely:—
For the County of Nottingham (Mans-field Division), in the room of Sir Arthur Basil Markham, Baronet, deceased.
22
For the County of Ayr (North Division), in the room of Lieutenant-Colonel Duncan Frederick Campbell, deceased.

NEW MEMBERS SWORN.
Frederick William Mallalieu, Esquire, for County of York (Southern Part of the West Riding, Colne Valley Division).
Archie Kirkman Loyd, Esquire, K.C., for County of Berks (Northern or Abingdon Division).
Lieutenant-Colonel Sir Charles Hilton Seely, Baronet, for County of Nottingham (Mansfield Divison).

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  DEFENCE OF THE REALM (ACQUISITION OF LAND) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.—[PROGRESS 21st AUGUST.]
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

SCHEDULE.

  MODIFICATION OF THE LANDS CLAUSES ACTS.
  1. The Department acquiring the land or interest therein shall be deemed to be the promoters of the undertaking, and this Act shall be deemed to be the special Act.
  2. The provisions as to the sale of superfluous land and as to access to the special Act shall not apply.
  3. All questions of disputed compensation shall be settled by the Commission.
  4. No allowance shall be made on account of the acquisition being compulsory.
  5. Where a portion only of any factory or other building is required the owners and other persons interested in such building may, notwithstanding anything in the Lands Clauses Acts, be required to sell and convey the portions only of the building so required, if the Commissions are of opinion that such portions can be severed from the remainder of the properties without material detriment thereto, and in such case compensation shall be paid for the portions required, and for any damage suffered by the owners or other parties interested in the building by severance or otherwise.
  6. In determining the amount of compensation, the value of the land shall be taken to be the value which the land would have had at the date of the notice to treat if it had remained in the condition in which it was at the commencement of the present war, without regard to any enhancement or depreciation in the value which may be attributable directly or indirectly to any buildings, works, or improvements, erected, constructed, or made on, over, or under the land, or any adjoining or neighbouring land for purposes connected with the present war wholly or partly at the expense of the State, or, with the consent of the occupying Department, at the expense of any
  30
  person not being a person interested in the land:
  Provided that—

  (a) where any such building, work, or improvement was erected, constructed, or made in pursuance of an agreement with any person interested in the land, the consideration given by such person shall be taken into account in assessing the compensation payable in respect of such interest;

  (b) where by virtue of an agreement with any Government Department any person interested in the land is entitled as between himself and that Department to the benefit of any such building, work, or improvement, the value attributable to such building, work, or improvement shall be taken into account in assessing the compensation payable in respect of such interest;

  (c) where, since the commencement of the present war, any person interested in the land has himself erected, constructed, or made any building, work, or improvement, or has contributed to the expense thereof, or has committed any act depreciating the value of the land, the value attributable to his expenditure or the depreciation in value attributable to such act shall be taken into account in assessing the compensation payable in respect of such interest.

  7. In determining the amount of compensation payable to any person interested in the land, the Commission shall have regard to the extent to which any adjoining or neighbouring land or hereditaments in which the same person is also interested may be benefited by the buildings, works, and improvements so constructed, erected, or made as aforesaid, on, over, or under the land taken or on, over, or under any adjoining or neighbouring land.
  8. In determining the amount of compensation the Commission shall also take into account the amount (if any) of any compensation paid or other payment received in respect of the previous occupation of the land so far as such compensation or payment was payable in respect of matters other than the mesne profits of the land.
  9. Where the surface of the land is acquired without the mines and minerals lying there under, the Commission may apply any of the provisions of Sections seventy-seven to eighty-five of the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, with such adaptations and modifications as the Commission think fit.
  10. Where by reason of the erection, construction, or making of any such buildings, works, or improvements as aforesaid or the maintenance thereof, or by reason of the user of the land, any interest in the land has become or might become forfeited or liable to forfeiture, the compensation shall be determined as if no such forfeiture or liability to forfeiture had arisen or might arise.
  11. The Commission shall not hear more than one expert witness on either side except in such cases as the Commission otherwise direct.
  12. The Lord Chancellor may make rules fixing a scale of costs to be applicable on an arbitration under this Act, and the Commission may, notwithstanding anything in the Lands Clauses Acts, determine the amount of costs, and shall have power to disallow as costs in the arbitration the cost of any witness whom they consider to have been called unnecessarily, and any other costs which they consider to have been caused or incurred unnecessarily, and, if they think the circumstances such as to justify them in so doing, to order that each of the parties shall bear their own costs.
  13. There may be contained in the award of the Commission a finding that the claimant, after having been requested in writing by the department by whom the land or interest therein is to be acquired so to do, has failed to deliver to such department a statement in writing of the amount claimed, giving sufficient particulars and in sufficient time to enable such department to make a proper offer, and, where such a finding is contained in the award, the provisions of the Lands Clauses Acts as to costs of arbitrations shall apply as if such department had offered the same sum or a greater sum than that found to be due by the award:
  Provided that this provision shall not apply unless the written request for particulars contained a notice of the effect of this provision.
  14. The provisions of this Schedule shall apply to Scotland subject to the following modifications:—

  (a) For the reference to mesne profits there shall be substituted a reference to profits:

  (b) For the reference to Sections seventy-seven to eighty-five of the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, there shall be substituted a reference to Sections seventy to seventy-eight of the Railways Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act, 1845:

  (c)"The Court of Session" and "Act of Sederunt" shall be substituted for "the Lord Chancellor" and "rules" respectively:

  (d)"Hereditaments" means "heritages" and "arbitrator" means "arbiter."

  15. The provisions of this Schedule shall apply to Ireland with the substitution of a reference to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland for the reference to the Lord Chancellor.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I beg leave to move to leave out paragraph 5.
  I do not know why the Government have put in this Clause, or what is the object of it. For many years it has been the custom where there has been a purchase by compulsion, and part of the property taken, that any damage caused to that portion enabled the owner to compel the taking of the whole. That is far and away the fairest way of dealing with the matter. It is quite true that the Government propose to give compensation, which is to be assessed by a Commission. I think, however, it will be very difficult for any Commission to assess fully the damage that may occur under circumstances such as proposed. The only people to know, or who can form any idea of it, are the owners. If the Government are going to take from a private person his factory or his building, why on earth should they not follow the precedent of public companies and corporations? The only conclusion I can arrive at for the insertion of this Clause is that the Government think that they may possibly lose money if they take the whole of the property and try to recoup themselves by selling that part which they do not require. Possibly that may be the case; but the Government ought not to put the loss upon private people. The right hon. Gentleman will admit that the people specially affected by this Bill have done

  33
  their best to serve the State. There has been no imputation during the progress of this Bill in Committee that the people affected have in any way endeavoured to further their own interests at the expense of the State. From a variety of reasons they have placed their properties at the disposal of the State, and they should be treated fairly, and to just the same way as every other owner of property has been treated in the past. My right hon. Friend the Solicitor-General has to some extent met us during the passage of the Bill. I do not know whether he is going to meet us again, or whether he intends to adhere to the Clause. For my own part, I cannot see any necessity for altering the custom and the law, nor why the paragraph should not be omitted.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir George Cave): If it were the fact, as my right hon. Friend thinks, that this Clause is imposed for the first time in a Government Bill, there would be a good deal in what he says, but the fact is that in very many private Bills embodying the Lands Clauses Acts—in fact, I should think in most of them in these days—this Clause is inserted and carried. It is so common that it has now become one of the model clauses. Therefore it is not a new proposal at all. The meaning of it is this: Under the Lands Clauses Acts, where you take part of a house or a factory you are bound, if the owner thinks right, to take the whole. Of course the house and the factory include the courtyard and the garden. The effect is this: It may be, and in this case it would be, that where work is being done upon a corner only of very valuable premises, you may want to take the corner, and the owner may compel you to take the whole. We are not abolishing that rule altogether, but 'we only say it is not to apply where "the Commission are of opinion that such portions can be severed from the remainder of the properties without material detriment thereto." It is only in cases where severance can be made without material detriment that we ask for this power. This has become quite a usual Clause. I think it is fair, and I hope the Committee will allow the paragraph to stand.
  Mr. RUTHERFORD: It is quite true, as was pointed out by the learned Solicitor-General, that it has been the practice in a number of Government Bills to insert something like this particular Paragraph. For instance, in each Post
  34
  Office Bill, where the Department wishes to acquire property for the purpose of a new Post Office or something of that kind, it is quite a usual thing to find during the last five or six years a Clause something like the Paragraph now under discussion, but I think the learned Solicitor-General was not quite accurate in stating that you find this Clause in a considerable number of private Bills. With the solitary exception of some railway Bills, I think nobody but the Government has ever felt itself entitled to make such a departure from the general provisions of the Lands Clauses Acts as in this Paragraph. When almost wholesale land was begun to be acquired for purposes such as railways and public improvements, the whole law as to the basis upon which it was to be allowed was embodied in Statutes such as the Railways Clauses Act and the Lands Clauses Acts. The Section which bears more particularly upon the point now under discussion is, I believe, Section 92 of the Lands Clauses Act, 1848. There is this important distinction in the present case: You start with the words, "Where a portion only of any factory or other building." When Clauses of this kind have been put into other Acts of Parliament, they have not applied so much to part of a factory or building as they have to parts of the premises such as a back garden or half a field, or something of that kind. The public authority, the railway, or the Government were not to be obliged to take the whole field or to buy an important mansion or very important building in a public street, simply because the Post Office or some other public authority wanted a piece of the back garden or the yard. That was the idea of the Clause, and I venture to think there is hardly a case in which exception has been made from the general law, unless it was made to meet a particular instance of the kind I have indicated.
  What is referred to in this Paragraph is a portion of the factory or other building. That is to say, it is now proposed that if the Government, for the purposes of the War, have been in occupation of a large factory and are in occupation of it when the War ends, they are actually to be at liberty, not merely to take the whole of that factory from the owner on the conditions referred to for a considerable period after the end of the War, but they are not to be obliged to take it all or leave it all, and can select a piece of the factory. I suggest that this is really carrying the

