Sitting of 25 October 1916

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
NEW WRIT.
For the County of Cork (West Cork Division), in the room of James Gilhooly, Esquire, deceased.—[Mr. Maurice Healy.]
TEEATY SERIES (No. 4, 1916).
Copies presented of Treaties, etc., between the United Kingdom and Foreign States; Accessions, Withdrawals, etc. (in continuation of Treaty Series, No. 10, 1915) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
HISTORICAL MANUSCRIPTS (ROYAL COMMISSION).
Copy presented of Eighteenth Report of the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
IRISH LAND COMMISSION (ACCOUNT).
Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—Copy of Accounts of the Irish Land Commission for the year ended 31st March, 1916, and from 22nd August, 1881, to 31st March, 1916, together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon [by Act]; to be printed. [No. 132.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    ROYAL DOCKYARDS (FEMALE LABOUR).
    Mr. GEORGE LAMBERTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many women were employed before the War,
    1096
    how many women are now employed, and how many women have replaced men in the Chatham, Devonport, and Portsmouth Dockyards?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The number of women employed in Chatham, Devonport, and Portsmouth Dockyards at a date shortly prior to the War was 430. The number of women employed in the same dockyards at the end of August this year was 1,630, and the number is still being increased. The additional women have been engaged for the most part for work which was formerly performed by men.

    H.M.S. "HAMPSHIRE."
    Sir RICHARD COOPERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he has received notification of the safety of any members of the crew of His Majesty's ship "Hampshire" other than the twelve men officially announced in June last?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: No, Sir. No further information has been received.

    PRISONERS OF WAR.
    Mr. MALCOLMasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now state the result of the negotiations that have been proceeding between his Department and the War Office concerning the temporary remission of grave punishments on prisoners of war in Germany and England, and the return to Germany of British prisoners now working in Russian Poland?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord Robert Cecil): The Army Council have decided, after careful consideration of the matter, that it is undesirable that an agreement should be concluded with Germany similar to that concluded between France and Germany.
    Sir EDWIN CORNWALLasked the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs if he will state how many British women and children are now detained in any belligerent country; will he give the numbers in each case; and will he state what steps are being taken to secure the repatriation of all such persons?
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I regret to state that we have no complete information as to the number of British women and children detained in enemy countries. The number of women detained in Germany and Austria-Hungary against their will is very small. None are, as far as we are aware, detained in Bulgaria. We have made repeated representations to the German Government as to their refusal for many months past to allow British women to leave the occupied districts of France and Belgium. With regard to the Ottoman Empire, large numbers of women and children of British nationality have left since the beginning of hostilities. Negotiations are proceeding with the Porte for the release from Turkey of British civilians of both sexes.
    Mr. MALCOLM: Are British women in occupied territory in France allowed to come back with the French women who are being repatriated?
    Lord R. CECIL: I do not think so, but I will inquire.
    Mr. MALCOLM: I will put a question down.
    Sir E. CORNWALLasked the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether any recent arrangement has been made whereby additional British civil prisoners are now to be repatriated from Germany; and, in that case, will he state the nature and details of such arrangement?
    Lord R. CECIL: As stated yesterday by my Noble Friend Lord Newton, an arrangement has been made whereby all civilians over the age of forty-five interned in Germany or the British Empire will be repatriated, subject to the right of either Power to detain for military reasons not more than twenty persons.
    Sir E. CORNWALLasked how many German women and children have been repatriated from this country since the outbreak of war; and how many who are desirous of leaving still remain in this country?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Herbert Samuel): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. Some 12,350 German women with their children have left this country since 11th August, 1914. Of these, 11,200 were returning to Germany. Any German woman now in this country may apply for permit to return to Germany, and, with the exception of five
    1098
    who are interned under the Defence of the Realm Regulations, I am not aware of any German woman whom permission to return to her country has been refused.
    Mr. EUGENE WASON: Do the same regulations apply to Austria?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I should like notice of that question.
    Sir CHARLES HENRYasked whether representations have been made to the German Government that whereas this country has given financial assistance to the wives and families of interned civilian prisoners who require it, no such assistance is being given in similar instances in Germany?
    Lord R. CECIL: The attention of the German Government was long since drawn to the fact that His Majesty's Government had arranged for allowances to be paid to the British-born wives of interned German civilians, notwithstanding the fact that the German Government had refused relief to the German-born wives of British subjects interned in Germany. We are considering whether we can usefully make further representations to the German Government on the subject.
    Sir HENRY DALZIELasked the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether the Government have now received a definite statement on behalf of the German Government that they are willing to exchange British civilians interned in Germany of military age for Germans of military age intern d in this country; whether he is aware that there is a widespread feeling that the Government, in the interests of our prisoners, should entertain this proposal; and can he add anything further to his previous declarations on the subject?
    Mr. EDMUND HARVEYasked whether information is received of the effect on their mental condition of the prolonged imprisonment of civilian prisoners of war in detention camps; and whether further efforts are being made for a general exchange of civilian prisoners between Great Britain and Germany before the winter sets in?
    Lord R. CECIL: I may say that we understand that the German Government are not unnaturally willing to exchange British civilians for German civilians of military age. The Foreign Office are, however, informed that the War Office are of opinion that the military

    1099
    results of the exchange of these civilians make it impossible to accede to the proposal.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Secretary of State for War how many Indian native officers and men are prisoners in German hands according to the latest return; what are the camps in which they are interned; and how many have been exchanged since the War began?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): There are twelve Indian native officers and 667 of other ranks in German hands. Of these two officers and seven of other ranks are in Switzerland. The camps in which the Indian native officers and men are interned in Germany are at Zossen, Munster, Osnabruck, Friedrichsfeld, and Wahn. Eight Indian native soldiers have been exchanged.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Secretary of State for War how many Indian native officers and men are prisoners in Turkish hands according to the latest Return; what are the camps in which they are interned; and how many have been exchanged since the War began?
    Mr. FORSTER: The Army Council have definite knowledge of 199 Indian native officers and 654 of other ranks being in Turkish hands. In addition, there are a considerable number of Indian native soldiers of the Kut garrison of whom no definite news has yet been received. The officers and men are at Afien Karahisiar, Ras-el-Ain, Broussa, Konia, Yosgad, and Eskinchehir, and a certain number of hospital cases at Bagdad. Six officers and 1,139 men have been exchanged.

    DUTCH PISHING INDUSTRY (DISTRIBUTION DIFFICULTIES).
    Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that on the 14th instant another large consignment of fish from Holland was destroyed owing to it not being fit for human consumption; if he is aware that the fish caught by Dutch fishermen and sent to this country is, after being packed, often detained four or five days before it is sent by cargo boat to this country; and whether, with the object of pre-
    1100
    venting the waste of food that is taking place under the present system, he will arrange for the fish being transferred from the fishing boats into steam trawlers or other boats and sent direct to some port in the country from which it can be sold while fresh?
    Lord R. CECIL: An arrangement has been made for the purchase in Holland of certain quantities of Dutch fish. As it is not at present advisable to state publicly the conditions of purchase, the particulars will be given to the hon. Member privately. The delay which has occurred in connection with the transport of certain consignments of fish and other commodities from Holland is attributable to unavoidable circumstances. Whilst regular transport from Holland is still likely to offer difficulties, it is hoped that some improvement may be secured in the future.
    Mr. WILSON: Is the Noble Lord aware that last year there was as much fish imported from Holland as there is this year, and that the firms who handled it had very little of it condemned? Can he not see his way to let these firms deal with the present imports?
    Lord R. CECIL: This question has nothing to do with the purchasing firm. I shall be glad to discuss this matter with the hon. Member. I think I can show him he is quite on the wrong track.
    Mr. WILSON: Is the firm handling the fish now a firm of fried fish dealers?
    Lord R. CECIL: I have said this has nothing to do with the purchasing firm.

    PEACE TERMS.
    Major CHAPPLEasked the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the accumulating evidence of a dread in high quarters in Germany that the Allies will dictate the terms of peace, he will now, in conjunction with our Allies, announce that, without prejudice to the present position, all enemy atrocities committed on or after a future date will be investigated with a view to fixing culpability upon those, in whatever rank or station, primarily responsible, in the hope that the dread of appropriate punishment may act as a deterrent?
    Lord R. CECIL: I fear that I can add nothing to the reply returned to the hon. and gallant Member on the 17th instant.
    Major CHAPPLEasked the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the evidence of internal disintegration in Austria, Hungary, Bulgaria, and Turkey, their eagerness for peace, and the pretence of Germany that she is able to secure it for them on favourable terms, he will now, jointly with our Allies, announce that under no circumstances will terms of peace be discussed or concluded with Germany on behalf of these countries, but that each will be dealt with separately?
    Lord R. CECIL: I regret that it is impossible for me at this stage to express any opinion on the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member.

    AFRICAN COLONIAL EXPORT TAXES.
    Mr. MOLTENOasked the Secretary for the Colonies whether he is yet in a position to say what, if any, steps have been taken to ascertain the views of the local native producers of palm kernels as to the effect upon the industry of the proposed export tax of £2 per ton?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Bonar Law): Before any legislation on the subject can be enacted it will have to be debated in the Legislative Councils of the Colonies, where full opportunity for discussion will be given. It is also open at any time to interested parties to address the various Governors on the subject.
    Mr. MOLTENOasked the Secretary for the Colonies whether, in the event of the imposition of taxation on exports, the local governments in West Africa are in a position to give a definite undertaking that the native kernel producers, who will pay the proposed export tax of £2 per ton on palm kernels, will receive the rebate without deductions upon palm kernels crushed in the Empire?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: As I stated in the House on 3rd August last, I am unable to share the hon. Member's view as to the necessary incidence of this duty, and I cannot usefully add anything to what I said on that occasion.
    Mr. MOLTENOasked the Secretary for the Colonies whether on the 16th September the Controller of Customs in the Gold Coast Colony telegraphed to all the provinces that from the 1st October there would be an export duty on cocoa of £2 6s. 8d. per ton; if he can state upon
    1102
    whose authority this order was issued; and whether before the imposition of this tax it had been thoroughly considered and agreed to by a full meeting of the Legislative Council?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The imposition of this tax was fully discussed and agreed to by the Legislative Council on the 25th and 26th September. I have no information as to the notice by the Controller of Customs, but it was doubtless issued under the authority of the Governor, as is usual in such cases, as a warning and conditional on the acceptance by the Council of the proposals of the Government.

    CEYLON.
    Mr. MORRELLasked the Secretary for the Colonies whether, in view of the fact that the Ceylon Blue Book, Cd. 8167, does not contain proclamations and instructions of great importance, including a proclamation under which power was given to shoot British subjects at sight upon their refusal to supply information, he will now cause to be laid upon the Table copies of all official proclamations and orders issued in Ceylon from 1st June to 30th August, 1915?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have seen a reproduction of a notice which warns people of the punishment to which persons who commit certain offences, including the suppression of evidence concerning rioters, render themselves liable. No such notice could, of course, give any power not otherwise possessed by the executive. I see no reason for publishing any further Papers about the Ceylon riots.
    Mr. MORRELLasked whether three prominent Sinhalese, named respectively, D. Goonewardena, D. Goonesekera, and G. Perera, of Hanwella, were sentenced to death by court-martial for offences in connection with, the Ceylon riots; whether their sentences were commuted; whether the innocence of these gentlemen has now been completely established and their release; ordered; and whether any compensation will be made to these gentlemen for the injury they have suffered?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have already informed the House that the Governor of Ceylon is personally investigating the cases of persons convicted by courts-martial of offences connected with the

    1103
    riots. I have received no report on the investigation of the cases mentioned in the question, but I will ask for one.
    Mr. E. HARVEY: Will the Report be laid on the Table?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I hardly think that will be necessary. I shall be glad to give information in answer to a question.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked how many persons imprisoned in Ceylon in connection with the riots have been released since the arrival of Sir John Anderson?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have not yet received a report in the matter.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary of State for War whether any gratuity or allowance is made to the parents of young men who, induced by drink or other such means, joined the Army in the first year of the War and fell in action; and, if so, why no such gratuity or allowance has been paid to Patrick Walsh in respect of his son James Walsh, aged nineteen, No. 4562, 3rd Company 1st Battalion Irish Guards, killed in action 26th October, 1915?
    Mr. FORSTER: Walsh enlisted in October, 1913, and there is nothing to show that while he was a soldier his parents were at any time dependent on him.
    Mr. GINNELL: Will nothing be done in the matter?
    Mr. FORSTER: I do not think so. There are no pre-war dependants.
    Mr. SUTTONasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether notices are being sent out to relatives of soldiers, asking them whether they could do with a less amount in separation allowance than they are already receiving; is he aware that the allowance is already too small in thousands of cases; and, in view of the high cost of foodstuffs, etc., will he consider the advisability of increasing the amounts of allowances, and also put a stop to further circulars being sent out to soldiers' relatives?
    Mr. FORSTER: No, Sir. It has been found necessary to ask them to make de-
    1104
    claration on a life certificate that all persons for whom allowance is drawn are alive, and that they are not aware of any reason—such as death of a child, etc.—why the payment should be reduced or stopped. As regards rates of allowance, I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply on 17th October to the hon. Member for the Attercliffe Division of Sheffield.
    Mr. SUTTON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that relatives who have sons in the Army and who are only receiving a small allowance of 7s. 6d. or 8s. a week, are being asked by these circulars whether they can do with a less amount, and that trade unions all over the country have entered their protest against this miserly work on the part of the War Office?
    Mr. FORSTER: With all respect to my hon. Friend, I do not think his information is correct. I am not aware of any circular which asks these people if they can do with a less amount. What has been sent out is a life certificate which they have been asked to fill up.
    Mr. HOGGE: As a result of this reexamination is the hon. Gentleman aware that a great number of these cases are now being deprived of the supplementary rent allowance which the Chancellor of the Exchequer and this House have said they are willing to take over when the National Belief Fund ceases to be available?
    Mr. FORSTER: No, Sir, I do not see how that can follow upon the circular that has been sent out. If my hon. Friend will give me further information about it, I will look into it.
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether his attention has been called to the repeated cases in which soldiers who have been accepted by the doctors as fit for active service and passed into the Army are afterwards discharged on account of illness and denied any pension; whether he is aware of the desire that the War Office should accept financial liability toward those who have been accepted and passed for service; and what further action he proposes to take?
    Mr. FORSTER: If the illness in such cases is due to, or aggravated by, military service, financial liability is accepted by the War Office, but I fear we cannot insure all soldiers against the ordinary risks of life.
    Mr. HOGGE: In view of the fact that the Paymaster-General has said that these

    1105
    cases will require to be discussed by Parliament, will not the War Office give these men a temporary allowance in the meantime, seeing that they neither get pensions nor their wives separation allowances?
    Mr. ANDERSON: When a soldier is discharged owing to severe kidney trouble, how can the doctors tell whether or not that trouble has been aggravated by military service?
    Mr. FORSTER: That is one of the difficult questions that the doctors have to decide.
    Mr. ANDERSON: It is impossible!
    Mr. DUFFYasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office (1) whether the two boys of Widow Smyth, Loughrea, responded to the appeal for help and joined the Army from their college; whether, if they had been less patriotic and remained at home, they would be now contributing to the support of Mrs. Smyth and her family; whether separation allowances were refused to this lady on the ground that her children were at college; having regard to the public spirit displayed by the young men and the necessity on the other hand of assisting the widowed mother to maintain the rest of the family in their absence, whether he will take steps immediately to redress this case of hardship; (2) whether he received a copy of a resolution passed by the Loughrea Pension Sub-committee having reference to a defect in the Regulations regulating the separation allowances of young men who, after coming to the age of manhood and after being educated and prepared for taking their positions in life, and prospectively with helping to make ample return to the parents for the outlay incurred, get no solatium in the way of separation allowance when they volunteer for the Army during the War; whether he proposes to take any action in the matter; and (3) whether his attention has been called to the claim of Mrs. Ellen Kelly, of Loughrea, Ireland, for separation allowance for her son, who, after serving his apprenticeship to the tailoring trade, volunteered and joined the Army; is he aware that this woman had, and has, no means of living, except the prospective earnings of her son; and, in the absence of the usual separation allowance granted to all soldiers' dependants, will he state whether he proposes to take any action in this case?
    Mr. FORSTER: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to a similar question on 12th April by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh.
    Mr. ELLIS DAVIESasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether a married woman whose husband has been killed in the War is not entitled to a pension unless she was at the time of his enlistment living with him, although she had no separate means and could have legally compelled the husband to maintain her?
    Mr. FORSTER: Pension is not paid if the man was not supporting his wife either voluntarily or under a maintenance order.
    Mr. DAVIES: Are we to understand that, although a wife goes to Court and obtains a maintenance order, she has lost all right?
    Mr. FORSTER: It is a question of fact. We can only come to a decision on the facts of the case. The case my hon. Friend has put is a hypothetical case.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when a maintenance allowance is being paid the War Office deny a pension?
    Mr. FORSTER: No, Sir. What we do is to pay to the widow, in the case of the maintenance allowance, what a man was actually contributing.
    Mr. DAVIES: Are we to understand that, although the wife is legally entitled to be maintained by her husband, and can enforce her right in a Court of Law, at a time when she is actually receiving maintenance from her husband she loses all right if he is killed in the War?
    Mr. FORSTER: I do not think the State can do more for the widow than the husband is doing for the wife.
    Mr. WARDLE: If we produce cases where there has been a reduction in the payment under the maintenance order, will the hon. Gentleman consider them?
    Mr. FORSTER: I do not follow what the hon. Gentleman means by a reduction in the maintenance order. If he will give me a case, I will look into it.
    Major HUNTasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, in view of the fact that under present conditions the pensions for officers totally disabled are quite insufficient, and in view of the fact that junior officers are more liable

    1107
    to be wounded than men, he can say what steps the Government intend to take in the matter?
    Mr. FORSTER: The disability pensions of officers now paid are in accordance with the recommendations of the Select Committee of this House, which examined the question and reported thereon at full length last autumn.
    Major HUNT: Is my hon. Friend aware that in one case just lately a man sent down by the War Pensions Committee admitted that £150 a year was not enough for five persons to live on, but that he could not do anything, and if the War Office cannot do anything, does Lord Kitchener's Fund or any other fund allow officers to live in anything like decency and comfort?
    Mr. FORSTER: My hon. and gallant Friend will remember that the Statutory Committee was appointed specially to deal with those cases of hardship when it lies outside the power of the War Office to deal with adequately under the regulations. The Statutory Committee is the proper body.
    Major HUNT: How does that help a man if the Statutory Committee will not do anything? Is it not the Government's business to provide these officers with something like an adequate pension?
    Mr. FORSTER: Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will draw the attention of the Statutory Committee to it.
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Secretary to the Local Government Board, as representing the Statutory Committee on Disablement, if he will state what is the number of soldiers, approximately, who have been discharged from the Army to their homes owing to the effects of un certifiable loss of balance, and how many similarly affected have been discharged direct to lunacy institutions; and what provision has been made in each case for their wives and families and other dependants?
    Mr. FORSTER: The total number of such men discharged up to the end of August is 396, excluding cases in no way due to war service. I cannot give the hon. Member more detailed figures without an excessive amount of labour, but I may mention that many of these men who are sent to their homes are shortly afterwards sent to institutions. Any balance
    1108
    of pension not required for the cost of the man's maintenance is issuable to the wives and families.
    Mr. BYRNE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some of these asylums are charging almost the total amount of the man's pension, and that the family is left penniless, and is any provision made for cases such as these?
    Mr. FORSTER: I understand that as a rule the committees in charge of these institutions leave the family sufficient for maintenance. In a certain number of cases where there has been no arrangement, there has been hardship, but in cases such as these the local authorities are generally willing to forego all charges for the man's maintenance.
    Mr. HOGGE: If we can bring cases in which we know that what is left out of the money is not enough for the wife and dependants, will the hon. Gentleman consider that?
    Mr. FORSTER: My hon. Friend knows quite well that is a matter for the Statutory Comuittee.

    MILITARY SERVICE.

      MEN OF FORTY-ONE.
      Mr. MORRELLasked the Secretary for War whether any new instructions have recently been sent to recruiting officers with regard to the calling up of men in Groups 23 and 46 who have attained the age of forty-one years?
      Mr. FORSTER: Yes, Sir. Instructions were issued on 12th October that recruiting officers were to begin sending out calling-up notices to men in Groups 23 and 46 and Classes 23 and 46 who have attained forty-one years of age, ordering them to report for service with the Colours on 1st November, 1916, and ensuing days.
      Mr. MORRELL: Are we to take it that the Government intend to deliberately break the pledges they gave to this House?
      Mr. FORSTER: My right hon. Friend dealt with the situation yesterday.

      MUNITION FACTORIES (REPLACEMENT OF SINGLE MEN).
      Colonel GRIFFITHSasked the Secretary for War if he is in a position to state the details of the scheme for replacing single men working on munitions by men unfit for general service; how many men unfit for further general service are

      1109
      waiting such exchange; and, if this matter has not been settled, where the delay arises?
      Mr. FORSTER: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer to be given to his later question, No. 56, addressed to the Minister for Munitions. I have no information which would enable me to answer the second part of the question.

      IRISH LABOUR.
      Mr. BYRNEasked the Secretary for War whether he is aware that a number of workmen who were sent from the trade unions and Labour Exchanges in Ireland to carry out work of national importance in Great Britain are being called up under the Military Service Act; and if he will cause instructions to be issued to prohibit prosecutions in cases where workmen received guarantees from trade unions and Labour Exchanges that they would not be conscripted in this country?
      Mr. FORSTER: Instructions have recently been issued to recruiting officers that where a man claims that he is ordinarily resident in Ireland and comes to Great Britain only for some seasonal occupation, and returns ordinarily to Ireland as his permanent home, he should not be called up if he produces papers, or other satisfactory evidence, corroborating his statements. If he is unable to produce satisfactory evidence, the matter is one for a Civil Court to decide.
      Mr. BYRNE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there has been a number of prosecutions of men who came from Ireland to this country to do work of national importance, and that the men have been put to heavy expense to defend themselves? Will compensation or law costs be allowed in such cases?
      Mr. FORSTER: I know there have been a certain number of cases taken into Court.

      MEN RETURNED TO EMPLOYERS.
      Mr. ANDERSONasked the Secretary of State for War whether he can explain the arrangements made in respect of less fit men returned to employers in exchange for fitter men released for military service; to what extent the men returned to employers will remain soldiers; and whether, in the event of an employer dismissing such a man, he will be free to seek employment
      elsewhere?
      Mr. FORSTER: Men who are returned to employers in exchange for men re-
      1110
      leased for military service will remain in the Army Reserve. The answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative.

      BRENTFORD POLICE COURT (W. G. H. MILLER).
      Mr. HAZLETONasked the Secretary of State for War in what unit William G. H. Miller, who was declared liable to military service at the Brentford Police Court last month, is now serving?
      Mr. FORSTER: I am making inquiries.

      EXTENSION OF ACTS TO IRELAND.
      Colonel CRAIGasked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to make a statement with regard to the Government's intention to extend the Military Service Acts to Ireland?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: No, Sir, I am not in a position to make any statement on this subject.
      Sir E. CARSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman ever be in a position to make a statement?

      MEN OF MILITARY AGE (GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS).
      Sir C. HENRYasked the Prime Minister whether he will now consider the advisability of appointing a small Committee from Members of this House to investigate the circumstances under which persons of military age and medically fit are being retained in the different Government Departments and to decide as to those who shall be released for military service?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: No, Sir, the question whether more men can be spared from Government Departments for military service is receiving the consideration of the responsible heads of the Departments in collaboration with the Man-Power Distribution Board.
      Sir H. CRAIK: Is it not possible to give an appeal from the head of the Department to some independent authority, so that there might be some correlation between the numbers dispensed with in various Departments?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The Man-Power Board was created for the express purpose of exercising that function.
      Sir C. HENRY: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that heads of Depart-

      1111
      ments can be expected to act entirely impartially, and has the Man Power Board the function of a tribunal to decide upon this matter?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The Man Power Board is examining every case where they think available men are not being brought forward, and that especially applies to cases of this kind.
      Sir E. CARSON: Do they sit every day?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I think they do.
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether single men under twenty-six are still being retained at Somerset House among the clerks of the intermediate division; whether married men up to thirty-one are to be released for service, while single men of thirty-five are to be exempted; and what is now the total number of single men eligible for military service still employed in the Inland Revenue?
      The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. McKenna): As regards the first two parts of the question, I may refer the hon. Member to my reply of 19th October to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn. Information on the subject raised in the last part of the question was given as recently as 18th May, 1916, in House of Commons Paper, No. 78. As the hon. Member will appreciate, the compilation of such information is a considerable task, and, in view of the pressure on Departments and the shortage of staff for essential work, I should not feel justified in asking at such short intervals for returns of the character suggested.
      Sir E. CARSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we were promised yesterday to have that Return brought up to date?
      Mr. McKENNA: No; I am not aware of it.
      Sir E. CARSON: Yes, by the Secretary of State for War.
      Mr. McKENNA: I will look into it.
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Is the Man-Power Distribution Board dealing with this problem?
      Mr. McKENNA: Yes.
      Sir C. HENRY: Has the number employed by the Inland Revenue of men of military age been reduced since the Return in May?
      Mr. McKENNA: Yes, I think so.
      Colonel GRIFFITHS: Would it not simplify matters and ease the work in every Department if the Government brought in a measure by which all men under the age of twenty-five would automatically come in?
      Mr. McKENNA: It would simplify the matter from the single point of view of finding men under twenty-five for the Army, but it would not simplify the collection of the revenue. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Of course, if the House of Commons does not desire the anticipated revenue of £500,000,000 to be reached—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] It is a fact. You cannot collect the revenue without machinery.
      Colonel GRIFFITHS: No man under it is indispensable.

      NON-COMBATANT CORPS.
      Mr. ANDERSONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of John E. Jeffery, formerly attached to the Non-Combatant Corps, who, after appearing before the Central Tribunal at Wandsworth, was recommended by the Army Council to work under the Home Office scheme; whether this man accepted this scheme and was released on furlough; whether he is aware that he was arrested as an absentee on 13th October, taken before an occasional Court at Newhaven, and remanded to await an escort; and, since this man is under the control of the Home Office, if he will say what action it is proposed to take?
      The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Brace): This man originally refused to accept the alternative service offered him by the Home Office Committee; and the War Office were informed in order that he might be recalled to his unit. He subsequently changed his mind, and was sent to work at Newhaven. By a mistake, which is regretted, the War Office were not informed of this; and Jeffery was arrested, as stated by the hon. Member, on the 13th instant. As soon as the mistake was discovered, the necessary

      1113
      steps were taken to get the man discharged from military custody, and he returned to his work on Saturday last, the 21st instant.

      RUSSIAN JEWS.
      Sir H. DALZIELasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can give any information as to the number of Jews of military age of Russian origin or descent in this country, apart from political refugees, who are exempt from military service?
      Mr. SAMUEL: The number of Russians of military age in Great Britain is about 31,500. I am not in possession of any of the other particulars desired by the hon. Member.
      Sir H DALZIEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are thousands of young men who are not refugees who are to be seen in the streets at night?
      Mr. SAMUEL: I am well aware of it, and the matter is now engaging the attention of the Government.

      EXEMPTION CLAIMS.
      Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he or the Central Tribunal proposes to make any representations to the tribunals to the effect that in considering claims for exemption on the ground of business or domestic hardship the fact that a man has been rejected for general service on medical grounds and has only been passed in Class C should he taken into account?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): I am not aware that any representations on this matter are at present contemplated.
      Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the President of the Local Government Board with regard to the notes on Case 61, Sole Proprietors of Businesses, decided by the Central Tribunal and circulated for the information of tribunals, in which it is laid down that if the business could not be revived without grave difficulty consideration would then have to be paid to the amount of capital involved; whether this is intended to indicate that only proprietors of businesses in which a large amount of whole capital is invested are to be exempted, and small tradesmen whose capital is only a comparatively small sum are not to be exempted?
      Mr. HAYES FISHER: Obviously each case has to be decided on its merits, according to the particular circumstances; but it seems clear that, other things being equal, the larger the actual loss to the man the more likely is there to be "serious hardship." The efforts which have gone to the establishing of a business would no doubt be another factor to be considered.

    ROYAL ARMY CLOTHING DEPARTMENT.
    Mr. HAZLETONasked the Secretary of State for War what decision has been arrived at in the case of the temporary officer of the Royal Army Clothing Department who was alleged to have had improper dealings with contractors; and whether the decision arrived at in the case of Colonel Langhorne involves his transfer from his present duties to some other position?
    Mr. FORSTER: Investigations were made by a Departmental Court of Inquiry, and it was found that there was no suspicion attaching to him of collusion with contractors. I am not clear to what the hon. Member refers in connection with Colonel Langhorne, as he has not been involved in any inquiry.

    ROYAL INVESTITURE (OFFICERS' TRAVELLING EXPENSES).
    Mr. R. McNEILLasked the Secretary of State for War whether officers who, in obedience to Royal Command, travel to London for investiture by His Majesty with military decorations are obliged to do so at their own expense; and, if so, why such an exception is made to the rule that officers travelling on duty are entitled to warrants for travelling expenses?
    Mr. FORSTER: The Regulation, which has been in force for a number of years, is as the hon. Member states. The question whether, under present conditions, any alteration of the existing Regulations is called for is now under consideration.
    Mr. McNEILL: Can the hon. Gentleman hold out any hope that there will be any change made?
    Mr. FORSTER: I certainly hope so myself. I cannot go beyond that.

