Sitting of 26 October 1916

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
NATIONAL INSURANCE (UNEMPLOYMENT) ACTS, 1911 TO 1916.
Copy presented of Regulations made by the Board of Trade, dated 11th October, 1916, entitled the Inspectors (Unemployment Insurance) Regulations, 1916 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

TRADE BOARDS ACT, 1909.
Copy presented of Regulations, dated 22nd September, 1916, made by the Board of Trade, under Section 11 of the Trade Boards Act, 1909, with respect to the Constitution and Proceedings of the Chain Trade Board (Great Britain) in substitution for the Regulations dated 25th November, 1909 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Regulations, dated 18th October, 1916, made by the Board of Trade under Section 11 of the Trade Boards Act, 1909, with respect to the Constitution and Proceedings of the Paper Box Trade Board (Great Britain) in substitution for the Regulations dated 27th April, 1910 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Regulations, dated 23rd October, 1916, made by the Board of Trade under Section 11 of the Trade Boards Act, 1909, with respect to the Constitution and Proceedings of the Tailoring Trade Board (Ireland) in substitution for the Regulations dated 3rd July, 1912 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

NAVAL AND MARINE PAY AND PENSIONS ACT, 1865.
Copy presented of Order in Council, dated 24th October, 1916, approving a Memorial of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
NAVAL AGENCY AND DISTRIBUTION ACT, 1864.
Copy presented of Order in Council, dated 24th October, 1916, relating to the Distribution of Prize Bounty etc. [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
FUGITIVE OFFENDERS ACTS, 1881 AND 1915.
Copy presented of Order in Council, dated 24th October, 1916, entitled the Straits Settlements and Protected States Fugitive Offenders Order in Council, 1916 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
DESTRUCTIVE INSECTS AND PESTS ACT.
Copy presented of Orders numbered D.I.P. 377–380, declaring the respective areas described in the Schedules thereto to be infected with Wart Disease and to be infected areas for the purposes of the Wart Disease of Potatoes (Infected Areas) Order of 1914 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—
Consolidated Fund (No. 5) Bill,
Court of Session (Extracts) Bill, without Amendment.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    AMERICAN CITIZENS.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any American journalists here not in complicity with the British Government have been convicted of transmitting false information to America; if so, what action has been taken with regard to them either here or in America; if not, can he state any reason but their refusal to become accomplices in falsehood for denying

    1269
    them liberty to transmit the truth to a neutral country; and to what restraint and surveillance are those American citizens resident in this country now subject?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord Robert Cecil): The answer to all the suggestions in this question is in the negative.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will now explain his statement that no objection had been raised to American citizens of repute visiting Ireland for a philanthropic purpose, when at that time Messrs. Kelly and M'Clure, eminent American citizens on their way to Ireland on such a mission, were prevented from going there; will he state the nature of any correspondence to which that incident led; and what beneficial result is attributed to that treatment of citizens of a neutral State?
    Lord R. CECIL: The assumptions of fact contained in the first part of the question are untrue, and the remainder of the question does not therefore arise.
    Mr. GINNELL: Did not the Noble Lord deny, last summer, that American citizens had been prevented, at the very time they were detained in Liverpool? Then that is only an official denial.

    EXECUTION OF ROGER CASEMENT.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any correspondence has passed between the American and British Governments with reference to the execution of Roger Casement, in disregard of the points raised in the impartial review of the case addressed to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs by the American lawyer who had watched the case, especially the fact that the British Government had prevented certain relevant material being brought before the Court, thus preventing the Court having the "whole case before it; and whether any such correspondence will be made available to Members of this House?
    Lord R. CECIL: The hon. Member's notice on the Paper contains one question and certain statements. The statements made by him are not true, and the answer to his question is in the negative.
    Mr. GINNELL: Does the Noble Lord deny that this American citizen sent to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a statement on the case in question?
    Lord R. CECIL: I have given my answer to the hon. Member.
    Mr. GINNELL: Then Irish Members, if they are Nationalists, need not expect any answer except an evasive one.

    MISS EMILY HOBHOUSE.
    Major HUNTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Miss Emily Hobhouse obtained permission from the Foreign Office to travel in Belgium?
    Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that a Miss Emily Hobhouse, a British subject, has been enabled to travel hundreds of miles through Germany and Belgium; by whose permission Miss Hobhouse went to Germany and Belgium; whether it was with the knowledge of the British Government; and, if so, were they aware of Miss Hobhouse's object in going?
    Lord R. CECIL: His Majesty's Government are aware of Miss Hobhouse's visit to Germany and Belgium, which evidently took place with the permission of the German authorities, but His Majesty's Government had no knowledge of the matter until after the lady's return to Switzerland.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Surely the Foreign Office had to issue a passport showing where this lady was going to travel?
    Lord R. CECIL: I can assure my hon. Friend that the Foreign Office certainly never issued a passport to enable any British subject to go to Germany.
    Major HUNT: Did they issue a passport to allow Miss Hobhouse to go abroad?
    Lord R. CECIL: I should like notice of that, but I presume she had a passport before she went abroad.
    Sir W. BYLES: May I ask whether the visits of this lady to high officials in the German Foreign Office might be of great service to this country?
    Lord R. CECIL: No, Sir; I think it is very undesirable that any British subject should pay visits to German high officials.
    Colonel ALAN SYKES: Is the Noble Lord going to take any action in the matter?
    Mr. PENNEFATHER: Are we to infer from the Noble Lord's replies that if Miss Hobhouse obtained a passport to leave this country she must have done so under false pretences?
    Lord R. CECIL: No, Sir, I should not like to say that. I do not know that the facts in my possession warrant any statement of that kind. No doubt she obtained a passport to go to an Allied or neutral country. What she did after that I do not know. I have no reason to suppose that she made any false statements to us.

    DEFENCE OF THE REALM ACT (CASES IN IRELAND).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland for what alleged offence and for how long Mr. John Hegarty was restricted to a specified area in county Cork; why he was not tried; on whose direction the police threatened Mrs. Hegarty that they would shoot her husband if they saw him approaching his home; and, Hegarty having since disappeared, whether he has been shot or is in custody?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Duke): John Hegarty's movements are restricted because he had been unlawfully engaged in drilling. He was not tried because he gave an undertaking as to his conduct. The police did not threaten to shoot him. He has not disappeared or been shot. He is not in custody, but is living at home with his wife, and I have not received any complaint from him with regard to the police or the military authorities.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland on what charge two of the police of Cahirdaniel, county Kerry, recently arrested Mr. Miceal Breatnac, otherwise Michael Walsh, a Gaelic League organiser well known to them, and another man, no charge having been made then or since; whether it was in accordance with instructions from head-
    1272
    quarters or with the policy of the Government that the sergeant made use of his position to insult the two men with offensive remarks about the Gaelic League and Gaelic language, and insisted upon their speaking and writing in English, while showing his ability to understand and speak sufficient Irish; if no charge is to be brought against those men; whether the sergeant will be required to apologise to them; and, in view of the irritation and disaffection caused by the police hostility to this non-political literary organisation, whether it will be discontinued?
    Mr. DUKE: Michael Walsh has not recently been arrested by the police at Cahirdaniel, but some months ago a man in his company was required, for the purpose of identification, to go to the police barrack, and Walsh went along with him. Neither of them was arrested. No charge was made against these men in respect of this incident, and I am assured that the sergeant referred to made no offensive remarks and said nothing that requires apology.
    Mr. FLAVINasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether Cornelius Doody and Thomas Sheehy, of Duagh, have been arrested; what charge has been preferred against them; and whether he will order their immediate release?
    Mr. DUKE: These men have been arrested on a charge under the Defence of the Realm Regulations, which is due for hearing at Listowel Petty Sessions on Saturday next.

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    IRISH CIVIL SERVICE.
    Major NEWMANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland what efforts are being made by the Local Government Board and other branches of the Irish Civil Service to comb out of the Civil Service all those of miltiary age and fit for service; whether the need for the same policy has been impressed on the various local authorities; . whether they have been requested not to take into their employment men of military age; and, if so, what have been the results to date?
    Mr. DUKE: I am making inquiries about this matter.

    EXTENSION OF ACTS TO MALTA AND CYPRUS.
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary for the Colonies whether, in order to en-

    1273
    able various Colonies to contribute their quota to the man-power of the Empire, measures "will now be taken to make the Military Service Act applicable to Malta and Cyprus?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY for the COLONIES (Mr. Steel-Maitland): His Majesty's Government do not consider that such an extension of the application of the Military Service Act would be useful.
    Colonel YATE: Is it not a fact that Greeks in Cyprus are volunteering to join Venizelos, and would it not be just as well for us to enlist them and send them there?

    SINGLE MEN.
    Colonel GRIFFITHSasked what the Government's intentions are with regard to the substitution of single men by men who as a result of military service have been found unfit for further active service and whose services are of greater value to the country in civil life than in the Army?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I understand that a substitution scheme is being considered by the Man Power Distribution Board and the different Government Departments concerned which will meet the cases in question. As my hon. and gallant Friend is aware, a scheme of substitution for the munitions industry was announced yesterday.

    MINISTERS OF MILITARY AGE.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Prime Minister whether he will submit to the House a complete statement giving the names of Members of military age who form part of the Government, either as being Cabinet Ministers, or Under-Secretaries, or Parliamentary Secretaries, or as belonging to the Office of the Whips, or the like, together with the explicit reason in each case why the Member in question is not serving in the field?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir; I see no reason to adopt this suggestion.
    Mr. LYNCH: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the effect on the country of working men being asked to sacrifice their lives when there are so many embusqué in this House?

    MAN-POWER SUBSTITUTION.
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he can indicate the system that is to operate in respect of man-power substitution; whether all workmen about to be released from their present employment and drafted into the Army by the substitution of less fit men now with the Colours will have the right to appeal before tribunals on the ground of domestic hardship or on other grounds; and whether instructions for the guidance of tribunals have been issued on this matter?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): On the first part of the question I may refer to the reply given yesterday by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions to the hon. and gallant Member for Wednesbury. Any man has the right of making an application for exemption, or for the renewal of an exemption, within the period specified in the Regulations or instructions. New directions on the matter are not required.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is it not the fact that instructions are being issued to ignore all exemptions on the ground of domestic hardship?

    TRIBUNAL DECISIONS.
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the President of the Local Government Board, whether he is aware that the Appeal Tribunal at Reading have refused conditional exemption to a man who maintains his father and mother, the former being almost blind and the latter suffering from heart disease, in addition to an invalid brother and his grandfather; and whether, in view of the speeches made by responsible Ministers at the time of the passing of the Military Service Acts, it is proposed to take any action to obtain more uniform and equitable administration of the Acts?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: My right hon. Friend is not aware of the case. If the hon. Member will furnish him with full particulars he will consider whether he can usefully make inquiries.
    Mr. RICHARD LAMBERTasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that when hearing the appeal of E. V. Burns before the Liverpool Appeal Tribunal on 5th

    1275
    October the Lord Mayor, as chairman, and after consultation with the clerk, stated that there was no provision in the Military Service Act for exemption from military service on moral as distinguished from religious grounds of conscience and dismissed the appeal; and whether he will take steps to point out clearly to tribunals the powers they possess under the Act in order to avoid the recurrence of such misconception?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: My right hon. Friend is not aware of this case. He has no reason to think that the tribunal are not fully aware that exemption can be given in respect of a conscientious objection based on moral grounds. I am sending the tribunal a copy of the hon. Member's question and of my reply.

    ATTESTED MEN OF FORTY-ONE.
    Mr. G. TERRELL(by Private Notice) asked whether the Secretary of State for War is now in a position to state what extension of time will be allowed to the recently called-up men in Group 46 for appealing and for joining the Colours?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): I imagine my right hon. Friend intended to answer that question himself. I have not the answer.

  MUNITIONS.

    CENTRAL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).
    Major NEWMANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the activities of the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) can under the Defence of the Realm (No. 3) Act be extended to Ireland; and, if so, what areas have been scheduled and the population affected?
    Mr. DUKE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. No areas have up to the present been scheduled in Ireland.
    Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked the Minister of Munitions if he can state the number of Orders issued by the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) prohibiting the sale and supply of spirits, the areas to which these Orders are applicable, respectively, and the population of each area?
    The MINISTER of MUNITIONS (Mr. Montagu): Three such Orders have been issued, one for the Scotland, northwestern, area, which comprises the western parts of the counties of Inverness and Ross and Cromarty, one for the Scotland, north coast, area, which comprises the counties of Caithness and Sutherland, and one for a part of the Scotland, northern, area, which applies to two parishes in Ross and Cromarty not comprised within the north-western area. The population covered by these Orders is approximately 142,000.
    Mr. MILLARasked the Minister of Munitions the number of licensed premises acquired by the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) under their statutory powers in Scotland and England, respectively; the number of such premises which have been closed by the Board; and the number at present being managed by the Board?
    Mr. MONTAGU: In England, up to the 21st October, the Board had taken possession of 127 licensed premises. Of these, twenty-one had by that date been closed for the sale of intoxicants, and 106 were being conducted under the direct control of the Board. In Scotland, the corresponding figures were forty-two, sixteen, and twenty-six.
    Sir E. CARSON: Have any been taken over in Ireland?
    Mr. MONTAGU: Not that I am aware of.

    EMPLOYES OF MILITARY AGE.
    Colonel GRIFFITHSasked the Minister of Munitions if he will furnish the names of the Combing-Out Committee appointed to deal with the question of single men and men of military age employed in the Department of the Ministry of Munitions; and also if he will state whether the Admiralty and the War Office are represented thereon; and, if so, by whom?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The members of the Committee were:

    Mr. E. B. Phipps (chairman).

    Mr. J. B. Wimble.

    Mr. J. A. Potter.

    Mr. G. M. Booth.

    Mr. P. G. Henriques.

    In Mr. Phipps' absence, Mr. R. H. Carr acted as chairman. The Director of Re-

    1277
    cruiting, War Office, was invited to nominate a member of his staff to represent him on the Committee, but preferred to nominate Mr. Wimble and Mr. Potter, of the London Shipowners' and Transport Workers' Military Service Committee, of which Mr. Wimble is chairman. The Admiralty were not represented.
    Colonel GRIFFITHS: Have the War Office nominated two representatives on this Committee, and may I ask whether the Admiralty have also nominated a representative?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The War Office nominated these two gentlemen. I do not think the Admiralty were represented.
    Colonel GRIFFITHS: Is it not desirable that the Admiralty should be represented on such an important Committee?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I do not think so. I do not know that the need of the Admiralty is anything like that of the War Office in this matter, and the need of the latter Department is notoriously great. I will inquire whether the Admiralty desire to be represented on the appointment of any future Committee.
    Mr. WATT: How many have been combed out of the right hon. Gentleman's Department?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I think, speaking from memory, something like 160.