  35
  thing to an extreme. If the Government have been in occupation of any lands or property under Clause 1 of the Bill those are the lands or the property which they are entitled to take under this Bill, but if they are to have for a period of years after the War an unlimited right to select a piece of the factory or other building, then it strikes me they are asking for powers which I have never seen any Government or public body ever attempt to get either in a public or in a private Act. The worst of this is that it is not the taking of that particular property as the open option for a period of years after the War either to take it from the owner or not. After this War there is going to be quite enough difficulty on the part of all sorts of people who own factories and other buildings to try and make a living, or to do something with the factories or buildings of use to the general community, and it is not right that we should to-day give to a public Department not merely the right to buy that property, but the right to hold over a man's head for five years an absolute option either to take the whole property or to pick and choose and take a piece of it. I would suggest to the Committee that it is granting an altogether unwarranted power. The whole power giving option for a long period is in itself objectionable, but when they add to that the right to take a piece of the property, I join with my right hon. Friend in very strongly objecting to it.
  Sir TUDOR WALTERS: The hon. Member who has just sat down has made it quite clear that he has misunderstood the purpose of this paragraph, and even misunderstood the purposes for which it could be used. In quoting the Lands Clauses Acts, he has not pointed out how essentially different are the purposes and the operations of the Lands Clauses Act for the purposes and the operations of this particular Bill. Under the Lands Clauses Act railway companies can make severance of property, and it would be obviously unfair to take a corner off a building for a railway or to take a slice through the middle of a man's property and leave him with severed portions on each side. Therefore the Lands Clauses Act provides that if a company does that under compulsory powers it must purchase the lot. That is not what this paragraph proposes to do at all. This does not propose to come in and cut a man's property
  36
  about in all sorts of ways, but simply proposes that if a certain section of a factory—a certain wing of the factory in all probability—or any portion of that factory which presumably had been utilised for war purposes during the War, and the principal reason why the Government desire to acquire it is that they have probably equipped it with machinery and perhaps been at considerable expense, they can select that particular portion of the factory devoted, say, to munition purposes or some special war purpose, and if they can satisfy the Commissioners that they can take that part of the building without injuring the rest of it to the owner, they can take that part of it. For the life of me I cannot see where there is any great risk in a proposal like that. The only possible risk is in the discretion of the Committee. It should be perfectly clear, and I suppose it is clearly understood, that the Commissioners will be an impartial and independent body. It would not be right for a Government Department to come down and say, "We want this particular section of the property." If the tribunal set up is really a judicial tribunal who will require the Government Department to prove their case and' show that by taking this particular portion of the building they do not injure the remainder, then there can be no possible hardship. On the other hand, it would be monstrous if a Government Department were to spend some thousands of pounds in preparing and equipping a certain portion of a factory for war purposes and wish to continue its occupation after the War to say that they should be compelled to buy the whole of the property. That would be a process of blackmail. On a good many questions I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London Sir F. Banbury), who proposed this Amendment, but I do not agree with this proposal.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I do not agree with the speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down. What I understand his argument to be is this: Supposing there is a factory and the Government have put in part of the factory certain machinery for the making of shells it would be very hard on the Government that they should be compelled to take the whole of the factory and not be allowed to take only a part. I do not know if I am right, but I understand that this Bill would only apply in the case of the whole of the factory

  37
  Already being in possession of the Government. Surely the Bill provides that where the Government is in possession of a building, factory, or land, they shall have the option for a period of something like five years.
  Sir G. CAVE: The Bill will apply to cases where the Government are only occupying a small part of the premises.
  Mr. RUTHERFORD: Will the right hon. Gentleman make that point clear?
  Sir F. BANBURY: That reply alters the case altogether. If, in cases where the Government are in possession of part of a factory or building and the other part is in the occupation of the owner, all that is meant is that the Government shall have power to acquire the part of the factory, then I agree, and I have nothing further to say. Unfortunately I am not a lawyer, but even the cleverest lawyer would not understand from this particular paragraph that that is the meaning of it.
  Mr. RUTHERFORD: It is not.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Then great authorities differ. The Solicitor-General says it is, and my hon. and learned Friend says it is not. Will the Solicitor-General put in words to carry out that intention? Will he undertake to put in words to carry out what he says?
  Mr. RUTHERFORD: The whole of my opposition to this Clause is founded upon the suggestion that the Government, having occupied the whole or some very large part of some factory, only want afterwards to take a piece even of the part they had occupied. If the right hon. Gentleman says on behalf of the Government that the power in this Clause should be restricted to the portion the Government are occupying if they are only occupying a portion, then it would meet the case we have been contending against, and we would readily stop all opposition to the Clause. It would meet the views of both sides if the Solicitor-General would agree between now and the Report stage to consider the best form of words that could be put to make it clear that in exercising the power of this particular Clause the intention of the Government is that it should be restricted to that portion, if any, in cases where they do keep a portion of the works of which the Government were actually in occupation.
  Sir G. CAVE: That is not what I said at all. The right hon. Gentleman opposite said it would not apply where the Government are occupying only a part of a building, and I interrupted and said it would.
  Mr. ASHLEY: It seems to me to be perfectly right if the Government are in occupation now of part of a factory and wish to keep that part afterwards that they should have that right, but it is a large order to say that the; Government in any case should occupy a large part of a factory or the whole of it during the War and after the War have the right to throw back the parts they do not want, paying small compensation and keeping the plums of the factory. I am surprised at the Solicitor-General bringing forward such a proposal, and if my right hon. Friend presses his Amendment to a Division I shall support him.
  Sir E. CORNWALL: It seems to me that hon. Gentlemen opposite are not giving credit to the Government for the measure of consideration which the owners would obtain under this Clause. I have been watching the discussion, and I am anxious that in no single case should any injustice arise, because it would not be right to use these buildings for munition factories and after the War allow them to suffer in any way. It seems to me that these people are protected. First of all you have got a Commission. I think we may take it that the Railway Commissioners are a judicial body and would act fairly. The Government would have to prove, first of all, to the Commission that they could justly claim to take only a part of the premises, and I understand they would also have to prove that the other part of the premises would be severed without any material detriment to the whole of the premises. Supposing the Commission decided that the Government should take only a portion, and that it would be no material detriment to the other part, the owners could claim under this Clause any damage, because the words of the Clause are:
  "Such compensation shall be paid for the parts required, and for any damage suffered by the owners or other parties interested in the building by severance or otherwise."
  It seems to me, therefore, to go on from stage to stage. First of all, there is the question whether it should be separated at all; secondly, there is the question whether it would be materially damaged if it were separated; and, thirdly, the

  39
  owners, if the Commissioners so decide, can claim compensation for any damage owing to the separation. That seems to me to protect all the interests, and under these circumstances I do not think the Government ought to be asked to make any amendment.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I am afraid that I did not make myself clearly understood or that I did not understand my right hon. Friend. I said if it were understood that all the Government desired was to take that portion of the factory of which they were already in occupation, and nothing else, then I should have no objection to the paragraph. I understood my right hon. Friend to say that was all the Government did desire, but he now says that is all the Government desires in the majority of cases, but in the minority of cases they want something else. We are, therefore back in the old situation, and this particular paragraph does apply to the case where the Government at present is in occupation of the whole of the factory, but for its own object only desires to take a portion of it, and where the owner is left with that portion which may be quite useless for the purpose of his business. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir E. Cornwall) says that there is a provision for compensation. That is quite true, and I said so in the few remarks that I made. Take the position of an owner. He has to go before a Commission and probably employ counsel. Possibly the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General appears for the Government. The owner may find that his case is not properly put before the Commission. No one questions the impartiality of the Railway and Canal Commission, but no one can say what is going to happen when a case goes before a Court or Commissioners in which damages are claimed. It is hard and unnecessary to put the owners of property to all the trouble and worry of what is practically a lawsuit. It would be very much simpler and easier for the Government to take over the whole. I do not mind a provision that the owner, in asking the Government to take over the whole, must prove that some loss would otherwise accrue, but, in my opinion, it is inflicting a very serious injury upon the owners of these different kinds of buildings to leave the question of compensation to the Commission. The statement of the Solicitor-General earlier in the Debate that it was the custom to
  40
  put in these sort of Clauses was answered by my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. W. Rutherford), who pointed out that that was in the case of railway companies, and it was not right that they should be compelled to take the whole of the property, I believe the London County Council also do something of this sort, but that is all the more reason why we should not pursue it, because all these provisions are introduced by the London County Council in order to deprive owners of property of that to which they are justly entitled, and I have always viewed these Clauses with great suspicion. I gather that my right, hon. Friend does not intend to accept any Amendment, and under the circumstances I shall be inclined to go to a Division, because I really do think it is a very important matter, and the Government, at any rate, ought to deal gently with these owners of property.
  Mr. ASHLEY: There is one point which I should like the Solicitor-General to clear up for my benefit and for the benefit of the Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool (Mr. W. Rutherford) raised the point that this Clause would give an option to the Government for five years to buy either a portion or the whole of a factory. The Clause was changed in Committee, but I think the Government Department, with the consent of the Commission, could hang on for five years after the War using the factory, and I understood that they had to decide in the third year whether they would keep on or not. That may be all right from the Government point of view, and in a way it may be necessary, but it is very hard on the owner of a factory. The War comes to an end, and the owner wants to turn his factory to the best advantage. How is he to do so if he does not know until the third year after the declaration of peace how much of his property is going to be handed back and how much taken away? If he is told at the end of the War, "We are going to take so much," he can cut his coat according to his cloth, but if he has to wait three years before he is told you inflict a disability and an injustice on him, and to a certain extent you hamper the nation in its output of peaceable manufactures after the conclusion of the War. I am not a lawyer, and I may be wrong, but if I am right in my contention, I do think the right hon. Gentleman, instead of putting us to the trouble of a Division ought to consider before the Report stage

  41
  whether he could not make some concession which would enable the owner of a factory to know at the conclusion of peace what portion of his factory he is going to have and what portion is going to be taken away.
  Mr. BOYTON: I do not think the Committee realises the very wide power the Government is going to take. Most speakers have referred to factories only, but the Committee must not be unmindful of the fact that the munition authorities are occupying buildings of all kinds. What will be the position, say, of the National Liberal Club if the Government decide to take a portion of the club and keep the sword hanging over their heads for five years? What will be the position of the Constitutional Club under similar circumstances, or of the Hotel Metropole, or of any of the other hotels which have been taken? Surely there should be some limit to the powers the Government seek to take
  It would be a very serious calamity to the National Liberal Club if the Government took the library, and it would equally be a calamity if they took the library of the Constitutional Club.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: I am afraid we should be permanently severed from the library.
  4.0. P.M.
  Mr. BOYTON: I am sure the Government will give consideration to the larger questions and not to the convenience of the hon. Member. I think the Committee generally will agree that the Government would be well advised if, between now and the Report stage, they saw their way to offer some modification of the really very extensive and all-absorbing powers they propose to take.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 161; Noes, 22.

  Division No. 57.]

  AYES.

  [4.0 p.m.

  Adamson, William

  Glanville, Harold James

  Mallalieu, Frederick William

  Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

  Goldstone, Frank

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Greenwood, Sir G. G. (Peterborough)

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

  Griffith, Rt. Hon. Ellis Jones

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

  Arnold, Sydney

  Hall, Frederick (Yorks, Normanton)

  Morgan, George Hay

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Morison, Hector

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Durham)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Barran. Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Henderson, John M. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Newman, John R. P.

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Hendry, Denis S.

  Norton Griffiths, J.

  Bellairs, Commander C. W.

  Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Men., S.)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

  O'Grady, James

  Bethell, Sir John Henry

  Hill, James (Bradford, C.)

  Partington, Oswald

  Bird, Alfred

  Hinds, John

  Pearce, Sir Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Blair, Reginald

  Hogge, James Myles

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

  Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Pennefather, De Fonblanque

  Bliss, Joseph

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

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

  Brace, William

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Broughton, Urban Hanlon

  Illingworth, Albert H.