    POSTHUMOUS HONOUES.
    Mr. REDMONDasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the injustice to the memory of officers and men who died after the performance of deeds of great gallantry in the field, by reason of the Regulation which Prevents the conferring of any posthumous honour or decoration except the Victoria Cross, steps will be taken to alter the Regulations so as to enable the D.S.O. and Military Cross to be conferred in cases of death?
    Mr. FORSTER: As I informed the hon. Member for York in August last, this question is very difficult, but I can assure him that very sympathetic consideration is being given to it. As the hon. and gallant Member for Wednesbury was informed on the 17th instant in reply to a question, certain proposals are now under consideration. My right hon. Friend has appointed a Committee for the purpose, and several of the members happen to be Members of this and of the other House. My right hon. Friend hopes that he will receive recommendations the adoption of which will meet the demand made on behalf of the next-of-kin of officers and soldiers who have fallen for some form of recognition of the sacrifice they have been called upon to make.

    SALONIKA (BRITISH WAR CORRESPONDENTS).
    Mr. E. DAVIESasked the Secretary of State for War why, in view of the fact that the War correspondents of the leading British newspapers were requested to withdraw from Salonika and that the order was complied with, the representative of one newspaper has been allowed special facilities to send special dispatches from the Serbian headquarters through Salonika; and whether he can see his way to extend the same privilege to the representatives of other newspapers or provide that the information obtained shall be supplied to all papers alike?
    Mr. FORSTER: This question is now under discussion between the Newspapers Proprietors' Association and the War Office, and it is hoped that some solution satisfactory to both may shortly be found.

    RE-ENLISTMENT BOUNTIES.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office why the War
    1116
    Office does not pay bounties unless men were serving on 4th August, 1914?
    Mr. FORSTER: It is not considered that the circumstances justified a distinction in this respect between those whose connection with the Army had ceased before the War began and the rest of the civil population.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the very large amount of dissatisfaction that there is among those men who rejoined the Service, but who cannot get any bounty because they did not happen to be serving on that particular date?
    Mr. FORSTER: If there is disappointment, I am afraid it is only natural.
    Mr. HOGGE: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the question of meeting the cases of these men, in view of the enormous amount of dissatisfaction?
    Mr. FORSTER: No, Sir; I am afraid we cannot do that. The question of the issue of a bounty was confined—I think, quite properly—to those men who have become time-expired since the War began.

    WOMEN'S WAR WORK.
    Mr. HAZLETONasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office the total cost of the production and printing of the recently published volume on women's war work issued by the War Office?
    Mr. FORSTER: I understand from the Stationery Office that the total cost of the paper and printing is £725, and that apart from this there has been no expense. The book is on sale at 1s. a copy, and considerable numbers have already been sold.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Will the 1s. a copy bring in a profit to the War Office?
    Mr. FORSTER: That would depend upon the numbers sold.

    HAY AND STRAW (PERMITS TO SELL).
    Sir JOHN SPEARasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he is aware of the delay and inconvenience caused by the present method which has to be followed by farmers in obtaining permits to sell hay and straw not required by the Government; and will he devise some plan which would obviate such delay?
    Mr. FORSTER: The system is found to be working satisfactorily, and I am not aware that it is causing general delay and inconvenience. Some delay may occasionally occur, owing to exceptional circumstances, and if my hon. Friend would furnish me with particulars of specific cases, I will have them inquired into at once.

    BARRACKPORE HOSPITAL AND BARRACKS.
    Mr. G. LAMBERTasked the Secretary of State for India whether cooling-fans and lighting installations are available for the hospital and barracks at Barrackpore, where West of England regiments are stationed, in India?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS(Comptroller of the Household): Electric lights and fans will be installed in the hospital at Barrackpore before next hot weather. The Government of India report that they are taking up electrification schemes as quickly as the staff and materials available permit, the order of urgency being determined by medical authorities.

    NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS, IRELAND (WAR BONUS).
    Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what provision he is prepared to make for the payment of a war bonus to Irish national school teachers, and if he has further considered the case of the women teachers?
    Mr. McKENNA: The Treasury has agreed, in principle, to the grant of a war bonus to the Irish school teachers on the same lines as that recently granted to the Civil Service. I am in communication with my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary on the case of the women teachers.
    Mr. REDMOND: Is it not a fact that, according to the Civil Service scale, women only get one-half of what a man will get of the war bonus; and is it not also a fact that there are over 2,000 women teachers in Ireland in receipt to-day of a salary not exceeding £28 a year; and is it not really a mockery to offer them as a war bonus 1s. 6d. or 2s. a week; and will the right hon. Gentleman and the Government take this seriously into consideration?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am not in a position to discuss the rates of pay of women teachers in Ireland. Questions on that point should be addressed to the Chief Secretary. I have already said I am in communication with him on the case of women teachers.
    Sir E. CARSON: If a bonus has been, granted, will it also apply to the pensioned teachers?
    Mr. McKENNA: I will inquire.
    Mr. GINNELL: From what date will the pension begin?
    Mr. McKENNA: My memory is that it begins from 1st July this year. I cannot be quite sure, but I think that is the date.

    GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND ACT.
    Major CHAPPLEasked the Prime Minister whether he will submit to representatives from Ireland a proposal for bringing into immediate operation the Government of Ireland Act modified by the following provisions: That at any time, not being sooner than six months after the War, a stated number of electors in Ulster may petition Parliament to set up a Boundary Commission to define Protestant Ulster, that thereafter a plebiscite be taken of electors within such area to ascertain whether they will continue to send their representatives to the Irish Parliament or to any other local Parliament willing to receive them that may be set up or, failing this, to the Imperial Parliament, that any legislative or administrative Act of the Irish Parliament prior to such plebiscite may, in its application to Ulster, be vetoed by the Imperial Parliament, and that pending such plebiscite all Irish Members be retained at Westminster?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am afraid that His Majesty's Government as at present advised cannot make themselves responsible for my hon. Friend's suggestion.
    Major CHAPPLE: Have all possible means been exhausted?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I hope not.

    CIVIL SERVANTS IN ARMY (WAR BONUS).
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the

    1119
    arrangement for paying to all Civil servants who are serving in the Army a proportion of their salary sufficient to make their Army pay and allowances up to the level of their former civil pay applies also to the war bonus, or whether the war bonus is paid only in the case of Civil servants who are married and, if so, will he state on what principle a distinction is drawn between a married man who has no children and whose wife is earning a separate income in the employment of the Government and a single man who is the sole support of his invalid mother, to the disadvantage of the latter?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. McKinnon Wood): The arrangements governing the grant of civil pay to Civil servants serving in His Majesty's Forces do not extend to the payment of a war bonus. The award of the Post Office arbitration provided, however, that the bonus should be included in the calculation of civil pay in the case of married men and the same concession was accordingly allowed to the Civil Service generally. I understand that the distinction drawn between married men and single men with dependants has not, in fact, given rise to difficulties.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Is it not the case that there is a number of men drawing this war bonus who are married but have no children, and whose wives are earning good pay, whereas there is a number of single men who have mothers and sisters dependent on them who do not get this bonus?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Yes, I think that is very likely, but you cannot provide for every single case.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Is not the proper basis of distinction the number of a man's dependants and not the irrelevant consideration whether he is married or not?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I should have thought that was very relevant, but it is quite impossible to draw distinctions of that sort when you are dealing with thousands of people, and, after all, the war bonus is really a concession, and is not a thing which could have been claimed as a right.

    LOANS TO LANDOWNERS (SCOTLAND).
    Mr. MOLTENOasked the Secretary for Scotland whether loans to existing
    1120
    landholders under Section 9 of the Small Landholders Act are now being granted to all classes of small holders and not restricted to those which fall under Section 7 (7) of the Act?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Tennant): Owing to the high cost of building and the scarcity of labour, the consideration of fresh applications under Section 9 is being deferred for the present. In respect of applications pending when this decision was arrived at, loans are still being entertained under Section 9, and a number of such loans have recently been sanctioned.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what interest is being charged at the present time?
    Mr. TENNANT: I must have notice of that.
    Mr. MOLTENO: Is it not for the applicant to consider the cost of buildings, and not for the Scottish Office?
    Mr. TENNANT: I do not know that that is so. I think it is incumbent upon the Department not to embark upon a policy by which the person, so far from being benefited, might possibly be ruined.

  MUNITIONS.

    WOMEN WORKERS, CARDIFF.
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the Minister of Munitions whether his attention has been called to the case of three women charged at the Cardiff Munitions Tribunal with absenting themselves from a controlled establishment without leave; whether he is aware that it was stated in evidence that the women were paid 8s. a week; and whether he will take steps to redeem in this instance the pledges of his Department to establish a minimum of £1 a week for women in controlled establishments?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Dr. Addison): My right hon. Friend's attention had been called to this case, and inquiries have been made into it, and are being followed up, with a view to seeing whether an immediate improvement in wages cannot be effected under the provisions of the Fair-Wages Clause. The general question whether the recent Order as to the wages of women and girls employed on munitions work of a class not

    1121
    recognised as men's work should be applied to controlled establishments in the trade concerned is now under consideration by the special Arbitration Tribunal.
    Mr. ANDERSON: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that there is a big difference between 8s. and 20s. a week, and does he not think it is absolutely unfair that women who are getting 8s. a week, which, judged by pre-war prices, is only worth 5s. or 6s., should be legally debarred under a special Act of Parliament from leaving their employment in order to go to another place where they can get better wages?
    Dr. ADDISON: The hon. Member knows very well what the views of the Ministry are. The only question is whether this is properly applicable to this particular trade. If it is not, we have no power in the matter.
    Mr. BOOTH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the position in South Wales is a scandal; that the whole country is full of idle women and single young men who ought to be at the War; and will he do his best to find work at proper wages for these women and send these young men to the front?
    Dr. ADDISON: The Ministry of Munitions cannot go about finding work for people on account of such cases.

    NATIONAL SHELL FACTORY.
    Mr. MAURICE HEALYasked the Minister of Munitions the cause of the delay in supplying the machinery for the Cork National Shell Factory; when it is expected that the machinery will be forwarded; and when work is likely to be commenced at the factory?
    Dr. ADDISON: The delivery of machinery for the factory to which the hon. Member's question refers is nearly complete. Some delay has been occasioned by difficulties in connection with the foundations of the hydraulic press, but every effort is being made to commence operations at the earliest possible date. May I take this opportunity of again inviting Members to refrain from naming particular factories in questions? If the Ministry is informed privately of the factory referred to, care will be taken that the hon. Member is given as fully as possible the information he is seeking.
    Mr. H EALY: Can the right hon. Gentleman answer the final part of my question—when the work is likely to be commenced?
    Dr. ADDISON: At the earliest possible date.

    EMPLOYMENT OF SINGLE MEN.
    Colonel GRIFFITHSasked the Minister of Munitions if he is now in a position to make his promised statement as to the scheme arrived at between the Ministry of Munitions and the War Office for replacing single men working on munitions by men unfit for general service; and, if not, will he state which Department is responsible for the delay in arranging for this matter to be proceeded with?
    Dr. ADDISON: I am glad to be able to inform my hon. and gallant Friend that the details of the scheme referred to in the answer given to him on 12th October, 1916, have now been settled. I propose, if my hon. and gallant Friend will permit, to circulate the answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT, as it is very long.—[See Written Answers.]

    BLACKSMITHS AND DROP-STAMPER.
    Mr. GEORGE TERRELLasked the Minister of Munitions whether he is aware of the shortage in the engineering shops engaged on munitions work of skilled blacksmiths and skilled drop-stampers; and whether, in the circumstances, he proposes to take steps to obtain the immediate release from the Army of the men necessary to fill the vacancies?
    Dr. ADDISON: The shortage in the engineering shops engaged on munitions work of skilled blacksmiths and skilled drop-stampers is receiving the attention of the Ministry. A number of men of the types mentioned have already been released from the Army, and further applications have been forwarded to the War Office to obtain the release of skilled men for this class of work.
    Mr. TERRELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is not a great deal of difficulty and delay in getting these men returned—men who are very urgently required?
    Dr. ADDISON: There is difficulty and delay, and it is inevitable. The men are sometimes scattered in all parts of the world. Sometimes they are ill, sometimes in hospital, and so on. There is bound to be delay.
    Mr. TERRELL: Does that delay not mean delaying munitions?

    ENEMY ALIEN'S.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Home Secretary how many naturalised Germans and Austrians have changed their names since the outbreak of war; and whether he will consider the advisability of insisting upon the original names still being used for business purposes, in order that commercial men might know with whom they were dealing?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The information which the hon. Member asks for in the first part of his question is not available. I have no authority to give effect to the suggestion contained in the second part of the question.
    Mr. R. McNEILL: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that he has not got power to issue regulations under the Defence of the Realm Act to effect the purpose, if he is disposed to do so?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I should like notice of that question. I think not in the case of British subjects.
    Sir E. CARSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many people have been trading with firms without knowing they were German?
    Mr. SAMUEL: Very likely that is so. The matter will come before the House in connection with a Bill dealing with the registration of business names, which will come forward before very long.
    Mr. McNEILL: When the right hon. Gentleman says that he has no information in regard to the first part of the question is he aware that this point was put to his predecessor? The right hon. Member for Walthamstow some time ago said that these men who had changed their names were well known to the police.
    Mr. SAMUEL: I do not think he said that with regard to British subjects—naturalised Germans—but in reference to aliens who were still of German nationality.
    Colonel GRIFFITHS: Cannot you collect the lot and send them back?
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Home Secretary whether Josef Kraft, a dressmaker, of New Bond Street, is an unnaturalised enemy alien; whether he is practically the sole proprietor of St. George's House Restaurant, Limited, in
    1124
    St. Martin's Lane; whether this restaurant is a meeting place for dangerous and anti-British aliens; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The answer to the first two paragraphs is in the affirmative. Kraft is a Hungarian who was exempted from, internment on the advice of the Advisory Committee. The police have no reason to think that the restaurant in question is a meeting place for dangerous aliens. I propose to consider the case further.
    Sir E. CARSON: Did the Advisory Committee give any reason or make any report?
    Mr. SAMUEL: No, Sir. They consider each case. This man, who is a Hungarian, employs about eighty British subjects in his two businesses. He came here as a youth, and has been in this country nearly twenty years. Those are the reasons why he was exempted.
    Mr. BOOTH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this tribunal takes the view that it has a narrow reference, and that there are many matters outside their reference which ought to be considered by the Home Office?
    Mr. SAMUEL: No, Sir.

    COCAINE FOR DENTISTRY.
    Mr. RAFFANasked the Home Secretary whether it is in contemplation to extend the general permit enabling unregistered practitioners in dentistry to obtain solutions containing not more than 1 per cent. of cocaine for purposes of anæsthetics beyond 31st October; and, if so, to what date?
    Mr. SAMUEL: As the hon. Member is aware, I had the advantage of discussing this matter yesterday at a Conference with a number of Members who are interested in it. As a result of the discussion, I promised to appoint a small Committee to make further inquiries as to the use of cocaine by dental practitioners, and I hope to be able to issue an announcement in a few days. Pending these inquiries the temporary permits issued to unregistered dental practitioners will be extended for a short time.
    Sir H. CRAIK: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the danger caused by this extension of facilities to unregistered dentists?
    Mr. SAMUEL: Yes. I view the situation with the same concern. It was discussed between a large body of Members and myself and this temporary arrangement was arrived at.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether cocaine is regarded as dangerous when used by unregistered dentists and safe and beneficial when used by registered dentists?
    Mr. SAMUEL: That is not so at all. The difficulty is that there are many thousands of persons calling themselves unregistered dentists. In fact any person can call himself an unregistered dentist, and the Home Office fears that if such persons are allowed freely to obtain cocaine they may be made channels for its distribution for illicit purposes.
    Commander WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the vast bulk of the working population of this country have to depend on unregistered dentists?
    Mr. SAMUEL: That is so, and if there were no substitute for cocaine it would be impossible to make this Order. I am advised that there is a substitute, which is fully as efficient and it not liable to the misuse to which cocaine is liable.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Why not Make the registered dentists also use this substitute if it is fully as efficient?
    Mr. SAMUEL: Registered dentists are all well known, and there is no danger so far as they are concerned. As I informed the hon. Member who put the question, with the full assent of the hon. Members who are interested in the question, we have taken up the case of the unregistered dentists and the matter will be examined by a small Committee who will hear carefully the unregistered dentists.

    INDUSTRIAL POISONING.
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that, of the 472 cases of industrial poisoning reported during the nine months ending September, 1916, 120 occurred from toxic jaundice and that, of 62 deaths, 33 were attributable to this cause; whether he can state how many of these cases and deaths were due to poisoning from tri-nitro-toluene; and what action he proposes to take?
    Mr. BRACE: The figures are correctly stated in the first part of the question. The number of these cases due to T.N.T. poisoning was ninety-five and the number of deaths twenty-eight. Every possible step is, as I stated in my answers on this subject yesterday and last week, being taken by my Department, in concert with the Ministry of Munitions, to investigate and deal with this disease.

    WAR NEWS (GERMAN REPORTS).
    Mr. G. LAMBERTasked whether the German wireless news sent to neutral countries is permitted publication in this country; and, if not, for what reason is such publication prohibited?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The official statements of war news from Germany and other enemy countries are published in the British Press. As to the unofficial wireless messages circulated from Berlin for propaganda purposes, the question was carefully considered early this year, in consultation with the Admiralty and the War Office, and it was decided that it was advisable, in the interests of Great Britain and her Allies, to submit such matter to strict censorship.
    Mr. LAMBERT: What possible harm could it do to let the British public know what the Germans are circulating to neutrals?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I will explain to my right hon. Friend privately why it is inexpedient to do so.

    PROFESSOR ETHE.
    Sir H. DALZIELasked whether Professor Ethe, an unnaturalised German, who was compelled to leave Aberystwyth by the inhabitants, is now being employed on work for the Government; and, if so, what is its nature and what is the amount of his remuneration?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I understand that the professor referred to is an Oriental scholar who, during his forty-three years' residence in this country, has done work for the University of Oxford, the University College of Wales, and the India Office, I am informed that he is still doing such work, but I am not aware of the character or conditions of his employment.
    Mr. R. GWYNNE: Does the right hon. Gentleman admit that this man is an unnaturalised German?
    Mr. SAMUEL: Yes, Sir.

    MONEYLENDERS.
    Sir H. DALZIELasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the fact that a considerable proportion of the moneylenders in the United Kingdom are either aliens or naturalised aliens, he can give the exact figures as to those registered under the Moneylenders Act; how many are subjects of enemy countries; and how many have been interned or have left the country since the beginning of the War?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The registration of moneylenders falls within the province of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, by whom I am informed that moneylenders are not required to furnish information as to their nationality on registration. I regret also that there are no particulars available as to the number who are interned or have left the country.

    MR. BERTRAND RUSSELL.
    Mr. TREVELYANasked the Home Secretary (1) whether he has become aware that no correspondence of any kind occurred between Mr. Russell and the Foreign Office, or any other office, asking him to give an undertaking not to carry on a propaganda in America; whether he will now withdraw his statement that Mr. Russell refused to bind himself not to carry on an anti-British propaganda; (2) whether he is aware that Mr. Bertrand Russell has never been told what the nature of the propaganda is which he has been requested to undertake to discontinue, and that Mr. Russell asserts definitely that the whole argument of his speech at Cardiff was directed to urging immediate peace negotiations; and whether the argument that negotiations are now possible or desirable is to be characterised as anti-British and is an offence in the eyes of the Government?
    Mr. SAMUEL: Correspondence of an official and unofficial character passed between Mr. Bertrand Russell and the War Office, beginning on 7th September and ending on 14th October, on the sub-
    1128
    ject of the withdrawal of the Order against him if he would give an undertaking not to continue the propaganda in which he had been engaged. In the course of that correspondence he was informed that the propaganda to which exception was taken might be defined as propaganda that contravened the Defence of the Realm Regulations and involved an offence similar to that of which Mr. Russell had been recently convicted at the Mansion House. Mr. Russell declined to give any undertaking of any kind. I was certainly under the impression, from verbal inquiries I had made, that it had been made clear to Mr. Russell that the withdrawal of the Order under the Defence of the Realm Regulations would be accompanied by the grant of a permit to go to the United States on his giving some appropriate undertaking. I much regret to find that I was in error as to this, the War Office having regarded that matter as one for the Foreign Office and not for themselves. The fact remains, however, that Mr. Russell could at any time have obtained a permit to go to America on giving such an undertaking, and can hardly have been under any misapprehension on the point, in view of the Government's willingness to accept his own assurance as sufficient guarantee in respect of the War Office Order; and it is the case that he can obtain such a permit now, as well as the withdrawal of the Order against entering the prohibited areas, on the condition suggested. With respect to Mr. Russell's speech at Cardiff, I have sent my hon. Friend extracts from the verbatim report, which by no means tally with Mr. Russell's description of the speech quoted in Question 68, and which, in my opinion, amply justify the terms in which I characterised that speech.
    Colonel GRIFFITHS: Would it not save the time of the House if the Government could lock this man up or send him to Germany?

    SOUTHALL POOR LAW SCHOOL.
    Sir GEORGE TOULMINasked the President of the Local Government Board whether the Poor Law school at Southall has been converted into a hospital for wounded soldiers; whether it is satisfactory; whether additional building or structural alteration was required; and whether he will state the cost of such addition or alteration?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: The schools in question have been lent to the Australian authorities for the purpose of a military hospital. Owing to the absence of lifts and for other reasons a large proportion of the accommodation is not suitable for acute cases. Otherwise my right hon. Friend believes the institution is suitable for the class of cases treated there. He understands that it has been necessary to refurnish the whole of the institution, but he has no information as to the cost.

    FRANCHISE AND REGISTRATION REFORMS.
    Sir R. COOPERasked (1) whether it will be open to the Committee on Franchise and Registration to recommend that so-called conscientious objectors should not be placed upon the register of voters whilst soldiers at the front are unable to vote; and (2) whether the Committee on Franchise and Registration, over which Mr. Speaker is to preside, will have power to consider and report upon the over-representation of Ireland in Parliament?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: My right hon. Friend would prefer to leave it to the Conference to determine the limits within which their recommendations should range?
    Sir E. CARSON: Is there any definition of the duties of this Conference or is the Conference itself to decide what are its duties?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: My right hon. Friend thinks that such a question as this, for example, should be left to the decision of the Conference. It is a very important question, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will wait until my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board is back again, when he can address a question to him.
    Sir E. CARSON: As the Committee is sitting from day to day, is there anything laid down as to its duties and the questions which it is to determine?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: There has been a great deal of communication with the Committee as to the limits within which they are desired to act, and at present it is not desirable to give further directions to the Committee. [HON. MEMBER: "Speak up!"]
    Sir E. CARSON: May I ask my right hon. Friend when the Government are going to take the Registration Bill; and may I ask whether he recollects the promise that it would be taken immediately after the assembling of Parliament after the August adjournment, and we are now a long way from that?
    Mr. BONAR
    LAW: Perhaps my right hon. Friend will put his question to the Prime Minister to-morrow.

    POSTAL WORKERS (WAGES).
    Mr. SUTTONasked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the high price of food stuffs, etc., he has considered the request of the postal servants for an increase in their wages; and, if so, will he state what has been done in the matter?
    Sir H. DALZIELasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the feeling among postal workers, in view of the large increase in the cost of living, that a 5s. increase should be granted in wages; and, having regard to the concession that has been granted by the Government to the railwaymen, whether he can hold out any hope that he can revise his decision on this matter?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. J. A. Pease): The representations of the postal servants and the facts relating to the increased cost of living have been carefully considered by the Government. Certain postal servants received last 3'ear a War bonus, which was increased as from 1st July last under the recent decision of the Government granting a War bonus to Civil servants generally within certain wage limits. I have informed the National Joint Committee of Post Office Associations that if they will send me a statement of their case I shall consider whether I should lay it before my colleagues in the
    Government.
    Mr. WARDLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to submit the case to arbitration, as has been requested?
    Mr. PEASE: That is a question which should be addressed to the Prime Minister.
    Mr. SUTTON: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman considers that the bonus already paid to the postal workers is anything like equivalent to the increased cost of living during the War?
    Mr. PEASE: I cannot say that there is a very accurate relationship between the bonus and the increased cost of living.
    Mr. SUTTON: Has not the right hon. Gentleman received a communication from the postal servants giving a statement of their case, and has he refused to do anything in the matter?
    Mr. PEASE: No; that is not quite correct. I certainly received a statement from the postal servants of their case, and I undertook to convey that statement to my colleagues in the Government, and I carried that out specifically and thoroughly.

    MERCHANT TONNAGE UNDER CONSTRUCTION.
    Major HUNTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the foreign owners of a merchant ship built or building by our starred labour have offered or are now offering to sell this ship to a British subject at a very large profit; and, if so, what steps the Government propose to take to prevent our starred labour from being used in this way to make profits for other countries?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): The contracts for some of the vessels building for neutral owners have been offered to British firms, but no sale has yet been effected. Present values are high, and it would not be possible or desirable to use the Government power of control to depress prices in favour of any particular firm.
    Major HUNT: Why does the right hon. Gentleman, with the Government contract to take them over in force, allow these neutral owners to make large profits?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I do not propose to argue the question, but that is not the way the Government has been treating these vessels. As has been frequently explained, the Government takes them and gets the benefit out of them, and it is not going to hand them over to particular firms.

    POTATO CROP (IRELAND).
    Captain DONELAN(by Private Notice): Is the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) aware that in
    1132
    many parts of Ireland potatoes; when raised, are already beginning to give way in the pits, and will he take immediate steps with a view to avert the danger of a scarcity of potatoes in Ireland during the coming winter and spring?
    Mr. T. W. RUSSELL (Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture,): Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to repeat the question to-morrow. I received it last night, and I communicated with the Department, but I have not yet had a reply to my inquiries.
    Captain DONELAN: The right hon. Gentleman is, of course, aware that I asked the question by private notice at his request?
    Mr. RUSSELL: Certainly!

    UNFOUNDED STATEMENTS.
    Captain H. F. WRIGHT(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is in a position to give any further information regarding the case of the Irish Guardsman who was alleged in a London newspaper to have been notified by the Government that they had done with him and have no more to give him, although he had had an arm amputated at the shoulder?
    Mr. FORSTER: Yes, Sir; I have caused this matter to be carefully investigated, and I find that this soldier, who was discharged on 8th August, was given temporary allowances of £1 a week for each of the three weeks succeeding, and that this allowance was sent to the soldier at his address at Letterkenny, county Donegal, on 15th, 23rd, and 30th August.
    A pension award of 25s. a week for two months, and thereafter 14s. a week for life was made by the Chelsea Commissioners on 17th August, and within a few days this was notified to the man at his address. He stated that he desired payment to be made at the Letterkenny Post Office, and payment by that office was at once authorised. The postmaster at Letterkenny, in reply to a telegram, states that payment has been made regularly.
    The House will see that the account which appeared in the newspapers was wholly unfounded, and I think it is a great pity that people do not take the trouble to ascertain the facts before calling attention to individual cases.

  DISTURBANCES IN IRELAND.

    FRONGOCH CAMP.
    Mr. BYRNE(by Private Notice): I beg to ask the Home Secretary if he is aware that one of the Irish prisoners at Frongoch has become insane; if he will state whether this man has been removed to an asylum or if he is still detained at Frongoch Camp; if he is aware that this man's condition has been the result of his cruel treatment whilst interned; if he will say whether he has yet considered the advisability of removing from his post the commandant in charge; and if he will say when he will grant a discussion on the treatment of the prisoners?
    Mr. SAMUEL: One man was removed from Frongoch to the North Wales Counties Asylum at Denbigh on 3rd August, where he now is. The suggestion that he was cruelly treated at Frongoch is without foundation.
    Mr. BYRNE: As there have been attempts to disprove all the charges I have made, I will raise the matter to-night and prove them all.

    ROUMANIA (FALL OF CONSTANZA).
    Sir H. DALZIEL(by Private Notice): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Government have any information other than the statement in the German wireless as to the fall of Constanza; and can he give the House any information as to the present situation in Roumania?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Lloyd George): The Roumanian official communiqué announces that it has proved necessary to evacuate Constanza. We have no information more recent than that which has appeared in the communiqués. As has been already stated, we and our Allies are working in concert, and everything which is possible is being done to assist Roumania. It is obviously undesirable to detail more exactly the measures which are being taken.
    Mr. LYNCH: That reply covers my question.

    Cork Hail Service.
    Mr. MAURICE HEALYasked the Postmaster-General whether, before giving
    1134
    his consent to the delay of the day mail to Cork by 35 minutes, he in any way consulted any of the locay public bodies representing commercial interests in the localities concerned or acted merely on the statement of the railway company; whether he has taken any steps to induce the railway company to put an end to the entirely unnecessary delay which takes place every morning at Kingsbridge Station; if he can state the distance between Westland Row and Kingsbridge Stations for which 31 minutes is allowed, and when the train is now timed to arrive at Kingsbridge Station and when to leave it; and whether he will require from the railway company periodically, and supply on request, a return of the daily delay of the train at Kingsbridge Station?
    Mr. PEASE: As I explained to the hon. Member in reply to his previous question, the time table of the train to Cork was merely adapted to its actual working under war conditions. Local public bodies were not consulted. The distance between Westland Row Station and Kingsbridge Station is 6½ miles. The train from the pier is due at Kingsbridge at 6.47 a.m. and the train for Cork is timed to leave at 7.35 a.m. This interval is regarded as necessary to allow for railway work and as a reasonable margin in case of delay to the Irish mail train or the packet. Particulars of the actual working of the mail trains are recorded daily in the Post Office, and I shall be happy to give the hon. Member any information which he requires.
    Mr. HEALY: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that 31 minutes is a reasonable time for an express train to take for 6 miles, and will he consider trying a donkey and cart?
    Mr. PEASE: Having regard to certain shunting—
    Mr. HEALY: There is no shunting whatever.
    Mr. PEASE: There is certain shunting at Kingsbridge Station, and trains also incur delay by having to go to Amiens Street.
    Mr. HEALY: Will the right hon. Gentleman seek information on this subject from others besides the railway company, who are evidently humbugging him?