    LEAVING CERTIFICATES.
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the Minister of Munitions whether his attention has been called to the evidence submitted, and the comments made, in the case of two workmen who applied for leaving certificates before the West Wales Munitions Tribunal; whether he is aware that these workmen urged, among other reasons for desiring to leave, that they wished to be employed fully on munitions, inasmuch as at present they are forced by their employers to idle much of their time and being paid per day are paid for work they have not done; that the employers being sub-contractors to a controlled establishment encourage this system because they are paid a percentage on the total expenditure on the work and employ more men than necessary, thereby increasing expenditure and their own profit; whether he is aware that the tribunal found that there was at these works an appreciable amount of avoidable idleness and slackness due to
    1278
    and in part caused by laxity and inefficiency of supervision on the employers part; that the tribunal was further of opinion that contracts on the lines revealed afford unusual opportunities for abuse and even fraud, and that the evidence and allegtions submitted were sufficently grave to warrant a Govrnment inquiry; and what steps it is proposed to take?
    Mr. MONTAGU: My attention had already been called to this matter, and inquiries were made into the men's allegations. I understand that the cases were dismissed by the tribunal. I am informed that the controlled establishment in question had had frequent difficulties in obtaining certain materials, with the result that the sub-contractor's work was delayed. But further inquiries are being made into the whole matter, and I will let my hon. Friend know.

    CONVICTIONS FOR DRUNKENNESS.
    Sir ERNEST LAMBasked the Minister of Munitions the most recent returns for drunkenness in the areas under the Central Control Board compared with the figures for previous periods; and if he will state in detail the figures regarding Carlisle?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I will circulate the figures asked for in the first part of the question. As regards the second part of the question, for Carlisle the convictions for drunkenness in the fourteen weeks since the middle of July, about which time the Board's scheme of direct control began to be put into effective operation, have reached a total of 183. For the immediately preceding fourteen weeks the total was 380.—[See Written Answers.]

    ROYAL FACTORIES.
    Major NEWMANasked the Minister of Munitions whether the Government has now definitely decided to comb out of the Royal factories all single men between the ages of nineteen and thirty-one?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The work of finding substitutes in the Royal factories for unskilled single men of thirty years of age and under who are fit for general service is being prosecuted with all possible speed having due regard to the maintenance of output. This is being done as a part of the general scheme of substitution to which my right hon. Friend referred in his answer yesterday.
    Major NEWMAN: Who is the authority to say whether a man is a skilled workman or whether he is not?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I am.

    DISTILLERIES ACQUIRED.
    Mr. MILLARasked the Minister of Munitions if he can state the number of distilleries which have been taken over by the Government in Scotland, England, and Ireland, respectively, with a view to their output being used in connection with the manufacture of munitions?
    Mr. MONTAGU: One distillery in Scotland and one distillery in England have been taken over by the Government, with a view to their output being used in connection with the manufacture of munitions Two other distilleries in Scotland and two other distilleries in England will be taken over later on for a similar purpose.

    TRIBUNAL CASES AND BADGES.
    Major HUNTasked the Minister of Munitions whether his attention has yet been called to the fact that in the Burwarton district, near Bridgenorth, Shropshire, several men passed as fit for foreign service, although refused exemption by the tribunals, have, just before being called up for service, applied to and been taken on by the Home-grown Timber Committee, a Government Department, and been given badges; and whether, as these men are now employed as unskilled labourers, he will have them taken for the Army and men of Class C or discharged soldiers put in their place?
    Mr. MONTAGU: Five badges have been issued at the request of the Homegrown Timber Committee to men working on the Burwarton Estate, four prior to May last and one during August. If my hon. Friend will furnish me with particulars and names of the men referred to, I will cause investigation to be made. I would point out that it is always open to the local military authority to lodge an appeal through the War Office to my Department against the retention of any particular badge. If this is done the circumstances are immediately investigated and the appropriate action taken.
    Major HUNT: Is it not a very bad plan to allow a Government Department to take
    1280
    young men fit for all kinds of foreign service when they have been refused by tribunals?
    Colonel GRIFFITHS: May I ask whether "appropriate action" means that all physically fit under the age of thirty-one are to join the Colours?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I imagine there is certain work required to be done by the Home-grown Timber Committee which cannot very well be done by people who are not physically fit. Timber is heavy stuff to move.
    Colonel GRIFFITHS: Could not German prisoners be employed there?

  DISTURBANCES IN IRELAND.

    MRS. SHEEHY-SKEFFINGTON.
    Mr. T. P. O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether it is with his consent and sanction that Mrs. Sheehy-Skeffington has been subjected to police espionage and persecution since the murder of her husband; whether recently, when Mrs. Skeffington was absent from home on a short holiday, her lodgings were visited by detectives, who cross-examined her landlady and threatened her with penalties for not knowing and revealing Mrs. Skeffington's address; whether the police officer who directed these operations was Sergeant McGahey, who is in charge of the aliens' department; and whether it is proposed to continue this system of persecution?
    Mr. DUKE: I am informed that there is no truth in the allegations contained in the first two parts of the question. Mrs. Sheehy - Skeffington's landlady, Mrs. Schmutz, was recently questioned by the police in regard to Mrs. Schmutz's failure to return to them a travelling permit which had been issued to her to enable her to visit her husband, an alien interned in England, and his inquiries of her had relation to the restrictions on the movements of aliens. No person acting under the authority of the Irish Executive desires, so far as I know, to cause Mrs. Sheehy-Skeffington any kind of annoyance.

    LITERATURE TAKEN FROM PRISONERS.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Home Secretary why, notwithstanding his promise, Irish literary matter having no

    1281
    political bearing, given to the Irish prisoners of war in the various prisons in this country, but taken from them at Frongoch, has never been restored to them, and parcels of similar matter sent subsequently have never been delivered to them; will he explain the fact that some of the undelivered works, including "The Four Gospels," in Irish, with the names of the prisoners for whom they were intended written in them, have been offered for sale in London; by whose direction does the Censor at Frongoch withhold from their owners, the prisoners, and sell educational works, including the four Gospels; and whether such property, if bought again and sent to Frongoch again, will be delivered to the owners?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Herbert Samuel): As regards the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on the 19th to the hon. Member for the Harbour Division of Dublin. I am informed that all Irish literary matter having no political bearing is issued to the prisoners for whom it is intended. As regards the latter part, I am unable to find any foundation whatever for the suggestion that any book addressed to an Irish prisoner has been disposed of by the authorities, but if the hon. Member will give me particulars of the incident which he believes to have taken place, I will make further inquiry.
    Mr. GINNELL: The right hon. Gentleman is accustomed to cast doubt upon my question—
    Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member has any question to ask he is entitled to ask it if it is relevant, but he is not entitled to make observations on an answer.
    Mr. GINNELL: Is the Home Secretary aware that the book, "The Four Gospels," mentioned in this question, was sent to and used by Mr. Cole in Wandsworth Prison, was taken from him when he went to Frongoch, and was bought afterwards in Farringdon Street, in the City of London, off a second-hand book barrow with many other books of the same character, with Mr. Cole's name written in it. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain who sold the book to the second-hand bookseller?

    COURTS-MARTIAL AT FRONGOCH.
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Home Secretary if the result of the court-martial on Patrick Daly at Frongoch is yet declared?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The answer is in the negative.
    Mr. BYRNE: By what law or warrant are untried and unconvicted prisoners court-martialled?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I have already answered that question. This is not a court-martial, but a disciplinary military court, such as may be held under the Royal Warrant dealing with disciplinary matters in any internment camp.
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Home Secretary if he will state the number of prisoners who were sent to terms of punishment during their stay at Frongoch camp; what the punishment was for; how many were court-martialled; and by what law courts-martial were held on untried Irish prisoners?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I have not had time to obtain a complete return since the hon. Member's question appeared on the Paper; but, as regards punishments imposed since 15th July, I would refer the hon. Member to the printed reply I am giving to-day to the hon. Member for North Westmeath. One man has been sent before a military court, which can be held upon an interned prisoner in pursuance of the Defence of the Realm Regulations 14b.
    Mr. BYRNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that within the last six weeks 180 men have been sentenced to various terms for refusing to clean out the soldiers' lavatories, and is that work for untried Irish prisoners?
    Mr. SAMUEL: There is another question on this subject.

    TREATMENT OF PRISONERS.
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Home Secretary if any system of examination has been set up to secure a supply of pure and wholesome food for the prisoners at Frongoch camp?
    Mr. SAMUEL: All foodstuffs for prisoners (with the exception of bread) are supplied direct by the Officer Commanding Supplies from Chester, at the same time and in the same manner as for the troops stationed at Frongoch, the meat ration arriving daily by train. They are examined before issue by the orderly officer as well as by the adjutant

    1283
    and quartermaster. Bread is baked at Frongoch by a contractor, nominated by Officer Commanding Supplies, for both prisoners and troops. Prisoners have been notified, and are aware, that they may object to any part of the rations at the time of drawing from the stores if they consider it not of good quality. If there is at any time the slightest doubt as to the soundness of any article of foodstuff received the medical officers are at once asked to examine the article in question and give a certificate as to its soundness or otherwise. Anything certified unsound would be at once withdrawn and replaced.
    Mr. BYRNE: Are any steps being taken to prosecute the contractor who supplied the meat which was condemned as unfit for human use?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I must have notice of that question.
    Mr. FLAVINasked how many Irish interned prisoners at Frongoch have been punished and penalised because they refused to clean out soldiers' quarters, and what was the punishment and penalty inflicted; whether the punishment and restrictions were imposed with the knowledge of the Home Office; and whether the punishment and restrictions are still being continued, or will be again enforced, for similar refusal by Irish interned prisoners to clean out refuse of any description from any quarters occupied by the military?
    Mr. SAMUEL: One hundred and forty-two men were removed for a time to the North Camp, with the loss of certain privileges; for refusing to remove rubbish from the guards' quarters. The answer to the third part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the fourth, I remitted the punishment on 9th October, after consultation with the commandant, and arranged with him that the men should no longer be required to perform this particular fatigue.
    Mr. FLAVINasked the Home Secretary whether any of the Irish prisoners interned in Frongoch Camp have, owing to their confinement, been removed from there as lunatics, and, if so, how many; when did the removal take place; and what lunatic asylum are they now confined in?
    Mr. SAMUEL: William Thomas Halpin is the only prisoner at Frongoch who has been certified as insane. He was removed
    1284
    to the North Wales Counties Lunatic Asylum, Denbigh, on 3rd August, where he still remains.
    Mr. FLAVIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in this man's family there has never been any tinge of lunacy? If while he was confined at Frongoch Camp he became a lunatic, why was he not released?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I believed the man showed signs of insanity very soon after reaching the camp, and as soon as the necessary arrangements could be made and certification made he was transferred to a lunatic asylum.
    Mr. FLAVIN: If he showed any signs of lunacy was not that the time for the medical officer at Frongoch to recommend his release immediately, rather than keep him there until he became a lunatic?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I have no doubt he took all the necessary measures in this sad case.

    REBURIAL OF EXECUTED MEN.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Prime Minister whether, in the interest of reconciliation, the Government will accede to the desire of Irish people of all classes and allow the remains of the men executed last May to be removed from the places in which they now lie and buried in consecrated ground on the 2nd of November next?
    Mr. DUKE: The Government is unable to take the course suggested by the hon. Member.
    Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why?

    MAJOR PRICE.
    Mr. DEVLINasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the charge made in this House that Major Price visited John MacNeill in prison and offered him certain terms if he would consent to implicate two hon. Members of this House in the recent rebellion, and of the admission made by the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland that Major Price had visited Mr. MacNeill in prison for the purpose of obtaining information, he will appoint a Select Committee of this House to investigate the conduct of Major Price, and to inquire by whose advice or authority Major Price was authorised to offer terms to a prisoner awaiting trial?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have not yet quite completed my inquiries in this matter, but I will give a definite answer on Tuesday.

    ALIENS IN GOVERNMENT OFFICES.
    Colonel GRIFFITHSasked the Home Secretary if he will state the number, if any, and names of any Civil servants employed in his Department who are of enemy origin; and, in the event of there being such employé s of enemy origin, if he will for the period of the War take necessary steps to replace them by men of undoubted British origin?
    Mr. SAMUEL: All persons employed in the Home Office are natural-born British subjects, and I believe that there is no one now working in the office whose father was not a natural-born British subject.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Have they recently appointed a Judge-Advocate-General who was born in Germany and is an official of the right hon. Gentleman's Department?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question.
    Colonel GRIFFITHS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the reason why I put that question?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman cannot possibly know what is in the mind of the hon. Member.
    Mr. PETOasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the fact that a girl of German nationality, named Bastendorf, is employed at the Command Pay Office, Regent Street, under Major Donajowski; and whether, considering the confidential nature of the information dealt with in this office, he will see that she is removed from this position and that in future persons of alien enemy nationality are not employed in any capacity in positions where they can obtain information of use to the enemy?
    Mr. FORSTER: My hon. Friend will be glad to learn that this girl's father is serving in the Royal Field Artillery in France. Her grandfather fought in the Franco-Prussian War on the French side. After that war her grandparents came to England and have resided here since.

    NATURALISED ENEMY ALIENS.
    Major HUNTasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the fact that persons of enemy alien origin have become naturalised and changed their names during the War as well as before it in order to keep German capital and businesses in this country, he can now say what steps the Government have taken in these cases to get rid of German commercial and money interests during and after the War?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I am not sure that the matter is one in which I have any jurisdiction. But if the hon. and gallant Member will furnish me with any instances I shall be glad to give them consideration.

    OFFICIAL REPORTS OF DEBATES (TRANSMISSION ABROAD).
    Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Home Secretary if his attention has been drawn to a passage in a letter written by the hon. Member for North Somerset, which was read at Bow Street on Friday last, in which it was stated that a speech in this House which was not reported in the Press had been translated and published in full in Switzerland and Germany, presumably from the official verbatim Reports; and if he will state if the Official Reports of Debates are allowed to be sent or taken out of this country without any restrictions?
    Mr. FORSTER: There are no restrictions.