  Radford, Sir George Heynes

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburghshire)

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  John, Edward Thomas

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Butcher, John George

  Jones, Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

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

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Cave, Rt. Hon. Sir George

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Kenyon, Barnet

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  King, Joseph

  Robertson, Rt. Hon. John M.

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

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Robinson, Sidney

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Lamb, Sir Ernest Henry

  Rowlands, James

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Lambert, Rt. Hon.G. (Devon, S. Melton)

  Runciman, Sir Walter (Hartlepool)

  Clough, William

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts., Cricklade)

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

  Larmor, Sir J.

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

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

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

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Cowan, W. H.

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Craig, Colonel James (Down, E.)

  Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

  Seely, Lt.-Col. Sir C. H. (Mansfield)

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

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

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

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

  Smith, Sir Swire (Keighley, Yorks)

  Davies, Ellis William (Elffon)

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Seames, Arthur Wellesley

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughby H.

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

  Stanton, Charles Butt

  Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir J. B.

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Stewart, Gershom

  Duke, Rt. Hon. Henry Edward

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Macmaster, Donald

  Tennant, Rt. Hon. Harold John

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Thomas, J. H.

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

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

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Fell, Arthur

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Walters, Sir John Tudor

  Gilbert, J. D.

  Malcolm, Ian

  Wardle, George J.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Wing, Thomas Edward

  Younger, Sir George

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

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

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Worthington-Evans, Major L.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

  Yeo, Alfred William

  Mr. Gulland and Lord Edmund Talbot.

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

  Hunt, Major Rowland

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

  Boyton, James

  Kilbride, Denis

  Tickler, T. G.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Croft, Lieut.-Col. Henry Page

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

  Ganzoni, Francis John C.

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Gretton, John

  O'Malley, William

  Sir Frederick Banbury and Mr. Watson Rutherford.

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Pearce, Sir William (Limehouse)

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Amendment made: In paragraph 6, after "land". ["value of the land"], insert the word "acquired."—[Sir G. Cave.]
  Mr. TURTON: I beg to move, in paragraph 6, to leave out the words "which the land would have had at the date of the notice to treat if it had remained in the condition in which it was at the commencement of the present War."
  I cannot help thinking that these words are quite unnecessary and mere surplusage. I am not going to contend for a moment that a landowner is entitled to a fanciful value, but I cannot help suggesting to the learned Solicitor-General that the words which follow immediately afterwards with regard to any enhancement of the value which may be attributed, directly or indirectly, to any buildings or works that may be put upon the land give effect to all that can be, desired. It would be a very great hardship upon the owner if he has to go back first to the period of the War, and then, under Sub-section (1) of Section 1 to take another period of three years, which may be extended for a further period of four years on application to the Commissioners. That would give a total period of nine years, and I submit it is rather a long time to go back upon in order to arrive at the value of the land. Surely the fair thing would be to take the value at the time that the Government stepped in as the occupying department and took possession of the land. The land should be taken at its value at the time notice to treat was given, providing that there is no enhancement by reason of the buildings put upon it. Therefore I suggest to the Solicitor-General it is unfair to keep in these words. This is a Council's Association Amendment, and I am sorry that my hon. Friends whose names are attached to it are not present, because I was not at the meeting of the association when it was decided to
  put the Amendment down. I repeat that in my opinion these words are unnecessary and mere surplusage.
  Sir G. CAVE: I have tried to understand the object of this Amendment, and I am sorry I am unable to do so even with the assistance of my hon. Friend's speech. I cannot see what he desires to gain by its adoption. The Clause provides that the value of the land to be taken is to be taken at what it would have been at the date of the notice to treat if it had remained in the condition in which it was at the beginning of the War, and I do not see what is to be gained by leaving out these particular words. Then there is the provision with regard to buildings, works, and improvements. I say these are quite proper words, and, unless we keep them in, the object aimed at will not be secured.
  Mr. TURTON: With the leave of the Committee, I ask to be allowed to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move, to leave out paragraph 7.
  This is an extremely controversial paragraph. It deals with a subject which has been a matter of great controversy both in this House and in other places, namely, what is called "betterment"—
  Sir G. CAVE: I do not desire to interrupt the right hon. Baronet, but I may say that we do not desire to press this paragraph.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I am much obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
  Mr. ASHLEY: I desire to find out what is meant by leaving out this paragraph. I would ask the Solicitor-General what effect it has upon the Bill? How will the

  45
  Compensation be determined if neighbouring land gets the benefit of the building put up by the State, and, on the other hand, if the State has put up buildings and done other things which are injurious to the land, will the owner be compensated? What will be the state of affairs if this paragraph is omitted?
  Mr. DUNDAS WHITE: I am rather surprised that the Government have accepted the deletion of this paragraph, which brings in the principle of betterment, a principle which is sound enough. I see from the Amendment Paper that several hon. Members have put down Amendments to bring in the converse principle of worsement, namely, that if there is to be payment for benefit, there is also to be compensation for loss. I desire to know whether in dropping this paragraph and abandoning the principle of betterment the Government also propose to abandon the principle of worsement?
  Sir G. CAVE: I am sorry I did not allow the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) to develop his argument. I thought that hon. Members were agreed that the paragraph should be left out. [HON. MEMBEBS: '.' Hear, hear! "] Then I do not know that I am called upon to defend it. [An HON. MEMBER: "We cannot hear."] I think most hon. Members understand the meaning of the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN: We now come to the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for the Tradeston Division (Mr. D. White—at the end of paragraph 8 to insert a new paragraph 9). That deals with a matter that was settled on the 27th July, at an earlier stage of the Bill. We cannot deal with it twice over and make the Bill contradictory.
  Colonel GRETTON: I beg to move to leave out Paragraph 9.
  The first part of this paragraph says—
  "Where the surface of the land is acquired without the mines and minerals lying thereunder, the Commission may apply any of the provisions of Sections seventy-seven to eighty-five of the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845."
  To those words there appears to be no objection, although that part of the paragraph appears to be unnecessary. I object, however, to the concluding words—
  "with such adaptations and modifications as the Commission think fit."
  46
  It is a highly objectionable principle that we should allow judicial officers to legislate. It is the business of a judge or a judicial officer to interpret a Clause. It is the business of this House to say what it means and put it into a Bill.. This Bill contains much evidence that it is a departmental Bill, drawn up by the officers of the Department in order to obtain powers which they consider necessary. When drawing the Bill they made the powers as wide as possible in order to cover any possible operations they might be called upon to perform. That, however, is no reason why we should give unlimited powers. The effect of the words—
  "with such adaptations and modifications as the Commission think fit,"
  in fact, nullifies the preceding part. If there are to be modifications or adaptations, this House should give the Commissioners some directions as to the modifications or adaptations that are right and necessary, or, at any rate, lay down the principle upon which they are to make the modifications. Otherwise you are giving a power beyond that which is necessary. It is a very dangerous power to give to any commission or court of law. For these reasons I contend that the paragraph should not be passed by the Committee as it stands. It requires further consideration, and I move its deletion to enable that consideration to be given to it.
  Sir G. CAVE: I believe the hon. and gallant Member agrees that in some form or other the paragraph is required. It is necessary to insert the first part, otherwise the landowner whose land is acquired without the mines and minerals lying there under might lose the benefit of the Sections mentioned. What the hon. and gallant Gentleman objects to is the power given to the Commission to modify and adapt the provisions of Sections 77 to 85 of the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act. I should rather like to have the view of the Committee as to whether they desire that those Sections shall apply to all cases without modification, or whether they would leave it to the Commissioners to apply them in proper cases with modifications. Generally speaking, the provisions apply only within a distance of forty yards from the land taken, as in a case known as the Howley Park case it has been decided that outside the forty yards the ordinary law as to support still applies. I know that some people would like to have the forty yards' limit extended. That is the kind

  47
  of case which would be taken into consideration. If you apply the Sections in their present form, without any modification, the principle laid down in the Howley Park case would apply in all these cases. It would be better for everybody, especially for the landowner, if the paragraph were left as it stands. I hope the Committee will agree to it as it stands. At any rate we cannot, at this moment, accept this Amendment.
  Mr. RUTHERFORD: Do I understand that the Solicitor-General would be prepared to leave out the last few words of the paragraph and let it stand with the exception of the words "with such adaptations and modifications as the Commission think fit"? If so, we should be entirely in accord with him. Our real objection is that in this Bill it is proposed to adopt here and now a whole series of amendments and modifications of the ordinary law as to the taking of property. There are fifteen different points in this Schedule upon which the ordinary law of the land is to be varied in favour of the Government who are taking this property. In this particular paragraph the Government seek to go a step further and to say that the Railway Commission shall have power, in the case of land acquired without the mines and minerals lying there under, to make further alterations in the ordinary law relating to the taking of property. Those alterations are not explained to this Committee. We are not asked to pass them. We are asked to give another body the power of making alterations in the law. That is seeking to carry the powers of the Government to a point heretofore unheard of. It is bad enough to be discussing fifteen different paragraphs containing exceptions, but when one of those paragraphs empowers another body to graft a fresh set of regulations on to the law, really I do not know where we are. It is about the largest order that any Committee of this House has ever been asked to accept. It is bad enough when we embody a Clause enabling a Government Department to make regulations which we have never seen, but here we are asked to empower a body over which we have no control—we have control over a Government after it has made regulations—namely, the Railway Commission, to make any number of further regulations to any extent they think fit, altering the rights
  48
  and obligations of the parties as between the owners of the surface and the owners of minerals. In Lancashire, Yorkshire, Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire, and one or two other counties, serious difficulties frequently arise as regards heavy buildings with respect to minerals which are underneath. It happens in a vast number of cases that the minerals belong to parties other than those to whom the surface belongs. When we are asked to hand over to another body the right to modify the ordinary law with regard to minerals in cases where the Government has taken the whole or some part of a factory, some years after peace has been declared, we are being asked to do something which we should not be asked to do. I sincerely trust the Government will accept the Amendment. If they cannot see their way to leave out the paragraph altogether, they ought to leave out the words
  "with such adaptations and modifications as the Commission think fit."
  To give the Commission power to make modifications and adaptations as they think fit with regard to minerals on property the Government have taken is something highly improper and quite unnecessary, because it is provided for in the law as codified in the different Acts of Parliament.
  Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: I understand my right hon. Friend is prepared to leave out these words?
  Sir G. CAVE: I want to know what the feelings of the Committee are.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I do not know how we can tell what adaptations or modifications the Commission may make. I understand my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Hohler) to say that these words are for the benefit of landowners. I do not understand how he arrives at that conclusion, because I do not believe anyone can know what adaptations or modifications the Commission will make. It seems to me that my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Gretton) is quite right, and that any modification or adaptation of the particular Clause should be expressed in the Schedule. I myself have always held that this House is the proper authority to make alterations in Acts of Parliament. I believe the Railway and Canal Commission is a very excellent body and is perfectly impartial, but I do not think it is the duty of this House to leave to any Commission, however impartial, the power of making