    BILLS PRESENTED.
    TRADING WITH THE ENEMY AND EXPORT OF PROHIBITED GOODS BILL,—"to amend the Law relating to Trading With the Enemy and the Export of Prohibited Goods," presented by Lord ROBERT CECIL; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 113.]
    ANZAC (RESTRICTION ON TRADE USE OF WORD) BILL,—"to prohibit the use of the word Anzac in connection with any trade, business calling, or profession," presented by Mr. PRETYMAN; supported by Mr. Steel-Maitland; to be read a second time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 114.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.

    EXTENSION OF TIME.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That, for the remainder of the Session the time during which Questions may be taken be extended till four of the clock."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]
    Mr. R. McNEILL: As I asked for this change which the Government propose to make, may I take this opportunity to thank my right hon. Friend (Mr. Bonar Law) for having conveyed my request last week to the Prime Minister, and also to thank the Prime Minister for having been good enough to accede to the request and to propose the change, which I think will be very generally welcomed by hon. Members.
    Mr. BOOTH: I am sure that the general feeling is one of gratitude to the Government, but at the same time I should like to make an appeal to Government Departments to help Members by the form of the answers which they give. We have repeated supplemental questions in order to get some little bit of information, which one must necessarily drag out. I have always taken it that the Chair allows those because they are necessary. I am hitting at no particular Department, but the answers sometimes are clever evasions. I recollect cases where the facts were well known and where the answer could easily be given by the Government Departments. The Departments do not like to reveal it until you put a question on the Paper, and, when you do, with a little care you could devise the answer you get and which is purposely evasive. I do appeal to the Government not to encourage that sort of answer. It was all right in party times, but surely that is all done. No one objects to a smart answer on one point, or even a smart question as between parties, but that should not occur at all now. I think it is quite evident from the Notice Paper that there are very few questions put down with any but a genuine desire to bring the point out, and either to elicit information or call the attention of the House to a particular matter. I think it is time we had a change in Government Departments in this respect. I do not like to use
    1156
    language used outside, namely, that in each Government Department there are a few white Babus, who spend their time inventing clever English to deceive Members.
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not really arise on this Motion. It is not a question of altering the system by which answers are given, but of giving more time to hon. Members to ask their questions.
    Mr. BOOTH: With all deference, I believe that if Government Departments had adopted the suggestion which I am now making this Motion would not have been necessary. Unless there is some little more co-operation between the Government and hon. Members, even this quarter of an hour will not be sufficient, and there will be a further claim for more time. I would appeal to the Government to try and give the information promptly, and, if they like, even bluntly, rather than the long evasions which we get.
    Question put, and agreed to.

  DEFENCE OF THE REALM (ACQUISITION OF LAND) BILL.
  As Amended, considered.
  DEFENCE OF THE REALM (ACQUISITION OF LAND) BILL.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Application of Building Laws.)
    (1) Any street, building, or work which has been formed, erected, or constructed otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of any general or local Acts relating to streets or buildings, and with any by-laws or regulations made there under on any land to which Section one of this Act applies, or which has been acquired under Section three thereof, shall, unless the authority by whom such provisions, by-laws, or regulations are enforced consent to the continuance thereof, either be so altered as to comply with such provisions, by-laws, or regulations, or be discontinued or removed within such reasonable time after such land or building has ceased to be occupied by a Government Department as such authority may order, and the owner (as denned by such Acts, by-laws, or regulations) shall have power to enter upon and carry out any works without the consent of any other person, and if

    1157
    he fails to comply with such order he shall be liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding twenty pounds for every day during which such noncompliance continues, and such authority as aforesaid may remove any such building or work and recover the expense incurred in such removal from the owner in a summary manner as a civil debt.
    (2) If any person feels aggrieved by the neglect or refusal of such authority to give its consent, or by the conditions on which such consent is given, or as to the time within which such discontinuance or removal is ordered, he may appeal to the Local Government Board whose decision shall be final. Provided that the Board may before considering any such appeal require the appellant to deposit such sum not exceeding five pounds to cover the costs of appeal as may be fixed by rules to be made by them.
    Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Mr. PERCY HARRIS: I beg to move "That the Clause be read a second time."
    I moved an Amendment with similar effect in Committee. The Government accepted it in principle on the condition that words should be inserted giving the right of appeal to the Local Government Board, in the event of the local authority refusing a necessary infringement of the by-laws. I accordingly withdrew the Amendment, which has now been redrafted, and which I hope will be accepted in its present form. The Clause gives the right of appeal to the Local Government Board, so that if necessary any local authority can be set right. The object of the Clause is not to secure any rigid, or pedantic, or unreasonable enforcement of any by-laws. It is only intended to safeguard the localities against the possibility of unhealthy housing conditions, which might arise if measures which were avowedly war emergency measures were perpetuated for an indefinite period. That is the general object of the Clause.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir George Cave): My hon. Friend having accepted certain Amendments, I propose to accept the Clause.
    Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Particulars of Valuations to be Ascertained and Recorded.)
    Where land is purchased or leased under this Act by a Government Department, that Department shall ascertain and record the annual value thereof as adopted for rating purposes at the date of such purchase or lease, and these particulars, together with the amount of the price or rent, shall be included in the report of proceedings under this Act.
    Provided that when the land purchased or leased is part of a larger unit for valuation, particulars shall be given showing the apportionment of the said valuations as between the several portions after severance.
    Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Mr. DUNDAS WHITE: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    4.0 P.M
    The object is that in the case of lands which are purchased or obtained under this Act, there should be a record kept and published in any report there may be of the proceedings, showing what the price of the land is and what the rent of the land is and what was taken as the valuation for rating at the time when the land was taken over. This Clause was not proposed, as was suggested in Committee, to establish a comparison between valuations for rating purposes. It only proposes that the facts should be ascertained and should be properly recorded. Some time before the War I put a question to the Prime Minister as to whether he would cause a' record to be kept of the price and valuation of all land acquired by public money, and he then gave the answer that he would. That, I understand, has been done. My right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury informed me a short time ago that it had been done in the case of land purchased before and during the War. On the Small Holdings (Colonies) Bill I proposed a Clause of the same character as this Clause, and the Government saw their way to accept that Clause. That Clause now stands as Section 6 of 4.0 P.M. the Small Holdings (Colonies) Act. I am now asking the Government to insert a similar Clause in this Bill in order that, when any report of the proceedings comes out, these particulars should appear therein. I cannot imagine a more modest proposal along these lines. It is not asking that any new

    1159
    information should be obtained. My request is that these particulars should become common property by being published in any report that may come out of proceedings under this measure. They certainly ought to come out in any case, because at a time like this the public should know what they are paying for land and also on what basis the owners of the land have contributed to the national needs. It might be possible to obtain this information later on by a series of questions in the House, or by asking for a special return of particulars as regards land purchased under this Act. But this seems to be a better arrangement, and I hope the Government will accept the proposal.
    Commander WEDGWOOD: I beg to second the Motion.
    It seems to me that the Government might quite well accept this Clause. If adopted, it will be, ipso facto, a guide to those who are making these purchases on behalf of the Government. Often at the present time the question of what the land was previously rated at or the amount at which it was valued at under the 1910 Act does not arise at all. The people conducting the negotiations do not ask what the valuation was; they base themselves almost entirely on the old Lands Clauses (Consolidation) Act, 1845.
    Sir TUDOR WALTERS: The hon. Member is entirely mistaken.
    Commander WEDGWOOD: They ask at what price the man is willing to sell the land. They then offer a lower figure and leave it to the arbitrators to decide. We do not insist upon the Government changing the principle in time of war, when they ought to do their very best to get land cheaply and when it is a particularly iniquitous crime to try to get more than a proper price out of the taxpayers of the country. We do not say that you are to use this valuation as the basis, but merely that this question is to be inquired into and registered in the annual report of purchases under the Act. If we can get this particular in, it merely means that it at once becomes one of the items specially considered; it becomes at once an element in fixing the ultimate price. In that way it will save money to the community, apart altogether from the statistical value which the return will necessarily have. I know that a certain
    1160
    number of Members interested in real estate will bitterly resent the insertion of any such Clause. The whole of the real estate interests are built up on the Lands Clauses (Consolidated) Act, 1845. The lawyers have that Act as their sheet-anchor, and when the real estate owners and the lawyers get together they will try to prevent any such alteration of the law. At the same time, it would be a very good test of the liberal attitude of mind of the Coalition Government if they would consider the insertion of a perfectly harmless Clause like this, which can only terrify people by the thought of what may be behind it, but which in itself is innocent and desirable in the interests of the community.
    Sir G. CAVE: I do not propose to go into the very interesting questions suggested by my hon. Friend. But taking the matter merely on its merits, I think it would be better not to accept this Clause. The insertion of these words would involve a good deal of trouble to the authorities in collecting the information. The hon. Member himself can get it without trouble to the authorities. But when got it is really of no value at all in this connection. It is a mistake to found this proposal on the Small Holdings (Colonies) Act, because that was quite a different matter. Under that Act the Committee were ordered to present to Parliament an annual report of their proceedings, and the Section to which my hon. Friend refers directed that in that report there should be a return of this sort. In this Bill there is no provision for a report. Therefore the Clause really has no meaning. It simply provides that in a report which does not exist these particulars should be given. I hope we shall not go into the difficult questions which hon. Members might raise on this Clause.
    Mr. WHITE: I should like to ask the Solicitor-General a question. His objection is that there is no provision for a report of the proceedings under this measure, and that therefore a Clause requiring certain particulars to be put in that report would be futile. But though there is no provision for a report, there is no reason whatever why a report should not be issued. If a report were in fact issued the Clause would become relevant. If there were no report, no harm would be done by the insertion of

    1161
    the Clause. Therefore I hope the Solicitor-General will reconsider his decision.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to make another speech. I understood that he desired to ask a question.
    Mr. WHITE: The question I desire to ask the Solicitor-General is, if he cannot accept the Clause, will the Government be willing at a later date to grant a return along these lines if such a return is asked for?
    Sir G. CAVE: I could not answer that now.
    Question put, and negatived.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Continuation of Possession of Land Occupied for the Purposes of the Defence of the Realm.)
    (1) Where, during the course of the present war, possession has been taken of any land by or on behalf of any Government Department for purposes connected with the present war, whether" in exercise of any prerogative right of His Majesty, or of any powers conferred by or under any enactment relating to the defence of the realm, or by agreement, or otherwise, it shall be lawful for the Government Department in possession (hereinafter referred to as the occupying department), after the termination of the present war, to continue in possession of the land for such period, not exceeding two years from such termination, as the occupying department may consider necessary or expedient, and, if on application being made to the Railway and Canal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) not less than six months before the expiration of such two years the Commission consent thereto, for such further period, not exceeding five years from the expiration of such two years, as the Commission may authorise.
    (2) Whilst any land so continues in the possession of any occupying department, the department may for the purposes of the public service exercise in relation thereto all such powers as were during the continuance of the war exercisable in relation thereto for the purposes of the defence of the realm, subject, however, as respects the power to close public highways or rights of way, to the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section six, and, as respects the power of removal of build-
    1162
    ings and works, to the provisions of the next following Section.
    (3) The occupying department shall pay such rent in respect of any land which continues in their possession, and such continuance shall be upon and subject to such terms and conditions, as may be agreed between the department and the persons interested in the land or as, failing agreement, shall be determined by the Commission.
    (4) The occupying department may transfer possession of any land to the Admiralty or Army Council or the Minister of Munitions, and upon such a transfer being made the department to whom possession is transferred shall be deemed to be the occupying department.
    Amendment made: In Sub-section (1), after the word "course," insert the words "or within the week immediately preceding the commencement."
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I beg to move, after the word "Commission" ["hereinafter referred to as the Commission"], to insert the words "upon the ground that an extension of time is necessary for urgent national requirements."
    The object of this Amendment is to provide that an extension of time should be granted only where there is an urgent case for it. I raised the matter in Committee, and the Solicitor-General promised to consider it. I hope the Government will accept the Amendment.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Sir G. CAVE: It is true that I promised to consider this point, and after considering it I have put down an Amendment which I think has the effect desired by my hon. Friend. That Amendment is, to leave out the word "authorise" ["as the Commission may authorise"], and insert "consider necessary or expedient in the national interests." I hope those words will satisfy my hon. Friend.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: As far as I can gather, that meets the substance of the case.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I beg to move to leave out the word "five" [" not exceeding five years "], and to insert instead thereof the word "two."

    1163
    As the matter stands at present, after the termination of the War, if the Government are in occupation of any land, they are to have two years in which to determine what they propose to do with it, and they may have five years from the expiration of those two years if the Commission give them the extension. That gives in all a maximum of seven years. I submit that that is an unnecessarily long time for the Government to have in which to exercise their option. Suppose they are in occupation of an hotel. The result of my Amendment would be to give them a maximum of four years instead of seven in which to decide whether they would give up the occupation of the hotel or buy it permanently. Let the House consider, quite apart from the question whether people are landlords or lawyers, the justice of the case from a business point of view. It is a monstrous injustice that any business enterprise should have this option of purchase hanging over its head for a longer time than four years.
    Sir G. CAVE: This Clause does not deal with purchase at all.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: At any rate, they remain in possession. Four years must be a sufficient time for the Government to leave the premises if they mean to do so. Of course they can do anything by agreement, but to stay on for longer than four years against the will of the owner would be a sweat injustice.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I beg to second the Amendment, and I desire to support it. I know cases where the Govermental proposal would involve a considerable hardship to those concerned, and if a considerable time is taken to decide whether or not the Government are to continue in possession.
    Sir G. CAVE: There was a considerable amount of discussion in Committee as to this matter. The Bill, as hon. Members will have in mind, originally provided provisional occupation for three years, with the option of a further four years. After some discussion it was suggested in Committee that we should make the period two years, if those in opposition would agree to make the following period five years. I do not think we can go back upon that now. I want to remind hon. Members that I am going to move later an Amendment which compels the Govern-
    1164
    ment to decide within three years whether they will buy or not, so that by the end of that time, if my Amendment be accepted, the owner will know whether or not he is to be bought out. He will by that time also know for how long the occupation is to be continued.
    Sir F. BANBURYI gather that within three years from the termination of the War, if the new suggested Amendment is accepted, the Government will have to decide whether or not they will buy. Therefore, they will have to give notice as to their continuance or otherwise in possession. Perhaps it is not a very great hardship, if a man lets his premises or land, for the Government to fix the proposed period. At the end of that period he will have the knowledge of where he stands.
    Sir T. WALTERS: I think the suggestion made by the Solicitor-General puts an entirely different complexion on the matter, and really removes any actual hardship. The point is not so much that the man suffers any hardship by the Government being his tenant for a certain period. The point of the hardship is that he does not know whether or not the Government is going to purchase. Shortening the period during which the Government will make up its mind to three years puts the man, I think, in a very much better position than even the suggested Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite. I hope the Committee will see its way to accede to the Clause as it stands, two years and five years, on the condition that the Amendment suggested by the Solicitor-General is carried at a later stage.
    Mr. CURRIE: I am afraid I cannot agree with the suggestion of the Solicitor-General. The projected Amendment shows sufficient consideration for the position in which, say, a large hotel proprietor may be placed, but there are many other people in addition to hotel proprietors. At the end of three years, as I understand the Government suggestion, there will be no suggestion of the Government purchasing the property outright. It does appear to me a very great hardship for the subject to be left for a period nearly so long as four years. If the Government provides that at the end of the three years, it would not only say that it does not want to buy the place, but that within a period, say, of twelve months, it will definitely say whether or

    1165
    not it does so want to occupy the premises up to a maximum period of four years, I think that would go a considerable length to relieving the owner of an undesirable position of uncertainty. I wish to press the Solicitor-General to give the matter further consideration. Four years, I think, is too long a period.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I am very grateful to the Government, for no doubt it is a great deal to have a definite period. Still, seven years is too long to remain in possession. I submit that four years is ample for the object aimed at.
    Amendment negatived.
    Further Amendments made: Leave out the word "authorise" ["as the Commission may authorise"], and insert thereof the words "consider necessary or expedient in the national interest."
    In Sub-section (2) leave out the words "or rights of way."—[Sir G. Cave.]
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), after the word "rent" ["shall pay such rent"], to insert the words "and compensation for loss and damage if any suffered."
    I submit that what I suggest is only fair. It is only right that the Commission appointed by the Government to deal with this matter should have the power not only to do as already suggested, but to give compensation for such damage as is incurred by the person who belongs to the particular place. I brought this matter up on the Committee stage. I submit it is only an act of justice that my words should be put in. Any business man knows many cases where the mere rent is not sufficient compensation for the injuries done.
    Mr. BOYTON: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Sir G. CAVE: I quite agree with my hon. and learned Friend's speech, and I have anticipated his desire. If he will look at the next Amendment on the Paper he will see that I have put in words to provide for such cases as those to which he refers.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I only put down my Amendment this morning, and I have not seen the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
    Sir F. BANBURY: This is a very important question. A case was brought to my notice only a very short time ago
    1166
    where the War Office had taken possession of certain land for a short period. A portion of the land was heather, and on another portion the owner grazed sheep. The payment of rent only would not recompense the owner for the loss sustained. Not being a lawyer, I cannot say as to whether or not the words proposed by the Solicitor-General are adequate, but the matter is a very important one, and it is therefore necessary to be quite sure what we are doing. Does my hon. and learned Friend think the proposed Amendment of the Solicitor-General covers his case?
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I am very much obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I think his Amendment, on the whole, meets the case, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir G. CAVE: I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), to leave out the words "as may be agreed between the Department and the persons interested in the land, or," and to insert instead thereof the words "as to compensation or otherwise (including compensation for any depreciation attributable to works and buildings not removed)."
    Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: Suppose the Munitions Department have taken a certain hotel, will the compensation include such damage to that hotel as the loss of goodwill? It may be that in the War year that possession is taken there is no profit, but that may not mean that the institution has been an unprofitable one or that the people who had put their money into it are entitled to have their property taken violently away? There should, I think, be some compensation in respect of the earning power of the hotel if it is affected adversely. I want to know whether that sort of compensation will be included?
    Sir G. CAVE: We are providing for rent and compensation. If my hon. Friend can suggest any other words that would seem to meet the case better I will consider them, but rent and compensation ought to cover everything.
    Amendment agreed to.

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

    1167
    an occupying department after the termination of the present War, any building or other work which for purposes connected with the present War has been erected or constructed on over or under the land wholly or partly at the expense of the State, or, with the consent of the occupying department, at the expense of some person not being a person interested in the land, may be removed, without the consent of any person interested in the land, by the occupying department, or, with the consent of the occupying department, by the person at whose expense it was erected or constructed, any law or custom to the contrary notwithstanding:
    Provided that—

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

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

    this provision shall not authorise the removal of that building or work during the continuance of such interest in the land without the consent of that person or the persons deriving title under him:
    Provided also that where under any agreement a Government Department is entitled to remove any such building or work nothing in this Section shall prejudice the rights of the department or any other person under the agreement.
    (2) Where any building or work has been removed under the powers conferred by this Section the occupying department shall cause the land to be restored to the condition in which it was before the building or work was erected or constructed or shall, if the persons interested in the land agree or the Commission consent, instead of so restoring the land, pay such compensation in respect of the depreciation (if any) in the value of the land attributable to the disturbance of the soil as in default of agreement may be determined by the Commission:
    Provided that in the case of any common, open space, or allotment, the land shall be so restored as aforesaid to the satisfaction of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries.
    (3) Where any building or any machinery or plant fixed or attached to any land has, for purposes connected with the present
    1168
    War, been erected wholly or partly at the expense of the State in accordance with an agreement with any person interested in the land, any power to remove the building, machinery, and plant so erected conferred on any Government Department under the agreement may be exercised, notwithstanding any rights in the building, machinery, or plant to which any other person interested in the land, whether as mortgagee or otherwise, may be entitled.
    Mr. BOYTON: I beg to move in Subsection (2), after the word "soil" [disturbance of the soil "], to insert the words "or other causes arising from the use to which it has been put."
    I think it is unfair to limit this matter to compensation where the land has been cleared of buildings, for disturbance of the soil may be a. very serious thing indeed. The Amendment of the Solicitor-General which has just been accepted speaks of several kinds of compensation, but there are great disturbances in many cases in connection with the soil. It may be that the soil will be deteriorated by chemicals, refuse, and all sorts of oddments which may be left after a lengthened occupation by the Government. It seems to me only fair to add the words that I propose, so that the damage may be put right or compensation paid for it.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Sir G. CAVE: I think this is the wrong place to deal with this matter. This Subsection deals entirely with removal, and the words in the Bill provide for paying compensation for depreciation, if any, in the value of the land, owing to disturbance of the soil connected with the removal. If there is injury caused by the use of the land, then it will be otherwise dealt with in the Bill. I do not think further words are necessary.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I beg to move to leave out the words "the Commission" ["may be determined by the Commission"], and insert instead thereof the words "an arbitrator to be agreed upon by the parties, or, in default of agreement, by the President of the Surveyors' Institution."
    I am proposing another tribunal, rather than the Commission, for dealing with the

    1169
    question of the depreciation of the value of land. The Sub-section says that compensation shall be paid
    "in respect of the depreciation (if any) in the value of the land attributable to the disturbance of the soil as in default of agreement may be determined by the Commission."
    My Amendment is to substitute for the Commission an arbitrator to be agreed upon by the parties, or, in default of agreement, by the President of the Surveyors' Institution. This is one of those cases where it is purely a question of injury to land, and I would submit that it would be more satisfactorily dealt with by a surveyor who is perfectly accustomed to deal with such matters, rather than by the Commission, which is the Railway and Canal Commission. I do not suppose that Commission would hear and determine the case for themselves in these circumstances, but would send down some surveyor of their own to the place wherever the land was situated—in Lancashire, or wherever it might be—and might, or might not, act upon his Report, as the case might be. That is never a very satisfactory course of proceeding. It is a much more satisfactory proceeding to the parties that the matter should be heard before an arbitrator, who could give his award as a valuer who knows the value of such things. If the Commission do send down a surveyor, it is far better that he should be agreed upon by the parties, rather than that a person should be sent down who would be naturally looked upon by the owner of the land, not necessarily as a Government official, but rather as tainted with the choice having been made by a Government Department, although I am not in the last suggesting it would be unfair or impartial.
    Sir G. CAVE: I agree that the question of the tribunal which is to determine compensation is a matter very well worthy of consideration, and I am quite prepared to consider the matter at a later stage of our proceedings to-day. I think it would be far more convenient to take the point in Clause 8. Here we are only dealing with a Sub-section relating to removals, and the only matter this Amendment would affect would be compensation for disturbance of the soil—a very small matter indeed. Later on we can deal with all matters of compensation as a whole.
    Mr. BRUNNER: I should like to ask the learned Solicitor-General whether that
    1170
    means that he proposes on Clause 8 to appoint some other tribunal—there is nothing on the Paper at present?
    Sir G. CAVE: There is an Amendment on the Paper to raise the point.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir G. CAVE: I beg to move to leave out the words "Provided that in the case of any common, open space, or allotment the land shall be so restored as aforesaid to the satisfaction of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries," and to insert instead thereof,
    "(3) Where any such buildings or works have been erected or constructed upon any common, open space, or allotment the building or work shall be removed and the land restored as aforesaid, except so far as the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries certify that suck removal or restoration is not required in the interests of the persons interested in the land or the public."
    Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: I do not like this Sub-section. I understood that the question of commons was to be dealt with by a separate Bill. That was what we understood on Second Reading, anyhow. Supposing a common is cut up and altogether disfigured, it says here that it is going to be restored
    "except so far as the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries certify that such removal or restoration is not required in the interests of the persons interested in the land or the public."
    Who is to be the public? Nobody look after commons except a voluntary society for the preservation of commons, and, unless they interfere, it is left to the discretion of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries. That would be a very wrong thing for the beauty of our commons. I certainly did not understand the commons were to be treated in this way. They ought to be restored and buildings removed. I cannot understand why that should not be, and therefore I would like to leave out all the words after "aforesaid." I do not think it should be left to the officials of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries. We ought to preserve all our commons in their beauty, and for the Board to say that it is not necessary to restore them, I think, would be very wrong.
    Mr. CURRIE: I support my hon. Friend. I see no reason to think that the interests

    1171
    of the public would not suffer, and I would regard any risk of that kind to commons with very great jealousy. I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman would do well to consider the suggestion my hon. Friend has made.
    Mr. SHERWELL: I associate myself with what my hon. Friend has said. It is certainly extremely important, and it might be a very far-reaching Amendment. Practically it leaves the safeguarding of important, social and public interests absolutely at the discretion of a Government Department. Now, the Board of Agriculture may be at any given moment, a perfectly, enlightened body, fully responsive to public needs and public claims. On the other hand, it may be a body so constituted, or of such spirit as to be extremely responsive to the appeals or requirements of another Government Department. This practically puts the safeguarding of a dearly-prized public right in the hands of a bureaucracy, and I certainly do hope the House will seriously question the wisdom of adding this particular Amendment to the Bill.
    Mr. PERCY HARRIS: I think the Government ought to make out some case for the power they are now asking for in this new Sub-section. As the Bill stands, a common, or open space, has to be restored to the satisfaction of the Board of Agriculture. Now it is proposed to leave the land unrestored with the consent of the Board of Agriculture. I think this is a very large thing to ask. We ought to maintain the principle that commons and open spaces should be preserved inviolate, unless some case is made out for reserving that right, and at present we have not heard any case made out. It seems to me the people who are really judges of what is necessary in the interest of the public in any town are the responsible authority of that town, and not the Board of Agriculture. At any rate, I am entitled to ask that some case should be made out to show why it is necessary that this power of continuing buildings on a public open space should be retained.
    Sir G. CAVE: I do not think the Amendment is quite understood. Objection was taken to the words in the Bill in Committee on the ground that they did not compel the removal of buildings. It was for that purpose mainly that an Amendment was desired. Then when we provide
    1172
    for the removal of buildings and works on the land this question arose. Suppose it turns out that there is work on the land which is for the benefit of the public, such as an excellent road or an embankment, or something of that kind, are we going to be so foolish as to say that, because it is put up in war-time, that must be removed? Surely that would be ridiculous I In such a case as that, who is to be the judge of whether it is to be of public benefit or not? You must have somebody to decide, and we propose to put it in the hands of the Board of Agriculture, which is the Government Department having the charge of commons and open spaces. If a better arrangement can be devised, so much the better. This certainly seems a common-sense proposal, and there is certainly no insidious desire to damage commons. (The only object is that where there is work on the land of public use and advantage we should not be obliged to take it away.
    Mr. HENDERSON: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman deal with the question of cutting it up into trenches, and so on?
    Sir G. CAVE: That is to be restored.
    Mr. HENDERSON: Not necessarily.
    Sir G. CAVE: That is to be restored if the Board of Agriculture considers it desirable.
    Mr. BRUNNER: I am very glad to hear what the learned Solicitor-General said about the intention of this Amendment, but I want to put to him this: Supposing a building is left, in whose possession will it be? Will it still be in the possession of the occupying Department?
    Sir G. CAVE: Certainly not.
    Mr. BRUNNER: Will they still go on occupying it for military purposes?
    Sir G. CAVE: No.
    Mr. BRUNNER: Then in that case I have not very much objection to it. If it is to be a public building, I cannot see there can be much objection to it; but it seems it would not be a public building if it were left upon the common, but would belong to the lord of the manor, and in that case it does not appear that the public could by any possible means derive any benefit from the building remaining on the common.
    Mr. CURRIE: I would like to ask the Solicitor-General to make the provision a little clearer. He referred to a road possibly having been built on a piece of common land. But there are other things besides roads which may have been placed there. A building may have been placed on a certain piece of land which the Board of Agriculture may think, on the whole, had better remain there, but which the county council or the town council may regard otherwise. My point is that where a difference of opinion arises, will it not be fairer, more reasonable, and less likely to prejudice the public, if the final word in the matter is left, say, with the county council? I do not want to force a Government Department to uproot a road or building, but should not people in that locality have some say through their own representatives?
    Sir C. CORY: I do not think there is much to complain of in this proposal, which only says that the buildings or works shall not be removed if the Board of Agriculture think they are in the interests of the persons interested in the land or the public. The Board of Agriculture are limited in their power of saying whether the buildings or works should be removed or not.
    Mr. EDGAR HORNE: What we want to secure is that the whole of these improvements and buildings should be taken away, and the roads done away with, if it is in the interests of the public that they should have the commons back as they were before. Some people might think that it is in the interests of the country that commons should be done away with, but we do not want anything of that kind.
    Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: I understand that the rights of the public in this matter are exceedingly limited, and apart from the right of pasture the public have no rights over the commons at all. In the case which has been suggested the land would revert back to the lord of the manor. There are a large number of commons in this country in respect of which this House has made certain Orders. In other words, Provisional Orders have been made by this House, and commons are consequently controlled by those Orders. In those cases undoubtedly the public have certain rights, and I should be glad if the right bon. Gentleman would consider the desirability of making special provision with regard to the removal of buildings on those commons where they interfere with the rights of the public over those commons.
    1174
    The point I wish to make is with regard to ordinary commons. This House has really nothing to say unless we have another Act of Parliament. In ordinary cases, if the Government does not acquire the land, it will revert to the lord of the manor, and the right of the public is extremely limited. On the other hand, there are certain commons, some of which have been taken by the Government, over which by a Provisional Order or a special Act of Parliament the public have secured certain rights. The suggestion I make to the Solicitor-General is that in those cases there should be a distinct agreement that all those buildings shall be removed, and that there shall be no interference with the rights secured to the public.
    Sir T. WALTERS: There are certain works which have been undoubtedly carried out on commons and open spaces which should not be removed. For instance, to obliterate a road which has been made and which is a convenience to the public would be absurd. In regard to buildings I can recall several cases in which they have been erected, and which, if they could remain at the disposal of the public, would undoubtedly be a public benefit. I do not wish to take away from the public any rights which they now possess, or by a side-wind to hand over buildings which have been erected by the State. What we want is some machinery by which you may preserve upon these open spaces such buildings and other works as are really useful to the public, and also secure that the public should have the use and enjoyment of the money which has been spent out of the public purse. I cannot agree that the wording of this proposal is peculiarly happy, and I should never have read into it the interpretation which the Solicitor-General has placed upon it. If the words really do not mean what I have suggested, then let us have words that do. Let us see that it is made perfectly clear that only works will remain that are in the interests of the public, and that the public should have the use and enjoyment of them. If the proposal is made clear on that point we shall be satisfied. It is somewhat unfortunate that in all these matters Government Departments find it so difficult to associate local authorities with them, and they always choose the Board of Agriculture or the Local Government Board. Surely county councils know something about commons and they know whether certain works or buildings will be an advantage to the

    1175
    public. If it were possible to give some locus standi to the local authorities to say whether the buildings should be removed or not, all suspicion would be removed.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY Of MUNITIONS (Dr. Addison): We are quite willing to accept the county council as the authority instead of the Board of Agriculture.
    Sir TUDOR
    WALTERS: Then I will move that the county council be substituted for the Board of Agriculture. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not 'local authority' "?] What I have in mind is the local authority of the area in which the buildings or works are situated.
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
    Sir T. WALTERS: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "Board of Agriculture," and to insert instead thereof the words "local authority."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: Leave out "certify" and insert "certifies."
    Proposed words, as amended, there inserted.