    SHOPS (EARLIER CLOSING).
    Captain BARNETTasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the fact that the new Shop-Closing Order allows shops to remain open until 9 p.m. on Saturdays, the Order can be amended so as to make the closing hour on the other days of the week 8 p.m. instead of 7 p.m., as at present proposed?
    Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the closing of all shops at 7 p.m. must cause inconvenience to a large body of persons, more especially to women engaged in clerical work; that in many cases it will necessitate women giving up working overtime and so lowering their weekly wage; and can he see his

    1287
    way to modify the arrangements so as to allow of certain food shops remaining open until 7.45 p.m.?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The question of the effect of the Closing Order on the small shopkeepers and on the convenience of the working classes was very fully considered. After consultation with several of the largest local authorities and with the Labour Adviser of the Government, it was decided to fix the hours at 8 o'clock on Fridays, 9 on Saturdays, and 7 on the other days of the week. From some quarters earlier hours had been suggested, and they have, indeed, already been adopted in many places. The Order exempts the sale of meals to be consumed on the premises or newly-cooked provisions to be consumed off the premises. I would add that I have been pressed by the organisations representing the great retail trades to make this Order.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that this regulation plays directly into the hands of the great firms and means absolute ruin to nine-tenths of the small traders?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I cannot accept that. After all, it only affects them on three days of the week as a rule. They are allowed to keep open till 9 o'clock on Saturdays, and till 8 on Fridays. On Sundays they are as a rule closed, and there is an early closing day for most of the shopkeepers, so it only applies on three days of the week.
    Captain BARNETT: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, I will raise the question this evening on the Adjournment.
    Major NEWMANasked under what Act the recent Order as to the early closing of shops has been made; and have the Government, before making the Order, considered the loss of trade that will be inflicted on suburban retail businesses whose customers are largely the class that only return to their homes after the new hour of closing, and, in the case of tobacconists, to the fact that intending purchasers will be diverted to licensed premises or clubs for the purchase of their tobacco?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The Order has been made under the powers conferred by No. 10b of the Defence of the Realm Regula-
    1288
    tions. The position of suburban businesses was carefully considered before the Order was made. It will not be permissible under the Order for licensed victuallers or other retail traders to sell tobacco after the hour at which tobacconists are required to close.
    Mr. BROOKESasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider the possibility of extending the hours during the Christmas holidays beyond those now laid down for the closing of the shops under his new Departmental Order?
    Mr. SAMUEL: Yes, Sir; this matter will certainly receive consideration. No reference was made to Christmas trade in the Order because I am anxious to consult the local authorities further on the point. A decision will be reached in good time.
    Mr. YEOasked the Home Secretary if he has fully considered the injustice that will be inflicted upon the small shopkeeper who, under the new Regulations, will be obliged to close at 7 p.m.; if such places as picture palaces, theatres, public-houses, and bookstalls are to be permitted to sell such articles as are usually sold by the small shopkeeper as tobacco and confectionery after 7 p.m. when the shopkeeper is closed; and if he will cause all dealers in the same article to be placed on the same footing?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. The Order is intended to place all retail trade under the same restrictions, subject to the exceptions specified in the terms of the Order itself. I am advised that it will not be permissible under the Order for tobacco and confectionery to be sold on premises such as are referred to by the hon. Member after the hour at which tobaconnists' and confectioners' shops are required to be closed.
    Mr. YEO: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the opposition to this Order would be withdrawn and satisfaction would result if an eight o'clock limit was allowed to the poor struggling shopkeepers who have no combination to protect themselves like the great shopkeepers?
    Mr. SAMUEL: That is a question similar to that which I have just answered. I think that the opposition on the part of certain traders is due to the fact that they

    1289
    are under a misapprehension which I have met in the answer to the question. They think that while they are closed certain competitors are open. That is not so.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Does that mean that a hotel or restaurant must not provide a cigar after closing time—after eight o'clock?
    Mr. SAMUEL: Yes.
    Mr. MCNEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the retail confectionery trade depends largely upon the public amusements with which they are connected, and if public amusements are allowed to be open to a late hour, will there not be a great loss to that trade, and to a much greater extent to the tobacconist trade?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I can hardly accept that. On the questions generally of tobacconists and confectioners at a time when the most earnest appeals are made to the whole nation to avoid any form of unnecessary expenditure, I hardly think that the House would desire that a special exception should be made in order to enable tobacco and confectionery to be purchased up to a late hour.
    Mr. McNEILLrose—
    Mr. SPEAKER: It is very advisable to get through the questions.
    Mr. W. THORNE: This is a very important question. [Hon. MEMBERS: "Order!"]
    Mr. SPEAKER: Question Time has been extended on purpose to enable questions to be answered, and hon. Members really must not occupy time unduly with supplementary questions.

    INTERNATIONAL PEACE CONFERENCE.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Prime Minister if he is in a position to state for the information of the small nations whose cause the Allies unanimously champion what representation the Allies consider that each of the small nations, especially Poland and Ireland, ought to have at the International Peace Conference to follow the War; what steps have been taken to ascertain whether the small nations in
    1290
    question concur in that view; and whether the Allies agree that the adult inhabitants in each case should be left free to appoint genuine representatives?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have nothing to add to what I have already said in public in regard to peace terms.
    Mr. GINNELL: Does that mean that the pretence of fighting for small nationalities is all humbug?

    CIVIL LIABILITIES COMMITTEE.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that Reservists cannot apply to the Civil Liabilities Committee for relief; and whether he proposes to extend the benefits of this Committee to those men?
    Mr. ASHLEYasked the Secretary to the Local Government Board whether Reservists who were mobilised in 1914 come within the scope of the Military Service (Civil Liabilities) scheme?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: The scheme does not at present apply to Reservists, but the question of their inclusion is receiving consideration.

    VENEREAL DISEASE.
    Colonel GRIFFITHSasked the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to various resolutions passed by public bodies calling for Government action in regard to the increase of venereal disease; and whether immediate steps will be taken with a view to notification and compulsory treatment, and thus mitigate the danger arising to innocent persons by contagion and also to safeguard the welfare and health of our troops?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: My attention has been drawn to the resolutions referred to. As the House is aware the Government have already taken definite action in accordance with the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Venereal Diseases. That Commission, however, came to the unanimous conclusion that no system of notification of these diseases should be put in force at the present time, and after careful consideration I am satisfied that more progress is likely to be

    1291
    achieved in the immediate future in diminishing these diseases by following their recommendation than by taking the steps indicated in the resolutions.
    Mr. ANDERSON: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the manifesto signed by Mrs. Pankhurst, Mrs. Lloyd George, and other ladies upon this question, and can he say whether the Government, before they take action—if they intend to take any action—in the direction of the compulsory notification of venereal disease, will consider that the whole weight of expert evidence is in the direction of showing that this would have exactly a contrary effect; that it would drive the matter underground and—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech!"]
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is stating arguments.

    PRISONERS OF WAR.
    Mr. MALCOLMasked the Prime Minister whether the recent decision of His Majesty's Government that the War Office would in future be responsible for the exchange, repatriation, and internment of prisoners of war affects the powers of Lord Newton's Interdepartmental Committee set up by the Secretary of State for the Home Department; and whether the latter body still controls the policy concerning these matters?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Lord Newton's Committee has never controlled policy in these matters. Large questions of policy are in the last resort determined by the War Committee, which in regard to prisoners of war acts on the view that military considerations, of which military or naval authorities are the proper judges, should predominate. The question of prisoners is a complicated one which, from the nature of the case, cannot be confined to any one Department.
    Mr. MALCOLM: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether Lord Newton's Committee is still in existence?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes.
    Mr. MALCOLM: For what purpose?
    The PRIME MINISTER: For all the purposes except those which have been specially referred to the War Office.
    Sir E. CARSON: What Minister will answer questions on this subject?
    The PRIME MINISTER: There is another question on the Paper.
    Mr. MALCOLMasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that during the past fortnight four of His Majesty's Ministers have been answering questions connected with prisoners of war; and what steps are being taken to fulfil the promise that one member of the Government would answer all such questions?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I was not aware of the occurrence mentioned in the first part of the question, and am sorry to hear of it. Steps are being taken to fulfil this promise, and such questions will in future be answered by my hon Friend the Treasurer of the Household.
    Mr. MALCOLM: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that prisoner questions addressed to the War Office side or to the Foreign Office side will be answered by the Treasurer of the Household?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The only exception is that questions in regard to the administration of civil internment camps in this country will continue to be addressed to the Home Office.

    ENEMY ALIENS.
    Mr. RONALD MCNEILLasked the Prime Minister whether the consideration which he has given to the whole question of the treatment of alien enemies after the War has yet led to any decision on the matter; and if he will say what course he proposes to adopt?
    The PRIME MINISTER: This matter, which is a complex one, is still under consideration.
    Mr. McNEILL: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that after three months' cogitation on the subject some decision might have been arrived at?
    The PRIME MINISTER: It has not yet reached its full fruition.

    BANK HOLIDAYS.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the Bank Holidays at

    1293
    Whitsuntide and August were cancelled for State purposes, he will consider the possibility of making some arrangement, as was done in the case of the munition workers, so that bank clerks may not be deprived of the holidays due to them?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am not at present able to make any definite statement, but the question is receiving sympathetic consideration, and I trust that it will be possible to make arrangements on the lines suggested.

    FOREIGN AFFAIRS (SECRET SITTING).
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has no longer a seat in this House, he will arrange a Secret Sitting at which the Secretary of State may discuss with Members of this House important matters relating to his office on which it is desirable that Members should be kept well informed?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I see no necessity for any such sitting, especially as the Foreign Office is so well represented in this House by my Noble Friend the Under-Secretary, who has a seat in the Cabinet.
    Mr. LYNCH: Is there not some necessity to assure the minds of Members after the disastrous results of the diplomacy of the right hon. Gentleman?

  PENSIONS BOARD.

    CREATION OF NEW DEPARTMENT.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister whether he can now state the Cabinet's decision about a single pension authority; whether he proposes to reconstitute the old Select Committee to reconsider the existing scale of pensions; and whether he proposes also to refer to them the consideration of any increase on the existing scale of separation allowances in view of the continuing increase in the cost of living or to deal with this in any other way.
    The PRIME MINISTER: The question of setting up a single pension authority cannot be determined without regard to the distinction existing between pensions
    1294
    and grants which arise only in consequence of the War and the long-service pensions which are earned both in peace and war and the administration of which may be regarded as part of the regular business of the Naval and Military Departments. Subject to that reservation, the Cabinet Committee has recommended, and the Cabinet have approved, the appointment of a Pensions Board, with a Cabinet Minister at its head, to deal with the matter. The terms of the Bill, which must be introduced in order to give effect to the recommendation, have not yet been finally settled, hut I hope it will be brought in at a very early date.
    Sir H. CRAIK: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what will be the relation between this Pensions Board and the Statutory Committee?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That is just one of the points which will be fully explained when the Bill is introduced.
    Mr. HOGGE: Will the Bill be introduced as soon as possible?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether it is intended that this Board should work through the local pensions committees?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That again is a question which has to be reserved for the introduction of the Bill.

    DISABLED MEN.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister whether he proposes to make any temporary provision for disabled men whose disability is said not to be due to or aggravated by service until such time as other and permanent arrangements are made to deal with them?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am advised that, in the opinion of the Departments concerned, the answer should for the present be in the negative.
    Mr. HOGGE: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen a statement by the Paymaster-General that the cases of men accepted as medically fit and discharged as suffering from disease due to service must be con-

    1295
    sidered by Parliament, and where the separation allowance to wives and children ceases immediately and neither pension nor separation allowance is paid would he consider giving the temporary allowance until the matter is finally adjusted?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Of course I will consider it, but I must leave it to the Statutory Committee.

    THRIFT.
    Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the urgency for thrift and the effect on thrift attained under the No-Treating Order, he would take measures to have the importance of the strict execution of this Order brought home to magistrates and the police?
    Mr. SAMUEL: As each Order of the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) containing the "no-treating" provision has been made, circulars have been issued to the police by my Department drawing special attention to this provision. Circulars also go to the magistrates; and I have every reason to believe that all concerned are fully alive to the importance of enforcing this Regulation.

    INN SERVANTS (HOURS OF WORK).
    Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state what are the respective numbers of inn servants, including barmen and barmaids, and of inn-keepers; what the average hours of labour were before the War for barmen and barmaids in London and in the provinces, respectively; whether, as a result of the restriction orders now in force in scheduled areas, these hours of labour have been reduced; and, if so, to what extent and in what proportion of the total number of houses?
    Mr. SAMUEL: As regards the first part of the question, I can only refer the hon. Member to the information given in the 1911 Census tables. I am not aware of any more recent figures. As regards the remainder of the question, I regret that I am not in possession of any statistics.

    OFFENDING PUBLICATION.
    Mr. R. LAMBERTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that David Sheriff, of Kelso, has been charged with having in his possession without lawful authority or excuse copies of a newspaper called the "Tribunal"; and also that Ernest William Venner was fined£10, or in default two months' imprisonment, by the Gateshead Bench, for distributing copies of the same journal, although the issue in question had been submitted to the Press Bureau and returned as suitable for publication; whether he still adheres to the view that the right course to test the legality of leaflets, etc., was to take proceedings against the publishers or authors, and that only after that had been done and the leaflet condemned by a Court should local action be taken to stop any continued circulation; and, if so, if he will explain why this course was not adopted in the cases named?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I will communicate with the Secretary for Scotland with respect to the first case. The second case came before the Gateshead Bench on 16th June, which was before the arrangements described in my speech of 29th June, to which the hon. Member refers, came into operation. Those arrangements are working satisfactorily.

    CIVIL SERVANTS (ENEMY ALIEN ORIGIN).
    Colonel GRIFFITHSasked the President of the Board of Trade if there are employed in his Department Civil servants who are of enemy origin; if so, whether he will state the number and names of any coming under this category; and, in the event of there being such employés of enemy origin, if he will, for the period of the War, take necessary steps to replace them by men of undoubted British origin?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Pretyman): Out of a staff of nearly 7,000, only two officials are of alien enemy birth, and they have both been naturalised. They are in subordinate positions and are working loyally and well, and I do not think it necessary to adopt the suggestion made in the last part of the hon. Member's question.