  49
  any alterations or adaptations in any Acts of Parliament that they may think fit; therefore I should certainly hope that these words will be left out.
  Mr. ASHLEY: I am not in the least moved by the statement of the Solicitor General that these adaptations and modifications will be for the benefit of landowners. I am sure he thinks they will, and very possibly it may be so, but I do not think we ought to be influenced by the statement that any change such as that is for the benefit of any particular class. What I stand by, and I am sure the Solicitor-General in his heart stands by, is the supremacy of the House of Commons. The House of Commons is the body which ought, and I hope always will, decide what the law of the land is to be, and to leave the modifications of the law to a body of gentlemen, however upright and distinguished, seems to me to be a continuation of that line of policy which has crept into our legislation for the last ten or fifteen; years. We see more and more the direction of legislation handed over to the permanent official, and I am not in the least moved, though I am a landowner myself, by the fact that I might suffer some personal loss by the elimination of these words, and I strongly urge the right hon. Gentleman not to think of the interests of any one class, but to maintain the supremacy of the House of Commons, and if any modification of an Act is necessary to come "to the House of Commons and get the modification, and then I am sure it will be all right.
  Sir G. CAVE: There are Amendments down in the names of three hon. Members, who, I know, especially represent the interests of owners of land with minerals under it. Unfortunately, I do not think Any one of them is here, but it is worth noticing that neither they nor anyone else has put down an Amendment to omit these words. The Amendment down is to omit the whole Clause, which I do not think anyone supports, because it would be very cruel on a mine owner to omit the Clause altogether. I do not think hon. Members quite realise how much harm they may do to owners of mines if they insist upon the point they are making now. I suggest that we might let the discussion come to an end now, and between now and the Report stage hon. Members who are interested might consider the matter and see whether it is worth their while to put down an Amendment to omit the words which
  50
  they are now discussing. In that case we can consider it on its merits with full knowledge of the facts.
  Sir J. JARDINE: As far as I can gather from the Debate the words chiefly objected to are the permission to give to the Railway and Canal Commission the power to make modifications and adaptations which will be substantially new rules of law. If that is what they are meant to be I agree with hon. Members opposite that that is the function of Parliament, and whether it affects any particular class, such as the owners of the surface or the owners of the mines below the surface, is not a matter that we should pay much attention to, because we cannot say what views the Commissioners might take when they were making modifications or adaptations. Their views might vary from time to time, and they might vary with the mental characteristics of the Commissioners. If they were to be empowered to bring in the maxims of equity and jurisprudence, maxims which did not purport to be new rules of law, but to be equalising rules applied by the Courts for ages with a view to giving substantial justice in every point, and in that way only overruling the rules of law, and were allowed to do so—because these rules are as much a part of the jurisprudence of the country as the common law—that would be a very different thing But I imagine that the Railway Commissioners have the power to apply those rules of law and in a very great many cases they would be as effective as the application of new modifications, which would not gain very much public trust because they would be new, and they would 'effect enormous interests, like those of landowners and the owners of mines, without having been considered until the case came up. I understand these modifications are to be made not as regulations, but in the particular case, and at the time of giving judgment, or something of that sort. Altogether it seems to me that we want more definition in order to secure justice, to keep up the powers in this House and to prevent new rules or modifications being brought in, instead of the established rules that the equity courts have applied for so many centuries.
  Mr. HOHLER: I sincerely hope my hon. Friend will adopt the course suggested by the Solicitor-General. I do not carry in my mind what are the provisions proposed to be introduced under the Railways Clauses Acts, nor do I carry in my mind

  51
  the decision in the case mentioned by my right hon. Friend, but I am quite content with the Bill. My right hon. Friend says landowners will suffer if these words are left out. He proposes that the matter shall stand over until Report, and those who are interested can look into it and take time to consider it and then do whatever they like. What can be more reasonable than that? I hope my hon. Friend will take that course.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I am sorry I have to disagree with my hon. and learned Friend. It is quite true the Solicitor-General has said we are to do what we like, but it is not the duty of a Member of this House to say to other Members, "You can do what you like." It is our duty to see that we are making laws which are just. It is not an argument for making a law that it is a benefit to the landowners.
  Mr. HOHLER: Can my right hon. Friend tell me exactly what are the provisions of the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, and what is the effect of the decision in the case cited by the Solicitor-General? Then I shall understand it.
  Sir F. BANBURY: What I desire to do is not in any kind of way to interfere with the application of these particular Clauses. The application of these Clauses and the precedent in the case cited should be continued. There I am in agreement with my hon. Friend. All I say is that these Clauses should not be altered. These Clauses, to which he attaches such great importance, and the case, he desires to have explained should be left to the Commissioners, who should not have power given them by this House to modify them. I am quite willing to fall in with my right hon. Friend's suggestion, though I should prefer leaving the words out now, and, if necessary, having them reinserted on Report. My right hon. Friend says no one has put down an Amendment. I should have put an Amendment down if I had noticed the words. I admit that owing to incapacity on my part, or want of industry, I had not noticed the words. It is really rather a complicated Bill. I think my right hon. Friend must excuse me if I have made a lapse and forgotten to put down an Amendment which I ought to have put down. I see my hon. Friend (Sir J. Harmood-Banner). He is one of the Gentlemen to whom my right hon. Friend referred as a certain class of people interested in the Amendment. If the pro-
  52
  posal is that we should have ah open mind, and the general opinion of the House is that the words should be left out on Report, I have no objection.
  Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER: The hon. Baronet referred to me. I understand my Amendment comes a little lower down in this paragraph, therefore I do not know that I need mention it now, unless the Solicitor-General is prepared to accept it.
  Colonel GRETTON: I am quite willing to accept the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman and to withdraw my Amendment. It appears to have taken the House a little by surprise. The point apparently had not been considered by many hon. Members, and no doubt requires a littler further time and consideration. In the meantime, however, it would be well to consider how an injunction of this kind will affect questions of cost, time, and procedure before the Commission. The Commission will take a great deal more time, and the costs will be very much heavier than if they proceeded on well-ascertained principles of law already in existence.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER: I beg to-move to leave out the words "the Commission may apply any of." The paragraph provides that—
  "Where the surface of the land is acquired without the mines and minerals lying thereunder the Commission may apply any of the provisions of Sections seventy-seven to eighty-five of the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, with such adaptations and modifications as the Commission think fit."
  My Amendment is that they shall apply. This is a matter which should not be left to the option of the Commissioners. The right of mining coal should be made to apply and the Commission should have pow'er to make such adaptations and modifications as they may consider necessary. Where mines are not purchased, the right that the mine owners have for the purpose of working them should remain and should not be affected. As the paragraph now stands we do not know what will happen to those rights or what the Government may do. There is no reason why the right of mining coal should not be retained. I do hope the Solicitor-General will accept the proposal so as to relieve the mine owner from consequences which may be really serious.
  Sir G. CAVE: I will accept this Amendment. Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: At the end of paragraph 9, insert the words "shall apply."—[Sir J. Harmood-Banner.]
  Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move to leave out paragraph 10, which provides:
  "Where by reason of the erection, construction, or making of any such buildings, works, or improvements as aforesaid or the maintenance thereof, or by reason of the user of 'the land, any interest in the land has become or might become forfeited or liable to forfeiture, the compensation shall be determined as if no such forfeiture or liability to forfeiture had arisen or might arise."
  I do not understand this paragraph, and I want an explanation from the Solicitor-General as to what it really does mean. I do not understand what the effect would be. Say I had an interest in property, and that property was in the hands of a life tenant, and there was a provision that if the life tenant did something that he ought not to do he would forfeit his interest and I would take possession of the land. The Government come along and take this property, and the life tenant does commit that act which he ought not to commit; does this Clause mean that I should receive no benefit and that the power of forfeiture would be annulled? It looks to me as if the Government are going to ignore the rights which a certain person has in regard to property of this kind, and it is with the object of getting an explanation from the Solicitor-General that I move this Amendment.
  Sir G. CAVE: I do not complain of the Amendment being moved, because these matters are complicated. The point which it is desired to provide for is this: supposing there is land which is let on lease and the lease contains a covenant against carrying on a particular business, with a provision that if that covenant is broken the lease shall be forfeited. In a case like that, suppose we have taken the land and are carrying on a prohibited business on that land, the legal result may possibly be that by reason of that act the lease is forfeited and the freeholder will come into entire possession of the property. In that case the freeholder might get everything and the leaseholder nothing. That would not be fair, because the forfeiture would not be the result of the action of the lessee,
  54
  but the result of the action of the Government. It is right under those circumstances that the lessee should have his share of the compensation.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: Surely the words of this paragraph go further than that. Let us take the case we were discussing a short time ago where the Government take part of a factory and commit a certain breach of the covenant. The result is that the unfortunate owner of the whole factory will lose the rest of his factory. Of course, the Government are not bound to take the whole of the factory, and may decline to do so. In that case the unfortunate lessee loses substantially a very large sum of money owing to an action of the Government which has brought about the forfeiture, and the landlord gets the property of the lessee. The Solicitor-General has simply dealt with the question of the landlord. I am dealing with the case of the lessee, who is the lessee of property, only part of which has been taken by the Government. This is a case in which you are taking part of the whole—that is, part of the factory—and by your action the whole factory is forfeited. As this Section stands he will get no compensation, but he will lose the whole of his property, which will go back to the landlord owing: to the action of the Government. It appears to me, therefore, that this paragraph goes much further than the Solicitor-General has stated, and that in the case of the lessee it may be a great injustice.
  Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: As I understood the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Rawlinson), the lessee would suffer owing to a breach committed not by him, but by people in possession on the part of the Government, and it does seem to me that something in addition to this provision should be inserted for the protection of the lessee. Perhaps the Solicitor-General can give us some idea what protection he thinks the lessee will receive.
  Sir G. CAVE: It seems to me that these points are not relevant to this Amendment. In the event of the omission of this Clause, the lessee might get nothing at all. Under the Clause he does get something. The point whether, where we take part of a man's land and carry on certain work upon it, there might be a forfeiture of the remainder of the land, is a new point which. I am willing to consider, and perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman