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

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

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

    (2) Where any land or any interest in land is or has been so acquired any adjoining or neighbouring land (whether belonging to the same owner or not), or any right of access, or other easement or right which appears to the Commission to be required for the proper enjoyment of the land or interest so acquired, or any interest therein may, with the consent of the Commission, also be acquired.
    (3) The power to acquire land, or an interest therein, under this Section shall
    1176
    include power to acquire the land or interest either with or without all or any of the mines or minerals lying thereunder as the purchasing department may determine, and if the surface is acquired apart from the mines and minerals either without any right of support or with such right of support as the department may require.
    (4) The power of acquisition conferred by this Section shall be exercisable—

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

    (b) in the case of other land or rights, by the Admiralty or Army Council or the Minister of Munitons at any time during the present War or within twelve months after the termination thereof.

    (5) For the purposes of the acquisition of land and interests therein under this Section, the provisions of the Lands Clauses Acts, subject to the modifications set out in the Schedule to this Act, shall be incorporated with this Act.
    (6) Whether any buildings, works, or improvements have, for purposes connected with the present War, been erected, constructed, or made wholly or partly at the expense of the State, on, over, or under any land, no person shall without the consent of a Government Department remove, destroy, alter, or dispose of the buildings, works, or improvements whilst the right of acquiring the land conferred by this Section remains in force.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (2).
    We had considerable discussion upon this point in Committee, and the Solicitor-General gave an undertaking which I have here. My objection to this Subsection is that the Section itself enacts that
    "it shall be lawful to acquire by agreement or compulsorily on behalf of His Majesty any land in the possession of an occupying department or any interest in such land."
    During the War I think everyone has been anxious to give all power to the Government to acquire any land for the purpose of carrying on the War, and all people connected with land or property have been only too anxious, if the Government came to them and said, "We want your land,"

    1177
    to give up that land for anything which might be necessary for the purposes of this War. Now comes this Bill, which says that these people, having given their land for these purposes, may find that they run the risk of having it taken away from them forever. I think that is rather a strong order, but there may be some justification for it, provided that the power to acquire the land is limited to the land in the possession of an occupying department, or any interest in such land, This Sub-section, however, says that not only may this land be acquired, but any land, or any interest in any land, whether belonging to the same owner or not, and adjoining or neighbouring land may be acquired.
    5.0 P.M.
    I oppose this proposal, because I do not think we ought to allow the Government to spend large sums of money, as they would do under this Sub-section if carried, for adding to and acquiring additional land. This proposal does not become effective until the land has been acquired, and it will only be lawful when they have actually acquired, by agreement or otherwise, the particular land they are now occupying. The result may be that during the next three or four years after the War the Government may say, "We will set up another factory, not on the adjoining land, but on neighbouring land." I asked what was meant by "neighbouring land" and how far it must be away in order to be called neighbouring land, and the Solicitor-General said it was a phrase well understood in law. Notwithstanding that explanation, it seems to me to be a phrase which might give rise to very considerable difficulty if it had to be interpreted as to whether land five miles off was neighbouring land or not. We will suppose that it is easy to interpret that. This Sub-section gives power to the Government to spend sums of money on acquiring additional land after the War belonging to other people for the purpose of doing certain things—that is to say, the power of this House is limited, and the Government would be able to do certain things. Of course, we may have a different House of Commons, and they may be economical Members, who may not view with equanimity the desire of the Government to expend money on certain factories or munition works. Therefore, I think we ought not to put in this Sub-section. I see no reason for it. Might I recall what took place in Committee. My right hon. Friend, alluding to the few remarks that I
    1178
    made, said that I was a little extravagant in my language against this Sub-section—I think that was an exaggeration—and then he went on to say that he was quite satisfied that the right of access must remain, but with regard to the words "adjoining or neighbouring land" he had listened to what I had said and, though he did not give any promise, he would consider whether they required those words. I do not see any Amendments down to carry out that intention, and I am afraid that my right hon. Friend has found that he has been unable to put down words since the Committee stage. I attach very great importance to this Sub-section, and I earnestly trust that there will be some limitation, at any rate, put upon this power, and that in the event of the Solicitor-General not agreeing to the omission of the whole Sub-section he will agree to the omission of the words "any adjoining or neighbouring land (whether belonging to the same owner or not)."
    Dr. ADDISON: My right hon. Friend and the officers of the different Departments concerned, in view of the promise of the Solicitor-General at the earlier stage of the Bill, have looked into this matter with great care, but I am sorry to say that there are certain cases which make it imperative m the national interest to retain these words. I will give one case to which the Department attach the most importance. In the case of some airship works that have been constructed it is necessary, owing to their location, that a considerable amount of ground around should be available for the purposes of approach or access to the sheds, or for mooring the airships outside, or for such like purposes. It would be impossible to make proper use of these undertakings, in which in some cases many hundreds of thousands of pounds have been spent, if anyone could put up a house or build a factory chimney, or something of that sort, on an adjoining plot. It is therefore necessary in these limited cases to have the power to acquire the adjoining or neighbouring land. We tried for some time to see if we could not get rid of the words "or neighbouring land," and we went into it with the utmost care with a view of meeting the right hon. Gentleman. We examined three or four cases, and it was found that we could not, in the national interest, omit the words. I am sorry that we have been unable to meet the right hon. Gentleman, but we find it necessary to retain the words owing to the

    1179
    large structures of the kind indicated that have been made of the kind indicated in two or three cases.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: Why is it that the Government cannot do it during the War? I should imagine, if there were an airship shed, that they would have taken all the land necessary during the War, and in that case they would be in possession of it and no difficulty would arise. Under the Bill they have some years after the War in which to consider whether they will take land or not. It would be somewhat of a hardship if the Government suddenly made up their mind that they required more land than they had at the termination of the War. Is it necessary to have this power to take compulsorily land, irrespective of its distance from the site of the works, for a period of three years after the War? It is a difficult Clause to construe, but I understand that is the power which it would confer.
    Dr. ADDISON: That point also was gone into, and an Amendment down in the name of the Solicitor-General limits the time in which purchase can be made, but in view of unexpected developments in things like airships and so forth it was felt necessary to leave it in this form.
    Mr. NEWDEGATE: If there are only three or four cases, would it not be possible to put in the words "in the case of airship sheds," because, as the Bill stands, it might apply, although the right hon. Gentleman does not intend it to do so, to a great many other cases. Surely, if it is only to apply to a very few cases, words might be inserted to apply it to those cases, and so let off other land which might be included in the Bill unless some defining words were put in limiting it to the three or four cases which the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned.
    Dr. ADDISON: We have to satisfy the Commission that it is necessary to acquire the land.
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.
    Sir G. CAVE: I beg to move in Sub-section (4), paragraph (a), at the end, to add the words "but not later than three years after the termination of the present War."
    Mr. WATSON: I would like to ask for an explanation. Paragraph (a) of Sub-
    1180
    section (4) seems to me at first sight to cover all the land or rights power to acquire which is given in this Section. What does paragraph (b) cover? Are not these things specifically mentioned in paragraph (b) entirely covered by paragraph (a)?
    Sir G. CAVE: Paragraph (a) refers to land in possession of an occupying department.
    Mr. WATSON: It also applies to rights required for proper enjoyment.
    Sir G. CAVE: Paragraph (b) refers back to paragraph (b) of Sub-section (1)—
    "any land on, over, or under which any buildings, works, or improvements have, for purposes connected with the present War, been erected, constructed, or made wholly or partly at the expense of the State, or any interest in such land."
    That is property in possession of other people.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move, in the proposed Amendment, to leave out the word "three," and to insert instead thereof the word "two."
    I quite recognise that the Government have endeavoured to meet the Amendment which I desire made. I think they might have put in limiting words, but would the Solicitor-General put in "two" instead of "three" years, because then I think possibly the grievance which I thought might arise would be met, namely, the power of the Government for a considerable period after the War to acquire land which is not really required for the purposes of the War, but is required for the purposes of keeping on particular munition works that have been continued after the War. If the Solicitor-General would decrease the time it would rather limit the power of the Government and would give this House its control sooner. I think if we meet him he might meet us in this way. It is not a very great point, but it would give us some little concession.
    Sir G. CAVE: I cannot accept the Amendment. The period is seven years in the Bill, but hon. Members objected to that, and I have cut it down to three. I have therefore met them more than halfway, and this was fixed after consultation with the various Departments.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question, "That the words 'but not later than three years after the termination of the present War' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    Mr. BRUNNER: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add the words "Provided that the compulsory powers of purchase under this Section shall not come into operation until the termination of the present War."
    I dare say it will be remembered that the Chairman in Committee swept away this Amendment under a misapprehension. It really asks for a declaration from the Government of their policy in this matter. I want to know whether the Ministry of Munitions intend when they get this Bill to begin immediately buying land on which they have erected factories. I have no personal interest in this matter. My sole object is to prevent the waste of public money. I am quite sure that a great many of these factories will have to be pulled down, and I do not want to see the Ministry of Munitions buying land under buildings which will have to be pulled down. I therefore beg to move this Amendment with the object of asking the right hon. Gentleman what are his intentions. If he tells me that it is only the intention of the Ministry of Munitions to buy land in exceptional circumstances, I shall be satisfied, but, if he says that he is going to buy land indiscriminately, I shall have to press this Amendment to a Division.
    Mr. SHERWELL: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Dr. ADDISON: If the object of the hon. Member is not to embarrass the Government but to get a statement, I can assure him that the Ministry have no intention whatever of embarking upon a scheme of land purchase. We do not propose to buy any land unless it is quite evident, on account of the large expenditure made upon it, that it is necessary in the public interest to acquire the freehold. Those are the only class of cases. I can assure him they are all scrutinised with the utmost care, and they have to pass the vigilant eye of the Treasury, who scrutinise them with as great care as the Department itself. I do not know the cases the hon. Member has in mind, but I can assure him that there is no thought or intention of any indiscriminate purchase of land. There are a few cases in which purchase has already been made by agree-
    1182
    ment, and there are other cases quite small in number. They are limited, so far as I know, to cases where great expenditure has been incurred in putting up factories or buildings on the land in question, and where it would be un businesslike not to purchase.
    Question, "That the words proposed be there inserted," put, and negatived.
    Mr. D. WHITE: I beg to move to add the following new Sub-section:
    "(1) Any person having power (whether subject to any consent or conditions or not) to sell land authorised to be acquired by any Government Department may, subject to the like consent and conditions, grant or demise the land in perpetuity or for any term of years to the Government Department at such fee farm or other rent, secured by such condition of re-entry or otherwise as may be agreed upon, and with or without a right of renewal, or grant to the Government Department an option to acquire the land.
    Provided that, where the power to sell arises under the Settled Lands Acts, 1882 to 1890, the powers conferred by this Section shall be exercised only with the consent of the trustees of the settlement for the purposes of those Acts, or with the sanction of the Court."
    I had put this down on the Paper as a new Clause, entitled ("Power to Grant or Demise Land to Departments for Perpetual Rent"). But I take my present course because it has been ruled that this is the right place to deal with this matter. This is a purely permissive proposal, and its object is to enable the owner of land who is compelled to sell to the Government to take the alternative course of letting it to the Government on perpetual lease with a right of re-entry reserved. Speaking generally, it has not been possible to do that in this country for many centuries, but, in fact, the adoption of this course has proved desirable in many instances, and it was first taken in the Conveyancing Act of 1881, and subsequently there was a somewhat similar Clause in the Settled Lands Act. My suggestion is that a like Clause should be included in this Bill, and it is in very much the same terms as a Clause in the Small Holdings (Colonies) Bill. I hope, therefore, that the Government may see their way to accept it. I would remind the House that it gives no extra power; it is only a permissive Section enabling the owner to let the land

    1183
    perpetually if he so desires. There is only one other point I need mention. When the point was raised some objection was taken to Sub-section (2) which I then proposed, and, in view of the permissive character of the proposal, I was rather surprised that such objection should be taken. If, however, it is pressed, I will be content to move Sub-section (1).
    Sir G. CAVE: The only effect of these words is to give power to people to make a certain arrangement which is often made, and it can only be made under this Clause with the consent of both parties. I do not think, therefore, that I need object to the Amendment.
    Question, "That these words be there inserted in the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    Mr. WHITE: I do not propose to move the second Sub-section, which was as follows:
    (2) This Section shall extend and apply to land belonging to His Majesty in right of the Crown or of the Duchy of Lancaster, and to land belonging to the Duchy of Cornwall.

    CLAUSE 4.—(User of Land Acquired.)
    Any land which, or an interest in which, has been acquired under this Act may be used by any Government Department for the purpose for which it was used during the War or for any other purpose for which it could have been used had the land been acquired under the Defence Acts, 1842 to 1873, or the Military Lands Acts, 1892 to 1903, notwithstanding that such user could, but for this provision, have been restrained as being in contravention of any covenant or for any other reason, and no person interested in any adjoining or neighbouring land shall be entitled to restrain such user; but if, apart from this provision, he would have been entitled to restrain such user he shall, if application for the purpose is made within three years after the date of the acquisition of the land under this Act or after the commencement of the user causing the depreciation, whichever may be the later, be entitled to such compensation as the Commission may think just:
    Provided that—

    (a) no compensation other than compensation in respect to a breach of a restrictive covenant shall be payable if the land is used by a Govern-
    1184
    ment Department for a purpose for which it could have been used had the land been ancquired under the Defence Acts, 1842 to 1873, or the Military Lands Acts, 1892 to 1903; and

    (b) where the compensation would be payable by a Government Department, the Department may require the claimant to sell the land or his interest therein at such a price as would have been proper if the value of the land had not been so depreciated, such price in default of agreement to be determined by the Commission; and

    (c) nothing in this Section shall be construed as depriving any person of any right to recover damages in respect of any injury to property caused by accident due to such user as aforesaid; and

    (d) nothing in this Section shall affect the liability of any person in respect of any contravention of the Alkali, etc., Works Regulation Act, 1906, or the Rivers Pollution Acts, 1876 and 1893, or of any local Act dealing with the like matters, or affect the powers conferred by any Act, whether public, general, or local, on any local authority, board of conservancy, or other public authority, with respect to the prevention of the pollution of rivers, or the abatement of nuisances caused by the emission of smoke or other noxious fumes.

    Sir F. BANBURY: I rise to move to leave out paragraph (b).
    These Sub-sections deal with the question of compensation. They say that compensation shall be paid in certain circumstances, and then Subsection (b) goes on to say that where the compensation will be payable by a Government Department, the Department may require the claimant to sell the land or his interest therein at such price as would have been proper if the value of the land had not been so depreciated. We had some Debate upon this in the Committee stage, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for one of the Divisions of Sheffield (Mr. Stuart-Wortley) said:
    "The Government, by this innocent looking paragraph, are getting practically compulsory purchase without any of the usual safeguards by which compulsory purchase is surrounded. There is a good deal in it that will require looking into at a later stage."

    1185
    And then the right hon. Gentleman the Solicitor-General said:
    "We will consider what has been said and see if anything can be done"
    We have, as the House knows, a fairly long period in which these rights can be exercised. Compensation will be payable, I presume, during the seven years after the expiration of the War. Where a person has had some land taken which has been damaged, the State can come forward and say, "We are not prepared to pay you compensation, but we will take your land, not at the value that it has at the present moment, but at the value it would have been at if the damage had not occurred." That seems, on the face of it, fair. But let me point this out. Suppose that land has appreciated in value—I am glad to see the right hon. Gentleman for the Hallam Division has come in—I may tell him I have been quoting some remarks which he made in Committee on this Bill, remarks which drew from the Solicitor-General an undertaking to look into the question under discussion. I am afraid that looking into it has not resulted in anything effective being done.
    Sir G. CAVE: Yes, it has. If the right hon. Member will look at a later Amendment in my name he will see that.
    Sir F. BANBURY: If that is so, I need not pursue the matter. But I certainly did not understand at the interview we had yesterday that it was so. It is rather an awkward position for me now. If I sit down and then find I am not satisfied with the right hon. Gentleman's proposal, I cannot get up again. However, I will move my Amendment and hear what the right hon. Gentleman has to say.
    Sir G. CAVE: I did promise to consider the argument, and I did consider it, and if the right hon. Baronet will read my Amendment which stands next on the Paper he will find I propose to insert these words, "in like manner as if the land had been acquired under Section 3 of this Act." I think that meets the point raised by the right hon. Baronet. He said that this provision was not subject to the safeguards of Section 3, and we propose to make it exactly like purchase under that Section.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: There is another point I should like to raise. Assuming the compensation has been ascertained in respect of any particular land, and the Government think the amount awarded is too high, can they then resort to proceed-
    1186
    ings under Section 3 of this Act and elect to take the land. I suggest that it would be a very unfair power to give them if, after the land has been damaged, compensation had been applied for and an award had been made by the arbitrator, the Government were to have the right to say that they will exercise their compulsory powers of purchase. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman can put in words which will prevent that, I shall be content.
    Sir G. CAVE: It is certainly not the intention of the Government that that power shall exist, and I think that is made clear by the next Amendment which I shall move. I have looked into this matter very carefully.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I do not think the Solicitor-General has dealt with the point raised by my hon. and learned Friend, who thinks that this Section gives powers which the Government ought not to have.
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    Sir G. CAVE: I beg to move, in Subsection (b), to leave out the words "the compensation would be payable by a Government Department," and to insert instead thereof the words "such compensation is claimed in respect of any land."
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I really do not follow what the right hon. and learned Gentleman means by this Amendment, and he has not attempted to explain it to us. It certainly does not meet the point I was putting a moment or two ago. Assume there is a claim in respect of land, and the arbitrator has found that the claim is a good one and has awarded so many hundred pounds. After that, are the Government to come along and claim the right to exercise their powers under the Section, and to require the tenant to sell his interest in the land? I want to have it made perfectly plain that they have not the power to do that, but that they must make their election before any proceedings are taken in respect of the claim for damage.
    Sir G. CAVE: That is our intention. I think the Government must elect, as soon as the claim is made and before the compensation is ascertained, whether or not they will exercise their compulsory powers. If my hon. and learned Friend can suggest any words which will make

    1187
    that more clear, I will certainly consider them, but, as I have said, that certainly is our intention.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: It could easily be done by putting in words to the effect that where such compensation is claimed, the Department must, before any proceedings are taken in respect of the compensation, elect whether they will require the claimant to sell his interest.
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
    Proposed words there inserted.
    Sir G. CAVE: I beg to move in paragraph (b) to leave out the words "By the Commission," and to insert instead thereof the words "In like manner as if the land had been acquired under Section three of this Act."
    Sir F. BANBURY: I do not know whether this Amendment adequately meets my point. I do not wish to give the Government further powers to acquire land compulsorily. I read the right hon. and learned Gentleman's statement that he was prepared to consider the question, and I understood him to say that he had Amendments down to deal with it. This Amendment does not deal with it at all. It only says that the price shall be considered in exactly the same way as when land is acquired under Clause 3. That does not meet my point. I am not concerned with what the price is going to be, but with the apparent determination of the Government to obtain powers to acquire land compulsorily in all sorts of ways. I do not think the Government ought to have power to claim that they can buy land instead of paying the compensation which is due to the owner of the land. The right hon. Gentleman has really misled us, I am sure quite unintentionally. I should not have abandoned my intervention if I had understood this was all that he was going to give us.
    Sir G. CAVE: I believe that the only criticism which I undertook to consider and deal with was that made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Hallam Division of Sheffield (Mr. Stuart-Wortley), which was to the effect that the machinery for obtaining compensation which did apply in Clause 3 did not apply under this paragraph. I undertook to consider that point. I have considered it
    1188
    and met it. I never undertook to consider the view of the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) that the whole paragraph should go out.
    Colonel GRETTON: I have an Amendment down in the same place, but I understand that an arrangement was made earlier in the evening that the point which I want to raise should be raised on Clause 8. The point I want to discuss is not identical with that which the Solicitor-General has endeavoured to meet by this Amendment. I want to substitute the procedure of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Acts for the procedure proposed in this Bill, that is to say, I propose that the Railway and Canal Commission should not be the judges in these cases of compensation where the land is acquired absolutely by a Government Department. I am not sure whether I shall be shut out or whether I shall be able to raise that point, because I am not sure whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment precludes me from discussing the point on Clause 8. I am quite content to discuss it on Clause 8 if I can do so. If not, the point is of such great importance that I should have to take the opportunity of raising it at this juncture.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I do not think that this Amendment would rule that out at all. An hon. Member has handed in an Amendment to leave out Clause 8, no doubt for the same purpose of raising the point there.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Sir G. CAVE: I beg to move to leave out paragraph (d), and to insert instead thereof the following new paragraph:
    "(d) nothing in this Section shall authorise the pollution of, or abstraction of water from, any river or stream in any case where the Local Government Board on the application of the local authority of any district or of any board of conservators or other similar public authority constituted under any Act and having powers with respect to the pollution of rivers determines that such pollution or abstraction would affect the flow or purity of such river or stream to such extent as to prejudice the health of or the supply of water to the inhabitants of the district."
    I should like to say a few words upon this Amendment. The reason why we

    1189
    propose to omit paragraph (d) in the Bill is that having regard to the changes made in Committee it is no longer necessary. In Committee the whole Clause was so altered that it only gives powers to the Crown and not to private individuals, and the Statutes mentioned do not bind the Crown. Therefore the paragraph has no application. In its place we propose to put in this new paragraph (d) which I have moved. It meets the criticism made in Committee with regard to rivers and streams and goes beyond the proviso in the Bill. It gives the right to make a claim wherever the extraction of water from or pollution of any river or stream may affect the supply of water to a district or the health of its inhabitants.
    Sir EDWIN
    CORNWALL: I am very sorry the Solicitor-General has proposed this new paragraph in the place of the one that was put in the Bill in Committee. When the Bill was introduced it contained no provision of this kind. During the discussion in Committee, I raised the question as to the position of the Metropolitan Water Board. The Solicitor-General was good enough to say that in Amendments he proposed to move subsequently in Committee, he would protect the public Authorities, and that if the public authorities were not protected he would look into the matter and see that they were. Later on in Committee, the Solicitor-General brought up his Amendments and amongst them were those to safeguard the local authorities, including the saving Clause which now appears in the Bill as paragraph (d). That was put into the Bill by the Solicitor-General, as the result of a discussion, and in order to satisfy authorities like the Metropolitan Water Board. If hon. Members will look at the paragraph in the Bill they will see that it says:—
    "Nothing in this Section shall affect the liability of any person in respect of any contravention of the Alkali, etc., Works Regulation Act, 1906, or the Rivers Pollution Acts, 1876 and 1893, or of any local Act dealing with the like matters, or affect the powers conferred by any Act, whether public, general, or local, on any local authority, board of conservancy, or other public authority, with respect to the prevention of the pollution of rivers, or the abatement of nuisances caused by the emission of smoke or other noxious fumes."
    That protected a body like the Metropolitan Water Board. I gave an illustration
    1190
    in Committee of a large area of land which was taken by a Government Department, upon which temporary buildings were put up which were not in accordance with the sanitary regulations. The Metropolitan Water Board 'made no complaint about that, but when the War is over it is very important that they, as an authority taking their supply of water from the Rivers Thames and Lea, should be able to enforce to the utmost all obligations with regard to the prevention of the pollution of rivers. Having got that put into the Bill we were satisfied. Now the Solicitor-General comes along and proposes to delete the paragraph which satisfied the Metropolitan Water Board, and to insert this new paragraph, which says:
    "Nothing in this Section should authorise the pollution of, or abstraction of water from, any river or stream in any case where the Local Government Board on the application of the local authority of any district or of any board of conservators or other similar public authority constituted under any Act and having powers with respect to the pollution of rivers determines that such pollution or abstraction would affect the flow or purity of such rivers or stream to such extent as to prejudice the health of or the supply of water to the inhabitants of the district."
    That is cutting across very important Acts of Parliament. The Metropolitan Water Board is involved to the extent of £50,000,000 in purchasing the water undertakings of London. It contributes. £50,000 a year, or 80 per cent. of the whole of the income of the Thames Conservancy, and its position with regard to the pollution of the Rivers Thames and Lea is of the utmost importance to the public. It has statutory rights. Why should one Government Department go to another Government Department, and if that Government Department determines that the Rivers Pollution Acts are not prejudicially affected or that the powers of the Metropolitan Water Board are not affected, then nothing in this Bill shall apply? What we desire is that nothing in this Bill shall interfere with the Acts of Parliament which exist for the protection of the water companies and the public. The Solicitor-General said that it only affected a Government Department. I am not sufficiently acquainted with the technicalities of the law to understand the full meaning of that, but I think it would

    1191
    be advisable for the Government not to take out a paragraph which they gave us in Committee and put in this new paragraph.
    Earlier in the Debate this evening the Solicitor-General, I thought very wisely and very much to the satisfaction of the House, accepted an Amendment that the local authorities should be inserted in place of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, thereby providing that it should not be one Government Department going to another, which would mean, when the War is over and we are busy with other things, that a clerk in one Department will communicate with a clerk in another Department and that the public will not know what is happening. We got rid of that difficulty with regard to one part of the Bill. Do not let us set it up in this part of the Bill. The Local Government Board have quite enough to do without in future having to determine whether anything is happening with regard to the pollution or prejudicial abstraction of water. I therefore ask the Solicitor-General to leave the paragraph as it stands in the Bill. Great uneasiness would be created in the minds of those responsible for the water supply of London if the new paragraph is put in. They will not know where they are. They do know where they are now, because they have Acts of Parliament. The Thames Conserancy have their Acts of Parliament, the Rivers Pollution Acts, and all the other Acts safeguarding water supplies and streams and the water undertakings of London and other parts of the country. Do not let us in this Bill, which is brought in to make it easy for the Government to deal with land which they have taken over for munitions and other purposes, complicate the matter and make it difficult for these undertakings to carry out their Acts of Parliament. On these grounds I ask the Government not to persist in this Amendment.
    Mr. SHERWELL: My hon. Friend has put up a very strong case on definite grounds against the substitution of this proposed new paragraph for that which appears in the Bill. There is another interest very vitally affected by this proposed substitution to which neither he nor the Solicitor-General referred. When the Bill was first introduced there was no protection for the owners of riparian rights, and especially for manufacturers engaged in great industries, requiring water power.
    1192
    Under the pressure of various suggestions made in Committee, the Solicitor-General introduced the paragraph which now appears in the Bill, and which, although it did not go so far as some of us thought it might go in the direction of safeguarding the perfectly legitimate industrial interests of manufacturers, met us so far as manufacturers' interests in the pollution of rivers was concerned. In the proposed substituted paragraph the manufacturer is left once more clean outside the scope of the protection scheme of this Bill, so that in that very important correction the Solicitor-General has distinctly departed from the concession which he had made in response to the discussion in Committee, and which partially met what I am inclined to think is a very urgent case indeed. The Solicitor-General has been accustomed in previous discussions to say that the protection which was aimed at in the various Clauses of the Bill was designed to secure the rights of private individuals and not of traders. I think he will not be inclined to-day, on reflection, to press the reply that the rights of great manufacturers using the water power of rivers really represent private interests at all. There are cases which will occur to every Member of the House of industries so located that the whole social and economic interests of particular districts depend upon the prosperity and continuance of those particular mills. Suppose a mill to be closed. Suppose the machinery suffers irreparable injury, or the continuance of the trade is made impossible by the effect of pernicious acids, or the pollution of the river, on that machinery. The Solicitor-General will suggest, possibly, that without the provisions of the Bill that manufacturer receives compensation, but the manufacturer himself is not the only interest that is imperilled in this case. There are the interests of the workpeople and of the local shopkeepers, and there are the whole economic and social interests of the particular community whose whole life may centre upon a particular mill industry in a given district, and I would suggest to the Solicitor-General that he should not depart from the Sub-section of the Bill, as it stands after deliberate consideration by the Committee—and there were few paragraphs which received more deliberation than this—and I earnestly join with my hon. Friend in begging the Solicitor-General to let the Clause stand as it is, subject to any further Amendment by way