    ENEMY ALIEN FIRMS.
    Colonel GRIFFITHSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that the money in the hands of the Public Trustee arising from liquidation of German interests in this country amounts to only£2,213,224, he will state the approximate value of other German concerns in this country which have not yet been liquidated; and whether he will state the approximate value of enemy concerns which are in course of liquidation the funds of which have not yet come into the hands of the Public Trustee?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I regret that I am unable to give any reliable estimate on these points. It should be borne in mind that the sums held by the Public Trustee as the result of liquidation of enemy businesses is only the net amount which remains after satisfying all non-enemy creditors.
    Colonel GRIFFITHS: Will the hon. Gentleman inquire whether the enemy alien interests in this country did not approach somewhere about£100,000,000, and is it not very slow progress that only£2,000,000 has been received by the Public Trustee in closing up enemy-owned establishments?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: What the Board of Trade do is to get rid of enemy control—not necessarily taking possession of all the property in this country which, might at the beginning of the War have had enemy ownership. The two things are quite different.
    Mr. PENNEFATHERasked whether any assets of or shares in enemy trading concerns have been sold to naturalised persons of enemy origin; if so, what is the total value of the shares or assets sold to such persons; and whether any guarantee has been obtained that such assets or shares shall not be resold to enemy subjects after the War?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: It is not practicable to make an invariable rule excluding naturalised persons of enemy origin from the purchase of the assets of enemy businesses or shares. I am unable to give the total value of the property sold to such persons, but it is not large. Where the shares of a company controlled by enemies are sold, it is the practice to require the articles of association to be altered so as to exclude foreign control in the future.
    Colonel GRIFFITHS: Would it not be advisable to put such properties up to auction?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Not in every case. Very often it is done, but we must treat each case on its merits.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Are these shares offered publicly or sold privately?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: It varies according to the different features of the case. It is impossible to lay down a general rule to cover all cases.
    Sir J. LONSDALEasked the President of the Board of Trade the number and the aggregate nominal value of shares held by enemy subjects in British companies, as returned by secretaries of companies to the Public Trustee; and what progress has been made up to the present time in the sale and transfer of such shares to British holders?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: The returns made by British companies to the Public Trustee show a total nominal amount of£31,691,724 of ordinary, preference, and debenture capital held by enemies. This total, which includes a considerable amount of capital in companies registered in the Dominions, is estimated to represent not more than ½ per cent. of the capital of British companies as a whole. These enemy securities are not as a general rule being sold except where the particular company is within the provisions of Section 1 of the Trading With the Enemy (Amendment) Act, 1916, when the company is dealt with either by winding-up or by the alternative method of vesting the shares in the custodian for the purpose of sale.
    Sir H. DALZIELasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is in a position to state that, in cases where enemy interests are disposed of, those interests are not transferred, either directly or indirectly, to enemy-born although naturalised subjects; and if he recognises the necessity, besides eliminating German association, to take measures in financial, commercial, and industrial spheres to suppress German methods?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Enemy interests are not as a rule transferred to naturalised British subjects of enemy birth, but it is not practicable to exclude such purchasers in all cases. The other point raised is not one which can be dealt with satisfactorily by an answer to a question.
    Sir H. DALZIELasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will put the House in possession of the contents of the circular issued by his Department to controllers and liquidators of enemy companies and firms?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I will lay a copy of the circular referred to on the Table of the House. Its issue was commenced early last August.
    Sir C. HENRY: Will the hon. Gentleman give particulars as to the supervision of controllers?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I must lay the Paper on the Table. It is merely a circular.
    Sir E. CARSON: When will the Paper be laid?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: At once.
    Sir C. HENRY: Will the hon. Gentleman give the regulations issued by the supervisors of controllers?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman means by the supervisors of controllers.
    Major HUNTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that he received a petition on 12th August last from all the leading leather and hide merchants in London asking that the firm of Benjamin Brothers should be wound up, as being prejudicial to British trade, he will say why no answer has yet been received?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: The petition referred to was received by the Board on the date mentioned and an acknowledgement was sent on 15th August. The case was referred to the Board's Advisory Committee, who reported that Section 1 of the Trading With the Enemy (Amendment) Act, 1916, under which winding-up orders are made, is not applicable unless Albert Benjamin, who is stated to have been born at the British Legation at Hanover, is an enemy subject. That question is now before the Court upon an application for a declaration of nationality.
    Major HUNT: Is this Act going to be altered so as to take these cases in?

    FOOD PRICES.
    Mr. LESLIE SCOTTasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state what, if any, steps have been taken
    1300
    on the lines suggested in the Report of the Committee on Food Prices towards providing the labour necessary to maintain the flow of traffic through the ports?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: The Board of Trade are fully alive to the importance of this matter. They are in process of consulting the Port Labour Committees which have been set up in the principal ports, and they are also in communication with the Port and Transit Executive Committee which has under its control a Transport Workers' Battalion available for use at ports where there is an ascertained shortage of labour.

    FOOD SUPPLY (IRELAND).
    Mr. BYRNEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will take the necessary steps to safeguard for Ireland a supply of sugar, wheat, potatoes, milk, and other essential foodstuffs at reasonable prices; and if he will see that coal will also be supplied at prices suitable to the purses of the working classes?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: In the steps taken by the Government to safeguard the supplies of necessaries in the United Kingdom the needs of Ireland receive and will continue to receive full consideration.
    Mr. BYRNE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is almost impossible at present for the Irish shopkeepers to get a supply of sugar?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I will have the matter looked into, but I am afraid that many shopkeepers in this country are in the same position.

    PATENT FEES.
    Mr. RENDALLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that British engineers, by placing their whole plant and energies at the disposal of the Government for the manufacture of munitions, have been prevented from producing many of their patented productions; that the annual renewing fees for such patents are still payable and paid; that the periods for which these patents exist are nevertheless running out; and will he bring in legislation to so extend existing patents as to substitute additional time during which a patent shall run for the period during which the manufacturer is prevented from producing it owing to the nation's call on his services?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Proposals for dealing with this matter will be included in the measure amending the Patents and Designs Act, which I hope to be in a position to introduce before very long.

    INTELLIGENCE DEPARTMENT (BOARD OF TRADE).
    Mr. PENNEFATHERasked what relationship will exist between the newly-constituted Intelligence Department of the Board of Trade and the Foreign Office and the consular service?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: This matter is now being considered in consultation between the Foreign Office and the Board of Trade.

    LABOUR SHORTAGE (GERMAN PRISONERS).
    Mr. MALCOLMasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in order to reduce the shortage of labour in the ports of Great Britain, he will consider the advantage of employing German prisoners of war for this purpose?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I am afraid there are grave objections to the adoption of the suggestion made in the question, but I will consult the Departments concerned.
    Sir J. D. REES: Are not German prisoners of war at present employed on various works of public utility?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Yes, but not in ports.
    Mr. MALCOLM: Are they not used at Rouen at present?

    EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will give instructions that the Labour Exchanges shall refuse to accept applications from employers which are accompanied by an intimation that only workmen of a particular religious belief will be employed?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: It is, I think, undesirable that the Employment Exchanges should assume the responsibility of determining whether the conditions attached by employers or workmen to their appli-
    1302
    cations are reasonable. It is the duty of the Exchanges to communicate to applicants for employment all the conditions attached to any vacancy for which the applicants appear to be suitable, and it is for the individual applicant, and not for the Exchange, to decide whether, in view of any particular condition, the employment can be accepted. In the case of a condition such as that referred to here, the Exchange would not, of course, undertake any responsibility for seeing that the applicant fulfilled that condition.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: While that is true in general conditions of employment, is it not desirable that a public Department should dissociate itself from any attempt on the part of private firms to practise religious persecution?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: It does not associate itself with any such practice.
    Mr. PR INGLE: Should a public Department be the agent for an employer who is imposing religious tests?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: The Department is not the agent.
    Mr. PRINGLE: If it finds employés for the man it is making itself his agent.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: The Board of Trade have just the control over the agent of the workmen as the agent of the employer.

    OUTPUT OF BEER.
    Mr. TICKLERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that a firm of Lincolnshire brewers, who hitherto brewed at two breweries but who. since April, 1915, have closed down one of those breweries, and who, under Section 2 of the Output of Beer (Restriction) Act, 1916, have given notice to the Commissioners of Customs and Excise of their intention to restrict their output for the current year to 30 per cent. below that of the year ended 30th September, 1914, have been informed by the Commissioners that, in calculating their output, they will not be allowed to include the barrelage of the closed brewery; and, if so, whether he will say on what grounds the Commissioners' ruling, which has the effect of depriving this firm of the relief given to other brewers by the Section, is based?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave to

    1303
    a somewhat similar question put to me yesterday by the hon. Member for the St. Augustine's Division of Kent.

    SS. "PEINZ ADALBERT."
    Sir E. CORNWALLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will say what enemy prize ships have been sold by order of the Marshal of the Admiralty, what amounts they were sold for, and whether he can give any information as to the amounts they were resold for after the auction; whether it is now proposed to offer by auction the prize steamer "Prinz Adalbert"; and, if so, why this course is taken in preference to the Government taking over the vessel and retaining its use during the continuance of the War?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): I will send my hon. Friend a list of enemy prize ships which have been sold by order of the Marshal of the Admiralty, showing the amounts they were sold for. But there are, of course, no official records of any resales that may have taken place, and we have no control over these vessels when once they have been sold. I should add that it is our policy to requisition every condemned prize that we can profitably use. As regards the prize "Prinz Adalbert," we have been using her on Government service, but we now propose to sell her by auction. I should add that she is not suitable for conveying troops, and being fitted up for passage traffic it is not considered economical to incur the expenditure that would be necessary to adapt her for other purposes.

    TRADE BANK.
    Mr. JACOBSENasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the desire among the mercantile community of this country that the new trade bank proposed by Lord Faringdon's Committee, which was appointed to investigate the question of financial facilities for trade, should be set up at the earliest possible moment so that preparations may be made for after-war trade; and will he, at an early date, take steps to carry this into effect?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I am aware of the desire referred to, and I hope that active steps will be taken to set up the suggested organisation.

    MILK PRICES.
    Mr. JACOBSENasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the action of the Cheshire Milk Producers' Association, which is largely composed of farmers from other districts, in advancing the price of milk to 5d. per quart in the Bredbury and Romilly, Cheshire, districts, and refusing to continue afternoon deliveries; whether he is aware that one of the largest farmers in the district who refuses to increase his price is being subjected to pressure to induce him to do so; that in Derbyshire, the adjoining county, which is under similar conditions, the price of milk is 3d. per quart; if he has seen the statement made publicly by the secretary of the association above referred to, that if any Government interference was put into effect there would in future be a great reduction in the number of cows, and the animals would disappear from the countryside; and if he would take steps to protect the public by commandeering these cows at a fair price and establishing Government milk farms?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I am causing inquiries to be made into the matters dealt with in the question, and will communicate the result in due course to the hon. Member.
    Mr. JACOBSENasked the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been called to the action of the Cheshire Milk Producers' Association in raising the price of milk to 5d. per quart and discontinuing the afternoon delivery in Bredbury and Romiley, Cheshire; whether he has seen the report of the district medical officer of health to the local council that already he had met with cases of infantile sickness (gastroenteritis) which appeared to be attributable to the sour milk consumed; whether he is aware that the local council invited the association to meet the council to consider the new conditions, which invitation was not complied with; and if he will cause an official inquiry to be made with a view to remedying the position which has arisen?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: The hon. Member has been good enough to send some papers relating to this matter to my right hon. Friend, who is communicating with the district council with a view to obtaining a report from the medical officer of health.

    FISHERY BOARD, SCOTLAND (HARBOUR IMPROVEMENTS).
    Mr. HUGH LAWasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the record of engineering works on pages 89–94 of the 34th Annual Report of the Fishery Board for Scotland, and to the numerous payments therein referred to as having been made in the year 1915 out of the Development Fund as free grants and loans in respect of various harbour improvements in Scotland; and whether the Treasury will explain upon what principle these payments have been made for Scottish harbour works while in all cases of harbour improvements in the western half of Ireland, scheduled as congested, the Treasury decided in every instance, except that of Baltimore, county Cork, that no payments should be made out of the Development Fund during the War, although all preparation had been made locally for carrying out harbour improvements at Buncrana, Rathmullen, Burtonport, and Dingle, with aid from the Development Fund as approved by the Treasury?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. McKinnon Wood): Yes, Sir; I have referred to the Report in question. Payments have been made for harbour improvements from the Development Fund during the year 1915 only in cases where contracts had already been entered into and extra cost would have been involved by breaking the contracts, or where work was urgently required to secure the safety of existing harbour structures. There has been no differentiation between the cases of Scotland and Ireland in the application of these principles.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the annual Grant of£200,000 to the Scottish Board of Agriculture has been taken away, and that there has been no equivalent reduction on the expenditure in Ireland?

    BRITISH REPATRIATED CIVILIAN PRISONERS.
    Mr. MALCOLMasked the President of the Local Government Board whether there is any organisation under the control of His Majesty's Government for securing hospital or sanatorium treatment for British civilian prisoners repatriated from
    1306
    enemy countries for maintaining them and assisting them to get employment if they should desire such assistance?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: The Government Committee on the Prevention and Relief of Distress have made arrangements with the Central Charities Committee for the care of British civilian prisoners released from internment in enemy countries. The Central Charities Committee meets them at the port of arrival, affords temporary assistance and shelter to those in need, arranges for the provision of medical and hospital treatment for sick cases (other than the serious cases, which are dealt with by the Red Cross Society), and helps them to obtain employment. Those who have homes in this country are provided in case of need with their railway fares, and if on reaching home they still require assistance they come under the care of the Local Representative Committee. The expenses of the Central Charities Committee are met out of grants from the National Relief Fund.

    DISABLED SOLDIERS (TREATMENT AND INSTRUCTION).
    Captain C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Local Government Board to what extent curative workshops are being provided in connection with. Red Cross hospitals or soldiers' convalescent homes throughout the country; and whether any attempt is being made to give agricultural or other vocational instruction to the thousands of partially-disabled soldiers in these institutions who are suffering from ennui owing to their enforced idleness, and whose injuries will prevent their returning to their former employment?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: This is one part of the general questions which is at present under consideration between the Army Council and the Statutory Committee. I can assure my hon. Friend that the Statutory Committee fully appreciate the importance of the matter to which he refers.
    Colonel Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that all the work of restoring disabled soldiers to complete health is completely at a standstill owing to the inability of the Secretary of State for War to make up his mind as to whether the duty should be entrusted to the War Office or to the Statutory Committee!
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I am aware this matter is awaiting final decision by the War Office.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: May I ask whether this matter has been under his consideration for a very long time now, and that the whole work is at a standstill owing to this great delay?
    Sir E. CARSON: When may we hope to have the matter settled, or is it going on for ever?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: That does not rest with the Statutory Committee; it rests with the War Office.