  55
  (Mr. Rawlinson) will also consider it and see whether he can suggest some Amendment to meet this point. It is a point worth considering.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I thought of leaving it out altogether.
  Mr. HOHLER: My recollection is that the Courts have decided that where there is a breach of covenant on a man's land which is taken by virtue of an Act of Parliament, which breach, had there been no such Act of Parliament, would have resulted in forfeiture, there is no breach committed and there is no forfeiture of the land. I believe that is so. As the Solicitor-General has pointed out, so far as this paragraph goes it would help the lessee in that case.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I do not press my Amendment after what we have heard. If the law is already what the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Hohler) has said, what is the point in having a paragraph which says that the law shall be what it already is? I think I have done some good in eliciting that statement from the hon. and learned Gentleman. I think the point raised by my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Rawlinson) deserves consideration, and I feel sure that the Solicitor-General will consider it. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. TURTON: I beg to move to leave Out paragraph 11.
  5.0. P.M.
  This paragraph provides that the Commission shall not hear more than one expert witness on either side, except in such cases as the Commission otherwise directs. I suggest that that would create very great hardship. It is limiting the parties very much. There may be a case which may require not only one expert witness on one particular kind of trade, but may also require the services of an expert in the accountancy department, or other departments, apart from the main expert question which has to be decided. I am perfectly aware that there is a proviso which allows the Commission to direct that more than one expert witness may be called upon application being made to the Commission. But that will only increase the cost of the inquiry. I understand that the desire is to put as small expense as possible upon the different parties. But that proviso would, I take it, mean an
  56
  application in open Court before the Railway and Canal Commission, notice being given to the other side and application being made, which may be fought and resisted by the other side. Under those circumstances, I suggest that it is an extreme hardship that the parties should be limited in the way in which they desire to present their case before the tribunal. I do not know whether the Solicitor-General has any great animus against expert witnesses. We are told that a very learned judge once said there were liars, infernal liars, and expert witnesses, and it may be that the Solicitor-General desires that as few expert witnesses as possible should be called before the Railway and Canal Commission. I do suggest that this Clause is unnecessary, and will be a hardship upon those who have to appear before the Tribunal, and it is only fair that it should be left out.
  Sir G. CAVE: I have some sympathy with this Amendment. As my hon. Friend says, a man may want one expert on one branch of the case and quite a different expert on another branch. My own feeling would be to leave out this Clause and to rely upon the provision contained in the next Rule, which enables the Tribunal to decide whether it will award costs or not.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. ASHLEY: I beg to move to leave out paragraph 13.
  I understand that this imposes an entirely new burden upon claimants, and I would ask the Solicitor-General why this change in the law is being made, and why, if a claimant neglects to comply with this requirement, he should be punished by having costs given against him? It is rather difficult, I admit, for a layman to understand exactly what this paragraph means. It is very involved, and has commas and semi-colons up and down it, but I think that I am right in saying that this is a new burden which is put upon the private owner of land, and that he is going to be punished in the matter of costs if he does not consent to bear it. I see no reason why it should be imposed upon him. Why cannot the ordinary negotiation between purchaser and seller be carried out? Why, when land has been acquired for the defence of the realm, should these obligations to put in these details in writing within a certain time be imposed?

  57
  I will not say more at present, but I may have more to say in reply to the learned Solicitor-General.
  Sir G. CAVE: This is not an entirely new proposal. It is embodied in several Acts of Parliament already. The meaning is this. The claimant is asked to give particulars of his interest in the land—to say whether he is a freeholder or a leaseholder, or what interest he has. Thereupon the purchasing authority has the right to make him an offer of so much for his property. If he refuses that offer, then the matter goes to the proper tribunal, and the purchase money is fixed; and if the purchase money is less than the sum which has been offered, of course there are certain consequences in reference to costs. This is very useful in avoiding litigation in which very often money is thrown away, and it meets the difficulty, which has arisen in some cases, of the owner of the property declining to give any particulars at all and in effect saying, "I will not tell you what my interest is" All we ask in this paragraph is that he shall be asked to give particulars, and if he does not give particulars, then there may be a special report made as to his failure to give particulars, and the provision as to costs shall apply. I really do not think that it is a great burden, for a man who is claiming compensation for property, to say what his property is, and I hope that my hon. Friend will not persist in his Amendment.
  Sir T. WALTERS: As I read this paragraph it is incumbent upon the landowner not only to give particulars, but to state the amount which he claims. Suppose a man decides that he will not claim any amount. You have made an offer, and he is not prepared to accept that offer, and he says, "I want this to go to the tribunal because the offer is not adequate." This seems to me to be quite a new departure. It may be desirable. I am not arguing its merits or demerits. I only want to be quite clear as to what is meant. Suppose that a man claims a certain amount and that you will not pay him that amount, and that the sum which is awarded is less than what he claims but more than what was offered, how will he stand then with regard to costs?
  Sir G. CAVE: He will get his costs.
  Mr. HOHLER: I gather that the explanation of the Solicitor-General is this:
  58
  that a freeholder or leaseholder may refuse to give particulars of what his title or his interest in the land is, and that, the Government wish to guard against such a case. When I look at the Clause 1 see nothing to justify that statement. There is not a word about title or interest. If it were a case of a man refusing to state what his title is I should be at one with the Solicitor-General, but I think that, as it stands, this Clause is quite an unfair one. If you say to a man, "How much do you want?" and he employs an expert, which may mean considerable expense—because experts are costly luxuries, and quite properly, as it is their profession, and they understand the value of land—and your expert goes into the matter and arrives at a lower figure. The expert of the landowner, honestly believing in his figures, says, "Go to arbitration." They go to arbitration on this advice, and then there may be a loss of costs. I do not think that the Clause is in the least fair, and I support the Amendment, as the Clause deals only with stating the amount of the claim and has nothing whatever to do with the title.
  Mr. E. DAVIES: I hope that the Solicitor-General will not give way on, this question. I am very much amazed at the attitude of hon. Members opposite. The only suggestion is that the present owner of the land should give such particulars as would enable the Department to make a suitable offer. The Department merely say this: "We have acquired your land, and now want to agree as to the price, and we ask for particulars to enable us to make you an offer so as to avoid the necessity of arbitration." Hon. Members opposite say, "No, you must not ask for particulars to enable the Government to make an offer." Just contrast this with our treatment of another class; some time ago in this House. We passed an Act of Parliament for the purpose of helping soldiers to meet their civil liabilities, and we compelled soldiers whose lives we conscripted to supply the body deciding the question with full particulars of their affairs and their condition in life and all their private interests. Why should the landowner, whose land is acquired in the national interest, be exempted from giving these particulars, which he must have, to go before the Court? If a landowner is going to a Court of Law he must have these particulars. I know as a solicitor that I never

  59
  make a claim without giving full particulars. It seems to me rather ominous that the moment we are dealing with national interests and the interests of the landowner this distinction should be made, and that when a Government Department says to a landowner, "We want particulars of your claim," hon. Members who voted and shouted for conscription of human life do not wish to compel landowners in this country to give particulars of their claim.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: The real point is that under the Lands Clauses Act as it stands now, the person, of course, has got to say what is the income of his property, whether it is leasehold or freehold, and So forth, and in that sense he has to give particulars of his claim. But this Clause goes further than that, and it says that the owner of the property is to state the amount of his claim and how he makes it up. To ask him to give these particulars is a very hard thing to do, because it means his going to an expert at once. He might not be able to give particulars of the amount of the offer, and he would have to go to an expert. But these particulars which are required are not too well understood by the ordinary person, and he would have to spend money in order to be able to make his claim. Surely it is rather an exceptional thing to bring in a Bill of this kind, a provision which requires a man to make out the particulars of the whole of his claim under different heads, and, if he does not, he runs the risk of losing his costs. This is a very small point, and simply the ordinary particulars which are bound to be given under the Lands Clauses Acts should be required, and it does seem very harsh to make a person set out the whole of the technical particulars.
  Mr. BOYTON: I do not know how the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Ellis Davies) would be able to reconcile his professional vocation with the national interest when his clients came to consult him on a question of this sort. What are you going to do under this provision of the Bill? You are going to penalise a man for not supplying particulars to the same extent as you would penalise him under the Lands Clauses Acts, as if he had gone through the whole gamut of the case and failing to make it good would only then be condemned with costs. Legislation arrives
  60
  quickly in these days, and it is within the power of the right hon. Gentleman's Department, or in the power of the first Commission set up by the Ministry of Munitions, to go to the Land Registry, or to the Books of the Surveyors under the Finance Act, where they know everything pertaining to every property, yet you are going to penalise a man to the extent that he will be mulcted in the costs should he not unburden his soul and tell them all about his property. The Departments have already heaps of power without the provision which it is now sought to introduce. I think all this is really labour in vain, as you can already obtain these particulars.
  Sir E. CORNWALL: This provision is perhaps rather hard on owners of property. The hon. Member behind me feels that we should treat landowners in the same way as we treat soldiers. I agree that we want to hold the balance all round, but we do not want to make it easy for the landowner to get more compensation than he ought to have. It may be that there are many manufacturers of munitions, who do their work excellently and who have done great service, to the country, yet they may not be quite so good at making out a claim when the Government comes along and wants to take over their property. The clever man, who is an owner of property whether as a landowner or manufacturer, and who really wants to get an unfair profit out of the Government, would not be prejudiced by this Clause, because the very first thing he would do would be to get his expert adviser to read this Clause, and he would know exactly how to manage the case. Any business man will read this Clause very carefully, as he would any Act of Parliament, in order to protect his interests, and there is nothing in this Section which would prevent a man, if he chose, to be unscrupulous, from getting more compensation from the Government than he ought, an operation in which this Clause might help him. He would be careful to prepare his statement in sufficient time and in a sufficient way. On the other hand there is a large number of people whose only desire is to serve the country, and they are doing so by turning out munitions at their works. But, under this Section, many of these persons might not be so careful as they ought to be, and probably they might say

  61
  what amount they wanted for their property without understanding that they would be subjected to a great deal of examination and a great deal of delay, and a lot of innocent people might not possibly get the compensation they ought to receive. I submit that if the Government took power in the Bill to go in themselves to examine the books and obtain whatever information they need to enable them to make a proper offer, it would be sufficient. This provision in the Bill will not protect the Government from any unscrupulous owner, while it may do great injustice to those who are not expert in making claims. I suggest that if the Government take ample power to go in and obtain all the information they want from the books of the various parties, that ought to be as much as they should require.
  Mr. RUTHERFORD: When one looks through this Clause, the first thing one asks oneself is, What is it put in this Schedule for? As a matter of fact it does alter the Lands Clauses Acts, the Railways Clauses Act, and the ordinary law in a very important manner. The Government Department, railway company, or any company under the general Act who desire to purchase a property of this sort, if they want to be relieved of going to arbitration, have to make an offer, and they can only be relieved from paying the costs if they can prove that they had made an offer that the owner declined to accept. That is perfectly fair, and that is the law as it stands. The Government, wanting a property and does not want to pay the costs of an arbitration upon the price, must prove that it made an offer that was equal to or more than the amount asked or awarded. But when you look at this paragraph 13, you find that for the purpose of taking these properties they are going to put the whole thing exactly the other way up. They do not say that it is necessary for them to make an offer, but that they are going to insist upon the owner of the property stating his price, and if he neglects to give proper particulars in sufficient time then he has to pay the cost. It is throwing the onus of dealing with the transaction upon the owner and not upon the purchaser, and the owner is to give particulars of how he exactly makes up his price; he has to give a statement in writing of the amount of his claim; the amount of his claim is so many hundreds of pounds, shillings, and pence, but he has to give particulars exactly showing how
  62
  he makes up the price—so much per yard, so much for buildings, so much for severance, so much for every item to make up his claim, and he has to do that in sufficient time. Who is to be the judge of sufficient time? Supposing a man is abroad at the time the property is being taken and he has not given those particulars in sufficient time, is the whole cost thrown upon him? All these attempts to put in perfectly new fancy Clauses, such as this, to throw the onus upon the owner of the property, are novel things, and they are the things which make this Bill so objectionable. It seems to me that all these obligations are objectionable, and that this House ought not to be a party to inflicting them upon a body of people who are entitled to full consideration.
  Sir T. WALTERS: I think this is an unfortunately worded Clause for the purpose it has in view. I understand that the Government desire to avoid arbitration in as many cases as possible, and they put this new procedure into the Bill whereby the owner of the property has to give particulars of the price, and all the rest of it, and then, the Government having got those particulars, make him an offer. I quite understand that the Clause may have been devised to put the onus on the person owning the property to supply all the necessary particulars, and presumably he might be asked to name the lump sum which he will take for the whole thing. It is not right to go beyond that and to ask him to give detailed particulars of his claim suitable for the surveyors of the Department. Even the Government ought not to resort to practices which may be easy for a clever man to fulfil but difficult for a simple man. All these ingenious things have the effect of enabling people with long purses and cool heads to go and get the very best assistance obtainable and to make good bargains. On the other hand, the simple citizen who has no experience of dealing with Government Departments thinks that they will deal fairly with him. I am somewhat favourably inclined to the idea of some machinery by which a man would state the price he was prepared to take for the property. It is a novel procedure, but in this particular case I think it would be a good one. You must not, however, compel him to fill in details or enact that if he does not fill in those details that he is to be deprived of his costs. If his claim is not an excessive one, or if the offer made by the Government Department is not an adequate one,