    1193
    of extension which may shortly be proposed, but not to press his substituted paragraph for that which already appears in the Bill.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I sincerely trust that my right hon. Friend will accede to the request of the two hon. Members who have spoken. There is no question that is more complicated or more important than that of water rights. It is proposed to leave out this paragraph, which was discussed at great length in Committee, and very seriously and earnestly discussed. It enacts that there is to be no contravention of various Acts of Parliament which have been passed for the purpose of protecting the general rights of people in the interests of the water supply of this country. These Acts are all to be swept aside and in their place is to be substituted the Local Government Board. I have always protested, and as long as I am a Member of this House I shall protest, against attempts by one Department of the Government to say that our procedure is to be regulated not by an Act of Parliament, not by a judge of the High Court, but by another Government Department. When I have said that, it has very often been said that the Local Government Board, or whatever the Department is, is very particular. It may be, but one Department is not the proper judge of the conduct of another Department, and certainly not the proper judge when the act of the Department will overrule many Acts of Parliament which have been passed after very great consideration by this House. It was brought to my notice late last night that the effect of this Clause might be to allow acids to pass down the river and to injure the machinery of mills which were giving employment to large numbers of people. I have in my mind other cases more intimately connected with rural districts, where water is used for turning flour mills, watering cattle, watering villages, and for other purposes, and all the protection which the combined wisdom of this House over many years has put into Acts of Parliament is to be swept aside and the Local Government Board is to be substituted. Then the Local Government Board can only be moved by a local authority. In a rural district the local authority, I suppose, will be the rural district council. I am not saying a word against these bodies, but they are prejudiced, like a great many other people
    1194
    are—I am prejudiced myself—and under this Clause a person aggrieved could not go and put his ease before the Local Government Board, but must go to the local authority and induce it to move on his behalf. I do not think it is always certain that the local authority would move. Under these circumstances, I hope my right hon. Friend will leave the Clause as it stands; otherwise I should certainly be prepared to go to a Division.
    Sir G. CAVE: I am appealed to by Members on both sides to withdraw the Amendment on the ground that the paragraph in the Bill was accepted in Committee after discussion. Of course, I feel the weight of that, but I thought—and, to be quite frank, I think still—that this Amendment takes nothing away and gives new protection which will not be found in the Statute. However, hon. Members do not agree with me, and therefore I will ask leave to withdraw.
    Mr. BRUNNER: I think I gathered from what the right hon. Gentleman said in his previous remarks that the Acts mentioned in the Bill—the Alkali Works Regulation Act and the Rivers Pollution Act—did not run against the Crown. If that is the fact, the Clause as it stands is really no protection whatever, so that it seems to me that my two hon. Friends have rather been giving the case away in not accepting the Amendment which the Solicitor-General suggested. If that is the fact, paragraph (d) as it stands in the Bill is of no effect.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: When the Solicitor-General made that statement I noticed it very strongly, but if it is correct it seemed to me to apply equally to the paragraph and to the Amendment. There is no mention of the Crown in the Amendment.
    Sir G. CAVE: The whole Clause applies to the Crown.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: If the whole Section applies to the Crown, why does not paragraph (d) apply to the Crown? Surely words ought to be put in there. We are not trying to get an advantage over each other one way or the other. The Government have come to the conclusion that paragraph (d) had better stand part of the Bill; but the Solicitor-General has pointed out that you do not get the full benefit which all the House, including myself, thought you would get from paragraph (d), because the Crown is not mentioned. Surely the Government ought to

    1195
    put words into paragraph (d) which would in some form or another make it apply to the Crown, because the Crown is the only person who can be touched by this Clause at all. The position is that the Crown will have possession of certain lands. By leaving in paragraph (d) the Government say they intend it to apply to these lands. If it does not apply to the Crown at all, it is playing with the House to leave it in.
    Question, "That paragraph (d) stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add the words "nor shall anything in this Section authorise any interference with or infringement of the rights of any riparian owner or prejudice or affect any such rights."
    I move this Amendment in order to give my right hon. Friend an opportunity of replying to the statement of my hon. and learned Friend. If the Clause is valueless and does not apply to the Crown, we should perhaps put in some words which would make it apply to the Crown. The whole Act deals with the Crown. We surely do not intend to put in things under the impression that they are safeguarding certain interests which we think ought to be safeguarded, and then when the Bill becomes an Act to be met with the statement, "You put that in, but it is no nse and it is not valid, because it does not apply to the Crown." If my right hon. Friend cannot give any satisfactory answer, it will be open to us to move to add the words "This Section shall apply to the Crown."
    Sir C. WARNER: We want this definitely settled. I feel confident that the House does not mean the Crown to be exempted, and I beg to move to add to the Amendment the words "The whole of this Section shall apply to the Crown." I do not know whether that is in order, but I think it is necessary that this should apply to the Crown. It is not meant that it shall be evaded and that we shall be told it does not apply to the Crown.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Has the hon. Member the Crown's Assent? You cannot make Acts of Parliament applicable to the Crown without the Crown having placed its interest at the disposal of Parliament.
    6.0 P.M.
    Sir G. CAVE: I had better deal first with the Amendment. I cannot accept
    1196
    the Amendment as it stands because it puts the owner of water rights in a different position from that of the owner of land. I have always taken the view that in the case where the interests of the individual and the interests of the public clash the individual must give way, subject to proper compensation. It is on those lines that the whole Bill is drawn, and I think that the riparian owner, like any other private owner, ought to give way to the public needs. If any hon. Member can show me that the Bill does not provide for that proper compensation, I shall be very glad to consider that. Subject to that qualification, I do not think it would be right to. give the riparian owner all these private rights, which would put him in a position to say, "The State shall not do what it wishes because it is taking my water." Our answer is, "We will pay for your water, and on that condition we will take it." I cannot, therefore, accept the Amendment. In regard to the other point, I want to remind the House of what has happened. I said to the House perfectly frankly that in my opinion paragraph (d) as it stood was not of much value, and I proposed to put in its place something that I thought was better. Hon. Members seemed to imagine that I was breaking an arrangement made in Committee. I could not have that said, and I stated at once that I would withdraw my Amendment. That was done, and I do not think it is right to say now that I am going to slip out of something. I cannot consent here or elsewhere that the Crown should be bound by all these Statutes. I cannot give that consent. I have not the authority to do so. Therefore, I suggest that the House must take the Bill in these respects as it stands. I do not want to be unfair, and if any of my hon. Friends can show me, when this Bill is through the House, that there is something in regard to which it ought to be altered, we will deal with it. I do not think after what has happened to-day that we ought to be asked to go beyond what we have already done.
    Mr. ASHLEY: I understand that this affects the riparian owner who has private rights. In giving compensation, would the value, say, of salmon fishing be taken into consideration?
    Sir G. CAVE: Certainly.
    Mr. SHERWELL: I am sure hon. Members are convinced that the Solicitor-

    1197
    General has acted with perfect good faith towards the House, but I would point out to him, in qualification of what we have said, that there is one aspect of the question which was to have been considered by him between the Committee stage and the Report stage to which no reference has been made this afternoon. The case we are putting up is not for the riparian owner as a private individual whose interests centre in himself and might be equitably disposed of by financial compensation. I referred a moment ago to the case of a manufacturer upon whose industry the economic and social life of a complete community may depend, and the Solicitor-General has not dealt with that case. It will be obvious to the House that a manufacturer or a group of manufacturers responsible for the social and economic life of the district are not pressing a private and individual interest when in a matter of this kind they ask for the preservation or protection of their riparian rights. So far as the Sub-section stands it does give what we have considered, hitherto, a measure of protection to the owner of the riparian rights so far as the pollution of a river is concerned, but there is no sort of protection given for the abstraction or diversion of water power. I would ask the Solicitor-General what is to happen to a manufacturer or a group of manufacturers under such conditions? It is true that if the water supply be entirely diverted or abstracted they may receive compensation, and in some cases where favourable conditions obtain they may be able out of the compensation so derived to use alternative motor power—electric power; but there are, obviously, cases in districts where an alternative power would not be available, because the water supply would not be available for the generation of the electric power. This matter was raised in Committee, and the Solicitor-General undertook to consider it before the Report stage, when he would as far as possible try to include in the protection given under this Bill not merely protection against pollution of the river, but against the possible diversion or abstraction of water-power from a particular mill. This is an extremely important matter. It is not a private or individual matter, but a matter which may vitally affect the whole economic interests of a particular locality.
    Mr. CURRIE: I would like to put the matter to the Solicitor-General from another point of view. There is a body
    1198
    like the Edinburgh District Water Trust, which has no private interest to serve, such as a private landowner, but has only its duty to perform towards its constituent ratepayers. They took exception to the original proposal and asked me to support the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet. This is not a case of a private landlord or private riparian owner of any kind. There are public water trusts in the country which have acquired property and have rights of that kind, and some of them regard the Clause with a good deal of suspicion.
    Mr. BRUNNER: I would like to point out to the Solicitor-General that the probable reason why none of these Acts of Parliament have applied to the Crown hitherto is that the Crown has not gone into manufacture on a large scale. They are now manufacturing on a large scale and polluting streams, and that cannot be allowed to go on. We must stop the Government from doing that as well as anybody else. It is the Government's business to set an example. I think the Solicitor-General ought to consider later on whether he cannot put in some sort of words to absolutely safeguard us against any damage to the public through factories under the Munitions Department.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: Surely this Amendment would carry out what the hon. Member wishes. I quite understand what the Solicitor-General has said that the whole of this Section 4 applies to the Crown, except those Statutes which we cannot expect him at short notice and with all their intricacies to apply to the Crown, even if we got their consent. This Amendment does carry out what is required, because it says.
    "nor shall anything in this Section authorise any interference with or infringement of the rights of any riparian owner."
    That would carry out what is required.
    Mr. SHERWELL: It is not accepted.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I support the Amendment, because it would carry out what is required. It is obvious that if the Government, in the emergency of the War, are running a manufactory or anything of that sort, and are polluting streams, that they ought to be stopped. It is not a question of compensation or anything of that kind; they ought to be stopped. Anybody else can be stopped

    1199
    under these Acts of Parliament. We are giving the Government new power to occupy this land, which they would not have unless we passed this Act of Parliament. We are giving the Government power to buy this land, which they would not have if it were not for this Act of Parliament. Surely we ought to add to those powers which we are giving to the Government the restriction that nothing that they do shall interfere with the interests of riparian owners. It has been pointed out that the interests of riparian owners cover practically everything. It may cover the result of the poisoning of water. It may affect fish and various amenities of the riparian owners. It may involve anything which would be detrimental to the community. It may even possibly prevent an undue and improper taking away or abstraction of water without the consent of the millowner or the water trust. I submit that the best way of carrying out what the House wants is to accept this Amendment. If the Government accept this Amendment, they could, no doubt, put it into better language in another place.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: The Solicitor-General entirely forgot certain things in connection with rivers for which no money could ever compensate. Pollution is one. For the pollution of a river you cannot really compensate the riparian owner. In many cases no payment could possibly compensate him. Therefore, there should be some protection against that sort of thing.
    Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: A case occurs to my mind where streams are used in connection with the milk supply of big towns, particularly London. I have in mind a place seventy or eighty miles from London whence enormous quantities of milk are sent into London. It is absolutely necessary that the cans should be perfectly clean and free from casein; otherwise, the milk goes wrong. The cans in this particular case are cleaned regularly every day at a stream. If there is any acid in that stream through pollution I do not know what the effect will be upon the milk supply. That only shows the necessity of looking into these matters, because very great damage may be done if the Government have the power of polluting a stream in any sort of fashion.
    Sir G. CAVE: I want the House to understand where I am and what my view is. I appreciate the points which are made about the public, and I say that if a case can be made out we will consider it, and the matter can be dealt with elsewhere. I cannot accept this Amendment, first, because it does not have the effect which hon. Members generally desire. Secondly, I cannot accept it because it does protect the individual even in a case where the public is not affected. This Amendment puts it in the power of a single man, the owner of a mill or something of that kind, to stop the whole of the work of a munitions factory. It goes much further than is generally desired. You are putting the State in the hands of a private owner, and I cannot accept the Amendment for that reason. I think the private owner ought not to have it in his power to stop the whole of this work. While I cannot accept this Amendment, I have promised that I would consider the wider question, and I hope the House will support me.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Under the circumstances, and on the assurance that the question will receive consideration, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    CLAUSE 5.—(Power to Sell Land Acquired Under Act.)
    (1) Where any land or any interest therein has by virtue of this Act been acquired by any Government Department, the Department may at any time thereafter sell, lease, or otherwise dispose of the land or interest.
    (2) Where any such land is disposed of, then on the execution and delivery to the purchaser by the Government Department concerned of the necessary or proper assurance of the land disposed of, the purchaser shall notwithstanding any defect in the title of such Government Department thereto stand possessed thereof for such estate or interest as may be expressed or intended to be assured to him, freed and absolutely discharged (save as in the assurance may be expressed) from all prior estates, interests, rights, and claims therein or thereto:
    Provided that if at any time after such disposition any such prior estate, interest right or claim as aforesaid is established by the person entitled thereto, there shall be paid to such person compensation to be determined in manner provided by the

    1201
    Lands Clauses Acts, as modified by this Act, with respect to interests in lands which by mistake have been omitted to be purchased.
    (3) Before any Government Department sell, lease, or otherwise dispose of any land or interest therein they shall first offer to sell, lease, or otherwise dispose of the same to the person then entitled to the lands (if any) from which the same were originally severed; or if such person refuse to purchase, lease, or otherwise acquire the same, or cannot after diligent inquiry be found, then the like offer shall be made to the person or to the several persons whose lands shall immediately adjoin the lands so proposed to be sold, leased, or otherwise disposed of.
    (4) If any such persons be desirous of purchasing, leasing, or otherwise acquiring such lands, then within six weeks after such offer they shall signify their desire in that behalf to the Government Department concerned, or if they decline such offer, or if for six weeks they neglect to signify their desire to purchase, lease, or otherwise acquire such lands, the right of pre-emption of every such person so declining or neglecting in respect of the lands included in such offer shall cease.
    (5) If any person entitled to such preemption be desirous of purchasing, leasing, or otherwise acquiring any such lands and such person and the Government Department concerned do not agree as to the price thereof, or other consideration therefor, then such price or other consideration shall be determined by the Commission.
    Dr. ADDISON: I beg to move, in Subsection (3), to leave out the words "lease, or otherwise dispose of" ["before any Government Department shall sell, lease, or otherwise dispose of"].
    The effect of this Amendment is to modify somewhat an arrangement come to at the Committee stage when my hon. and learned Friend accepted an Amendment. We have carefully considered the effect of the Amendment which was accepted. I am sorry to say that it does go further than I think the interests of the State will warrant. The Amendment incorporated in the Bill as it left the Committee gives the right of pre-emption, both in respect of sale, lease, and other form of disposal to the previous owner and the adjoining owner. I will tell the House quite frankly the class of case
    1202
    which we wish to protect. In the first place, I think that it was contemplated at the time that the pre-emption in respect of lease was not reasonable. Therefore, the first Amendment on the Paper in my name proposes to omit the words, "lease, or otherwise dispose of." Others further on in the Paper are consequential. For instance, there are two large places which have been erected, one by the Admiralty and the other by the War Office, where land has been acquired. An air shed or station has been put up, at great expense, on the understanding that the contractor shall carry on the work and shall learn and carry on the industry of the manufacture of this class of craft. As the Clause stands at present it would cut right across the agreement which the Government have come to in these cases with these contractors. It would mean that they would not be able to carry out the terms of the agreement. The land was taken under the Defence of the Realm Act. The building was put upon it for the purpose of manufacturing this craft, and that was done so as to enable the manufacturer to get along with his business. He had no power to acquire land. The Government did it for him, and it would not be possible to make it over to the firm at all unless we leave out such words as "lease, or otherwise dispose of."
    Mr. RAWLINSON: What is the lease with the firm?
    Dr. ADDISON: It is not leased at all. It is under the Defence of the Realm Act at present. Then there is another case, where certain land has been taken and railway sidings have been put in necessary for carrying on the work of the factory. As this stands at present it would not be possible to sell those sidings if you wished to do so to the railway company. The previous or adjoining owner would have the rights conferred under the Act, and the Law Officers inform me that it would be quite easy for an ingenious person to make use of circumstances like that to obtain a considerable proportion of the value which the Government has spent in putting up these buildings from the person from whom they were really intended. That is to say they, having the right of pre-emption, would hold this other person to ransom, and they could exact a considerable sum of money, if they were sufficiently ingenious, owing to the peculiar circumstances, which

    1203
    the House did not intend at all. What you could say is that unless there is some special reason of national importance of this kind the previous owner shall have the right of pre-emption, and the Amendments do not interfere with that at all. Then there are cases of certain chemical works and factories which are even more embarrassing still. There are some which have been erected for certain firms and which are carrying on a particular manufacture of certain chemicals. It so happens that in three of these cases there is a very large number of small adjoining owners. It really is not in the public interest, I am quite sure, that a very large number of small adjoining owners, in these three cases, should be entitled by the phraseology of this Clause as it stands to step in and prevent the carrying on of this industry in the national interest by a large firm whose own works really adjoin this extension which has been made largely at Government expense; but it so happens that in each of these cases there is quite a considerable group of small adjoining owners, and it would seriously embarrass the Government in making the best of its expenditure, and I think that Parliament intended that cases of that kind should be provided for, and therefore we suggest the series of Amendment which are down on the Paper—that the words "lease, or otherwise dispose of" should be omitted, and that the right of pre-emption in respect of sale, which was really the only case that was argued before the House, should apply, unless such land is land built upon or used in connection with any building.
    Obviously this is intended to apply to the factories described, and the words in the Lands Clauses Act, I understand, go rather further in excluding the right of pre-emption than these words do. I think that under the Lands Clauses Act any land that is in a town or is built upon is excluded, but the Lands Clauses Act goes further than this. This approximates to the procedure to the Lands Clauses Act, which we have been invited to follow on many occasions, but it. really does not go so far. It gives a right of pre-emption more extensive than any in the Lands Clauses Act, but we are obliged to put in words, which would include a sufficiency of land round about the factories, which is bonâ fide necessary for the carrying on
    1204
    of the industry, because, of course, the factory in these cases obviously does not cover the whole of the land. We want land outside for the purposes of assembling and for railway and other purposes. So we are finally advised, with the desire to confine it to the land which was really necessary for the carrying on of the industry, that the words which we have got clown would limit it as well as we could to that purpose. So it is suggested that the right of pre-emption shall not apply where the land is built upon or used in connection with any building. Hon. Members will see that though our terms have somewhat curtailed the right as it was incorporated in the Committee, we really have confined it to the principle of sale which was discussed, and we have approximated it to the Lands Clauses Act, except that as it stands now the right of pre-emption is even more extensive than the Lands Clauses Act.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: Would it exclude the Metropole Hotel because the land has been built upon? That would be absurd.
    Dr. ADDISON: This is only in the case of sale.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: You might buy it. If you bought it, do you suggest that it could not be protected?
    Dr. ADDISON: No. This case has been examined with great care, and I am advised that as the words stand they will only cover those cases where it is necessary in the national interest that this right of pre-emption shall not be exercisable, so as to inhibit the proper carrying on and development of an industry which it is desirable in the national interest should be continued. I am afraid the Department are under existing obligations in many cases at the end of their bargain to transfer the factory as it is to the manufacturer, whosoever he may be, who is experienced in carrying on the industry. Those are the class of cases which we seek to exempt from the Clause, and I hope that the House will exempt them.
    Mr. ASHLEY: I think that the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has rather got factories on the brain. Important as they are, he always addresses his arguments to factories, and factories alone, as the things which are concerned in this Bill. But he must remember that there are other lands which the Government have taken over, on which they have erected buildings, besides factories, to

    1205
    which the argument of national importance, which necessarily applies to this other class of building, does not apply. I quite admit that there is a great deal in what he says when he insists that it is necessary 'owing to Government requirements that certain factories should continue as they are at present, but there are many cases where an adjoining landowner may well wish, at some pecuniary sacrifice, to purchase buildings which have been put upon the land, and which after the War would not be used at all for any national purpose, and would either only be removed by the Government or sold by the Government at a higher figure. Take a case which I know perfectly well—there are many cases in the South of England—where the Government have put up hut camps, some large and some small. After the War a great many of these camps will obviously have to be abandoned, and the Government will be faced with this dilemma: in some cases they will want to buy the land right out and continue it as a training ground, like some of the land adjoining Salisbury Plain, which no doubt will be taken over, but there are other camps which of necessity will be abandoned, certain remount camps and rest camps, and the landowner may very well wish that he should be able to repurchase this land even though there are buildings on it. That is a very natural desire, and if the Government are going to get a fair price for their hut, why should they not let him have it?
    Dr. ADDISON: We are not excluding that.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Yes, the hon. Gentleman is excluding that. It is land which is built upon or used in connection with any building. I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that the landowner who has had these small camps placed on the ground will lose his right of pre-emption because there are buildings on it even though the Government do not wish to continue the use of it after the War. I am not arguing that he should get these buildings any cheaper than what is a fair price in the open market. Sub-section (5) of Clause 5 provides "if any person be desirous of purchasing or leasing, or otherwise acquiring such lands." I take it that the words "leasing, or otherwise acquiring" would have to come out, and it would read, "if any person, etc., be desirous of purchasing such lands," and such person and the Government Department concerned did not
    1206
    agree to the price thereof, or other consideration therefor, then such price or other consideration shall be determined by the Commission. If the Commission is a fair body, as I believe it is—I have not heard any suggestion to the contrary in any part of the House—they would decide upon a fair price as between the parties. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give this point further consideration before we part with it. Though factories are by far the more important, there are other aspects of the matter which come home very closely to hon. Members of this House.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: The Amendment before the House goes a very long way. A person who has a bit of land taken possession of by the Government has his right of pre-emption, but if he cannot offer more for it than any other member of the public, then his right of pre-emption goes and the Government can sell it. The object of the Government is to get the highest possible price for the land that they can sell, but since the Amendment was made in Committee the whole story has come out. It is perfectly plain that the Government have already disposed of some of this land. They have not the power to do that, and therefore they are in a difficulty at the present time. Surely the proper way to meet that difficulty is to put in a Clause excepting any case in which a contract has been made by the Government before a particular date. If the Government have entered into a contract to lease or sell property, I quite agree that they may be in a difficulty at the present time, and of course we do not wish to put them in a difficulty, but rather to get them out of it. They are, however, practically going back, in the whole of these Amendments, on what was done in. Committee. The first Amendment is to leave out the words "lease, or otherwise dispose of." They have got the man's land and instead of the owner coming back into possession, the Government give a lease for ninety-nine years or for 999 years, or any time you like, of the property to the manufacturer who is to have it, and the owner has no right of" pre-emption on that at all. That is quite contrary to what the House decided in Committee. I submit strongly that the proper way to deal with this is to put in a Clause exempting the Government in respect of contracts they have already made, and not to do away with the owner's

    1207
    very valuable right of pre-emption by giving a lease of niney-nine years or a longer period.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I am afraid I do not quite understand the effect of the Amendments which are upon the Paper. I understood that what the Government desired to do was to be free to sell the land if they so desired, and that if they found themselves in that position, and were desirous of selling certain land, then, under the Clause, they would be bound, first of all, to offer it to the former owner. I do not want to use unpleasant words, but they might conspire to defeat the Act in regard to the right of pre-emption, and might evade it by leasing the land for ninety-nine years or 999 years. That is not what we want, and therefore I suggest to the Government that the Clause should so read that they could not sell or let to anybody else until they offered the right of pre-emption to the former owner to buy. I had a conversation yesterday with the right hon. Gentleman on this point, and I understood that was intended, but I do not think I could support anything further than that.
    Dr. ADDISON: The right hon. Baronet has explained the substance of our conversation, and the only land we have in view is that on which expensive buildings have been erected. That is the only class of cases we have in our mind, cases where buildings of a permanent nature have been erected. If some words were introduced covering these cases, that might get rid of the question of lands on which there have been camps. If that would satisfy the hon. Member, when the time comes I would like to put the Clause in something like that form, and we must leave out the words "lease, or otherwise dispose of."
    Mr. RAWLINSON: That does not meet my point at all. If you were to leave out the words "lease, or otherwise dispose of," the Government would have power to lease factories for 99 or 999 years without giving any right of pre-emption. The whole House decided in Committee that the right of pre-emption was to be given in the case of a long lease, and I certainly should not consent to leave out those words, and am prepared to divide against the Amendment. It is really a tremendous power to ask for.
    Mr. BOYTON: I cordially welcomed the introduction of paragraphs 3, 4, and 5 in the Committee stage as giving the owner a pre-emptive right not only to re-
    1208
    purchase, but to "lease, or otherwise dispose of." I can conceive that it would be very difficult for some persons to be able to buy the land, because in the financial state of the country after the War, manufacturers and others may not find themselves in a very prosperous condition; besides which, money may be exceedingly dear. The concession was made to the right hon Member for Ashford in Committee that you should not dispossess the person of the right to lease or otherwise dispose of; therefore, when you have purchased the land and afterwards leave it. it might be of very great importance to the person to be able to rent it. It might be outside his power to purchase it, because he may have sunk his capital in other property, yet would rather return to the old premises than see a trade rival established in them. I think a very great concession was made in the Committee stage, and I do not see now where we are drifting to. If the Amendment to leave out the words "lease, or otherwise dispose of" is adopted, you dispossess the owner or person of his right, and some powerful competitor or rival might acquire the premises.
    Mr. D. WHITE: I agree with the hon. and learned Member opposite as to the right of pre-emption, for if there were power to lease the land for 99 or 999 years it would make the safeguard of the owner's right of pre-emption of no avail. I agree with that. Still, if the Government were to adopt that course it would be a sort of very sharp practice, to say the least of it, and I hardly think that they would do any such thing. It seems to me that the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Rawlinson) should suggest words limiting the length of the lease, if that suggestion would meet with the approval of the Solicitor-General.
    Sir G. CAVE: I quite agree that that could be done. I accept with what my hon. Friend has just said as to the Government leasing land. If the Government do give a lease it is a short lease. I am prepared with regard to the length of the term to see what can be done.
    Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: Surely the right hon. Gentleman is misinformed. The Crown has large estates, and it deals with them by way of building agreements, and leases for ninety-nine years.
    Sir G. CAVE: Yes, Crown property.
    Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: That is property held under the right of the Crown. It may be vested in Woods and Forests or in the Office of Works, but the practice is the same. In this case, when the Government have done with the land for munition works, they might see an opportunity of making a profit by turning the holding into a building estate, which the former owner might not desire for the purpose of his amenities. This Clause is pretty stiff at present. It is not a matter of law, but of common sense and interpretation of the English language. It clearly applies to hotels. We read of things said at a recent meeting at Blackfriars, and there would
    seem to be mighty little chance of that hotel coming into the possession of those people again. The essence of the goodwill of the hotel is in many cases the site, and the position where old customers would be able to find it and would like to go. Here land covered with buildings does not have to be offered by way of pre-emption to the former owner, unless it happens to have been severed from other land, and now the Government are asking for power to lease it for quite a long time.
    Question put, "That the words proposed, to be left out stand part of the Question."
    The House divided: Ayes, 43; Noes, 158.

    Division No. 61.]

    AYES.

    [6.52 p.m.

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Hazleton, Richard

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

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G.

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Horne, E.

    Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

    Boyton, James

    Hunt, Major Rowland

    Stewart, Gershom

    Byrne, Alfred

    Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Thomas-Stanford, Charles

    Cator, John

    Keating, Matthew

    Touche, George Alexander

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

    Turton, Edmund Russborough

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

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

    Watson, Hon. W.

    Coats, Sir Stuart A. (Wimbledon)

    Moore, William

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole

    Newdegate, F. A.

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

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Norton Griffiths, J.

    Younger, Sir George

    Doris, William

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    Field, William

    Perkins, Walter F.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Fitzpatrick, John Lalor

    Rutherford, Sir John (Darwen)

    Ashley and Mr. Rawlinson.

    Harris, Henry Percy (Paddington, S.)

    NOES.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke

    Cosgrave, James

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Adamson, William

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Joyce, Michael

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

    Crooks, Rt. Hon. William

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

    Crumley, Patrick

    King, Joseph

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Anderson, W. C.

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Arnold, Sydney

    Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughby H.

    Layland-Barrett, Sir F.

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Barnes, Rt. Hon. George N.

    Duffy, William J.

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Barnett, Captain R. W.

    Duke, Rt. Hon. Henry Edward

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Bathurst, Col. Hon. A. B. (Glouc, E.)

    Fell, Arthur

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Mallalieu, Frederick William

    Bentham, George Jackson

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Millar, James Duncan

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

    Foster, Philip Staveley

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Bethell, Sir J. H.

    France, Gerald Ashburner

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Bird, Alfred

    Galbraith, Samuel

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Bliss, Joseph

    Gelder, Sir W. A.

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Boland, John Pius

    Gilbert, J. D.

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Goddard, Rt. Hon. Sir Daniel Ford

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Brace, William

    Gretton, John

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Hackett, John

    O'Grady, James

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Hanson, Charles Augustin

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

    Broughton, Urban Hanion

    Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, S.)

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

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds. West)

    Partington, Oswald

    Bull, Sir William James

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Pearce, Sir Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Burns, Rt Hon. John

    Hill, James (Bradford, C.)

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

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Hinds, John

    Phillips, Sir Owen (Chester)

    Butcher, John George

    Hogge, James Myles

    Pratt, J. W.

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

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

    Cave, Rt. Hon. Sir George

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Chancellor Henry George

    Hudson, Walter

    Radford, Sir George Heyhes

    Clough, William

    Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Clynes, John R.

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Coote, William

    Jones, Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham. N.W.)

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Sutton, John E.

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Sykes, Col. Alan John (Ches., Knutsf'd)

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Robertson, Rt. Hon. John M.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Williams, Col. Sir Robert (Dorset West)

    Robinson, Sidney

    Thome, William (West Ham)

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Tickler, T. G.

    Williamson, Sir Archibald

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Tootill, Robert

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

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Wardle, George J.

    Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

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

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

    Shortt, Edward

    Watt, Henry A.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Mr. Gulland and Lord Edmund Talbot.

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

    Wiles, Thomas

    Starkey, John R.

    Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned," put, and agreed to.