    GROWING CROPS (DAMAGE BY GAME).
    Sir R. WINFREYasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether he will cause inquiry to be made as to the amount of damage caused by winged and other game to the growing crops of potatoes and carrots upon the reclamation farm at Methwold, Norfolk, under the management of Dr. Edwards, acting for the Development Commissioners; and whether he will consider the advisability of suspending the Game Laws for the period of the War in order that this game may be destroyed by the tenant and the food supply from this farm thereby increased?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Acland): Some inquiry has been made into this case since my hon. Friend put down the question, and the results show that the damage by game this season on the farm is in excess of that done in normal seasons owing to the small amount of shooting which took place during the two preceding seasons. Further inquiry will be made with a view to ascertaining whether the game cannot be better kept down by those whose duty it is to do so. But as at present advised, the Board see no reason to alter their view as to the suspension of the Game Laws which was communicated to my hon. Friend in answer to a question on 27th June last.

    BRITISH WHEAT CROP.
    Captain C. BATHURSTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether the official figures of the Board of Agriculture for 1916 show that
    1308
    the general wheat average for Great Britain stands at only 88.8 per cent. of a full crop and the yield at 31 bushels per acre, as compared with 93 per cent. and nearly 33 bushels, respectively, as the average for the previous decade?
    Mr. ACLAND: The figures quoted by the hon. and gallant Member are not official, nor, so far as official figures are available for comparison, do they agree with them. The only complete figures of the wheat crop of the present year which are available are those of acreage, and they show an excess of 141,103 acres (nearly 7.7 per cent.) above the average for the ten years 1906–1915. The official average yield for that decade is 32.15 bushels per acre, and not nearly 33 as stated; that for the present year cannot be stated until the detailed returns furnished by the Board's crop reporters have all been received and summarised. It is hoped that their full tabulation will be completed very shortly. The forecast published in September indicated a yield per acre about 3 or 4 per cent. below average.

    GOVERNMENT EMPLOYES (WAR BONUS).
    Mr. DICKINSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether His Majesty's Government have granted to male employés over eighteen years of age a war bonus in respect of the increase in the cost of living, and to female employés above that age one half the amount of the war bonus allowed to such male employé s; and what is the justification for this differentiation in the treatment of men and women?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I would refer my right hon. Friend to the reply given by me to the Noble Lord the Member for Nottingham, South, on the 17th instant, of which I am sending him a copy.

    NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS, IRELAND (PENSIONS).
    Mr. KEATINGasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will take steps to extend the benefit of a war bonus to retired teachers in Ireland, seeing that in no case the amount of pension is more than half of the former salary?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. McKenna): This question is one in the first instance for the consideration of the Irish Government.
    Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Has the right hon. Gentleman received a petition asking for a war bonus; if so, as he has stated it is a matter for the Irish Government, will he forward that petition to the Chief Secretary for Ireland?
    Mr. McKENNA: If I have received a petition I have no doubt that I have forwarded it to the Irish Government.
    Mr. KEATINGasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the workhouse teachers in Ireland were left out of the Birrell grant by mistake, as their salaries are paid out of the Local Taxation Account; and whether he will take steps to extend the benefit of a war bonus to workhouse teachers, seeing that they are subject to the same conditions of training, teaching, and inspection as the national teachers?
    Mr. McKENNA: The Treasury is not responsible for the payment of salary to workhouse teachers, and I cannot undertake to extend a war bonus to them.
    Mr. KEATING: Is it possible for the right hon. Gentleman to take any steps?
    Mr. McKENNA: The salaries are paid from the rates.

    INCOME TAX (ASSESSMENTS).
    Mr. TICKLERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that commissioned officers in the Army are being assessed at the full rate for Income Tax when their total income from all sources is less than£300 per year; and will he issue instructions to surveyors that their action in demanding payment at the higher rate is not in accordance with Section 25 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am unaware of any instance in which Service pay is being denied the advantage of the special rates of Income Tax. I should, however, be most happy to have inquiry made into any case which the hon. Member may think is being treated on different lines.
    Sir E. LAMBasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Inland Revenue have given directions to surveyors of taxes that, where the Com-
    1310
    missioners are willing that clerks, travellers, warehousemen, and other persons employed in a similar subordinate capacity by limited liability companies should be assessed on an average of the three preceding years, no objection should be offered by the surveyor; and, if so, whether he will also arrange for such average to be allowed to persons in receipt of pay from public funds who are employed in a similar subordinate capacity?
    Mr. McKENNA: My hon. Friend is under a misapprehension in supposing that any new instructions have been issued by the Board of Inland Revenue on the subject referred to, as the mode of assessment indicated has been in operation for over forty years.

    GERMAN BANKS IN LONDON.
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state precisely what remains to be done in the winding-up of the Deutsche, Dresdner, and Disconto-Gesellschaft Banks, respectively, and in particular what is the amount of the outstanding liabilities of each bank to creditors other than enemy alien creditors; and whether there is any reason for carrying on the business of these banks after such outstanding liabilities have been paid or provided for?
    Mr. McKENNA: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will circulate with the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement many pages long setting out the whole circumstances in this matter.
    Mr. BUTCHER: After the outstanding liabilities to creditors other than enemy aliens have been discharged, will the business come to an end?
    Mr. McKENNA: I think the hon. Gentleman will see that all the circumstances are dealt with in the statement which I will circulate.

    GOVERNMENT SECURITIES.
    Mr. D. MASONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will inform the House what is the character of the Government securities held in the Currency Note Redemption Account and what becomes of the interest on such securities; and is any of it credited to the Investments Reserve Account of the currency note issue?
    Mr. McKENNA: The Government securities consist for the most part of Ways and Means advances to the Exchequer (at call) and of Treasury Bills. The balance consists of 4½per Cent. War Loan. Under the arrangements set out in Treasury Minute of 3rd May, 1915, which was presented to Parliament (Cd. 7918) the whole of the interest received up to date has been credited to the Investments Reserve Account.
    Mr. MASON: Arising out of that reply, and in view of the statement the other day by the President of the Board of Trade that one of the causes of the rise in the prices of commodities was the inflation of the currency, may I ask what steps the Chancellor of the Exchequer now proposes to take?
    Mr. McKENNA: I have inquired of the President of the Board of Trade, and he made no such statement.
    An HON. MEMBER: Oh, yes, he did!
    Mr. McKENNA: He stated that the inflation of the currency was all the world over.

    H.M.S. "MOLDAVIA."
    Mr. T. WILSONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the crew of His Majesty's ship "Moldavia" were signed on at Glasgow at the current rates of wages for that port; that on 23rd September the crew were mustered and asked to sign new articles at a reduction, in the case of stewards of 15s. per month; that it was intimated that those who refused would only remain until the ship reached port; whether the measurements of any of the men who refused were taken; and what steps it is proposed to take to prevent illegal pressure to break articles and to force men to accept reductions of wages under an implied threat that they will be handed to the military authorities?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The facts of the case are substantially as stated in the question, except that the majority of the crew were engaged in London in January, 1916. The agreement under which these men are engaged gives the Admiralty the option of discharging them at twenty-four hours' notice. There has been no pressure therefore to break the articles. The men who have been paid off refused to re-sign the articles at the standard rates that have been adopted by the
    1312
    Admiralty, and they have been discharged under the terms of their agreements. The Commanding Officer appears to have taken the measurements as stated. It may be pointed out, however, that such men are exempt from military service so long as they are employed in the mercantile marine, except as stewards in passenger steamers.

    TRANSPORT "THEMISTOCLES."
    Mr. T. WILSONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the crew of the transport "Themistocles" were asked on re-signing to accept a reduction of wages of£1 a month and that, when they refused to accept this reduction, they were informed that they would be reported to the military authorities; whether any Government official used the threat of military service in getting the men to accept the reduction; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: On the previous voyage of the "Themistocles" from London on the 8th April, the ship was berthed in the Tilbury Dock, and the deck, engine room, and stewards' department ratings were signed on at the Tilbury Dock rates, which are 10s. per month in advance of those ruling at the Royal Albert Dock. On the present voyage, the "Themistocles" sailed from the Royal Albert Dock, and the crew were engaged at the regular Albert Dock rates. As regards the second part of the question, I am having inquiries made. Perhaps my hon. Friend will put a question to me again.

    ROYAL DOCKYARDS (PENSIONERS).
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that a number of pensioners who have served from thirty to forty years in His Majesty's dockyards assisting to build up the Fleet are now in receipt of pensions ranging from 10s. to£1 a week; that these men are suffering hardship by reason of the increased cost of living; and will he consider the possibility of granting pensioners over sixty years of age a small bonus to continue for the duration of the War?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Pensions to civilians employed in naval establishments are awarded by the Treasury under the Superannuation Acts, and the Admiralty

    1313
    has no power to augment allowances which are assessed in accordance with the provisions of those Acts. Any action in this direction could be taken only by means of fresh legislation.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman introduce the necessary fresh legislation or invite the Prime Minister to do so?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: That is a matter for the Government and not for me.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Have not these men worked for their pensions?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Certainly.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is it not the fact that the increased cost of living applies just as much to these men as it does to old age pensioners, and, that being so, why should they not have a bonus?

    AUSTRALIAN WHEAT (GOVERNMENT PURCHASE).
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether he is now in a position to state that the shipment of the Australian wheat purchased by the Government will be on terms not more expensive than those made by the Sugar Commission in respect of the importation of sugar; and, if the precedent of the Sugar Commission is to be departed from, whether he will state the reason for such departure and the extent of the extra cost involved?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: My hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. The subject is under consideration by the Wheat Commission and the Departments concerned. No statement can at present be made, but I can give my hon. Friend a general assurance that tonnage is to be secured on the most economical method.

    HORSTMAN'S BANK.
    Mr. BUTCHERasked who are the partners in Horstman's Bank, and in what shares; whether such partners are naturalised in this country or otherwise; and whether the business of such bank is being carried on under licence?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Permission for the continuance of this banking business in the United Kingdom was given by the Secretary of State in December, 1914. The
    1314
    Board of Trade subsequently caused inspection to be made of the business of Horstman and Co., and ascertained that the partners are all British subjects, two being naturalised and one British by birth.£50,000 is held on loan from two German subjects (interest on which is paid to the Public Trustee) and£25,000 from a British subject. Subject to this the whole of the capital is the property of one of the naturalised partners, British by birth but the widow of a German who had become naturalised in this country; her daughters hold by deed of gift from her the loan capital referred to. In the circumstances it does not appear that a licence under the Aliens Restriction (Consolidation) Order is required.

    LISTOWEL AGRICULTURAL SHOW.
    Mr. FLAVINasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whethere he is aware that the Listowel people are being asked to pay a tax of£32 by the Commissioners of Customs in connection with an agricultural and industrial show held in Listowel recently; whether he is aware that this show is only held for purely educational work for agricultural and industrial purposes; and whether he will see that such objects are not penalised or entirely prohibited, as they will be if this tax is enforced?
    Mr. McKENNA: I would refer my hon. Friend to my answers of the 20th and 26th July to the hon. Member for Queen's County. I am informed by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise that the programme of this show included driving and jumping competitions and that they were not satisfied that the show was entitled to exemption from the Entertainments Tax. The tax is therefore payable under the law.
    Mr. FLAVIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there was only one jumping competition, and will he take into consideration the fact that the show was for the purpose of exhibiting Irish manufacturers' goods, and agricultural produce? I was there myself, and I know.

    ROUMANIA.
    Sir E. CARSON: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether it is possible to make any statement to the House as to the position of affairs in Roumania?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think it is possible, or, at any rate, desirable at the moment to say more than that the military situation in Roumania is engaging the most anxious attention, not only of His Majesty's Government, but of all the Allies. For many weeks past they have taken, and are taking, every possible step to support our gallant comrades in Roumania in the splendid struggle which they are making. I hope we shall not take an unduly pessimistic view, for in Russia, in France, in Italy, and here in Great Britain, there have been concerted measures, and each of us is doing all in his power to support Roumania in her struggle for liberty and independence.

    BUILDING TRADE DISPUTE (BIRMINGHAM)
    Mr. W. THORNE(by Private Notice) asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade whether he is aware that a very serious dispute is pending in the Birmingham building trade because the employers have declined to meet local representatives or agree to arbitration; if he is aware that the matter has been in the hands of the Board of Trade for some time, and no definite action has been taken; and if he is aware that a ballot of the whole of the men has declared in favour of ceasing work and notices have already been handed in to stop work on Saturday next, 28th October; and if he intends taking any action in the matter with a view to preventing the dispute taking place?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: The pending dispute in the Birmingham building trades, to which my hon. Friend alludes, has been referred to arbitration. The parties have been notified of the name of the arbitrators.

    COAL PRICES.
    Mr. GILBERT(by Private Notice) asked the Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Trade whether there is any truth in a statement which recently appeared in the Press that the London coal merchants have asked him to assent to an increase of 2s. 6d. a ton in the price of house coal?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: No, Sir; no application for a variation of the existing agreement with the London merchants has been made since last spring, and so far as I know none is in contemplation. The
    1316
    Merchants' Retail Prices Committee have undertaken not to alter the published prices without previous communication with the Board of Trade, and I am confident that they would not propose any alteration without serious grounds.
    Mr. GILBERT: May I ask the hon. Gentleman if he has the power to grant an increase in coal prices without bringing the matter before this House?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: It is not a matter of increasing coal prices. The question of granting an increase only applies to the Regulation under the Coal Prices Limitation Act, and affects the price of coal at the pit-mouth. It is a question of voluntary arrangement made by the London merchants. There is no question of any compulsory Act, though the effect is the same, owing to the loyal way in which the merchants have hitherto kept their agreement. I am confident they will maintain this.

    POTATO CROP (IRELAND).
    Captain DONELAN(by Private Notice): Is the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) aware that in 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,): So far there is no evidence that the pitted potatoes are giving way, but a large area is still to be lifted, and few potatoes have been pitted long enough to say whether they are going to keep or not.
    Captain DONELAN: Under existing circumstances, could not a way be found to keep the potatoes grown in Ireland this year in that country for home consumption; an Irish Parliament would very soon find a way?
    Mr. RUSSELL: The whole question, including that, is being considered at a conference in Dublin to-morrow.