  63
  he ought to get his costs on the merits, and they should not depend on some ingenious system of machinery as to whether he has or has not set fully in writing a number of particulars. Without desiring to upset the policy which the Government has in view of effecting arbitration where possible, and to keep expenses down to the lowest possible level, and to keep lawyers and experts out of it, which I think is a good, sound doctrine, speaking as a public man, but very bad speaking as a professional man, I very respectfully suggest that they ought to revise this Clause and remove from it such provisions as the penalising of a man, and depriving him of costs through some process of ingenious machinery.
  Mr. ASHLEY: After the very excellent speech to which we have just listened, I can add very little. I think we have the merits of the argument on our side. When I moved to omit the Clause the right hon. Gentleman the Solicitor-General, if my recollection is correct, stated that all he required was that a man should fill up the particulars of his title to the land. He never mentioned a single word about particulars as to the amount of money the man was going to claim. Therefore I think the right hon. Gentleman had in his mind a Clause to which no one would object, for what he meant was particulars of the title, and the nature of the land which would enable the Government Department to know what area of land and what sort of land they were taking over. It is another thing to penalise a man because he does not give particulars which a Government Department will pick to pieces. I therefore would suggest that he should favourably consider the elimination of reference to the question of details and, if necessary, a Clause might be introduced penalising the person who refused to give details of the area and sort of land that it was proposed to take.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Carnarvonshire (Mr. Ellis Davies) and the greater part of it had nothing to do with the proposal before the Committee. The Solicitor-General said that the intention of the Clause was that particulars of a man's interest in a freehold or leasehold should be made in-order that the Government might know what interest it was that they were acquiring so that they might make an offer. The Clause does not carry out that inten-
  64
  tion, and my suggestion is that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should remodel the Clause to carry out his wishes. I suggest to leave out the words "of the amount claimed," and instead of those to insert the words "of his interest in the property." The paragraph would then read "has failed to deliver to such Department a statement in writing giving sufficient particulars of his interest in the property, and in sufficient time to enable such Department to make a proper offer." I should like to have the opinion of the hon. Member for Sheffield (Sir T. Walters) as to whether that Amendment would carry out what he desires. It would, I think, carry out the desire expressed by the Solicitor-General and would make the Clause reasonable and intelligible. I do not quite agree with the suggestion of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Rutherford) to deal with this matter as they do with hotels. The Government have a very simple way of dealing with hotels. They take them and do not pay anything, and I do not want that precedent established in this paragraph or in this Bill.
  Sir G. CAVE: I recognise that there is objection to the form of the Clause, and I am quite willing to consider the whole Clause before Report, and to try and redraft it, if the Amendment is withdrawn.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question proposed, "That the Schedule, as amended, be the Schedule of the Bill."
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I beg to move, as an Amendment, to leave out this Schedule.
  I would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the Committee to look at the Schedule as it stands and to consider whether it really is worth while keeping it there. This is a case where the landowner is entitled to more than ordinary consideration. He is a person who has given up his land voluntarily, a thing which some of his neighbours have not done. Is it fair to make it more difficult for him to obtain right compensation by the conditions of a Schedule such as this? There is, for instance, the question of the number of expert witnesses and the new scale of costs. The Government, in a sense, do not mind whether they get costs or not, and they can employ what counsel and witnesses they please. The person who is against them, and with whom money is more of a consideration, has to take a risk which is not often sufficiently realised. I hope that the Committee will consider whether or not a Schedule of this kind can

  65
  do otherwise than work injustice to people who are deserving of every credit, because, ex hypothesi, they are people who have given up land.
  Amendment negatived.
  Bill reported; as amended to be considered to-morrow (Wednesday), and to be printed. [Bill 111.]

  LARCENY BILL.— [Lords.]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Sir G. CAVE: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  This is a Bill to consolidate the Statute Law so far as it relates to larceny triable on indictment, and also to codify the common law relating to larceny. It is a similar Bill to the Perjury Act of last year, which codified the law of perjury. It has been very carefully considered, not only in another place, but by a Committee representing both Houses. On that Committee we had the advantage of being advised by experts in this matter. We had evidence on the Bill, and the greatest care was taken so to frame the Bill as to embody the law as it at present stands. That is the custom of the Codification Committee, on which I have served for many years. In substance we always endeavour to ensure that the Bills shall represent the existing law; but, of course, in codifying or consolidating the law you often come across matters of detail in regard to which it is absurd to keep up distinctions embodied in a series of Statutes. We have made it our practice to put Amendments dealing with these small matters in a separate Schedule and to recommend their adoption, in order to make the Bill workable, while still leaving it essentially a statement of the law of the land. These small Amendments were inserted in another place, and subject to that observation the Bill represents the existing law. I may say that we should not bring forward this Bill at the present time if we thought that it required anything like prolonged consideration in Committee, but in view of the fact that the Bill has already been considered by a Committee upon which this House was represented, we think the House will be willing not to interrupt the process of codification which has gone on for so many years.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I beg to move to leave out the word "now," and to add at the end of the Question the words, "upon this day three months."
  It is rather difficult for me to say a word against the Committee of which the Solicior-General was a member, or to deny the care which they no doubt bestowed on the Bill. But obviously there is no particular urgency for this Bill. It certainly is not a war measure. The Larceny Act has been in existence a considerable time, and probably one year one way or the other would make very little difference to the Bill. The Bill does not merely alter the law of larceny from the criminal point of view. Very important distinctions are determined by the question whether a particular act amounts to larceny or not. Our Courts are full of such cases. For instance, if property is stolen from me and dealt with dishonestly by the person stealing it, I am entitled to recover it from the pawnbroker or the person to whom it is given. That is a matter of great importance to pawnbrokers. On the other hand, if a person obtains goods from me by false pretences and then disposes of them to a pawnbroker, I cannot recover. In both cases it is assumed that the pawnbroker has accepted the goods honestly. Therefore it is often a most vital matter to determine whether a particular case is one of larceny or stealing or one of obtaining money by false pretences. That is dealt with in a particular way by this Bill. I am not criticising the effect of it; all I say is that it is a matter affecting a large portion of the mercantile community, and one with which this House ought to have an opportunity of dealing.
  Further, this is not a convenient time for dealing with a codifying Bill of this kind. The Solicitor-General says that this is a Bill codifying the law relating to larceny, triable on indictment. Practically the whole of the law dealng with larceny is dealt with in the Act of 1861. That is a. very long Act, and it deals with both embezzlement and obtaining goods by fraud. This Bill, for some reason, deals with only half the subject. According to figures given to me, sixty-four Sections of the Larceny Act of 1861 are repealed and about the same number are left unrepealed. Therefore this Bill, which is nominally a Consolidation Bill of the whole subject, is not a Consolidation Bill of the whole subject at all. We are told that it is intended to deal with the unrepealed Sections of the Act of 1861 in a subsequent

  67
  Bill dealing with fraud generally. The distinction between fraud and larceny is so exceedingly subtle that it would seem to me to be better to deal with the whole matter in one Consolidation Bill. If this Bill were allowed to stand over the Consolidation Committee would be able to bring up a Bill dealing with the other half of the subject. The right hon. Gentleman said that this Bill had been prepared with the greatest care. I am sure that some matters must have been overlooked. I have had certain particulars given me. Since the Act of 1861 there have been one or two other Larceny Acts? There is the Act of 1868, consisting of two Sections only. This Bill repeals the first and leaver the second. Other statutes are treated in a somewhat similar way. The Larceny Act of 1896 consists of one Section only, part of which is repealed and a part left in existence. That is not very good consolidation work, and I think we might be able to effect some Amendments if we had time. It would not be right to go into details on the Second Reading. I simply put it to the Government whether they think it wise to press this Bill, having regard to the interests affected and to the incomplete state of the measure
  Mr. KING: I beg to second the Amendment.
  6.0 P.M.
  I cannot speak with the authority and the experience of the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University, but I have looked into this Bill and anticipated most of the points so well put by him. I do not think that a Bill of this sort ought to be brought in, especially at this time, unless it is a complete Consolidation Bill. This is admittedly only a partial consolidation of the law. It consolidates the law of larceny, triable on indictment. The law of larceny, triable on summary conviction, is not consolidated or simplified at all. To the ordinary layman and the ordinary working lawyer that is a very undesirable line to go upon. Consolidation Bills are now always brought down as being Consolidation Bills and not amending Bills. The Joint Committee which considered this Bill reported as follows:—
  "The Committee feel that the terms of reference do not justify them in making Amendments to the Bill, but they strongly recommend that the Amendments should be made before the Bill is passed."
  Therefore the Bill when first introduced in another place had no amendments of the law. Those Amendments were inserted in another place, so that the Bill comes down to us containing a large number of Amend-
  68
  ments of the law, although its title is "An Act to Consolidate and Simplify the Law." I believe that if those Amendments had been brought forward here, under the usual restrictive powers of the Chairman they would have been ruled out of order. I have nothing to say against those Amendments generally. In many cases they do not go far enough. There are many anomalous, severe, and cruel punishments in the law of larceny, some of which have been modified or removed in another place. I should like to see that process of amendment taken much farther. If I were to follow that line I should have to ask the Committee to consider a large number of Amendments. At this period of the Session, and with the public business before us, that is impracticable. But it is obviously very inconvenient to bring in a Consolidation Bill, and then, as an afterthought, to allow Amendments which were not originally intended. What will be the attitude of the Government if Amendments are put on the Paper? Will not the Solicitor-General say that this is not the place for Amendments, and point to the title of the Bill? These are some of the points which make me say that this Bill, if it is given a Second Reading to-night, ought not to be pressed forward too hurriedly. There might be conferences between those interested and the Solicitor-General, as a result of which a certain number of Amendments might be allowed. I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will indicate his intention not to proceed with this Bill without allowing some consideration to the points put forward, otherwise I am afraid I shall have to put down a number of Amendments on the Paper. However, I do not want to carry out even so mild and harmless a threat unless it is absolutely necessary, and I have great pleasure in seconding my hon. and learned Friend's Motion.
  Sir G. CAVE: Perhaps I may be allowed a few words in answer to the criticisms which have been made by the hon. Gentleman opposite. It is quite true, as the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University says, that the Bill only consolidates part of the Statute Laws relating to larceny, namely, that relating to larceny triable on indictment. I said so in introducing it. The Acts of 1861, 1868, and 1896, which he referred to, continue to be operative in so far as the offence can be dealt with summarily. We are quite properly