    7.0 P.M.
    Dr. ADDISON: I beg to move, after the word "shall" ["they shall first offer"], to insert the words "unless such land is land on which buildings of a permanent nature have been erected, or is land used in connection with such buildings."
    I move the Amendment in this form in order to meet the point raised by the hon. Member opposite.
    Mr. ASHLEY: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for moving his Amendment in this form. I think it is modified in the sense that I should wish, but I am not a lawyer, and I should be glad if any one of my hon. and learned Friends could tell me whether the words "permanent buildings" would really exclude hut camps or not. It seems to me a little doubtful whether it would, because some of these buildings are of a very substantial character and permanent roads have been put down.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I beg to move as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after the word "erected," to insert the words "by or at the expense of a Government Department."
    I think that that would effect what the right hon. Gentleman wants, and the limitation appears to me to be a perfectly fair one.
    Sir G. CAVE: There is a doubt in my mind with regard, for instance, to a factory which the Government have taken over and upon which large sums have been spent. Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow us to consider the point, and, if necessary, insert the Amendment in another place.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: Certainly. I wanted to put down the Amendment in order that it might really be considered.
    Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir E. CARSON: Would the Solicitor-General tell us what he means by "permanent buildings"? It seems to me a very ambiguous phrase.
    Sir G. CAVE: It is necessary to distinguish buildings of a permanent nature from buildings which are put up merely for some temporary purpose. For instance, huts and iron buildings which are obviously temporary buildings would be excluded. It is intended to cover only buildings of a permanent nature.
    Mr. R. McNEILL: It seems to me that the Solicitor-General has just illustrated the difficulty to which my right hon. Friend called attention. If the Solicitor-General is absolutely unable to give a definition, I do not think it is at all likely that less able people will be able to do so. My right hon. Friend asked for a definition of "permanent buildings," and in reply the Solicitor-General can find nothing more illuminating to say than that "permanent buildings" means buildings of a permanent nature as distinguished from buildings of a temporary nature. What is a building of a temporary nature, and what is a building of a permanent nature? All buildings, humanly speaking, are of a temporary nature. The right hon. Gentleman ought really to give us some more satisfactory definition.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further amendments made: In Subsection (3) leave out the words "lease or otherwise dispose of."
    Leave out the words "lease or otherwise acquire."
    Leave out the words "leasing or otherwise acquiring."
    In Sub-section (4) leave out the words "lease or otherwise acquire."
    Leave out the words "leasing or otherwise acquiring."—[Dr. Addison.]

    CLAUSE 6.—(Provision as to Highways.)
    (1) Where, in the exercise of any prerogative right of His Majesty or any powers conferred by or under any enactment relating to the defence of the realm for purposes connected with the present war, any railway or tramway or any cable, line or pipes have been laid along, across, over or under any public highway, it shall be lawful, after the termination of the War, for the railway or tramway or the cable, line or pipes to continue to be used and maintained along, across, over, or under the highway, subject to such conditions as the Board of Trade, after giving the local authority and the authority or person responsible for the maintenance of the highway or of any other railway or tramway laid thereon an opportunity of being heard, may by order prescribe, and any such authority or person may apply to the Board to make such an order.
    (2) In the event of the use of any such railway or tramway being discontinued, the Government Department by whom it was laid down or used shall take up and remove the rails and restore the road or street on which they are laid to the satisfaction of the local authority responsible for the maintenance of such road or street.
    (3) Where in exercise of any such right or powers as aforesaid any public highway has been closed, it may be kept closed after the termination of the present War, but not, by virtue of this Section, beyond the expiration of twelve months after such termination unless the consent of the Commission is obtained, and the Commission before giving such consent shall give to the local authority and the authority or person responsible for the maintenance of the highway an opportunity of being heard, and the Commission may require as a condition of their consent the provision of another highway in the place of the highway so closed, and any person interested in any land adjoining any highway so closed who suffers loss or damage in consequence of the closing thereof shall be entitled to such compensation as, in default of agreement, the Commission determine to be the amount of such loss or damage.
    Amendments made: In Sub-section (1), after the word "Trade" ["Board of Trade "], insert the words "in the case of railways and
    tramways, and in other cases as the Commission."
    After the word "Board" ["applied to the Board"], insert the words "or Commission."
    After the word "order" ["make such an order"], insert the words "Provided that where any such railway or tramway crosses the roadway on the level, it shall not be lawful to use the crossing after the expiration of two years from the termination of the present War, without the consent of the local authority."
    In Sub-section (2), leave out the words "local authority" and insert instead thereof the words "authority or person."—[Sir G. Cave.]
    Sir G. CAVE: I beg to move, after Subsection (3), to insert the following new Sub-section:
    "(4) For the purposes of this Section the expression 'local authority' means, in the case of a borough or urban district, the council of the borough or urban district, and elsewhere the county council."
    Sir C. WARNER: All through this Clause the rural district council is left out. Level crossings are a nuisance everywhere, and I think that these powers ought to be in the hands of the district councils.
    Sir G. CAVE: District councils are the highway authorities, and therefore they have a right to be consulted. In connection with the power to continue level crossings for two years, it would not be fair to ask the authority to obtain a number of consents. It is difficult to fix on the right authorities, but it appeared to us that we should give the power to the county council, who would take a wide view of the matter.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Sir NORVAL HELME: In place of the Amendment on the Paper, I beg to move to insert the following new Sub-section:
    "(5) Where any such railway, tramway, cable, line or pipes have been laid along, across, over, or under any public highway, or a public highway has been closed in pursuance of an agreement with or subject to any undertaking given to the highway authority, nothing in this Section shall authorise the continuance of the user of the railway, tramway, cable, line or pipes, or the continuance of the closing of the highway, beyond

    1215
    the time specified in the agreement or undertaking, without the consent of the local authority."
    We have had an opportunity of conferring with the Government and we recognise their willingness to meet the public interest. I thank them for having met us in the manner they have done.
    Mr. G. THORNE: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Sir G. CAVE: The Amendment which the hon. Member has moved is in substance to the same effect as the Amendment on the Paper, and we accept it.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 7.—(Provisions as to Water, Light, Heat, and Power Companies and Authorities.)
    Where any company or authority authorised to supply water, light, heat, or power, has, on the requisition or at the request of any Government Department for purposes connected with the present War, supplied water, light, heat, or power to any factory, building, camp, or other premises and such supply is not authorised by law, whether by reason of the premises not being within the area of supply of the company or authority or otherwise, or is in contravention of any agreement made by the company or authority, the company or authority after the termination of the War, shall, if and so long as required by any Government Department to do so, continue the supply, but not beyond the expiration of twelve months after such termination unless the consent of the Commission is obtained, and before giving such consent the Commission shall give to the company or authority in whose area of supply the premises are situated, and any other person who appears to them to be interested in the continuance or discontinuance of such supply, an opportunity of being heard, and, if the premises are not within the area of supply of the company or authority, the company or authority shall have the like power with respect to the supply of water, light, heat, or power to the premises as if the premises were within its area of supply, and as if any roads or bridges along, across, over, on or under which any pipes or lines or other works have been laid for the purpose of supplying the premises were roads which the company or authority were authorised to break up for the purpose of their undertaking: Provided that
    1216
    no supply of water shall be given or shall continue to be given under this Section by any company or authority if and so long as such supply would prejudice the supply within the area of supply of such company or authority.
    Mr. BOYTON: I beg to move, after the word "water" ["Provided that no supply of water shall be given"], to insert the words "light, heat, or power."
    These words occur in the first part of the Section. On the Committee stage an Amendment was moved, and by an oversight the words "light, heat, or power" were not added to the word "water." I believe the Solicitor-General is ready to accept this Amendment, and I beg to move it.
    Sir G. CAVE: I agree.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 8.—(Determination of Questions by Railway and Canal Commission.)
    The provisions of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, as amended by any subsequent enactment, relating to the procedure for the determination of questions by the Commission under that Act, including the provisions relating to appeals, shall apply to the determination of questions referred to the Commission under this Act, as if they were herein re-enacted and in, terns made applicable to this Act:
    Provided that—

    (a) the Commission may in any case in which they think it expedient to do so call in the aid of one or more assessors specially qualified, and hear the case wholly or partially with the assistance of such assessors;

    (b) the Commission may hold a local inquiry for the purposes of this Act by any one or two of their members, or by any officer of the Commission or other person whom they may direct to hold the same, and the said provisions of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, except the provisions relating to appeals, shall, so far as applicable, apply to such inquiries, and any officer or person directed to hold an inquiry shall have power to administer an oath;

    (c) the Commission may act by two of their members;

    (d) the discretion of the Commission with respect to costs shall be subject to the provisions of the Lands

    Clauses Acts as modified by this Act as to costs, in cases where those Acts as so modified apply, but shall not be limited in the manner provided by Section two of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1894.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I beg formally to move to leave out the Clause.
    I am moving the omission of the Clause because of an intimation from the Solicitor-General, when I moved an Amendment to an earlier part of the Bill, that I should raise the question upon this Clause. I am anxious to raise the question of the tribunal which has to determine the compensation payable for lands taken under this Act, or for other matter of compensation for injury. The Bill, as it stands, make the tribunal the Railway and Canal Commission. As I pointed out previously, I think that is an objectionable tribunal for this particular purpose. They themselves would not, as I said before, be in the least likely to try a case against themselves. If the case referred to land in Lancashire and Yorkshire, they would not go down there to hear the case. They would exercise the power which is conferred by this Section, and send down an officer of the Commission or other person to hold an inquiry. Probably they would send down a surveyor whom they would appoint as arbitrator, and he would probably report to the Commission, and they might or might not accept his report. The suggestion that I made on a prior Clause, and which I will make again when we come to the Schedule, is that in all cases where the question of compensation is to be determined it should be determined by an arbitrator to be agreed upon by the parties, or, in default of such agreement, by the President of the Surveyors' Institution. I am not of necessity committed to the words that I suggest, but the idea is an arbitrator whom the parties should agree upon or in default of agreement the arbitrator should be appointed by an independent authority. I think the House will see, without saying a word against any person appointed by a Government Department, that the people concerned would probably have greater confidence in an arbitrator appointed, failing agreement, by some independent authority. I submit that will be the best form in which the Amendment should be put before the House when the time comes.
    There are one or two Amendments on the Paper already. There is one in the name of the hon. Member for Guildford.
    1218
    There is another by my hon. Friend (Colonel Gretton) which suggests that the compensation should always be determined under the terms of the Lands Clauses Act, as modified by this Act. People have such a fear of introducing these words, that possibly my Amendment, which I have put down for the Schedule, may be accounted better. The Amendment of my hon. Friend (Mr. Boyton) only is effective in the case of an agreement, and therefore does not go far enough. There is an Amendment down in the name of the hon. Member for Surrey (Mr. Home), who suggests that it should be the appointment from a panel of referees as under the Finance Act, Section 33, and so forth. That is a little bit complicated. After you have got this, you have only, after all, a person who has been appointed who is more or less of an official chosen from the panel. No doubt the panel are distinguished people. The Lord Chief Justice takes part in the appointment of it. I should prefer a much simpler and easier way, and would suggest taking the simple words I have put down. Everybody, I think, will agree that this is a very important question indeed as to who is to have the determination of the compensation, and I submit that the more simple the way the tribunal is chosen, the better it will be, and for that reason I hope the Government will adopt the Amendment which I suggest.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Sir G. CAVE: This matter is one of great importance, and one which has given us a very great deal of thought and consideration. The scheme, as hon. Members know, is that the Commission are at liberty to send down either one of their own number, or some other person whom they choose, to hold an inquiry and to determine the question of compensation. That person, I take it, would be looked upon as in the nature of an arbitrator. He would, of course, hear both sides, and would make his recommendations. There is a great deal to be said for that course. Objection, however, has been taken on the ground that if you have the same man going down time after time and reporting to the same Commission, he might get into a sort of groove from which you could never dislodge him. He might take a certain view either for or against the vendor, or for or against the Government. I must say that, having heard that objection urged upon me more than once,

    1219
    I am very desirous of meeting it, and of having no complaint of any kind in regard to the mode of fixing the compensation. That being so, what are we to do? There are on the Paper Amendments standing in the name of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cambridge University to the effect that you shall either have an arbitrator chosen by the parties or the President of the Surveyors' Institution. That is putting very great power into the hands of the president. He is always a distinguished man, and I do not say a word against him; but I think it is rather too much to ask the Government to put themselves entirely into the hands of an official, however distinguished. If hon. Members will look at the Order Paper they will see two Amendments. There is one standing in the name of the hon. Member for Guildford, which provides that—
    "Where the subject matter of the inquiry relates to the amount of compensation only, the Commissioners shall, if so required by either party, appoint one of a panel of referees to be appointed in like manner as the panel appointed under Part I. of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, chosen in manner provided by rules under Section 33 of that Act, to hold that inquiry, and subject to an appeal to the Commission on any question of law, the Commission shall act on the report of their referee."
    Hon. Members know what that means. Under the Finance Act the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, and the President of the Surveyors' Institution appoint the panel of referees from most distinguished and able surveyors. They may make it as large as they please. When the reference arises these appoint the referee who is to hold the particular inquiry. I do not think anything could be fairer than that. We propose to accept that Amendment. We propose at the same time to accept the hon. Member's further Amendment:
    "(e) Nothing in this Act shall prevent the reference to a single arbitrator any question of the amount of compensation under this Act if it be agreed between the parties that it be so referred."
    Here you have the procedure which my hon. and learned Friend desires. First the right by agreement to refer to arbitration, and, failing agreement, a reference to an expert Committee, who select an arbi-
    1220
    trator. If these two Amendments be accepted, they will, I think, give general satisfaction to those who have raised objections.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I understand the objection is this: Supposing the Lord Chief Justice and the others should set up a panel, it is left to the Commission to pick a man from the panel.
    HON. MEMBERS: No, no!
    Sir G. CAVE: To an independent Committee.
    Sir F. BANBURY: That independent Committee will choose a man to be sent down in each case?
    Sir G. CAVE: I will consider that point. I am not quite sure whether I am right.
    Sir F. BANBURY: What I was going to say was that in the choosing of the arbitrator, representing the Commission, it might be that the same man will be picked every time. Therefore the objections, which my right hon. and learned Friend admitted, were valid objections. The man gets into a groove, and decides all the cases in that groove. Such a procedure would not be obviated by this method. Of course, if the people appointing the panel appointed the arbitrator in each case, that would meet the objection. Unless something of the kind is done, the objection, which is a very strong one, remains.
    Sir T. WALTERS: I do not quite see how, with all deference to the learned Solicitor-General, he has quite fitted together the component parts of the answer to these objections. To my mind there is considerable confusion at present. According to the structure of the Bill, the Commissioners appoint the arbitrators who appoint the official to hear the inquiry. We have some improvement upon that. A panel, or, rather, a Reference Committee, is to be constituted with the power to select a panel. It is not at all clear who selects the particular member of that panel who goes down to hear the inquiry.
    Sir F. BANBURY: The Commission.
    Sir T. WALTERS: According to the Bill and the Amendments down on the Paper, it would be better for the Commissioners to make the appointment. You must have a scheme which is quite coherent and fair one way or the other. Do not let us have confusion between the Commissioners and the Committee of

    1221
    Reference. If I may respectfully submit my views, I think the simplest way would be to allow the appointment of these arbitrators to be entirely in the hands of the Reference Committee. If the Commissioners are simply to take from a panel of referees the man who goes down to each particular case, that does not seem to me to be any particular improvement upon the Commissioners picking the man originally. The first suggestion is that the Commissioners might not get suitable men, that the appointment is from too limited a circle of the same men, and that the man might or might not be a permanent Government employé, or might be a man who is constantly in the employ of the Government, and, therefore, without any intention to do what was unfair, would look at the matter from the Government standpoint. The very essence of any kind of arbitration is that the man who holds the inquiry, and who is the arbitrator, should be an absolutely impartial, independent man. It might be perfectly fair to send an official of the Ministry of Munitions down. He might do it honestly and well, but you would not call that arbitration. He would not try to rob anybody, but he would not be an independent, impartial person. Therefore I would suggest to the learned Solicitor-General, that if he is going to depart from the particular scheme in the Bill, he had better take his courage in both hands and make the departure a complete one, and if the Commissioners remain the judicial tribunal, then the Reference Committee select a panel, and, when called upon to do so, appoint from the panel of referees a man who is to hear the evidence in a particular case, and the report is to be received by the Railway and Canal Commissioners. Then you will have what is a complete scheme of an independent arbitration. Unless yon adopt that course, I think you will land yourselves in difficulty, and you will not quite know whether the Commissioners or the Committee of Referees are picking a particular arbitrator.
    Mr. HORNE: Perhaps as a past-President of the Surveyors' Institution I may be able to show the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down that that is the procedure adopted under the Finance Act, and the President of the Surveyors' Institution, the Master of the Rolls, and the Lord Chief Justice first of all appoint the surveyors whom they think fitted for the work, not all London men, but from all over the
    1222
    country. Then when particular questions are submitted for arbitration these also come before these three gentlemen, and they, with the knowledge of the facts, choose one of the panel to go down and decide the points. I believe that that system has given universal satisfaction, and I know that all surveyors believe it to have been very valuable and to have done its work extremely well.
    Colonel GRETTON: There is no doubt this means a very great improvement on the Bill as it originally stood. But it has its defects, as all these new methods of procedure must have. They must lead to some confusion, and also there is difficulty and uncertainty in establishing the general principles upon which this new procedure is to go forward. I think my Amendment, for those reasons, is better than the Amendment which the Government propose to accept, because, after all, you cannot get justice unless pains are taken, and all these short cuts to obtain justice and a right decision lead in the end to very great expense and great expenditure of time. For those reasons I do not think this particular Amendment which the Government propose to accept entirely meets the case. There is another aspect which, I think, should not be lost sight of by the House, if it agrees to this Amendment, and that is that, although the arbitrators are to settle questions of compensation, questions of law, curiously enough, are to be referred to the Commission. The Commission is not a legal Commission; it is not a Court of Law, though they have legal advisers. The Railway and Canal Commission is a Commission to deal with trading matters. It cannot be regarded as a Court of Law. Therefore, I contend that that Commission is not the right body to decide these points of law. It seems to me the right course would be to submit any points of law to the Law Courts, and not to refer them to the Commission, although it has upon it legal advisers. I am, I suppose, to a very great extent in this matter a voice crying in the wilderness. The Government are not even prepared to adopt the procedure of the Lands Clauses Acts. I do agree, however, that the Amendment is an improvement, and I beg to support it.
    Mr. BOYTON: Since the Government are prepared to agree to the principle of arbitration, I am not very particular as to the method adopted. I have an Amendment on the Paper that the selection of

    1223
    the arbitrator should be left, in default of agreement, to the President of the Surveyors' Institution. I should have been quite satisfied and would have had every confidence in the selection by that gentleman, whoever he might happen to be at the time; but if the learned Solicitor-General thinks it would be placing too much power in the hands of any individual, then I am quite satisfied that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Home) will answer, perhaps, as well for this tribunal, as it has done in connection with the Finance Act. Therefore, I will offer no objection, and only thank the Government for conceding the principle of arbitration. So long as it is conceded, and so long as there is mutual agreement, or, failing mutual agreement, a reference to some person or persons who will select an arbitrator, then I feel quite satisfied as to the future of the Bill.
    Sir G. CAVE: It is not our intention or desire that a particular referee shall be chosen from the panel by the Commission. The effect, I think, of the Amendment is that the referee is chosen according to the rules made in the same way as under the Finance Act, but I will suggest words to make it quite clear. I suggest to my hon. Friend that he should put before the word "chosen" in his Amendment "such referee to be." Then it would be quite clear. You then get this effect, that the Reference Committee appoint a panel, the particular referee is chosen according to the rules, and then the Commission formally appoint him. They do not select him, but just appoint him.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: So far as I understand the learned Solicitor-General I am at one with him. But could not something clearly be set out so that even a layman might understand what really we intend We all understand that when required a panel shall be appointed. The panel, I gather, is to be appointed by the Railway and Canal Commission.
    Sir G. CAVE: No.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: To be appointed by someone—at the present moment I do not know by whom—and when a particular case arises, say, in Devonshire—
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think the hon. and learned Member had better reserve his criticism until we reach the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment made: In paragraph (b), leave out the words "or two" ["by any one or two of their members."]—[Sir G. Cave.]
    Sir G. CAVE: I beg to move, at end of paragraph (b), to insert the words "and shall report the result of the inquiry to the Commission."
    The object is that the person delegated shall not be able to decide, but shall report to the Commission.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. HORNE: I beg to move, at the end of paragraph (b), to insert the words "in particular, where the subject matter of the inquiry relates to the amount of compensation only, the Commissioners shall, if so required by either party, appoint one of a panel of referees to be appointed in like manner as the panel appointed under Part I. of the Finance (1909-10) Act, 1910, such referee to be chosen in manner provided by rules under Section 33 of that Act, to hold that inquiry, and subject to an appeal to the Commission on any question of law, the Commission shall act on the report of their referee."
    Mr. RAWLINSON: Surely it does not carry out in any way that which we all agreed should be carried out. Here you have these words:
    "the Commissioners shall, if so required by either party, appoint one of a panel of referees to be appointed in like manner as the panel appointed under Part I of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910."
    That is, the Commissioners shall appoint one of a panel of referees. They appoint Mr. Jones.
    "such referee to be chosen in manner provided by rules under Section 33 of that Act."
    You have already stated who is to appoint one. The Commissioners have already appointed Mr. Jones, who has to try a case, say, in Devonshire, so that so long as you have the words "the Commissioners shall appoint one of a panel of referees" the mischief I pointed out is not remedied. What we are all agreed upon is that there should be a panel of referees

    1225
    appointed by some independent tribunal—we do not care very much who. When there is that panel of referees, an independent tribunal, as we understand it, such as the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, and the President of the Surveyors' Institution, shall nominate out of that panel a particular man for any particular case. I would, therefore, suggest that the Clause should be redrafted to carry that out. What I want to make perfectly plain is, that the Railway and Canal Commission shall have no voice in appointing a man who is to be sent down.
    Sir G. CAVE: It is not my intention.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: The Amendment as it stands does that. We have got now a very important Amendment for which I am very much obliged to the Government, but I wish to make it perfectly plain that the Railway and Canal Commission shall have no sort of voice in the appointment of the arbitrator.
    Sir T. WALTERS: If I understand the Solicitor-General rightly he is proposing to do exactly what the hon. and learned Member opposite lays down. Whether the words of this particular Amendment give power to do that I am not quite clear, and I should imagine that this Amendment requires redrafting. The procedure now becomes clear. The Committee of Referees appoint a panel fitted for the different kinds of work, and when the Commissioner has a particular case this Committee of Referees select from the panel the man who has to go down to any particular place. They send that recommendation to the Railway and Canal Commissioners and they appoint someone to do the work. He goes down and holds an inquiry, and if any point of law arises he has to refer it to the Railway and Canal Commissioners, to whom he presents his report. I think that is an excellent, simple, and inexpensive scheme of arbitration.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. HORNE: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add the following new Sub-section:
    "(e) nothing in this Act shall prevent the reference to a single arbitrator any question of the amount of compensation under this Act if it be agreed between the parties that it be so referred."
    Mr. RAWLINSON: This Amendment raises the same point I put upon the last Amendment, and I want an understanding that this will be made clear and incorporated in another form in another place. I agree that in substance these two Amendments will carry out what I desire.
    Sir G. CAVE: We will consider in another place whether the wording can be improved.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 11.—(Interpretation.)
    (3) For the purposes of this Act, except where the context otherwise requires, the expression "building" includes machinery and plant fixed or attached to the building; the expression "common" shall include any land subject to be enclosed under the Inclosure Acts, 1845 to 1882, and any town or village green, and any other land subject to any right of common; the expression "open space ' shall mean any land laid out as a public garden or used for the purposes of public recreation; and the expression "allotment" shall mean any allotment set out for any public purpose under an Inclosure Act or award.
    Mr. D. WHITE: I beg to move in Subsection (3), after the word "garden," to insert the words "public park."
    I move this Amendment at the instance of the Glasgow Corporation. It may be suggested that the phrase "used for the purposes of public recreation" would sufficiently cover a "public park," but it is not certain. I do not see how the insertion of these words could do any harm, and I think it would place the point beyond dispute For these reasons I hope the Solicitor-General will see his way to' accept my Amendment.
    Sir G. CAVE: I accept the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 12.—(Savings.)
    (1) Nothing in this Act shall authorise the acquisition of any interest in any common, open space, or allotment, or the acquisition otherwise than by agreement of any land which forms part of any park, garden, or pleasure ground, or of the home farm attached to and usually occupied with the mansion house, or is the site of any ancient monument or other object of archæological interest, or of any interest in such land or grounds.
    (2) Nothing in this Act shall authorise the retention of the possession after the termination of the War of—

    (a) land belonging to any local authority within the meaning of the Local Government (Emergency Provision) Act, 1916; or

    (b) land belonging to any company or corporation carrying on a railway, dock, canal, water, or other public undertaking; or

    (c) land held by or on behalf of any governing body constituted for charitable purposes which at the commencement of the War was occupied and used by that body for the purposes of that body;

    without the consent of the appropriate Government Department, or, in the case of a university or a college at a university, without the consent of the governing body of the university or college, and if any question arises as to what Department is the appropriate Government Department, the question shall be determined by the Treasury, and nothing in this Act shall authorise the acquisition of any land or of any interest in or right of access or other easement or right over any land which belongs to or which, before it was used by a Government Department, was occupied by any authority, company, corporation, or body referred to in this Section except by agreement with such authority, company, corporation, or body.
    (3) Where possession has been taken of any land under any agreement authorising the retention of the land for any period specified in the agreement, nothing in this Act shall authorise the retention of possession after the expiration of such period without the consent of the person with whom the agreement was made or the persons deriving title under him.
    (4) Nothing in this Act shall authorise the compulsory acquisition of land with respect to which an agreement has been made for the restoration thereof to the person previously in occupation thereof (other than an agreement to give up possession of land at the expiration of a tenancy) or, in the case of land subject to an agreement for sale to a Government Department, shall authorise the acquisition of the land otherwise than in accordance with the terms of the agreement.
    (5) Nothing in this Act shall authorise the compulsory acquisition of land without the consent of the Commission where
    1228
    the purposes for which it is to be acquired are purposes other than those for which land can be acquired under the Defence Acts, 1842 to 1873, or the Military Lands Acts, 1892 to 1903.
    (6) For the purposes of this Section the expression "governing body constituted for charitable purposes" includes any person or body of persons who have a right of holding or any power of government of or management over any property appropriated for charitable purposes, and includes any corporation sole, and the governing body of any university, college, school, or other institution for the promotion of literature, science, or art.
    Mr. BRUNNER: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "interest ' [" archaeological interest"], to insert the words "or is a national nature reserve."
    I am asking for the insertion of this Amendment on behalf of the Nature Reserve Society, an institution which buys pieces of land in order to keep and perpetuate certain birds and small animals, very few of which are left in this country. They have bought 1,100 acres of land in Norfolk, at Blakeney Point, which has been vested in the National Trust, and therefore it is public property, although the public have not open access to it. It is kept for the preservation of flora and fauna, and for the study of erosion and accretion on the coast. This land has now been in the hands of the military for some time, and it would certainly ease the mind of the Nature Reserve Society if we could have these words inserted in the Bill.
    Sir G. CAVE: These words really have no technical meaning. I do not know what is in law a national nature reserve. With regard to this particular place I am told that it is exceedingly improbable that such a place would be purchased by the Government, and I cannot say more than that on this point. I hope my hon. Friend will not press this Amendment.
    Mr. BRUNNER: If the Solicitor-General will look into this question for consideration in another place, I will ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Dr. ADDISON: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words,
    "Provided that—

    (a) nothing in this Sub-section shall prevent the acquisition, whether by

    1229
    agreement or compulsorily, of a right to use and maintain any cables, lines, or pipes which have been laid under any such land as aforesaid; and

    (b) where before the passing of this Act there have been erected on any park, garden, pleasure ground, or farm, as above-mentioned, any buildings for the manufacture of munitions of war, the Commission may authorise the compulsory acquisition of the whole of such property, including the mansion house, if any, where they are satisfied that it is of national importance that it should be acquired."