    Congested Districts (Ireland).
    Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, in view of the frequent representations made on the subject, the Congested Districts Board are now in a position to state when the work

    1317
    of improvements on the estate of Daniel O'Connell, of Darrynane, will be undertaken, and, in particular, when the construction of a road to the bog on Cahirnageeha will be undertaken, in view of the absence of supplies of turf in the district?
    Mr. DUKE: Having regard to the resources in money and staff at the Board's command, no important work can be undertaken on the estate referred to before next summer. The Board have not decided to make the road mentioned, but before they undertake the rearrangements of the estate they will have before them a scheme with an estimate of expenditure for necessary works, and will carry out, within the limits of the money available, such as they think most urgent and desirable for the permanent improvement of the estate.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, in view of local troubles in connection with Tiermanagh farm on the Kelly Kenny estate, West Clare, and in order to allay the dissatisfaction that prevails among the congests of the neighbourhood owing to the distribution of the holdings on that farm, he will prepare a Report on this case, and take steps to satisfy local opinion?
    Mr. DUKE: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to his question of 24th July last. The arrangements by which the land referred to was disposed of cannot now be disturbed.
    Mr. LYNCH: Has the right hon. Gentleman any personal acquaintance with this matter, and. if not, will he look into it, and I will raise it again?
    Mr. DUKE: If the hon. Member asks me to look into this matter, I certainly will, but I got the necessary information to answer him to-day. Any papers that are available I will investigate, and I will do anything further that is required.

    Police (Ireland).
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his proposals to improve the conditions of the Irish police have yet been sanctioned by the Treasury; if he will state the nature of the proposals and when they will come into operation?
    Mr. DUKE: Subject to one or two outstanding questions, I shall be in a position in a few days to take the necessary steps
    1318
    towards obtaining the sanction of the House for the proposals which have been under consideration.

    Listowel Union (Ireland).
    Mr. FLAVINasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether Mr. Browne, an auditor of the Local Government Board, has surcharged three guardians of the Listowel Union with the sum of£1 16s. paid for candles lit at Christmas in the chapel, infirm wards, and hospital of Listowel Workhouse; whether for the last thirty-four years there has been a similar expenditure each year in this workhouse without objection or surcharge by the auditors; whether during the previous three years, 1912, 1913, and 1914, Mr. Browne passed such expenditure without objection or comment; and will steps be taken to have the surcharge remitted and Mr. Browne informed that the lighting of candles by direction of the Catholic chaplain during the celebration of religious festivals is not illegal?
    Mr. DUKE: The surcharge was made by the auditor, but he states that he was not informed that the lighting of the candles formed part of any religious observance. He made his surcharge under the impression that they were part of the Christmas decorations in the wards of the workhouse, which he thought to be in war-time an unnecessary expense for the ratepayers. The aggrieved persons appealed to the Local Government Board, and the Board issued an order remitting the surcharge. A copy of such order was, I believe, before the guardians at their meeting to-day.

    Vaccination (Ireland).
    Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether parents in Ireland who conscientiously object to vaccination are being fined and imprisoned repeatedly for the same child; and, if so, whether he will put an end to this violation of one of the first principles of Magna Charta by instructing boards of guardians not to prosecute a second time for an offence which has once been purged?
    Mr. DUKE: I am informed that defaulters under the Vaccination Acts are frequently brought before the local justices and fined for failing to comply with the provisions of the Acts. Imprisonment in vaccination cases is, I am told, exceedingly rare in Ireland. Imprisonment can only be once inflicted for an offence. I have no control

    1319
    over the discretion of boards of guardians as to the cases in which they ought to direct prosecutions.

    Royal Irish Constabulary (Tullamore).
    Mr. GRAHAMasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, in the interest of the peace of King's County, he will instruct the Inspector-General of the Royal Irish Constabulary to make such changes in the headquarter staff at Tullamore as will ensure the confidence of the public in the impartial discharge of the police duties in the county?
    Mr. DUKE: I have no reason to believe, apart from the suggestion in the question, that there is any want of confidence on the part of the public in the impartial discharge of police duties in King's county.
    Mr. GRAHAMasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the comments of County Court Judge Drummant at the Quarter Sessions held in Tullamore last week when granting compensation for damage done by the mob at Tullamore on 21st March last, in respect of the action of the constabulary on the occasion; and whether he intends to take any action in the matter?
    Mr. DUKE: I have called for the papers relating to this matter.
    Mr. GRAHAM: Will not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that there is a grave want of confidence in the Headquarters Staff, and that, as a matter of fact, the people consider it is a public scandal?
    Mr. DUKE: No representation of that kind has come to me except the suggestion the hon. Member makes in his question. If such representation came from any responsible person, it would be the duty of the Chief Secretary's Office to investigate it.

    Productive Works (West Clare).
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he will have a Report made as to the means of developing industries in West Clare and of opening up productive works as, for instance, the reclamation of Poulnasherry Bay and the deepening of the inner river harbour of Kilrush?
    Mr. DUKE: The circumstances of West Clare are well known in the Irish Office. Some years ago the Congested Districts
    1320
    Board considered carefully the proposal as to Poulnasherry reclamation, but decided against taking any action. Expenditure for harbour works such as Kilrush has had to be suspended during the War. The Board inform me that they would be glad to receive and would carefully consider suggestions as regards the development of industries other than engineering works.
    Mr. LYNCH: Will the right hon. Gentleman look into any well-considered practical proposal which I can put before him, if I can show that the work will be productive?
    Mr. DUKE: It is my business, as the hon. Member knows, to investigate any matter of that kind that is brought to my knowledge, but I am bound to have the assistance of experienced people like members of the Congested Districts Board.

    Intermediate Education (Ireland).
    Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the Commissioners for Intermediate Education have now considered the various representations made by educational bodies against the putting into force of the new rule dealing with experimental science; and whether, in view of this expression of opinion, steps will be taken to abrogate the rule in so far as a new system of written examinations is set up?
    Mr. DUKE: I am informed that the Intermediate Education Board fully considered, at their meeting on Thursday last, the question of the introduction of written papers for pass candidates in science, and the representations made by educational bodies with reference to the new rule dealing with experimental science, and that they see no reason to depart from their previous decision.
    Mr. BOLAND: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this decision was taken by the Intermediate Board, a perfectly irresponsible body, against the advice of all education experts in Ireland on this matter?
    Mr. DUKE: I am not aware of the details of the matter, but I will inquire.
    Mr. BOLAND: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, I beg to give notice that on next Tuesday evening, on the Adjournment, I shall call attention to this matter.

    Old Age Pensions (Ireland).
    Mr. FITZPATRICKasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if Michael Horan, an aged man of 80 years, who has served 21 years in His Majesty's forces, has been deprived of his old age pension of 3s. per week because he entered the Mountmellick Union infirmary as a patient; and whether Horan, who has given the best years of his life to the service of the Government, will be deprived of his pension while he remains a patient in the union infirmary?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: No old age pensioner of the name of Michael Horan can be traced as having been disqualified in this area. A man named Michael Foran was recently disqualified by the local Pensions Sub-Committee on the ground of the receipt of Poor Law relief, and if he considered the disqualification to be unjustified he could have appealed to the Local Government Board, but this he did not do. If Foran should at any time cease to receive Poor Law relief, he could, of course, prefer a fresh claim to a pension.

    Land Purchase (Ireland).
    Mr. FITZPATRICKasked the Chief Secretary if he is aware that Major Hamilton, agent for Lord Castletown, has given to large farmers and graziers on twenty-one years' leases the untenanted lands on the Grantstown estate, Ballacolla, Queen's County, notwithstanding the fact that Major Hamilton promised to sell this untenanted land to the Estates Commissioners for distribution at the time when negotiations for the sale of the tenanted portion of the estate were in progress; and whether, under the circumstances the Estates Commissioners will bring pressure to bear on Lord Castletown in order to acquire these lands for division amongst the uneconomic holders on this estate?
    Mr. DUKE: As regards the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 6th January last to the hon. Member for the Leix Division of Queen's County. The demesne lands were not included in the lands for the sale of which proceedings for sale were instituted before the Estates Commissioners and the Commissioners are not aware of any promise from the vendor or his agent that they would be so included. The tenanted lands were sold by the vendor direct to the tenants under the Irish Land
    1322
    Act, 1903, and were vested in 1912 in the purchasers in accordance with the purchase agreements signed by the parties and lodged with the Land Commission. There are no proceedings now pending before the Estates Commissioners in respect of this estate, and they have no power to interfere in the matter.

    Industrial Schools (Ireland).
    Mr. BRADYasked the Chief Secretary by what authority, statutory or otherwise, the Irish Executive Government, without trial or consultation with the magistrate, orders the discharge of children from industrial schools who have been sent there by the order of a magistrate who has heard the evidence in the case in open Court?
    Mr. DUKE: The discharge of children in the circumstances mentioned is not made unless in cases where their detention had been procured by some improper proceeding.

    Open-Air Meetings (Ireland).
    Mr. CLANCYasked the Chief Secretary whether it is still necessary to ask the permission of the proper police authority to hold an open-air ordinary political meeting in that country?
    Mr. DUKE: The reply is in the affirmative, but the constabulary have been instructed that in giving effect to this Order a meeting called for a legitimate and constitutional purpose and not likely to result in a breach of the peace should not be prohibited.

    Northlands School of Housewifery (Londonderry).
    Mr. CREANasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) if he will state to whom the Northlands School of Housewifery in Londonderry belongs; does the Department now exercise any control over it; is any rent paid to the Department in respect of the school by its present principal, and, if so, how much; is he aware that the school is stated in the prospectus and other advertisements issued in respect of it to be in connection with the Victoria High School, Londonderry, which is a private concern; what is the nature of the connection between the two schools; was the Northlands School built and equipped

    1323
    with public money; and, if so, is it in accordance with the policy of the Department that an advantage should be given to one private school in Londonderry as against its competitors by allowing it to advertise the Northlands School as an adjunct of it?
    Mr. T. W. RUSSELL: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by me on this subject to the hon. Member for South Down on the 13th April last.

    Cork Mail Service.
    Mr. MAURICE HEALYasked the Postmaster-General whether on Saturday morning, the 21st instant, the day mail from Dublin to Cork, notwithstanding very unfavourable weather in the. Channel, reached Kingsbridge Station at 7 a.m. and only started from that station at 7.35 a.m.; and whether he will explain why such delay takes place at Kingsbridge?
    The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Pike Pease): According to Post Office records the mail train reached Kingsbridge on the 21st October at 7.6 a.m.—nineteen minutes late. This was an advance of the average time of arrival during the month. About twenty minutes is required at Kingsbridge for railway and mail purposes. The mail train for the South left at 7.35 a.m. in accordance with the revised time table.
    Mr. HEALY: Can the hon. Gentleman say how twenty minutes or half-an-hour is occupied at Kingsbridge when there has already been that delay at Kingstown after the arrival of the mail?
    Mr. PIKE PEASE: The train from Kingstown Pier is a composite one, and is made up of several sections: (1) Dublin and South-Eastern van with mails; this is detached from the train at Westland Row. (2) Midland Great Western carriages; these are detached at Amiens Street Station; and so on.
    Mr. HEALY: May I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he is mistaken, and is he aware that the Kingstown train starts in different sections from there?
    Mr. PEASE: I will inquire further into the matter.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    MEDICAL PANEL SYSTEM.
    Sir PHILIP MAGNUSasked the Comptroller of the Household, as representing the National Health Insurance Commissioners, whether, under the medical panel system as administered by the Commissioners and committees, no injury or injustice for alleged breach of agreement can be submitted to a Court of Law for redress or compensation; whether he is aware that dissatisfaction exists among medical panel practitioners on account of the privilege which is apparently enjoyed by the Commissioners of acting as judges in their own cause; and whether he will take steps to remove this reason for dissatisfaction, by legislation or otherwise, which tends to impede the satisfactory discharge of the responsible duties undertaken by panel doctors?
    The COMPTROLLER of the HOUSEHOLD (Mr. Roberts): The hon. Member is under some misapprehension. Insurance committees can, in appropriate circumstances, be sued by doctors who have entered into agreements with them. It is true that on certain matters, at the request of the medical profession itself, the Insurance Commissioners have accepted the responsibility of adjudicating between committees and doctors, and I have every reason to believe that this procedure has given general satisfaction.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: Am I to understand that the hon. Member will take no steps to remove the cause of dissatisfaction which is felt very strongly by nearly the whole body of panel practitioners?
    Mr ROBERTS: I have no evidence whatever of that.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: If I give evidence, will the hon. Gentleman consider it?
    Mr. ROBERTS: Yes.

    MEDICAL BENEFIT.
    Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Comptroller of the Household, as representing the National Health Insurance Commissioners, whether, in view of the objection by certain sections of the medical profession to Clause 3 of the proposed new medical benefit regulations, he had any method of dealing with the situation in the event of the doctors deciding not to continue service if the clause was maintained.
    Mr. ROBERTS: In view of the conferences which have recently taken place, the contingency contemplated in the question is, I think, not likely to arise.

    OLD AGE PENSIONS (CARDS).
    Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Comptroller of the Household, as representing the National Health Insurance Commissioners, if he is aware that hardship is inflicted on insured persons reaching the age of seventy because, owing to employers requiring production of their insurance card, they lose their employment or are obliged to continue paying 4d. per week, although deprived of the sickness and disablement benefit which that payment is intended to secure; whether, under these circumstances, the Commissioners will refund all such payments; and whether he will introduce legislation to secure to such persons the option to defer claiming their old age pension whilst able to keep their employment, and to continue their insurance with its benefits until such time as they may make such claim, the pension to become payable only from that date?
    Mr. ROBERTS: Occasional complaints have been received that insured persons on reaching the age of seventy have lost their employment in consequence of their age having been revealed to their employers through their failure to produce an insurance card. There is, however, no evidence that cases of this kind are of frequent occurrence or that the difficulty is sufficiently serious to justify a revision of the actuarial basis of the Insurance Acts such as would be necessary to carry out my hon. Friend's suggestion. Contributions erroneously paid in respect of persons over seventy will be refunded if the card is produced.

    Vital Statistics.
    Mr. CHANCELLORasked the President of the Local Government Board what is the expectation of life in the country as a whole and in London at various ages for the three following categories: occupied males, inn-keepers, and inn-servants, male and female; and if he will state the principal diseases and the causes of mortality in the two latter classes?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I am sending the hon. Member a memorandum containing such information as is available on the subject of his question.

    Venereal Disease.
    Captain C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Local Government Board whether, as stated in the recently-published Women Social Workers' Appeal, venereal disease is certainly spreading in the United Kingdom and affecting a large number of innocent persons; and, if so whether he will institute compulsory notification and compulsory treatment, as in the case of other dangerous contagious diseases, and at the same time take steps to check the activities of fraudulent persons professing ability to cure the disease, as recommended by the Select Committee on Patent and Proprietary Medicines?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: On the question of notification, perhaps I may refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I have already given to the hon. ' and gallant Member for Wednesbury. The suggestion contained in the latter part of the question is under consideration.