  69
  leaving out that part of the Statute Law to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred. In a very snort time we hope to introduce a Bill bringing all these other points into one compass. To a certain extent all our codification and consolidation of the law is partial work: the ground to be covered is so great that we must proceed by instalments. Therefore we think it right to take the matter so far this year, and we hope to take it further next year. The other point was raised by the hon. Member for North Somerset. What he says is perfectly true. Some Amendments of the law were introduced in another place, and I said so in introducing the Bill, but they are minor Amendments and intended to remove glaring anomalies. For instance, there is a particular class of larceny for which two years imprisonment has been prescribed, and another class punishable by three years imprisonment. Imprisonment for three years is a thing that is practically obsolete, and is now never imposed. Therefore we have cut it out and prescribed a maximum period of two years for both. Little things like that, which were so obvious as to be glaring, have been put right. They are not really Amendments, but bring the law into manageable shape. We did not think it right to include Amendments of a wider kind. The Bill follows on the lines of the work of the Committee presided over by Lord Loreburn.
  Sir J. JARDINE: I should like to ask the Solicitor-General two questions. I understand that the Bill does not make any increase of penalties in the existing law, and also that it does not affect any existing jurisdictions for dealing with particular offences?
  Sir G. CAVE: No.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  COURT OF SESSION (EXTRACTS) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. MACLEAN in the Chair.]

  CLAUSE 1.—(Form of Warrant for Execution in Extracts of Court of Session Decrees).
  In every extract of a decree pronounced or to be pronounced by the Court of Ses-
  70
  sion on which execution may competently proceed, the principal extractor or assistant extractor shall insert a warrant for execution in the form or as nearly as may be in the form of the Schedule to this Act annexed, and it shall be lawful by virtue of such warrant to arrest the readiest goods, debts, and sums of money of the debtor or obligant mentioned in such extract in payment and satisfaction of the sum or sums of money or obligation or obligations therein specified, as also to charge the debtor or obligant therein mentioned to pay the sum or sums of money or to perform the obligation or obligations therein specified within the appropriate days of charge under the pain of poinding and of imprisonment so far as competent, the terms of payment or implement being first come and byegone and if he fail to obey the said charge, then so far as competent to apprize, poind and distrain all his readiest goods, gear and other effects in payment and satisfaction of the said sum or sums or obligation or obligations, and if necessary for effecting the said poinding to open shut and lockfast places.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. WATT: I should like some little explanation of this measure from my right hon. and learned Friend. He gave a lucid explanation on the Second Reading of the Bill, but for my own part I should desire him now to deal somewhat with the subject. I should like to ask the Lord Advocate who will benefit by this measure? Is it simply the extractor and his assistant in Edinburgh who will have less arduous duties to perform, or will the public benefit? Are the charges for these extracts to be re duced? Will the reduction in the length of these extracts from four or five pages of foolscap to one line, as indicated in the Schedule, be accompanied by a corresponding reduction to the public? I do not know that the time of this House should be taken up with measures such as this unless advantages to the public will accrue. If the Bill is simply to lessen the duties of by no means overworked officials, then this is not a suitable time for going into the matter.
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Munro): From what my hon. and learned Friend has said, it is quite obvious that he fully understands the object of the Bill, although I think he makes a mistake in regard to one or two of its consequences. The

  71
  object of the Bill is perfectly plain. It is designed for the purpose of reducing the warrant to charge, as it is called, on extracts of decrees of Court of Session, from four or five pages of foolscap to eleven words. It is obvious that such a reduction will save time, money, and labour. My hon. and learned Friend is wrong in suggesting that the result of passing this Bill will be that officials whom he considers are not overworked will have even less to do. The extractors' staff has already been depleted by enlistment, and I am informed that it will be further depleted by enlistment in the near future. The net result of the passage of this Bill will be that work which has accumulated by reason of the depletion of the staff will bet overtaken with expedition and success, and that even when another member of the staff goes, as I am assured he will presently, to join the Colours it will be unnecessary to add to the staff, and so a saving will be effected. In these circumstances, and as the Bill is supported by the Departmental Committee's Report, and by, so far as I know, the whole legal profession in Scotland—and I see a very distinguished member of it sitting opposite to me—and as it encountered no opposition at all from any quarter of the House when it was explained on Second Beading, I venture to hope that the Committee will pass the Clause, and also give us the further stages of the Bill.
  Bill reported without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

  CHARITY BILLS.
    HOLLIGRAVE CHARITY BILL.
    Read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. Rea.]
    STONY STRATFORD CHARITIES BILL.
    Read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. Rea.]

    BAPTIST CHAPELS CHAEITIES BILL.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—[Mr. Rea.]
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I should like to know why the Home Office is in charge of this Bill, and the other Charities Bills, and whether they have any control of the finances; and, secondly, whether or not there is any precedent for the Clause which appears in this Bill by which the Charity Commissioners may from time to time in the exercise of their ordinary jurisdiction prepare suitable schemes for the alteration of any provision of these schemes as if such alteration had been made by the founder, in cases where the charity had a founder? Will that have the effect of giving complete power to the Charity Commissioners to alter these schemes in any way, and, if so, will there be any means of opposing their wishes in the matter? I find this new Clause in some of the other Bills. Is there a precedent for it, and what is the effect of it?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Brace): The reason why the Home Office is in charge of this round dozen of Charity Bills is not that the Home Office is specially interested in the question, but because my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Charity Commissioner would not be able to move the Bills, inasmuch as the Government has taken the whole time of the House. I am informed that the Bills introduce no new principle whatsoever, and that the powers taken by the Charities Commissioners are the usual powers. To make doubly sure, however, and to give satisfaction to my hon. and learned Friend, I will make it my business, between now and the Committee stage, to make special inquiry, and will inform him exactly on the points about which he inquires.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: May I inquire how many more of these Bills are going to be taken at the present Sitting? My hon. Friend who has just sat down will have noticed that two representative Members of the House have put down Amendments to move the rejection of this Bill. The House was summoned to-day to take a certain number of Bills, and no mention whatever was made of these particular Bills.
    An HON. MEMBER: Yes!
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Not these Bills.
    An HON. MEMBER: I think it said "Other Bills."
    Sir H. DALZIEL: I am certain that the particular Bill we are discussing now was not mentioned.
    An HON. MEMBER: Yes; Charity Bills.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: That does not mean that it was intended to take the round dozen referred to by the Under-Secretary. I would suggest to the Government, in view of the fact that notices of rejection are down by two representative Members, and that, being taken by surprise to some extent, those Members have left the House, whether they would not be content with the measures they have obtained up to the present time. I would repeat my question as to whether the Parliamentary Secretary can tell us how far it is intended to go? I think we have gone quite far enough for the present sitting.
    Mr. GULLAND (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): It was distinctly stated that Charity Bills would be taken. As my hon. Friend has said, there is no new point in any of these Bills. It is very desirable that these charity schemes should be got through as early as possible, and I do hope my right hon. Friend will not make any objection to taking the Bills down to the Plymouth "Workhouse Charity Bill. The only other Order we propose to take is that for Committee on the Navy and Army Expenditure, 1914–15.

    BURNHAM-ON-CROUCH CHAPEL CHARITY BILL.
    Read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. Rea.]
    BRADFORD (INFIRMARY STREET) BAPTIST CHAPEL CHARITY BILL.
    Read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. Rea.]
    BRADNINCH CHAPEL CHARITIES BILL.
    Read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. Bea.]
    BETHLEHEM CHAPEL (TRYDDYN) CHARITY BILL.
    Read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. Rea.]
    PISGAH CHAPEL (TRYDDYN) CHARITY BILL.
    Read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. Rea.]

    MORIAH CHAPEL (BRODGHTON) CHARITY BILL.
    Order for Second Beading read.
    Captain Sir OWEN PHILIPPS: Might I ask the hon. Gentleman if he will briefly explain to the House the object of this Bill?
    Mr. BRACE: Shortly, it is seeking legislative power to change the doctrinal creeds of a particular chapel for which money has been left in trust, but which the trustees of a place of worship now think ought to be handed over to a particular denomination. I fancy in this particular case it is Congregational. The Welsh Calvinistic Methodists are prepared to take over this, and the Church Authorities desire to hand it over. It is an agreed proposal which the Charity Commissioners are bringing forward, and therefore we hope the House will take it as an agreed Bill.

    BETHANY CHAPEL CHARITY BILL.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Captain Sir O. PHILIPPS: I think it is very desirable that the House should have a little further information on these subjects. If I am to understand the hon. Gentleman rightly, he is proposing by these Bills to alter the doctrines that are being preached in these chapels. Am I correct? I only want to ask if it is quite clear that that is so, and that these chapels are coming to Parliament to smooth out difficulties which they could not settle without coming to Parliament.
    Mr. BRACE: So as to be on perfectly safe ground I will read the note with which I have been supplied by the Charity Commissioners:
    "This chapel was settled in trust for Particular or Calvinistic Baptists holding specified doctrines of a Calvinistic nature, including eternal and personal election, original sin, particular redemption, and everlasting misery of such as die impenitent. It is proposed

    75
    by the scheme that the Baptist Union Corporation, Limited, should be the trustees, and that the trusts shall be those generally in use under management of the Union. The doctrines to be maintained are the same as those mentioned in the preceding case of Bradninch Baptist Chapel, and the observation made in that case applies in this case and other cases."
    I hope my hon. Friend will not ask me to go into details of all these cases, and that the House will take the broad statement.
    Sir HENRY CRAIK: I would point out that the scope of this Bill is in effect exactly the same as that which occupied the attention of Parliament for a long time, namely, what is called the "Wee Free Kirk." It is precisely the same point involved by a Dissenting body that comes to Parliament to be endowed with endowments that were established originally to inculcate doctrines which are now apparently abandoned as out of fashion. That is exactly what occurred in the very important legislation which, as I say, occupied the House for a very long time. I am quite ready, if these changes are conscientiously felt to be necessary, to agree to them, but I trust that when the Church of Wales or the Church of England or the Established Church of Scotland desires a similar change that they will then show a little of that charity which they desire to have shown to themselves at this time. It would be perfectly in our power to stop this, and we should only be following the example occasionally shown by certain Dissenting bodies who consider themselves bound to resist any change of this sort in any established church. In allowing these Bills to be passed, we are giving to them a very great facility for adapting themselves to new doctrines which apparently have now commended themselves to those bodies. Let them remember that when the Established Church comes forward and asks for legislative powers to make similar changes, and show the same charity and the same liberality which is now extended to them in allowing these Bills to pass.