    It has been found by the Admiralty and the War Office necessary for them to lay down pipe lines, cables, and, I believe, a sewer in one place under a park, and it would be very undesirable that they should have to pull up the pipe lines or the cables, and in, the case of a sewer it might be allowed to continue running under the park. It is now proposed that we should have power to acquire the right to use and maintain those cables, lines or pipes. I recognise that paragraph (6) is a proposal quite of a different order. It appears that two cases have been discovered since the Bill passed through Committee which are not provided for. In one case there is a very large filling factory, a portion of which was erected on ground which could probably be described as a park. The whole expenditure on that particular place is nearly £1,000,000. This Amendment confines itself to eases where the buildings are used for the manufacture of munitions of war, and it authorises the compulsory acquisition of the whole of such property, including the mansion house. It is for the Department to satisfy the Commission that such acquisition is of national importance. It only applies to two cases, one is the filling factory, and the other is a large place for casting brass and rolling brass strip in connection with small arms ammunition and castings for fuses. In this case a portion of the factory comes in the north-east corner, and inroads have been made into the park in connection with various buildings. It is obvious that it would ruin the man's park just to leave the mansion house and the small strip of land which is left, and in such a case it would only be fair to call upon the Crown to pay proper compensation for the whole. We have suggested an Amendment to tie this down as narrowly as we can, and if we get these two cases covered I shall be satisfied. These
    1230
    cases would be excluded by the Bill as it left the Committee stage, and I hope the House will allow us to add words which will enable us to meet those two cases.
    8.0 P.M.
    Sir F. BANBURY: The right hon. Gentleman has made out a very good case from his point of view for the Amendment, and he has taken considerable trouble to safeguard it; but it is a very strong order to say that a man may lose his house which has been in the occupation of his family for generations merely because a junior official, or an Army officer, in going round to choose a site, has happened to pass and has not taken the trouble to see if he can get another site, and the owner, being a patriotic man and knowing that the site has been chosen for purposes connected with the War, has said, "Of course, anything wanted for the War is at your disposal." A case was brought before my notice to-day. The War Office sent down an officer, and he chose certain land when within three or four miles there was better land for the purpose for sale. The officer was not acquainted with the district, but he happened to see this site and it suited him, and no objection was made by the owner because he wanted to do all he could to assist the Government in carrying on the War.
    Dr. ADDISON: Those cases will not be covered by this Amendment at all. There has to be a factory in addition.
    Sir F. BANBURY: There may have been a factory erected in the same way. If the right hon. Gentleman can assure me that these particular cases where a factory was erected are the only cases and that the owners knew at the time that there might be a permanent factory built on their land, I have nothing further to say; but I am afraid that he cannot do that, and what has occurred in the case I have mentioned has probably occurred in many others. Owing to the great hurry and the necessity of making preparations immediately, certain land was taken, and the owner, because he was patriotic, gave way. The Government now come down and say that in the interests of the nation they will have to take the property, because otherwise they would lose money. I am always in favour of economy, but the Government are not great apostles of economy. It is quite new that they should desire economy. I do not like this Amendment, but I do not know how we can amend it. It is a very strong order to take away a man's estate because he has been patriotic and

    1231
    has acceded to the demands made upon him by the nation. I do earnestly appeal to the right hon. Gentleman and to my right hon. Friend the Solicitor-General whether they cannot in another place do something to modify this particular Amendment. It is impossible for me at the present moment to say how it can be modified, but if it is possible I think it ought to be done. I am sure that my right hon Friend, sitting on this side of the House in the days gone by, would have supported me in this particular case, and I hope he will use his influence to see that some justice is done to these people.
    Mr. ASHLEY: The right hon. Gentleman made out a very good case, as was asknowledged by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London, and I quite see that probably in these two cases there is no option but to take the land. I understand the Government will not take the whole unless the owner wishes it, and that, I think, ought to be made clear. It is not quite clear in the Amendment. It rather reads as if they were binding themselves to take the whole. That would cost a great deal of money and might be inconvenient to the owner. I do not know who these people are, but if the Government are obliged to go back on what they undertook to do in Committee, they ought to give some extra compensation to the owners for the property which is going to be taken. I suggest to the Solicitor-General that he should consider whether he could not in some way instruct the Commissioners in this case to give the extra 10 per cent. which used to be given in cases of compulsory acquisition. He agreed to exclude them entirely from the scope of the Bill in Committee. He now finds it necessary to go back upon his word, and I do therefore put it that some extra money ought, under the circumstances, to be given to these people.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: A satisfactory Clause was inserted in Committee and the Government have changed their minds about it. It is a little bit hard upon landowners that they should only receive notice of it this morning. I do not know these two cases.
    Dr. ADDISON: They know all about it, and they do not object.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: If they know all about it and do not object, they must be
    1232
    peculiar people, and I should like to make their acquaintance as soon as possible, because they are the sort of people I should like to meet. If the right hon. Gentleman says that they have no objection, I have nothing more to say so long as we put in a provision simply referring to them, but we are making it more general The Amendment certainly ought to be drawn in another form. You ought to have power to take the land which you are now occupying, and, if the owner wishes it, to take the whole of his premises, including the mansion house and everything else. Drawn as it is, the Amendment is more than ordinarily monstrous. Some unfortunate man, who has had a building erected on his park, suddenly finds that the Government have power not only to take that portion, but to take the whole. They can hold over his head the threat that they are going to take away the home of his forefathers and the mansion house in which he has lived. I am sure that is an obvious mistake in drafting, and that it will be put right on some future occasion, but I should like an assurance upon the point. I feel sure that the Government must have a certain amount of guilty conscience in asking us to pass this Amendment at all.
    Sir G. CAVE: There is no guilty conscience about it at all. I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance he desires. We want power to take that portion on which the munition factory has been erected, but if the owner says you must take not only that part but the whole, then we want power to take the whole. We will take care that words are put in in another place to that effect. I agree that it is a strong thing to ask, but it is a strong case. The Amendment is confined to munition factories erected before this Act passes. In the particular cases which are in question, the expenditure in each instance amounts to about £1,000,000. It is only because it is a very special case that we ask the House to pass this Amendment.
    Mr. ASHLEY: What about the extra 10 per cent.?
    Sir G. CAVE: I do not see how that can be done.
    Sir G. CAVE: I beg to move in Subsection (2), after the word "possession"

    1233
    ["Nothing in this Act shall authorise the retention of the possession "], to insert the words "for more than three months."
    It has been pointed out that we cannot be expected to turn out the moment the War ends, and that it is desirable to have some time to look round.
    Dr. ADDISON: I beg to move, in Subsection (2), paragraph (b), after the word "undertaking," to insert the words "other than land which before the commencement of the present War had ceased to be used for the purposes of the undertaking."
    I hope that the right hon. Gentleman (Sir F. Banbury) will have no objection to this Amendment. It excludes from this provision land which before the commencement of the War had ceased to be used for the purposes of the undertaking. There is only one case so far as I know, and that is the case of a place which had belonged to a railway undertaking, and which had been derelict and had been quite abandoned for some years before the War. It was taken by the Admiralty in the emergency, let us say, of the submarine service and is now used for this special purpose. It was quite a derelict piece of ground, but it did really belong, I think, to a railway company, or, at all events, to one of the companies mentioned in this paragraph. I see the right hon. Baronet does not like the words of my Amendment, and suggests that the words "superfluous land" should be used instead. I am not a lawyer, and I feel some hesitation in saying anything about that particular point, but I understand that the expression "superfluous land" is somewhat vague and is not capable of very exact definition. It also stands related to the expiration of a certain term of years, and it is quite open to question whether this land would or would not be called superfluous land. It certainly would be included in the words I propose, and it certainly had ceased to be used for the purposes of the undertaking. If it has ceased to be used for the purposes of the undertaking, I do not think that any railway, dock, canal, water, or other public company would have any complaint to make if it were treated on the same lines as other land. We do exclude it if it is necessary for the
    1234
    purposes of the undertaking, but if it merely happens to belong to them and is not necessary for their undertaking, I do not think that it should be excluded.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move, in the proposed Amendment, to leave out all the words after the word "than," and to insert instead thereof the words "superfluous land."
    I am sure that no one would object to the particular land which the right hon. Gentleman has described as being derelict being taken for the purposes of the nation, but the words of the Amendment are very wide, and would include all sorts of land which may not for the moment be used. They would include temporarily disused land. The temporary disuse of the land does not by any manner of means imply that it will not later on be used for the purposes of the undertaking. The Railway Association, I think, are extremely moderate. I was inclined to ask the Government to withdraw the thing altogether, but they have said that if my Amendment is accepted they will be content. Like the right hon. Gentleman, I am not a lawyer, but I have been informed that the expression "-superfluous land" is recognised by Statute and is the proper description of land which is not required for the purposes of the undertaking. I do not think that information would have been given to me if it were not correct, and therefore the objection of the right hon. Gentleman that the words are vague and are not a legal expression falls to the ground. We have met the Government very fairly, if not generously, during the Debate, and I hope the Government will accept my Amendment.
    Sir G. CAVE: The difficulty of the Amendment is that it prevents the original Amendment having the operation we desire; otherwise, I would like to accept it. "Superfluous land," I quite agree, has a statutory meaning, but if there is a purpose for which the land may be required in connection with any undertaking, although it may not be intended to use it at any definite time, such land, although it may not have been used for ten years and is not immediately likely to be required, cannot be treated as superfluous land. I think it would be very dangerous to substitute words like these. See how they would operate in the case of a dock where the land is not being used

    1235
    and is not required. If the right hon. Gentleman knows of any place on railways which are affected by his point, we certainly would not desire to include them under this Bill, but probably his objection is theoretical rather than directed against particular cases.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I quite see the difficulty, but would it not be possible to do one of two things—put in the words, "except in cases of railway undertakings," or mention the particular case it is desired to deal with? It seems to me a little hard you should pass a general law which will apply to many people, when it is only really desired to deal with one particular case. As I gather, it is but one case that this provision is aimed at, and I would suggest if it cannot be done now, that in another place it may be possible to introduce words limiting the provision to the particular case for which it is required, or words might be put in exempting railways from the operation of the Clause. Still, I will not press my Amendment.
    Sir G. CAVE: It would seem to be rather invidious to other undertakings to specially exempt railways, and I should rather hesitate to adopt that course in an Act of Parliament.
    Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words "of the appropriate Government Department, or "
    This Amendment is one of a series, some of which are consequential. The object is to leave out the words "without the consent of the appropriate Government Department." It seems to me this Clause will be rather useless, because it can be overridden if the appropriate Government Department decides to override it. I do not like the idea that we should put into a Clause words providing that certain things shall not be done with other words declaring that they shall be done "if the appropriate Government Department consent." I see the question of the appropriate Government Department, should there be any dispute as to which that Department is, is to be settled
    1236
    by the Treasury. Perhaps I may be allowed on this Amendment briefly to refer to the other Amendments. If there is any question between two Government Departments then they are to be allowed to call in still another Government Department to act as judge in the case. Surely it should be some independent person, because no one can say that Government Departments are independent. They all stick by one another, everybody knows that, and it is only a fiction to say that they do not. I hope the Solicitor-General will consent to some modification of this Clause, so as to make it more likely to be useful.
    Sir G. CAVE: The Clause referred to by my right hon. Friend has, of course, a double effect. It prevents the purchase of land without the consent of the company or corporation concerned, and the preceding words relate to the retention of possession of the land, which is not to be allowed without the consent of the appropriate Government Department. Take the case of a workhouse, or some other municipal buildings—probably the former place affords the best example. A good many workhouses are now being used by the Government, and you cannot under this Clause retain possession after the War without the consent of the appropriate Government Department, which in this case would be the Local Government Board. Where there is a question which is the right Department—be it the Local Government Board or the Home Office—it is necessary there should be somebody to decide the point, and in putting in the Treasury we have followed precedents set in existing Acts of Parliament.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Is my right hon. Friend prepared to accept the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green, N.E. (Sir E. Cornwall) providing that such consent shall be granted for a period of not more than two years after the termination of the War. There is something to be said against requiring possession to be surrendered immediately, but I do not think it should be a lengthy period.
    Mr. D. WHITE: Before the right hon. Gentleman comes to a decision on that point, will he consider the relative merits of the Amendment which follows, an Amendment which, in the opinion of the

    1237
    Corporation of Glasgow, would be more acceptable and certainly would be practicable?
    Sir F. BANBURY: I do not mind which Amendment is taken.
    Mr. ASHLEY: I would suggest that the last Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for the" Tradeston Division of Glasgow (Mr. Dundas White) should be accepted. You must give a certain amount of elbow room to the Departments after the end of the War. It may be necessary that the Local Government Board, or some other Government Department, should be consulted. Surely two years, however, is quite enough to give in a matter of this kind, and I would suggest that that should be the period fixed upon, and that after two years surrender of possession should be made.
    Mr. BARNES: I would like to say a word in support of what has been said by the hon. Member for the Tradeston Division (Mr. Dundas White). The Corporation of Glasgow, I know, attach some little importance to this Amendment, and they prefer the words suggested by the hon. Member for the Tradeston Division to those mentioned by the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury).
    Sir F. BANBURY: I should be quite willing to accept the words of the Corporation of Glasgow.
    Mr. BARNES: Thank you!
    Mr. CURRIE: I also would urge the right hon. Gentleman to accept the wording suggested by the hon. Member for the Tradeston Division. The two Amendments are aimed at the same object. It is very desirable that a time limit should be placed upon the retention of the land in the circumstances.
    Sir G. CAVE: I should really like to Accept the Amendment, supported, as it is, by hon. Members, but I am told that there are cases where difficulty would arise if we were turned out in two years. For instance, take the case of stores. There are very large stores in some cases, some on land belonging to local authorities which is not very much used, and some on dock land. In such cases it cannot be retained without the consent of the Railway Commission. If we ask their leave to remain beyond two years, the authority will be heard and can put forward their
    1238
    objections. Unless we made out a very strong case, we should not be allowed to go on. I think that if we get the consent of the Commission and the consent of the Government Department, that ought to be enough protection in these cases. I hope we shall not be pressed to go beyond that, because there are practical difficulties in the way. Of course, we are not dealing with the two years' Amendment now.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. CURRIE: I beg to move in Subsection (2), after the word "college" [" without the consent of the governing body of the university or college "], to insert the words "provided that such consent, if given, shall not authorise the retention of possession for a longer period than two years after the termination of the War."
    I only wish to add that a time limit such as I suggest is very desirable.
    Mr. BARNES: I beg to second the Amendment. I feel bound to point out to the Solicitor-General that he is pledged to this Amendment. If he will look at the OFFICIAL REPORT for the 21st August, he will find that he himself said:
    "The effect will be that during two years the Government Department will have the right to occupy the land of a local authority, or statutory body subject to two conditions, one is that they get the consent of the proper authority and the other is that they pay rent for the use of the land."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st August, 1916, col. 2413, Vol. LXXXV.]
    It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman did there pledge himself to accept this Amendment.
    Sir G. CAVE: My right hon. Friend is mistaken.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I do not see anything in this particular Clause which provides that the consent of the Commission is necessary. The consent of the Commission is necessary for the acquisition of land, but not for its retention. In Sub-section (5) of the Clause these words occur:
    "Nothing in this Act shall authorise the compulsory acquisition of land without the consent of the Commission."
    But I do not see anywhere—I may be wrong—that the consent of the Commission is required for the retention of land.
    Sir G. CAVE: It is in another part.
    Sir F. BANBURY: The right hon. Gentleman says it is in another part of the Bill. That to a certain extent does modify the difficulty, but, at the same time, it does not seem clear to me. I remember perfectly well that in the Committee stage a great point was made by a large number of Members that these particular statutory companies or corporations should be treated a little differently and that these powers should be given to them. If under Clause 1 you have to go to the Commission, it is not at all certain that the Commission might not be inclined to take the. view of the Government instead of that of the corporation. I really cannot see why the two years should not be accepted. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Barnes) will consent to three years instead of two, but I think that some more or less moderate period ought to be inserted.
    Mr. D. WHITE: I can assure the Solicitor-General that the words quoted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Blackfriars Division (Mr. Barnes) were certainly taken as a pledge, and I should be inclined to read them in that way. The matter is certainly considered to be of some importance by the Corporation of Glasgow, and doubtless by other persons as well. If the Solicitor-General thinks that two years is too short I would suggest to the hon. Member (Mr. Currie) that the words might be "three years or upwards."
    Mr. CURRIE: I quite agree.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the word "two," and to insert instead thereof the word "three."
    Sir G. CAVE: With this alteration I think I must accept the Amendment. I admit that what I said is ambiguous, and if it has been understood in the sense in which hon. Members state that they understood it, I desire to act up to it if possible. If the House agrees to the three years I will accept the Amendment.
    Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.
    Proposed words, as amended, there inserted in the Bill.
    Further Amendments made: In Subsection (2): Leave out the word "land" ["shall authorise the acquisition of any land"] and insert instead thereof the
    1240
    words "such land as aforesaid." Leave out the words "land which belongs to or which, before it was used by a Government Department, was occupied by any authority, company, corporation, or body referred to in this Section," and insert instead thereof the words "such land." After the word "body" ["such authority, company, corporation, or body "] add the words "as aforesaid."—[Dr. Addison.]
    Mr. PERCY HARRIS: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause to add the words:
    "Nothing in this Act shall alter, vary, or prejudice any agreement or undertaking made or given by or on behalf of any Government Department with respect to any land or any interest therein possession of which has been taken for purposes connected with the present War."
    I had put this down as a new Clause, but Mr. Speaker ruled that it ought to be moved as an Amendment to this. Clause. Some provision of the kind is necessary, because a good many agreements were made with Government Departments in connection with land which they have occupied. I would illustrate the necessity for some such Clause by giving an actual example of what has taken place. The Office of Works, acting on behalf of the Ministry of Munitions, entered into negotiations with the London County Council with a view to the erection of a projectile factory on one of the council's open spaces. Terms for the occupation were arrived at between the council's valuer and the Office of Works. Those terms were embodied in correspondence, but were not committed to any formal agreement. I cannot see that there is any provision in this saving Clause for preserving that agreement or agreements of that kind. It is provided in Sub-section (3):
    "Where possession has been taken of any land under any agreement authorising the retention of the land for any period specified in the agreement, nothing in this Act shall authorise the retention of possession after the expiration of such period."
    There is no saving Clause that I can see in regard to any other term except that of the extension of the period. I hope the Government will either accept this Amendment or make it clear that arrangements which the Government Depart-

    1241
    ments have arrived at shall hold good, and that they will not be set to naught by this Bill.
    Mr. CURRIE: I beg to support the Amendment, and in further argument in the same direction I should like to submit that the Edinburgh and District Water Trustees are advised that unless this Amendment is adopted their position is not very secure. As the Lord Advocate knows, the Edinburgh and District Water Trust is the owner of several reservoirs. They are acting purely as representing the ratepayers. They are advised that they have sundry agreements affecting their property which stand in some danger.
    Sir G. CAVE: It is very desirable, before one can judge of such a case as the hon. Member has just put, to know what kind of agreements they are. In my view, all the agreements which are material are saved by Sub-section (3) of Clause 12 of the Bill:
    "Provided that where possession has been taken of any land under any agreement authorising the retention of the land for any period specified in the agreement, nothing in the Act shall authorise the retention of possession after the expiration of such period."
    That, of course, is necessary. It might be held that an agreement to give up possession would be overridden, but I know of no other agreement which could be overridden by the terms of the Act, and certainly there is no desire to repudiate any agreement at all. The case put by the hon. Member (Mr. Harris), as I understood it, would not be touched by the Act at all. As to the other agreement, I know nothing about it, and I should doubt whether it is affected by the Act. On the other hand, these words are very wide, and might operate in favour of the Government in a way which is not intended, since the House has given the right of pre-emption to the adjoining owner. That would deprive us of rights which, of course, we shall not insist upon as far as we are concerned, but the effect of the Amendment might be to set them up again. I hope hon. Members will be content with the assurance that the Government desires in every respect to adhere to its agreements.
    Mr. HARRIS: On that assurance, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    CLAUSE 14.—(Application to Scotland.)
    In the application of this Act to Scotland the following modifications shall be made:—

    (a) Sub-section (2) of Section 5 shall not apply.

    (b)"Easement" means "servitude"; "mortgagee" means "heritable creditor"; and "restrain" includes "interdict."

    The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Munro): I beg to move, in paragraph (a), at the beginning, to insert the words "Subsection (7) of Section 3 and."
    The object of this Amendment is simply this: A new Clause in the name of my hon. Friend (Mr. Dundas White) was accepted by the Solicitor-General to-day and was added as the 7th Sub-section of Clause 3. It deals with demising lands for a perpetual rent, which is quite inappropriate to Scottish procedure A Clause in precisely the same terms was excluded from application to Scotland in the Small Holdings Colonies Act on a recent occasion, and in these circumstances I propose to follow the same procedure, and I suggest the omission of the application of this Clause to Scotland. The Amendment I now move is for bringing about that result.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In paragraph (b), at the beginning, insert the words "'Borough or urban district' means 'Royal, Parliamentary, or police burgh'":
    At the end of the Clause, add a new paragraph,
    "(c) The Local Government Board for Scotland shall be substituted for the Local Government Board."—[Mr. Munro.]

    CLAUSE 15.—(Application to Ireland.)
    In the application of this Act to Ireland the expression "the Lands Clauses Acts" shall not include the Railways Act (Ireland), 1851, the Railways Act (Ireland), 1860, the Railways Act (Ireland), 1864, or the Railways Traverse Act, or any Act amending those Acts.
    Amendment made: At the end of the Clause, add the words "and the expression ' Local Government Board' means the Local Government Board for Ireland."—[Sir G. Cave.]

  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 Commission 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 acquired 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 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
    1244
    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 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.
    8. Where the surface of the land is acquired without the mines and minerals lying thereunder, 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 shall apply.
    9. 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.
    10. The Lord Chancellor may make rules fixing the 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

    1245
    such as to justify them in so doing, to order that each of the parties shall bear their own costs.
    11. 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.
    Amendment made: In Sub-section (8), after 1845, insert the words "shall apply."—[Sir G. Cave.]
    Colonel GRETTON: I beg to move, to leave out the words "with such adaptations and modifications as the Commission think fit shall apply," and to insert instead thereof the words "the Government Department shall not acquire or enjoy a natural right of support under other lands belonging to the vendor outside the distance of forty yards or other the prescribed distance unless in the judgment of the Commission such further lateral support is necessary for the protection of the land."
    This is quite a simple Amendment. In the Committee stage strong objection was taken to the concluding words in this Subsection on the ground that they gave permission to the Commission to legislate. It was urged on behalf of the Government that in certain cases, particularly dealing with one particular judgment, some modification was required. My hon. Friend (Mr. Turton) has put down an Amendment which states exactly what modification in the Railway Lands Clauses (Consolidation) Act are required in consequence of this judgment. The words I propose to insert give power for modification in the direction which is desired, but do not give a general power for modification of the Lands Clauses Act in all manner of directions, as do the somewhat vague words which I propose to leave out. If this Amendment is accepted and the words are not entirely
    1246
    satisfactory to the Government, they can be altered in another place, so as to carry out the intention of my hon. Friend. I believe that is what the Government really desires.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think that the next two Amendments of the hon. and gallant Member would be covered by this question.
    Colonel GRETTON: Yes, I am satisfied.
    Sir G. CAVE: I do not want to criticise the details of this Amendment, but clearly it would not work in its present form. Apart from that, I have thought the matter over a good deal since the Committee stage and I think the House had better adhere to the words of the Bill. The words of this Amendment will not cover the whole ground. It must be remembered that the Sections which were incorporated are adapted to a railway line, and a railway line only, and they are not adapted to a factory or anything of that kind, or to land with no buildings upon it. Therefore you must, to begin with, have power to adapt the Sections to the particular subject matter. Apart from that, you ought to have power to vary the Sections according to the subject matter. There is one instance to which my hon. and gallant Friend referred, namely, the case of a building which requires more than forty yards for support. In that case the Commissioners have power to extend the forty yards. That is what this Amendment does, I quite agree, but, on the other hand, you may have a place with no buildings at all on it, or with no buildings upon the greater part of it—an aerodrome or something of that kind. In that case we do not need even forty yards. Then again you may want to give power to a mine owner to pursue the work of his mine without any obligation on the part of the Government to buy. In that case you want to modify the provision the other way. There may be an infinity of circumstances in different cases, where the Sections of the Railways Clauses Act, which are drawn with reference to railway lines only, may not be applicable. For that reason I think it is wise, and I see no objection to it, to give to a body like the Commission the power, when these matters are brought before them, to vary the provisions one way or another. That is adapting the Act to particular cases, and making certain provisions suitable to individual cases. I submit with great respect to my hon. and gallant Friend that it is better to keep

    1247
    to the words of the Bill, and not to limit the powers of the Commissioners to the one instance specified in this Amendment.
    Colonel GRETTON: Though I do not agree with my right hon. and learned Friend, I do not in the circumstances propose to proceed further with my hon. Friend's Amendment, and I beg leave to withdraw.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Further Amendments made: In paragraph (8) leave out the words "shall apply" ["as the Commission think fit shall apply"]. In paragraph (11), after the word "Department" ["deliver to such Department"], insert the words "within a reasonable time."—[Sir G. Cave.]
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I beg to move the Amendment which stands in the name of my hon. Friend (Mr. Home)—in paragraph (11) to leave out the words "of the amount claimed" ["a statement in writing of the amount claimed"].
    It is an Amendment which I think the Government will accept. The point is to omit the amount claimed. The way my hon. Friend puts it is that there can be no necessity for the claimant to put in the amount claimed, and he suggests that if the claimant is forced to do so it is liable to lead to injustice. What the defendants want to know, and what the Government want to know, is the exact interest the man has in the land, and any further particulars of that kind, so that they can frame an offer upon that statement. My hon. Friend suggests that asking a man to state the amount claimed is liable to lead to a great deal of trouble, expense, and injustice, and that the company, as the case may be, or the Government can make an offer if they receive full and proper information from the plaintiff as to the nature of his interest in the holding, and any other matters.
    Sir G. CAVE: Objection was taken in Committee to asking for particulars of the amount. I thought the objection was reasonable and I said I would consider the matter. With a view to meeting that objection I have put down two Amendments, which follow, and which provide that the Government are no longer empowered to ask for particulars. The question is whether we should ask for the amount claimed. It may not be of much value, but it is no hardship to a man whose land
    1248
    has been or is to be taken to say how much he claims. Therefore I hope that the Amendment will not be pressed.
    Mr. HORNE: I hope that on further consideration the Solicitor-General will give way on this Amendment. It is a question of a certain penalty that is involved. It is not necessary that the man should make a claim in order that the purchasers should be able to make a proper offer. I do not agree that he ought not to give full particulars of his interest in the property. It is a very essential thing that he should give all the particulars, and those, I think, ought to be insisted upon in order that a proper offer can be made. It is not at all necessary to have the amount of the claim put in, and there ought to be no penalty for the man because of failure to put in the claim. I think that under this paragraph there is a certain penalty imposed for failure to give certain figures. That is a very proper penalty to be imposed if he does not give the particulars and figures that are necessary in order that a proper offer can be made, but it is not necessary that he should put in the amount of his claim, because an offer can be made entirely independent of any figure of claim that he might put in.
    Amendment negatived.
    Amendments made: Leave out the words "Giving sufficient particulars and in sufficient time," and insert instead thereof the words "together with any information in his possession which may be reasonably required."
    Leave out the word "particulars" ["unless the written request for particulars"], and insert instead thereof the word "information."—[Sir G. Cave.]
    Mr. MUNRO: I beg to move to leave out paragraph (d) of Sub-section (12).
    The reason for this Amendment is that the two words which are defined in this paragraph have both now disappeared from the Bill.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I do not think that we should have the Third Reading of a Bill for which Government Amendments, affecting private interests, were only put down to-day. Some of the Government Amendments which have been adopted

    1249
    alter what was done in the Committee stage. There has rarely been a Bill in which such important alterations of Government concessions in the Committee stage have been made on the Report stage. I trust that the Government will not take the Third Reading to-night, so that an opportunity may be given to go into some of these concessions and ask the Government what will be done in another place. Time should be given to enable the effect of the alterations which have been made to be considered on the Third Reading. Unless there is some such point, I give a guarantee that I shall say nothing of the Third Reading, but if there are any specific cases of this kind brought up, private individuals who are affected should have the opportunity of bringing them forward. There are one or two matters which require very careful consideration, and it can do the Government no harm to postpone the Third Reading.
    Sir G. CAVE: If my hon. and learned Friend would rather not have the Bill read the third time to-night, I would desire to meet him in the matter and I will not press it.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I beg to move "That the Debate be now adjourned."
    Colonel GRETTON: I beg to second the Motion for Adjournment.
    Debate to be resumed upon Tuesday next, 31st October.
    Bill, as amneded, on consideration, to be printed. [Bill 115.]
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
    Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the '22nd February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
    9.0 P.M.
    Mr. EDMUND HARVEY: I desire to bring to the attention of the House the action of certain tribunals. In doing so I must ask indulgence for bringing before it a subject which has been discussed from time to time at intervals. I am well aware
    1250
    that it is not easy to raise this subject at a time when the thought of the country is occupied with the grave military situation and the measures taken to meet it. At the same time I feel that it is so important that Acts of Parliament that have been passed, with a reliance on the good faith of their administration, should be carried out in the spirit in which they were framed, that it is necessary to bring to the attention of the House two particular cases of serious injustice which are not only important for the men immediately concerned, but significant because they are instances in each case of the ways in which tribunals have been acting in a spirit which I am sure Parliament did not intend. Unfortunately, the position is made very difficult for tribunals at present in dealing with the case of the conscientious objector, because not only have they to face in many cases adverse public opinion, but they are from time to time confronted by men who claim to be conscientious objectors without having sufficient reason, and who make their claim a cloak for getting out of a position of difficulty. One can understand the indignation which is caused by action of this kind. But, however strongly we all feel that men like that are to be reprobated, the existence of men who use the machinery of the law unfairly should not be allowed to prejudice the case of a sincere man who holds extremely unpopular views and whose position is affected by the very fact that his views are unpopular.
    The first case which I have to bring before the House is one in which the tribunal has referred the case of a conscientious objector, which it recognised to be genuine, to the Committee on Work of National Importance in order that the Committee may recommend suitable work for the man, and then, when the recommendation has been made by the Committee, the tribunal, dissatisfied with their recommendation, has not suggested any alternative and has not referred the case back to the Committee for further recommendation, but has placed the man in an entirely different position by refusing to allow him to engage in work of national importance and exempting him from combatant service only. That has happened, fortunately, in only a few cases hitherto. The tribunals have made large use of this Committee, and have referred between 1,000 and 2,000 cases to it, and have in only a few cases