    Fairs (Ireland).
    Mr. CRUMLEYasked under what statute the Irish Board of Agriculture makes by-laws regulating the time for holding fairs for the sale of livestock in Ireland?
    Mr. DUKE: The Department of Agriculture have no power to make by-laws for the purpose mentioned.

    Agricultural Labourers (Beaters).
    Sir R. WINFREYasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether complaints have reached him from agriculturists in the Eastern counties of the labourers being induced to leave their employment to act as beaters to shooting parties; whether he is aware of the resolution on the subject passed by the Cambridgeshire Chamber of Agriculture; and what steps he proposes to take to prevent a continuance of such practices?
    Mr. ACLAND: The Board have received a few isolated complaints of this kind, and they are aware of the resolution to which my hon. Friend refers. As I think he already knows, the Board make a practice of inquiring into the facts in all such cases, with a view to preventing a recurrence of the cause of complaint, and this they are doing in the present instance. Generally speaking, they are satisfied that game preserving has been diminished to a very large

    1327
    extent indeed, and that landowners and shooting tenants are in nearly all cases subordinating their own personal interests in this regard to those of the community. Where they are not, they are setting an extremely bad example, and I hope that the force of public opinion, which is the best remedy in these cases, will be brought to bear against them and be sufficient to prevent a recurrence.

    SHOPS (EARLIER CLOSING).
    At the conclusion of Questions,
    Captain BARNETTrose in his place, and asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House, for the purpose of discussing a matter of definite and urgent public importance, namely, "to consider the new Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department relating to the early closing of shops," and the pleasure of the House having been signified, the matter stood over, under Standing Order No. 10, until a quarter past eight this evening.

BILL PRESENTED.
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION BILL,—"to amend the Law relating to the Prevention of Corruption," presented by Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL; supported by Mr. Attorney-General and Mr. Brace; to be read a second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed.—[Bill 116.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Sir E. CARSON: May I ask the Prime Minister what will be the business for next week?
  The PRIME MINISTER: On Tuesday we shall take the Second Reading of the Registration of Business Names Bill [Lords], the Prevention of Corruption Bill, the Trading With the Enemy and Export of Prohibited Goods Bill, the Anzac (Restriction on Trade Use of Word) Bill, and the Third Reading of the Defence of the Realm (Acquisition of Land) Bill.
  On Wednesday, we shall take the Committee stage of the Special Register Bill.
  I will announce next week the business for Thursday.
  Sir E. CARSON: May I ask my right hon. Friend when a day will be granted, as promised, for the discussion on the necessity for increasing the numbers in the Army?
  The PRIME MINISTER: That is a very important matter, and it is under the consideration of the Man-Power Board. I should hope the discussion will he the week after next, but I would not like to pledge myself.
  Mr. LOUGH: Can my right hon. Friend promise that the Bills to which he refers will be circulated before we take them here?
  The PRIME MINISTERwas understood to assent.
  Mr. G. TERRELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman state when the Man-Power Board will issue their final Report?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put that question to me next Tuesday.
  Resolved, "'That this House, at its rising this day, do adjourn until Tuesday next."—[The Prime-Minister.]

  CENTRAL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).
  Colonel GRETTON: I beg to move, "That, in the opinion of this House, the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic)
  1364
  should no longer be independent of the control of Parliament and that its proceedings and expenditure should be made subject to the control of a Minister responsible to Parliament."
  My Motion deals with a matter of considerable and general constitutional importance. It is no sectional matter. I am not going to deal with it from any sectional point of view, but to get to the root of the matter, which is of more importance than any particular view of any particular section of the community. Perhaps I may for a moment or two inform the House of the history of this matter. In April, 1915, the Chancellor of the Exchequer came down to the House and proposed the Defence of the Realm (No. 3) Bill, which was for the purpose of dealing with what the House was told were certain abuses and hindrances to the greater production of munitions, then so urgenlty required, and it was on that ground alone—munitions, facilities for transport during the War—that the Defence of the Realm Bill became an Act of Parliament. The Act enables the Government by Order in Council to set up a Control Board to deal with the liquor traffic in any area, for the facilitation of munitions for transport, or where it may be otherwise required for the prosecution of the War. The Act was never to be universal throughout the United Kingdom; as the matter was put before the House, its operation was to be so far and no farther. In fact, I would like to quote what the Chancellor, who is now Secretary for War, said on the subject on 29th April:
  "I simply propose that we shall have powers during the War to enable us, for instance, to close any public-houses in these areas whose presence is considered for the moment injurious, and having a prejudicial effect on the output of munitions, the transport of material, or the discipline of the troops. We must have power also to use either licensed premises, or any other premises in the areas, for the purpose of supplying reasonable refreshments to men engaged in those burdensome tasks, and for the purpose of preventing any section of men from abusing the facilities for the supply of intoxicants. Even the power must be included, should it be thought necessary, to suppress the sale of spirits or of very heavy beers, in those areas. This power need not to be exercised unless the exigencies of the War, which are paramount, make it, in the judgment of the Admiralty and the War Office, absolutely essential that this power should be given."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th April, 1915, col 894, Vol. LXXI].
  In a later Debate, on 11th May, the same right hon. Gentleman, in answer to a question by the hon. Member for Pontefract, said:
  "This is a proposal merely to obtain complete control in munitions and transport areas during the period of the War where necessary. He asked me whether it

  1365
  was intended for that purpose alone. That is undoubtedly the purpose."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th May, 1915, cols. 1550–1551, Vol. LXXI.]
  So that the functions of this Board were, by the Defence of the Realm Act (No. 3), as described to the House, strictly limited. The board has very largely exceeded its functions. I have in my hand a map which shows the black areas where the Act has been put in force. I believe that the map does not show the whole case, because, since the map was published—it was then strictly accurate on 3rd October, 1916—the area has been somewhat extended, and it shows how far the operations of the Board extend.
  I want to describe to the House how the Act works. The Act empowers the Government to set up the Board for certain purposes, to schedule certain areas, and to draw up Regulations within the limits of that Act. It is a very curious thing that the House was never told that the Government intended to set up a Board which was independent of the control of Parliament. There was nothing in the Act, or in the Regulations under the Act, which were issued by the Privy Council, which makes any Minister of the Crown responsible for the proceedings or the finances of the Board. The only official control which the Government holds over this Board, though there may be personal influence and advice, is in two directions. In the first place, any area to be scheduled must be submitted to a member of the Cabinet to be approved by him in order to pass the Privy Council and enable the area to be scheduled. The only other power is that vested in the Minister of Munitions of appointing members of the Board. I suppose the Minister of Munitions may dismiss the Board or any member of the Board. As a matter of fact, those things are never done, and there is no statutory power whatever making the Minister of Munitions or any other Minister responsible for the proceedings of the Board. Parliament has unknowingly surrendered to this independent Board complete powers, which are exercised so drastically over so wide an area.
  I want to carry the point further. There is nothing either in the Act or in the Regulations dealing with finance except in the matter of the appointment of members of the Board. Subject to the approval of the Treasury, the members of the Board can receive salaries. Parliament does not know what those salaries are, or the number or status of the staff,
  1366
  and there is no provision either in the Act or in the Regulations for payment for the purchase of property; in fact, there is no provision whatsoever. The Board at the present moment is going far outside, as I think I can show, what was intended by Parliament when the Act was passed. Parliament never realised that the Board intended to purchase licensed property over a complete area. It never realised that the Board intended to acquire breweries as well as licensed properties, and to effect control at the national expense over an area so large as Carlisle. But we have reason to believe the Board is not satisfied with the Carlisle experiment, which is not yet completed and not yet in working order, because they undoubtedly have made, and are continuing to make, inquiries in other districts and other areas as to where another experiment on a vast scale might be made elsewhere than in Carlisle. My information is that there is a gentleman acting on their behalf who is either at the present time, or has been quite recently, making the most close and searching investigation in the town of Hull, with the view of purchase of licensed property. What does this mean? It means that this Board is prepared to spend—in the case of Carlisle it has already engaged itself to spend—large sums of money without coming to Parliament and without telling Parliament what it proposes to spend or whence it proposes to get the money.
  There is no provision for a Vote or Estimate on this matter, and, as a matter of fact, from such information as I have been able to get, the procedure is something of this kind: The Board goes to the owner of a licensed house, whether in Carlisle or elsewhere, or to the owner of a brewery, to announce its intention to acquire the property. In some cases the Board has entered into possession. In one or two cases I believe objection has been taken, writs have been served, and negotiations have gone forward, and until those negotiations have been settled, and a solution has been arrived at, the Board have not proceeded to take possession. It is quite doubtful whether they are entitled to take possession, and evidently in those cases where they have been challenged they do not wish to go into the question before the Courts. However that may be, the proceeding is this: The valuer, on behalf of the Control Board, and the valuer on behalf of the owners of

  1367
  the property, negotiate, and when terms have been agreed the matter goes before the War Losses Commission. That Commission may or may not agree with the terms which have been arranged between the valuers and approved by the Control Board. In some cases they have agreed. In other cases, I believe, they have not agreed, and other terms and prices have been put forward. Whatever the War Losses Commission may decide, they issue an order on the Treasury and the Treasury pay the amount. Where do the Treasury get the money? There is no Vote in Parliament. They can only get money out of the Vote of Credit, which is voted by Parliament for the conduct of the War and not for the purchase of private property in this country. That is the financial position, and I do not think the House realises when it is voting money for a Vote of Credit that it is voting considerable sums for the acquisition of property by the Control Board. We do not know how they acquire the very large sums of money which they are spending in all directions in some of the property they have acquired.
  I know a case in the Woolwich area, where contracts to the extent of£7,000 are to be finished within the next few days, and in another case in the same area where£10,000 is being expended, and will shortly be completed. Similar things are happening elsewhere. Where does this money come from? I dare say it is acquired quite properly, but it is not under the control of Parliament, and no information is given us. I suggest that Parliament ought not to part with these powers of control over finance. This is a power which Parliament ought not to surrender to any independent body to dip deeply, it may be, into the public purse without first of all knowing on what principles this money is to be expended. That is incontrovertible and is a basic principle of our Constitution. On the control of finance the whole of the privileges and power of this House is dependent. Never previously has Parliament handed over to an independent body the power to draw to an unlimited extent on the public purse. It is not my purpose to criticise the Control Board. It is not relevant to my argument at the present moment to do so. Be their excellencies as great as their best friends maintain, or be their faults and errors as great as the most candid critic may allege, it is all one to
  1368
  my argument. If their virtues are great, they should not be ashamed of the public investigation of this House. If their errors are great, this House ought to act and to correct those errors. The principle is exactly the same. The control of this House can do no harm if these operations are in accordance with the wishes and intentions of this House.
  Let me refer for one moment to the expenditure on this Carlisle experiment. I will admit that if the Board of Control, or any other Department, through the Government with its authority, said to Parliament that it desired to make an experiment in this direction, no doubt Carlisle in its present condition is a favourable area for that purpose. Financially it is a favourable area, because of the vast increase of population brought about by the establishment of munitions works in the neighbourhood. That is well known publicly, so that I am not divulging any secret. The vast increase of population consists of men who, in the majority of cases, frequent public-houses during the week, and many of them desire refreshment at these places daily. So that under proper management a financial success is assured. That is not my reason for questioning the suitability of the Carlisle area. Under really good management they may produce really good financial results. But what is this expenditure which they are going to make? In the case of one property, I believe, the value in capital issue, which is certainly worth rather more than the par value as a going concern, is about£160,000. There are four breweries in the Carlisle area, all of which the Board propose to acquire. I do not know what terms are asked or what it is proposed to give, but the Control Board may easily land itself, before it has finished with this experiment, in an expenditure approximating a good half a million of money, and the area in Hull which is now being inquired into is an even more expensive area to acquire. Parliament ought to have control over all this expenditure.
  I want to call the attention of Parliament to the composition of the Control Board. It is not a Board composed of experts and business men. They are men of eminence in their own walks of life, but not men experienced in this particular business, except in two cases. It is true that the Secretary of State for War, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, sug-

  1369
  gested that there should be various interests represented, among which was Labour. I see there are two gentlemen representing Labour, but I am surprised to find the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) included in a Board which is empowered to assist in the prosecution of the War. The Secretary of State for War said he hoped he had a business body. I am not impressed, at any rate, by some of the names I see. However, I do not want to go too closely or too critically into the composition of the Board. I believe they are very estimable gentlemen, many of them theoretically with most attractive views, but they have not gained experience in vast business undertakings, and they are going to obtain that experience at the public expense. I am going to criticise some of the actions of the Board and the way they proceed about their work. It was laid down by the Secretary for War that the Board should make a local inquiry, and the Secretary for the Colonies stated that they must carry local feeling with them or they would do more harm than good. How are these local inquiries held? They are inquiries within closed doors. No public report is taken, no minute of the evidence is to be publicly obtained, and in many cases the areas are scheduled against the ordinary evidence given on behalf of the local authorities.
  I will give one or two instances. Take the town of Burton-on-Trent, which I know well. [HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!"] Hon. Gentlemen opposite, of course, think it is a very disorderly town and ought to be scheduled, but, as a matter of fact, the Board have never been able to make any case against Burton-on-Trent. As a matter of fact, when an inquiry was held at Stafford, the mayor and ex-mayor of the town, the chairman of the bench, the licensing justices, the chief of the police, the town clerk, and other gentlemen, gave evidence, and they were unanimous that no Order was required. The first thing the Board did was to schedule Burton-on-Trent, and then they began to consider the case of Stafford, and it was said that it was necessary in this town because of the Staffordshire colliery district, which is in the same county. The Staffordshire colliery district is sixteen miles away, the communication with it is very bad, and there are several other towns intervening between Burton-on-Trent and the
  1370
  nearest colliery. As a matter of fact, the Board came to their decision before the inquiry was held. In the case of the county of Bedford the local authorities were unanimous against the scheduling of that area, but in spite of that Bedford was scheduled. In none of the cases I have mentioned have I been able to ascertain that there was the least desire on the part of those areas to be scheduled, nor was there any evidence that the scheduling of those areas would in any way affect the production of munitions. All those districts had a good record; and there was neither disorder nor drunkenness to justify the scheduling of those towns.
  It seems to be the policy of the Board to schedule practically the whole of Great Britain—I was very nearly saying the United Kingdom—but the benefits of this Act are not extended to Ireland, and the Control Board is entirely shut off from any operations in Ireland. We have inquired several times why that should be so, but we have never had a satisfactory answer, although Ireland is largely a military area with several munition areas, and yet nothing has been done there in this respect. Some of the Orders which have been made are quite incapable of practical administration. Take, for example, the No-Treating Order. I believe hon. Gentlemen in this House and the Board itself attach considerable importance to the No-Treating Order, but as a matter of fact it cannot be carried. It has very largely broken down, and the proceedings which have been taken against the trade in which they have obtained conviction are tyrannous in their severity. You constantly see cases of a man being prosecuted because he goes into a public-house with his wife and pays for her drink. That is an absurd position. There have been cases in the Liverpool area of men being sent for hard labour for infringing the No-Treating Order. The police in other areas have even gone further, for they have sent constables in plain clothes to licensed premises, and they have taken women with them, and endeavoured to induce the barman or owner of the house to take their money and consent to treating on the premises. In spite of the failure to induce the barman or the owner to serve drinks to persons who have not paid for them, and so infringe the Treating Order, actions have been brought which have been dismissed by the magistrate. The