    CONGREGATIONAL CHAPELS BILL.
    Read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. Bea.]
    PLYMOUTH WORKHOUSE CHARITIES BILL.
    Read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. Rea.]

    NAVY AND ARMY EXPENDITURE, 1914–15.
    Considered in Committee.
    [Mr. MACLEAN in the Chair.]
    Resolutions proposed,
    I. Whereas it appears by the Navy Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1915, and the statement appended thereto, as follows, viz.:—

    (a) That the aggregate expenditure on Navy Services exceeded the aggregate sums appropriated for those Services by a sum of £52,284,867 14s. 9d.;

    (b) That the aggregate receipts in aid of Navy Services exceeded the aggregate sums appropriated in aid of those Services by a sum of £533,005 7s. 2d.;

    (c) That, as shown in the Schedule hereunto appended, the total differences between the Exchequer Grants for Navy Services and the net expenditure are as follows, viz.:—

    £

    s.

    d.

    Total Surpluses

    191,491

    9

    3

    Total Deficits

    51,943,353

    16

    10

    Net Deficit (charged against the Vote of Credit)

    £51,751,862

    7

    7

    And whereas by a Vote of Parliament during the present Session (House of Commons Paper, No. 108, of 1916) a further sum of £100 has been granted for the expenditure of the year 1914–15, and the appropriation of additional receipts in aid of such expenditure has been sanctioned to the amount of £532,905 7s. 2d.
    And whereas the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application of the said total surpluses on certain Grants or Navy Services to make good part of the deficit of Vote 1.
    1. Resolved, "That the application of such sums be sanctioned."—[Mr. Rea.]

    SCHEDULE

    Number of Vote.

    Navy Services, 1914–15. Votes.

    Differences between Exchequer Grants and Net Expenditure.

    Surpluses.

    Deficits.

    £

    s.

    d.

    £

    s.

    d.

    1

    Wages, etc., of Officers, Seamen, and Boys, Coast Guard, and Royal Marines

    —

    4,837,329

    14

    2

    2

    Victualling and Clothing for the Navy

    —

    4,319,627

    0

    10

    3

    Medical Establishments and Services

    —

    144,489

    5

    11

    4

    Civilians employed on Meet Services

    —

    61,676

    12

    8

    5

    Educational Services

    13,234

    7

    10

    —

    6

    Scientific Services

    —

    22,390

    5

    1

    7

    Royal Naval Reserves

    43,116

    3

    5

    —

    8

    Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc.:

    —

    I. Personnel

    II. Matériel

    III. Contract Work

    42,361,999

    1

    7

    9

    Naval Armaments

    10

    Works, Buildings, and Repairs, at Home and Abroad

    11

    Miscellaneous Effective Services

    12

    Admiralty Office

    —

    99,667

    0

    8

    13

    Half Pay and Retired Pay

    125,655

    1

    6

    —

    14

    Naval and Marine Pensions, Gratuities, and Compassionate Allowances

    —

    68,259

    6

    4

    15

    Civil Superannuation, Compensation Allowances, and Gratuities

    9,485

    16

    6

    —

    —

    Amount written off as irrecoverable

    —

    27,915

    9

    7

    Total

    191,491

    9

    3

    51,943,353

    16

    10

    Add Excess Vote

    100

    0

    0

    —

    Add Surplus Receipts not appropriated by Parliament

    —

    100

    0

    0

    191,591

    9

    3

    51,943,453

    16

    10

    Net Deficit (charged against the Vote of Credit)

    £51,751,862 7 7 "

    II. Whereas it appears by the Army Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of
    March, 1915, and the statement appended thereto, as follows, viz.:—

    (a) That the aggregate expenditure on Army Services exceeded the aggregate sums
    appropriated for those Services by a sum of £215,106,538 19s. 10d.;

    (b) That the aggregate receipts in aid of Army Services exceeded the aggregate sums
    appropriated in aid of those Services by a sum of £3,238,997 3s. 11d.;

    (c) That, as shown in the Schedule hereunto appended, the total differences between
    the Exchequer Grants for Army Services and the net expenditure are as follows,
    viz.:—

    £

    s.

    d.

    Total Surpluses

    830,774

    5

    1

    Total Deficit

    212,698,316

    1

    0

    Net Deficit (charged against the Vote of Credit)

    £211,867,541

    15

    11

    And whereas by a Vote of Parliament during the present Session (House of Commons Paper, No. 106, of 1916) a further sum of £10 has been granted for the expenditure of the year 1914–15, and the appropriation of additional receipts in aid of such expenditure has been sanctioned to the amount of £3,238,987 3s. 11d.
    And whereas the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Army Services to make good part of the deficit on Vote 1.

    SCHEDULE.

    Number of Vote.

    Army Services, 1914–15. Votes.

    Differences between Exchequer Grants and Net Expenditure.

    Surpluses.

    Deficits.

    £

    s.

    d.

    £

    s.

    d.

    1

    Pay, etc., of the Army

    —

    31,614,717

    18

    4

    2

    Medical Establishment: Pay, etc.

    —

    1,572,451

    16

    7

    3

    Special Reserve

    301,992

    10

    6

    —

    4

    Territorial Forces

    481,433

    10

    7

    —

    5

    Establishments for Military Education

    —

    49,966

    7

    2

    6

    Quartering, Transport, and Remounts

    —

    50,981,243

    11

    3

    7

    Supplies and Clothing

    —

    81,715,619

    6

    10

    8

    Ordnance Department Establishments and General Stores

    —

    16,585,258

    11

    8

    9

    Armaments, Engineer Stores, and Aviation

    —

    18,700,241

    15

    1

    10

    Works and Buildings

    —

    10,908,095

    9

    11

    11

    Miscellaneous Effective Services

    —

    349,229

    13

    8

    12

    War Office

    —

    126,853

    17

    2

    13

    Half Pay, Retired Pay, and other Non-effective Charges for Officers, etc.

    81,428

    7

    11

    14

    Pensions and other Non-effective Charges for Men, etc.

    45,655

    2

    10

    —

    15

    Civil Superannuation, Compensation and Gratuities

    1,693

    1

    2

    —

    Balances irrecoverable and Claims abandoned

    —

    13,209

    5

    5

    Total

    830,774

    5

    1

    212,698,316

    1

    0

    Add Excess Vote

    10

    0

    0

    —

    "Surplus Receipts not appropriated by Parliament

    —

    10

    0

    0

    830,784

    5

    1

    212,698,326

    1

    0

    Net Deficit (charged against the Vote of Credit)

    £211,867,541 15 11 "

    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the application of such sums be sanctioned."—[Mr. Rea.]
    Mr. WATT: Are we to have any explanation from the Admiralty?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY: (Dr. Macnamara): We are here dealing with the Navy Appropriation Account for 1914–15, and the House knows that during the course of each financial year we can seek Treasury sanction to apply the underspending on any particular Vote to balance the overspending on any other, always provided that the aggregate expenditure in any year is not made to exceed the aggregate sums appropriated for the Service. Such temporary sanction in this particular case, 1914–15, was given in the Treasury Minute of the 12th April. 1915, and Parliamentary sanction is finally given in Section 5 of the Appropriation Act. In this case Parliament really does more in fact. It gives an endorsement to a sanction already given by passing Votes
    80
    of Credit to the use of moneys from the Vote of Credit in excess of the aggregate appropriated for Naval Services in the Estimates of 1914–15. I may say that the procedure regulating the issues from the Vote of Credit for 1914–15 is detailed in Treasury Minutes of 20th August, 1914, and 22nd November, 1915. They have been circulated as House of Commons Papers, Nos. 458 of 1914, and 392 of 1915. So far as this 1914–15 account is concerned, we showed underspendings on four Votes—5, 7, 13, and 15. Those amounted to £191,491 9s. 3d. We showed overspendings in all the other Votes outstanding as set forth in the Resolution, of £51,943,353 16s. 10d. Further, in the 1914–15 Estimate we estimated to receive £2,023,261 Appropriations-in-Aid. In point of fact we received during the course of that year £533,005 7s. 2d. in excess of that figure. We came on 15th of August of this year with an Excess Vote of £100 in order to regularise the use of these excess Appropriations-in-Aid. What we now seek is

    81
    permanent Parliamentary covering sanction under Section 5 of the Appropriation Act for the setting off of the underspendings, £191,491 9s. 3d., against the over-spendings, £51,943,353 16s. 10d., leaving the net deficiency to be met out of the Vote of Credit, namely, the £51,751,862 7s. 7d. of the Resolution now before the House. I hope my hon. Friend will be fully satisfied with this explanation.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Did the right hon. Gentleman say that he had spent more than was authorised by the Vote of Credit?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: No; more than the estimate.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Of course, the transference is perfectly in order, provided the total sum spent is not beyond the total authorised by the estimate.
    Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: I think this proposal ought to have been explained. There is nothing here to indicate the original estimate. You only give here the surpluses under some headings, and the deficits under the other. If it is explained that there is a net deficit of £51,943,000 then it is quite understandable why it has occurred.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: Is it necessary to get the sanction of the House to these transfers? Frequently upon Votes of Credit I have raised the point that matters were dealt with which have never come before the House.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes, it is necessary, and all these matters are regulated by the
    82
    Treasury Minutes. I will send the hon. and learned Member copies of those Minutes if he desires them.
    Colonel GRETTON: I would like to know if what we are adopting now prejudices any of the questions which arise on the Vote of Credit. If it is merely a question of transferring the balances, then, of course, it is quite a different matter, but if we are prejudicing any of the issues that may arise on war expenditure, then it is a matter of very great importance.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: That is not so. We are dealing now with the total deficits as on the Papers.
    Colonel GRETTON: Then I am satisfied if we are only dealing with the technical transfer of small surpluses, and I understand that the larger question is not being dealt with.
    Resolutions to be reported to-morrow (Wednesday).
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
    Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 22nd of February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
    Adjourned accordingly at Twenty minutes before Seven o'clock.

WAR.
  EDUCATION.
    RECONSTRUCTION COMMITTEE.
    RECONSTRUCTION COMMITTEE.
  FRANCHISE AND ELECTORAL REFORM.
    PARLIAMENTARY CONFERENCE.
    PARLIAMENTARY CONFERENCE.
    WASTE LAND RECLAMATION.
    WASTE LAND RECLAMATION.
    WAR CHARITIES ACT (IRELAND).
    WAR CHARITIES ACT (IRELAND).
    BRITISH CASUALTIES.
    BRITISH CASUALTIES.
    MILITARY SERVICE.
      LOCAL AND APPEAL TRIBUNALS (FARM WORKERS).
      LOCAL AND APPEAL TRIBUNALS (FARM WORKERS).
    FOOD PRICES (INCREASE).
    FOOD PRICES (INCREASE).
    SALICYLATES IMPORTED.
    SALICYLATES IMPORTED.
    BOARD OF TRADE (STAFF).
    BOARD OF TRADE (STAFF).