    1251
    disagreed with the Committee. They are entitled to disagree, no doubt, when they are masters of their own decisions, but it is important, when they disagree with the decisions or recommendations of this Committee, that they should not visit their displeasure on the unfortunate men. In this case, Mr. Malcolm Sparkes is a lifelong member of the Society of Friends, and highly esteemed by the members of that society. He was managing director of a firm making woodwork for the building trade, or builders' fittings. On the outbreak of the War his firm, in which he had not a controlling interest, decided to do war work and make packing-cases for the Ministry of Munitions. He resigned his position as managing director as a protest, not feeling able to keep it in the new circumstances, but his firm was doing a large amount of civilian work, and in this they still continued to employ him. He was offered a badge, but he declined it, and when he came before the tribunal he was recommended for work of national importance to the Pelham Committee. That Committee, after carefully considering the case, decided to approve and to recommend him to the local tribunal for whole time voluntary work under the direction of an educational trust, in which his time was to be devoted to the study of the relations of employers and employed in the particular trade in which Mr. Sparkes has special experience, and to do practical work in promoting better relations. It was work which undoubtedly, if successful, would have been of great value to the community.
    The tribunal did not feel satisfied with this work, and, having decided that it did not approve of it, they called Mr. Sparkes, who had already undertaken this work at the suggestion of the Pelham Committee, and they informed him that they had decided not to approve it. They put him back into the Non-Combatant Corps, and they put him there after he had been previously exempted from all military service. Mr. Sparkes endeavoured to induce them to consider his position, and he sought to put his case before them, but they told him that before he had come into the room they had already discussed and decided the matter, and they could not reopen it. That placed him in what the House must feel was a very unfair position. He appealed to the Appeal Tribunal to give consideration to his case so far as this particular work was concerned, but
    1252
    they also decided that however good the work was they could not recommend it as of national importance, and simply confirmed the decision of the local tribunal. Neither tribunal appeared to consider for a moment the obvious course of referring the case back to the committee to which it was originally referred for a further recommendation, and with a view to the consideration of other forms of work of national importance which might have met with their approval. Dissatisfied with the particular work suggested by the Pelham Committee, they at once, without considering any other alternative, decided that this gentleman must be exempted from combatant service only. The only result of that is to place this man, who is of the highest character, in a position in which he can only, in obedience to his conscience, be prepared, if necessary, to go to prison. Ultimately, no doubt, in that event he would come before the Central Tribunal, to which he is not allowed leave to appeal. I submit that from the point of view of the Local Government Board and of the War Office a situation like that is unsatisfactory. It is most undesirable that the military representative and the tribunal should force a man into a form of exemption which is to him no exemption at all, and compel him to choose between being unfaithful to his convictions, which were intended to be respected by Parliament, and the alternative of having to defy the law or the application of it.
    The second case I want to bring before the attention of the House is one where the injustice is perhaps even greater, and where it is still more difficult, no doubt, to get a remedy that would bring to the tribunals concerned a different spirit in dealing with these cases. Unfortunately, in different parts of the country, and before different appeal tribunals, in numbers of cases a man has been; exempted by the local tribunals from combatant service only, and feeling that he could not accept that form of exemption as adequate to his sincere belief, he has appealed against it to the Appeal Tribunal, who, without having any definite evidence to show in any way that he was insincere, decided not merely to dismiss his claim, but to take away his exemption altogether, and put him in the fighting ranks. Unfortunately there is a great number of these cases in different parts of the country, and some of the men to whom the greatest injustice has been

    1253
    done have already proved their sincerity by going through the fire, or through the unpleasant ordeal that many of them have to suffer in the Army, until eventually they are court-martialled and come before the Central Tribunal, to which in vain they had asked leave to appeal before, and being found to be sincere, conscientious objectors, have been handed over to the civil authority. In this second case there is a particularly serious injustice, and it occurred only last week in the section of the County of London Appeal Tribunal which sits at Spring Gardens—a section which has an unenviable notoriety in dealing with these cases. The other sections of the London Appeal Tribunal have shown great care, and as a rule have displayed a conspicuous desire to be just in dealing with very difficult claims. This particular section to which I refer unfortunately more than once has acted in this way.
    The claim which came before them was one by an artist named Mr. Lawrence Deller, who appeared as a conscientious objector, with the result that he was placed in a difficult position. The Kensington Tribunal was satisfied as to his claim as a conscientious objector and granted him exemption from combatant service only, which they considered adequate. He appealed in order to get fuller exemption, and the Appeal Tribunal dismissed his claim altogether. They had had no evidence to justify that decision, and they did not discuss or deal with his conscientious position at all. It was so obviously unfair that they could not refuse the claim that he made for a rehearing, which was granted a few days afterwards, and the rehearing came on last week. I want to give the House a brief resume of the way in which this tribunal dealt with the question whether or not the man had a sincere conscientious objection. Naturally, the applicant had been prepared to bring to that tribunal evidence of his sincerity. He thought the best way he could do so was to bring written evidence from men whose honour could not be doubted, who differed from his views, but knew him well. He also prepared himself to make what sacrifice he could. He hunted round in the few days that intervened, and in an out of the way part in the West of England, where labour was badly needed, a farmer was willing and eager to receive his help. With that he came to the tribunal; he laid before them his letters, and they were
    1254
    read. I propose to read them to the House to show the House the kind of evidence produced, which I should have thought to any man of honour would be fully satisfactory, but which this tribunal brushed aside. The first was from his late headmaster, Mr. Cooper, the Headmaster of Lichfield Grammar School, who wrote:
    "Mr. Lawrence Deller has asked me to give my views on his personal character. I have no hesitation in stating from my knowledge of him as a boy at school, and from my subsequent intercourse with him, that any opinions he now holds are the result of definite, conscientious reasoning, and that he is unbiassed by any physical or material considerations. I may add that my own views are strongly opposed to those he has expressed to me."
    Mr. Deller formed his views while at school during the Boer War, and has ever since held them firmly. The next letter was from the Bishop of Lichfield; and if the tribunal threw aside, as of no account, the opinion of the headmaster, they might at least have respected the opinion of that eminent man. His letter was as follows:
    "Mr. Lawrence Deller is well known to me, I have a thorough knowledge of his character, and am convinced that he is trustworthy and sincere. I differ absolutely and entirely from him in his views on military questions, but I feel it is only due to him to give my testimony to his worth, and to ask that his case may be reheard and reconsidered."'
    The third letter was from the man's father, as follows:
    "I regret my inability to attend in person, but I ask you to kindly allow me to bear testimony to the absolute sincerity of my son's claim for exemption as a conscientious objector. His objection to the taking of human life, or the helping of others to do so, is the result of his study of the Bible. My son has always been of a deeply, studious, sensitive and religious temperament. His determination to obey only God's laws and the teachings of Christ as he understands them, to keep true to his faith with God's help, has his mother's and my support. We recognise and admit that it is the duty of everyone, both by sacrifice and work, to render all aid possible to our country. This can be done without violating one's principles, or religious convictions, and my son is willing to give up for the time his profession and home in London, and he has in fact already obtained promise of employment on a farm, thus devoting his time and labour to food production, the most vital necessity to the community. Thus he can serve his country and not violate his principles. I trust your tribunal will now grant him the certificate of exemption, to which I feel he is entitled under the Act.
    (Signed)"WILLIAM DELLER."
    There was also a letter from the farmer, stating, owing to the need for labour, his willingness to accept his services. On the reading of those letters the Chairman of the tribunal turned to Mr. Deller, and asked what fresh evidence he had to place before the tribunal to show his sincerity. Mr. Deller replied that those letters were his evidence. The Chairman glanced at them and said, "They merely show you are telling the truth. We want evidence to

    1255
    show you are more like Christ than other men." Mr. Deller replied that he tried to endeavour to follow Christ's teaching, and that his life was the only evidence. He added, "Could any great dignitary of the Church answer such a question in any other way?" A member of the tribunal then sharply said, "You are not here to ask questions, but to answer them." Mr. Deller then said that it seemed to him that the only proof the tribunal would accept of his sincerity would be his going to prison for his principles. The chairman rejoined, "You are threatening the tribunal." Mr. Deller pleaded with them earnestly to allow him to undertake the farm work that he had secured and was willing to do, and said that it was surely for the good of the country that he should be doing work like that, rather than that he should go to prison. It meant him giving up his home and studio in London, and the making of a big financial sacrifice. He would have to rent a little cottage on the farm and live on the labourer's wage of from 16s. to 20s. per week. "Yes," said the chairman, "You are willing to make that sacrifice to save yourself a greater." Another member of the tribunal said, "You would go and steal off the land what others are fighting to protect." The chairman then went on, "What have you done all your life?" "Painting," was the reply. "Yes; for money," said the Chairman. "Of course," said Mr. Deller, "it is my livelihood." The tribunal went on to contrast his position with that of the Christadelphians and Plymouth Brethren, who were making constant sacrifices every day in following Christ. They said, "It is all very well for those men, but you, a member of the Church of England, what business have you to be in this position?" I think it is quite evident if he had been a member of one of those bodies the tribunal might have considered his claim and granted him exemption, but because he was not a member of a body holding these peculiar views his personal individual convictions went for nothing, even when they were backed up by a bishop of high esteem, by his headmaster who had known him since boyhood, and by the father who spoke in the name of both parents. All that was of no effect in the eyes of the tribunal.
    What was the attitude of the military representative? One would imagine that if he concurred in the view that the man
    1256
    was insincere, he would have made it his business to find evidence of his insincerity, and that he might have brought proof to show that in his past life Mr. Deller held entirely different views. The only part he took in the tribunal was to intervene in the spirit of a sixteenth century theologian. He asked Mr. Deller, could he explain the text in Numbers "Shall your brethren go to war, and shall ye sit here?" No doubt that was a very clever debating society point, but is that a point to make by which to test the sincerity of a man's religious conscientious convictions? Mr. Deller replied, very naturally, I think, that he could not explain it without knowing the context, and the military representative then said, "You say you know the Bible, and I would be glad to know." It was the last case before the tribunal, and at the conclusion Mr. Deller and his wife came back into the Court and went up to the military representative. Mr. Deller said to him he would be glad if he would let him know the text and the reference which he had quoted against him, so that he might explain his position. The military representative said, "You know the Bible, Numbers 32, 6. What about ' Vengeance is mine'"? "Yes," said Mrs. Deller, "'Vengeance is mine saith the Lord,' not man's." Mrs. Deller then asked what her position would be if her husband remained faithful to his principles. The military representative replied, "If he fights you will get the separation allowance; if not, you will get nothing, so he has got to fight." Mr. Deller said, "Whatever you, or the tribunal say, nothing can alter God's law, 'Thou shalt not kill.'" "God's law be damned; go and fight," said the military representative. That was not said in the tribunal.
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): Do I understand my hon. Friend to say that that was in the course of the proceedings before the tribunal?
    Mr. HARVEY: I was just saying that that was not in the tribunal. It was after the conclusion of the sitting. Mr. Deller had returned to speak to the military representative who, he felt had been so unfair, to get his point of view explained, and that was the spirit in which this excellent gentleman, as I have no doubt he is in many other ways, dealt with one who claimed to be a conscientious objector on religious grounds. I do not know this gentleman at all. I have no doubt he is highly qualified to meet the Germans on

    1257
    their own ground. No doubt he is a very excellent soldier, but I think that a man who would meet a claimant in that spirit is not a man to judge at all of a religious objection to military service. He would have done much better to have kept absolutely silent throughout the proceedings, and it would have been far better from the point of view of the War Office if he had said quite plainly that, however much the War Office wanted every man who was willing and able to fight, they did not want men thrust into the Army who would only cause embarrassment and difficulty to the Army itself. I think that is a point that we can ask the War Office and the Local Government Board to make clearer to the tribunals and to the military representatives. It is no use forcing into the Army men who will only cause trouble and difficulty and the injustice of whose treatment, when Parliament has provided an exemption to meet their needs, arouses indignation amongst people who by no means share their view. This man is known and respected by men who differ entirely from him. He is a quiet, meditative, religious minded man, whose objection is based purely on religious grounds, and yet he has been treated in this abominable way by the tribunal and the military representative. He is now left with only one possibility of proving his sincerity, and that is by defying the way in which the law has been administered and showing in the face of a court martial that he is sincere, and eventually, under the arrangement which has been made, coming over to the Brace Committee. It is wasting the time of the Army and doing very serious injustice that such procedure should go on. I want to read a few words spoken by Brigadier-General Child in September last at the Stratford Police Court. He is the Director of Personal Services and the head of the punishment section of the Army. He was asked by the Public Prosecutor:
    "Do you have in the Army considerable difficulty with those who raise the question of conscientious objection to military service?"
    "Certainly. The amount of extra work which this has caused the Army is very great indeed. There have been seventeen hundred courts-martial."
    Think of the time wasted and the amount of irritation and difficulty caused. The chairman of the Court evidently realised that, for he said:
    "May I suggest that the Press take very careful notice of this, because it might influence tribunals not to send men into the ranks who are likely to cause this trouble."
    This is a very serious trouble to the Army, and still military representatives and
    1258
    tribunals are compassing heaven and earth to force into the Army one conscientious objector. They are spending hours and hours of time and trouble in some of these cases in order to force into the Army men who will never be of the slightest use to the Army, but only cause difficulty and have to prove their sincerity by their sufferings. It is very hard indeed for Government Departments to deal with individual cases of injustice and hardship. I know how great pains they have taken to do what they can, and how very often they regret action of this kind. But I ask, even if it is not possible to remedy the injustice which has been done—and I believe it ought to be possible to take some steps—that at least the Departments concerned should make it clear that they do not want this kind of thing to go on, that they want a different spirit and a different attitude to be adopted by the tribunals in general and by the military representatives. If that could be made perfectly clear from the point of view both of the Local Government Board and of the War Office, the country and the Army would be saved these very painful scenes; we should also be able to feel that the Act of Parliament was being carried out in the spirit in which it was framed and that injustice as far as possible would be avoided.
    Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: I think the whole House must have been impressed by the speech to which we have just listened. My hon. Friend is a man who has done a good service to his country. He belongs to a religious persuasion which looks upon all war as an evil thing. Therefore, he has a claim to be heard in this matter such as I and other Members do not possess. I cannot say I have any sympathy with the view of conscientious objectors in regard to this War, but I have an understanding of their position because I was brought up in the same persuasion as my hon. Friend. Therefore, though I have lapsed from grace in this regard, I still remember the teachings of my youth, and I know how some good honest people regard all war. My hon. Friend has dealt with cases which must have brought home to every man who is capable of judging the real meaning of the position into which we have brought ourselves. I could supplement the cases he has given by other cases if professional etiquette allowed, but as I was engaged as Counsel I cannot. Those cases are not few; they are many. They are not local; they are distributed all

    1259
    over the country. In the interests of this country—if the prosecution of the War is a thing that is in the interests of this country—the attention of Parliament ought to be directed to this question, and the Government ought to put a stop to the injustices and inequalities which exist.
    I may bring to the notice of the Financial Secretary one case only as illustrative of the sort of thing that is going on all over the country. In my own Constituency there is a theological college which was started in the year 1662 by an old Cromwellian Independent. It was not actually in Carmarthen itself but in Bridgend. It has survived many changes, and it is now called the Presbyterian College of Carmarthen. The system under which the college is governed is this: In June of every year an examination is held for students who seek admission to the college. In June, 1914, a month before the War broke out, certain students who for a long time had been preparing for the ministry, sought admission to the college by examination. They did not, as a matter of fact, enter the college till September, 1914, a month after the War had broken out. Last August five of these students were called to the Colours. Every one of them was a conscientious objector. Every one of them will refuse to accept military service. Yet these five men, four of them students for the Congregational Ministry, and the other a student for a Baptist Ministry, are to be forced against their will into the Army.
    I have brought the matter before the notice of the War Office. I have waited upon Lord Derby. I have waited upon my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, who knows the circumstances under which ministerial students are admitted into college quite as well as I do. What is the reply? The reply is an absolute non possumus. These men, simply because they were admitted into the college in September, 1914, although they had passed their examination in June or July, are not to be classed as students for the ministry because the War Office, in its infinite wisdom, says they were not in immediate preparation for the ministry. Why should such a decision be taken? In no other theological college in this land are students treated in that way. I am told, on what I believe to be excellent authority, that in every
    1260
    theological college in England students who entered in September, 1914, are exempt. I can vouch for the fact that in every theological college in Wales, with the exception of Carmarthen, every theological student who was there in September, 1914, has been exempted. Yet the tribunal in Carmarthen has sent these men, against their will, into the Army. Though the attention of the right hon. Gentleman who is at the head of the War Office—presumably at the head of the War Office, for I do not know how far he is at the head of the War Office—has been called to this, and though the attention of Lord Derby has been called to it, nothing has been done. All the satisfaction that I have been able to elicit from the War Office is that if it should be proved that other theological students in other parts of Wales or England have been exempted under similar circumstances, steps will be taken to bring them also into the Army.
    I am glad to see present hon. Members from Ireland. I hope they will attend all these Debates. There is a proposal to extend Conscription to Ireland. Let them understand how this country is being treated under Conscription. I hope it will strengthen their resolution to put a stop to this evil. I would like to ask my right hon. Friends who are at the moment sitting on the Front Bench what they have to say to these things? I will say this for the War Office: Whenever I have, in matters of the sort, approached the military side of the War Office, they have always been most courteous, and have proved far most sympathetic to civilian grievances. I have been assured by military men in the War Office that they do not want conscientious objectors in the Army. I can well understand why. As my hon. Friend said, what is the good of men going into the Army who proclaim beforehand that they are not going to obey military orders? What is the good of men of that sort in the Army? Do they add to the strength of the Army in the slightest degree? Not a bit of it! And the military men at the War Office have taken that view. I have always received most sympathetic consideration whenever I have approached any of these gentlemen, and I have nothing to say against them in regard to that point. But I do urge upon hon. Members, if they are not going to abrogate every function history has given to them, if the House is not: going to give up its right to be the

    1261
    supreme arbiter in this matter, that this House now, after two years of military rule, should say that common sense shall prevail, and that these men shall not be forced into the Army, not to strengthen but to weaken it. I would ask my Friend to, at all events, pay some attention to the specific matter brought before him.
    Sir W. BYLES: I am entirely in agreement with the previous speakers in this Debate. I want to draw attention to one point which I think shows absolute stupidity on the part of the tribunals. That is putting men who are doing good and useful work, helpful to the community, to work which they are not in the least accustomed or adapted to do. I have a young relative who is a conscientious objector. He has been the manager of a mill making excellent cloth—I believe some of it on Government contracts. He has been turned down and told that he must go and milk cows at some adjacent farm. I cannot think of anything more stupid than that. I have many other cases on the papers which I hold here. There is the case of a shipping clerk who lives close to my division. He was first refused all exemption by the local tribunal, but granted exemption from combatant service by the Appeal Tribunal. The latter advised that exemption should be granted on condition that the applicant took up agricultural work. Such work was secured. After three weeks the man broke down, the local doctor certifying that his heart was affected and that he was not fitted for heavy agricultural work.
    The judge of the Appeal Tribunal, Mr. Mellor, admitted that it was illogical and wasteful to take a man from work in which he was skilled. But that is what we are doing! Some sacrifice, it is said, must be made by conscientious objectors. Therefore occurs the transference from a man's own usual work to work for which he is utterly unadapted. This, I suppose, is meant as a penal infliction upon him and not in the interests of the nation. Here is the case of a Bachelor of Science who also lives close to my Constituency. He was a teacher in a council school and engaged also in the Manchester School of Technology. He is thirty-eight years of age and married. He was given fourteen days by Judge Mellor to find work on the land. That work he is totally unfitted to perform. I have many other cases of the same kind, but I do not think that it is
    1262
    worth while to trouble the House with them all, and I want to give my hon. Friend ample time to reply. What, however, I do want to suggest is that this sort of treatment of conscientious objectors, this sending of them to unsuitable work, this penalising them for refusing military service, is just as illogical as if we were condemning my hon. Friend the Member for the Rushcliffe Division (Mr. Leif Jones) to drink whisky or champagne or some other liquor of the kind, and compel him to do it. These men are all willing to serve their country. I received a deputation from some of the finest young fellows—spirited men of great courage and bravery, and high-class men—when I was in my Constituency, and I was very much impressed with the things they told me. These men were all of exalted character, living pure lives, and I maintain that they are the very salt of the earth. I know there are sneaks who try to evade military service by pretending to have a conscience, and that is what influences so many men who condemn the conscientious objector, but it is the duty of the tribunals to find out these men. That is exactly what they are for. I do endorse the recommendation of my hon. Friend behind me in asking that some reason, some intelligence, should be used in the manner of treating these conscientious objectors.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): If all conscientious objectors were cast in the mould of the hon. Member who has brought forward the subject to-night, this House would not have to waste night after night in discussing the question of conscientious objectors, nor would there be exhibitions occasionally, but not frequently, of somewhat unseemly wrangles between judge and witness and applicant at tribunals, which sometimes make us, perhaps, a little ashamed of some of the tribunals. I say that of some of them, but I wish at the same time to say that there are thousands of tribunals, and, considering the way in which they had to be composed, almost at a moment's notice, and the materials from which they had to be selected, on the whole those tribunals have shown singular impartiality, very great industry, and have effected the main purpose for which they were formed at a crisis in our nation's history, because we must not put this away from our mind, that our nation is in deadly peril at the present moment,

    1263
    and it wants to exert to its utmost the fullness of its man-power. Everybody in this country ought to be only too willing to give to the full his services for his country in some form or another to rescue his country from the peril in which it is placed, fighting the noblest of all causes, fighting for the poor and the weak, for the weaker nations against the strong, and for the cause of liberty and humanity. I believe there are a number of conscientious objectors, although they may object personally to take any part in fighting or in military service, who are perfectly willing to do some national service. But do not let us put out of mind at the same time that there are others who do shirk, who do skulk behind the plea of conscience, and, after all, the picture that is drawn of some of these conscientious objectors is not a very pleasant one. I do not happen to have met one in the flesh. They do not exist among my own friends and followers. My own friends and followers are conscientious objectors to the horrors that are being perpetrated by the German Army acting under Prussianism. They are conscientious objectors to anyone going out and fighting their battles, and making the supreme sacrifice which is being made day by day and hour by hour by some of the noblest of our fellow men. They are anxious not to shelter themselves behind those gallant men, but to do everything in their power to help them, and join with them in the supreme self-sacrifice if necessary.
    If, as I say, there is occasionally an unseemly want of temper on the part of some members of a tribunal, after all many of these conscientious objectors when they appear before tribunals are very angular, very arrogant, and very aggressive. I am at this disadvantage compared with my hon. Friend. He has obtained an account from one source of what happened before a tribunal. That is an ex-parte statement. Before I judge of what took place I should have to have the chairman before me and the military representative. There is a good deal of conflicting evidence in this case, and I am not at all prepared to accept the version of my hon. Friend on this occasion. I think probably there is a good deal to be said on the other side. I deplore, and always shall deplore, the loss of temper of those who act the part of judges. I also think the use of Scripture on these occasions is singularly inoppor-
    1264
    tune, and there is no good, as a rule, in quoting one text when another can quote a further text. After all, tribunals and applicants should act up to the spirit of the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, and if all acted up to that spirit, and not the letter, we should not be occupied in discussing scenes of that kind.
    Although I have no particular sympathy with conscientious objectors. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is very doubtful wisdom to force these conscientious objectors, so ill-suited to any form of fighting, into the Army; but, at the same time, I wish to say to the House that if we make it too easy for them to put forward conscience as an excuse for not doing duty under difficult and dangerous circumstances, you will undoubtedly have men come forward who, for one reason or another—perhaps a very good reason, such as domestic hardship will say, "I cannot get the tribunal to give me exemption, not even to put me into non-combatant service, by pleading financial or domestic hardship, but if I tell them I have a conscience which will not allow me to fight, then I shall be able to get off, and continue my occupation and carry on my life much as I carry it on now." That is a serious danger. I believe there is a great deal of work of national importance which might be devised into which you might turn these gentlemen who call themselves conscientious objectors.
    To deal with the two cases my hon. Friend has brought to my notice, there is first the case of Mr. Malcolm Sparkes. He was exempted conditionally by the local tribunal if he would undertake work of national importance approved by the local tribunal, and they gave him many weeks in which to find that work.
    Mr. HARVEY: They referred it definitely to the Pelham Committee for recommendation.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: Quite so; yet they gave him many weeks to find that work. He was not satisfied with the condition of exemption they made, but he appealed to the Appeal Tribunal, and the Appeal Tribunal heard him. They came to the conclusion that the local tribunal was right and that that tribunal had done him perfect justice. Thereupon the Pelham Tribunal recommended work of a certain kind, but the local tribunal said "No, we do not consider that is work of national importance."'

    1265
    Now arises the question: Have the local tribunal the right to say whether, when they give A or B a conditional exemption that he is to find work of national importance? The particular work which the Pelham Committee recommend is work of national importance. Of course, it must be left to the local tribunals, and whether rightly or wrongly they said: "We do not consider that is work of national importance, and as you have taken all these weeks to find work of national importance, we are going to withdraw our former decision, and say that you ought to go into non-combatant service." I think that is a very wrong decision, but I am not here to defend all the decisions of these tribunals or to say whether or not I should have given the same decision.
    What I am here for is to say that this is no case in which the Local Government Board can be called upon to intervene. The local tribunal has a right to say: "This is not the kind of work we think you ought to do, and as you have taken all these weeks to find work of national importance, and as we think you are fit for non-combatant service, we have decided against you." This man was not satisfied with half a loaf and he wanted the whole loaf. He tried to get the whole loaf and then he found half the loaf taken away from him. It is the same in the other case which was quoted by my hon. Friend. The man was exempted from combatant service, but he was not satisfied. He took his case to the Appeal Court, and they said: "We will not even exempt you from combatant service." Both these cases went to the Appeal Tribunal and were decided against the appellants. They both lost what the local tribunals had given to them, and now my hon. Friend comes here and says that the Appeal Tribunal went one better than the local tribunal, because the unfortunate applicant lost what the local tribunal had given to him.
    I could go into more details if it were necessary, but I am here to represent the Local Government Board in the absence of my right hon. Friend, and what I have to say is that in both these cases the tribunals have a perfect right to decide. That power is with them, and I know of nothing they did that violated the ordinary rules of procedure or that was in any way irregular. The decision rests with them, and my Department has no power, and ought not to have power, to
    1266
    interfere in such cases. In both these cases they put their views before two tribunals and before two Courts of their countrymen, and in both cases they unanimously decided against them and against the plea they put forward. In all those circumstances I cannot find fault with the tribunal or pretend to revise or adjudicate upon their decision. I maintain that the Local Government Board has no right to intervene in cases of that kind, and I think this proves on the whole that conscientious objectors are well protected by the Appeal Court—[An HON. MEMBER: "Too well!"]—then by the Central Court, then by the Pelham Committee, and then by what is known as the Brace Committee. There is far more attention given to the cases of conscientious objectors than is given to the thousands of men who are falling day by day in battle, whose widows and dependants are left, and who do not receive half the attention paid to the conscientious objectors. They receive far more attention than is given even to the crippled and the disabled, and those are the men who have my sympathy far more than the conscientious objectors.
    Mr. FORSTER: The hon. Gentleman who moved this Motion alleged that the military representative of one of the Appeal Tribunals made use of an expression which every right-thinking man must regret if it were true. The military representative denies absolutely and emphatically that he ever said anything of the kind, and I think my hon. Friend is satisfied that, even if any controversy arose between the applicant and the military representative, at any rate it did not occur before the tribunal.
    Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 22nd February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
    It being one hour after the conclusion of Government Business, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 22nd February.
    Adjourned at Ten o'clock.

WAR.
  DECIMAL SYSTEM.
  DECIMAL SYSTEM.
  EXCESS PROFITS.
  EXCESS PROFITS.
  WAR EXPENDITURE (AUDIT OF ACCOUNTS).
  WAR EXPENDITURE (AUDIT OF ACCOUNTS).
  DIAMONDS (IMPORTATION WITHOUT LICENCE).
  DIAMONDS (IMPORTATION WITHOUT LICENCE).
  IRISH GAELIC ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION.
  IRISH GAELIC ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION.
  BARRISTERS (SALARIED).
  BARRISTERS (SALARIED).
  GRANTS TO INTERNED CIVILIAN PRISONERS.
  GRANTS TO INTERNED CIVILIAN PRISONERS.
  ABATEMENT TO LOCAL AUTHORITIES.
  ABATEMENT TO LOCAL AUTHORITIES.
  DISTURBANCES IN IRELAND.
  DISTURBANCES IN IRELAND.
  MIDLAND AND GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY (IRELAND).
  MIDLAND AND GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY (IRELAND).
  SEIZURE OF IRISH POSTCARDS.
  SEIZURE OF IRISH POSTCARDS.
  TRANSMISSION OF IRISH NEWSPAPERS.
  TRANSMISSION OF IRISH NEWSPAPERS.
MILITARY SERVICE.
  NEUTRAL NATIONALITY.
  NEUTRAL NATIONALITY.
  ARMY DISCHARGE FORMS.
  ARMY DISCHARGE FORMS.
  ALEXANDRA PALACE INTERNMENT CAMP.
  ALEXANDRA PALACE INTERNMENT CAMP.
  ZEPPELIN RAIDS.
  ZEPPELIN RAIDS.
MUNITIONS.
  EMPLOYMENT OF SINGLE MEN.
  EMPLOYMENT OF SINGLE MEN.
  MEN FIT FOR GENERAL SERVICE.
  MEN FIT FOR GENERAL SERVICE.
  SINHALESE IMPRISONED.
  SINHALESE IMPRISONED.
  OPIUM ISSUED (BRITISH INDIA).
  OPIUM ISSUED (BRITISH INDIA).
  BOMBAY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
  BOMBAY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
  SUGAR SUPPLY.
  SUGAR SUPPLY.
  BRITISH INDUSTRIAL DESIGNS.
  BRITISH INDUSTRIAL DESIGNS.
  ENEMY FIRMS.
  ENEMY FIRMS.
  WHEAT COMMISSION.
  WHEAT COMMISSION.
  OUTPUT OF BEER.
  OUTPUT OF BEER.
  AGRICULTURAL AND MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES (IRELAND).
  AGRICULTURAL AND MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES (IRELAND).
  BRITISH AND GERMAN INVESTMENTS.
  BRITISH AND GERMAN INVESTMENTS.
  GERMAN BANKS IN LONDON.
  GERMAN BANKS IN LONDON.
  Royal Irish Constabulary.
  Royal Irish Constabulary.
  Death at Belfast.
  Death at Belfast.
  Dublin Rebuilding Scheme.
  Dublin Rebuilding Scheme.
  Irish Eggs (Losses).
  Irish Eggs (Losses).
  Training Colleges (Ireland).
  Training Colleges (Ireland).
  Evicted Tenants.
  Evicted Tenants.
  Land Purchase Acts (Ireland).
  Land Purchase Acts (Ireland).
  Old Age Pensions.
  Old Age Pensions.