  1371
  Order cannot be enforced wholly and completely because it is an absurd one, and any hon. Member will see at once that it is absurd to lay down that when a man takes his wife into licensed premises, she must go to the counter and tender the money for her drink, although the money comes out of the same pocket.
  I do not want to go into these minor matters, but I think the Board has undoubtedly exceeded the functions which were intended to be entrusted to it by Parliament when the Bill was passed, and it has now become tyrannous to the public, as well as oppressive to the licensed trade. I am not here to put forward any grievance of the licensed trade to-day; I have not done so, and I do not intend to do so, because I am connected with the trade; and if I stated any grievance it would be said that my Motion is on their behalf. I have brought this Motion forward entirely on constitutional grounds because of the gross infringement of the privilege of Parliament, which has been carried out under the guise of the Defence of the Realm (No. 3) Act. The licensed trade has been put to great difficulties by the transference of the control of the trade by this and other Acts during the War, and there has been very little complaint. The reason for that is that the trade has been willing to submit, and has in fact submitted, to the greatest privations, and in many cases injustices, because they have desired not to raise any clamour or do anything which may be construed as being unpatriotic or have a tendency to hinder the prosecution of the War. That is the attitude they have taken up, and will continue to take up, unless the Regulations become so intolerable that they will be obliged to come to Parliament for redress. I think I have made good my case that the Control Board have gone further than Parliament intended. I think I have made it clear that Parliament has no control over the proceedings of the Board, which is now proposing to carry out a vast policy of State purchase without the authority of Parliament, piecemeal, and bit by bit, with money voted under Votes of Credit to carry on the War. This money is being used for a great experiment in the State purchase of licences, and I contend that Parliament ought to resume control over such expenditure. Whether the proceedings of the Control Board are good or bad,
  1372
  they should be under the control of Parliament, and the Government have no right and are exceeding their duty when they hand over the uncontrolled expenditure of public money in this way to this body.
  Mr. DENNISS: I put my name on the Paper next to the hon. and gallant Member for Rutland (Colonel Gretton) in connection with this Motion on purely constitutional grounds, and principally because I had no interest of any kind in breweries, distilleries or public-houses, and because I am in no way interested in what is called the licensed trade. I have no particular admiration or even liking for brewers or distillers as such, but I have a great admiration for the character, and I sympathise with the difficulties, of the licensed victualler. I think he is entitled to the sympathy of hon. Members of this House under the circumstances in which he has been placed, not merely by this but by previous legislation. It does not matter to me from the point of view I approach this Motion, whether the Board of Control has gone beyond the powers actually given to it or not, or beyond the scope of the Defence of the Realm (No. 3) Act, or beyond the powers intended to be given by that Act. Sufficient can be shown, and has already been shown, to prove that in any case the magnitude of their operations and what they have done entitles them no longer to be independent of the control of Parliament, and their proceedings and expenditure should be made subject to the control of a Minister. That is the purely constitutional ground upon which I act. I have no animus against the members of the Control Board. They have done a great deal of good, and I do not quite agree with my hon. and gallant Friend who has just sat down in regard to his strictures about the No-Treating Order. I think it is a great blessing. I think stopping credit drinking is a great blessing also. The stopping of the device by which one competitor tries to cut the throat of his other competitor with the long pull is a thing which has done good by being abolished.
  The Board have done a great deal of good by the setting up of canteens, and providing food for the munition workers. I am not sure that even the Carlisle experiment, if it stops there, and is not extended too far in other parts of the country, may not give us some very use-

  1373
  ful lessons and information at the end of the War as to the way in which the licensed victuallers" trade should be conducted in the future. I admit it has done some harm. It certainly has encouraged home drinking, and the Regulation made by the Control Board that nobody can buy less than a bottle of spirits is not a thing that encourages temperance. What led me to put my name down to this Motion is that I became aware after reading the second Report of the Board, of the enormous scope of their operations and the enormous area over which they were operating, an area which was never contemplated by the authors of the Act, and certainly was not contemplated in the Act itself, nor even was dreamt of by the Board of Control until they started on their career. The Act empowers them to define an area and apply regulations to it, and it transfers to them the control of the liquor traffic in that area, and the provisions of Acts relating to licensing, or the sale of intoxicating liquor in their applicaton to that area may be modified by the Board. Surely it was never intended that the whole of the United Kingdom should be brought in under the control of this Board, otherwise it would have been stated in the Act. Certainly the explanation we have had from the late Minister of Munitions led us to believe that only in munition areas was it essential that these powers should be put in force.
  My second point is the stringency of the Regulations that have been made, together with the power of making still more stringent Regulations, which the Board of Control have announced in their Report. I will not read them to the House. The Regulations are set out on page 7 of the Report. They are very wide, and they include acquiring permanently licensed and other premises and preventing any person from selling intoxicating liquor in the area. If you turn to pages 8 and 9 you will find there a summary of recommendations. They include more drastic restrictions as to distribution and canvassing for the sale of drink, the withdrawal of the recommendation that the wives of sailors and soldiers should not be charged for drunkenness except after a first or second offence, the extension of the plan of trusteeships for the payment of separation allowances and the appointment of sub-committees under the Naval and
  1374
  Military Pensions Act, with special officers appointed by a central authority to deal with women who are or should be put under trusteeship, the stricter enforcement of the law with regard to serving persons already the worse for drink—I do not know how you can have anything more strict than at present considering that there were only 404 convictions out of 84,000 odd licensed victuallers during 1915—the reduction of the number of licensed houses, the provision of shelters outside public-houses for children, and so on. The last thing they threaten is that they will prohibit any importation of any wine or spirit into any area that they choose so that people will not be able to keep a supply of drink in their private houses for consumption in their private houses.
  They are conducting a variety of experiments. I have mentioned the Carlisle experiment. They have set up the business of brewers. They are not only actually carrying on the business of brewers in Carlisle and elsewhere for all we know, because we really do not know what they are doing, but they are brewing a particular kind of beer which is supposed to be under 2 per cent. alcoholic strength. I do not know what sort of beer it is, but I am told that it is a very little stronger than ginger beer I am informed that it is only done by means of arresting fermentation at a particular point so that at the moment of sale it only contains 2 per cent. of alcohol. If it is kept for any length of time the alcohol develops and becomes more strong. I am also told that fermentation goes on in the human body after it has been consumed. It has taken up the business of a publican and the business of supplying refreshments, and, lastly, and perhaps more important of all, they have incurred unknown and unauthorised very great expenditure. I was prompted to put down this Motion, and I am now prompted to ask the House to agree to it because we know nothing about the proceedings of this Board except what we learn through the Press. That is not right. Their own voluntary replies are the only authentic sources of information; the rest is hearsay and the gossip of the Press. I hope that we shall hear to-day a good deal from the Minister of Munitions about the various doings of this Board which at present are hidden in mystery. It is quite clear from the

  1375
  constitution of the Board that they are not obliged to tell even the Minister of Munitions what they are doing, and, therefore, it is not true to say that you have a kind of quasi representation of the Board in this House through the Minister of Munitions. Although they may apply to him and he may put pressure upon them he has no official right as far as I can see to insist on answers to questions being given. There ought to be some means of controlling the Board, and I cannot see why it should not be under Parliamentary control, and why some Minister should not be responsible for it to this House.
  The Regulations to which I have already referred, and which operate very harshly and very unfairly in many respects in various parts of the country, are made by the Board of Control themselves. The Privy Council has nothing to say to them. I know the Report says that before an area is scheduled it must appear to His Majesty that it is expedient for the purpose of the successful prosecution of the War that the sale and supply of intoxicating liquor in any area should be controlled by the State, but it never does appear to His Majesty or to any Government Department at all. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Munitions in answer to a question stated that the Regulations were made by the Hoard of Control themselves. They are drawn up and agreed to by the Board of Control and placed before the Minister of Munitions. It may be that he can negative them, but I do not think that he can make them himself. Is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions right or wrong? He says that they are made by the Board of Control themselves, and I believe that is so. The Privy Council has nothing to do with it. We know that Orders in Council are simply made and sent into a Government Department, and that a clerk affixes a stamp. That is all that is done. The Report, which I think was issued in May, speaks of the work done by the Board of Control up to the end of March—I am not quite sure, but I think that is so—and at that time they controlled in Great Britain 30,000,000 out of a population of about 40,000,000. It cannot by any possible stretch of imagination be said that control was required in all these areas for any military or other pur-
  1376
  pose. The whole of Wales, for instance, is controlled without exception. I have been staying in Wales, near Snowdon, where there are no military at all and no munition works for miles round. There is no railway communication or public conveyance of any kind. The only way of getting about is to hire a motor car at eighteen-pence per mile. The nearest town which has a railway station is five miles away. Yet this Board of Control has scheduled the whole of that area. One of the things which drew my attention particularly to the doings of the Board was a note in the journal of the Temperance Legislation League, of which the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sherwell) is the honorary secretary for literature, of 8th August. It says:
  "When Parliament, in the spring of 1915, authorised the establishment of the Central Control (Liquor Traffic) Board it decreed the destruction of a method and system of licensing which has persisted for something like four centuries. The provisions of the Defence of the Realm (No. 8) Amendment Act contained the germs of a social revolution … The character and scope of the revolution were dependent upon two things only: first, the constraining ideas of the Minister of Munitions, and, secondly, the courage and enterprise and practical wisdom of the appointed Board. The first of these conditioning factors was not doubtful. Mr. Lloyd George's penetrative instinct had fastened long before the War upon the fundamental weakness in the character and structure of the British licensing system. In his mind the Defence of the Realm (No. 3) Amendment Act had a reconstructive purpose."
  With regard to the Carlisle experiment it goes on to say:
  "It is a pioneer experiment which will assuredly be repeated elsewhere. State control has come to stay. The Carlisle experiment is the forerunner of a revolutionised licensing system."
  5.0 P.M.
  I want to know with regard to all these houses that they have closed, the fresh premises they have taken for the supply of intoxicating drinks, and the other premises they have taken for supplying refreshments and for canteens, if they have paid anybody, and, if so, from where they got the money. Surely the House is entitled to ask this question. I do not know that the Treasury have any authority to pay any sums for these purposes. We do not know whether anybody has been paid. It is not right that these things should be kept from the House. Have they any power to authorise any payment? I understand that the Committee, presided over by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Exeter (Mr. Duke), said that the Commission were not prepared, as at present advised, to determine in favour of payment out of public funds in respect of losses due to the general regulations or restrictions issued by the Central

  1377
  Control Board. The unfortunate brewers and licence-holders, therefore, are between the devil and the deep sea. Their property is taken and they are promised compensation and asked to agree to the amount, but there is no fund out of which to pay them. The only body to which they can look for payment says that it has no right to make such payment. It seems to me that it is entirely unconstitutional, and we ought to revert to the old constitutional practice. No money should be spent before an estimate has been placed before the House, and ways and means have been found for meeting it. With regard to the way in which the local inquiries have been held, it is not true to say, as the Report states, that the licensed trade have been consulted in every case. They certainly were not in Lancashire. The Order was made before they were told anything about it at all. The day afterwards they were told they might make any representations they pleased, but I am informed that when they tried to do so they were treated with very scant courtesy, and were not given any opportunity. The Parliamentary Secretary promised that the evidence taken at the various inquiries should be published, but that has not yet been done. I complain that this House has no knowledge of the proceedings of this Board, and we only get our information regarding them in a haphazard fashion, through the Press of the country, and by putting questions here to the Minister of Munitions who has no power to enforce an answer from the Board of Control, and has no real control over it. With regard to finance, the Board, in fact, is really independent of the House of Commons and of the country. If it can pay it does so under what is a vicious principle, and if it cannot pay, then British subjects may, in the end, find themselves without any means of being compensated for the loss of their property.
  The MINISTER of MUNITIONS (Mr. Montagu): I trust that, as a consequence of the Debate this afternoon, there will be no alterations in the powers of the Board of Control. The hon. Member who moved this Resolution has two objects which he desires to achieve in the one Motion. The first, is to suggest to the House that the Liquor Control Board is not satisfactorily controlled by this
  1378
  House, and, in the second place, he tried to convince the House that the Board is not a useful body.
  Colonel GRETTON: No. I said no word about that. The right hon. Gentleman will remember I said I would not criticise the Board except with regard to its proceedings on two matters. I did not know whether or not it was a useful body. I said it was not relevant to my argument to say whether it was good or bad.
  Mr. MONTAGU: The hon. Gentleman's speech evidently had an effect on me which he did not intend. I do not think, however, I was alone in taking that view. The hon. Gentleman, in one part of his speech, gave instance after instance in which he thought that the activities of the Liquor Control Board had not been such as really made for the defence of the realm. He quoted the cases of Bedford and Hull. He also drew our attention to the composition of the body, and said it was not capable of dealing with the problems it attacked. I am glad to learn that the hon. Gentleman approves of the activities of the Control Board.
  Colonel GRETTON: I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to be good enough not to misrepresent me. I neither approved nor disapproved; I merely said that the Board was not a body qualified for such vast commercial undertakings as it was facing.
  Mr. MONTAGU: I have tried twice to interpret the meaning of the hon. Gentleman, and I must leave the matter to the judgment of the House. The hon. Member, who seconded, was good enough to point out the particular achievement of the Liquor Control Board which he endorsed and welcomed, and I do hope, whatever may be the outcome of this Debate this afternoon, the House will not fail to pay a tribute to the members of the Control Board who have laboured so ungrudgingly, and, let me tell the hon. Member, without remuneration, on work which is not popular.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Many people have done that.
  Colonel GRETTON: That is so. I have to point out that the Order gave the Treasury power to pay, and I want to know what the officials are paid, and who they are.
  Mr. MONTAGU: The members of the Liquor Control Board are not paid, and, so far as the Department with which I am associated is concerned, I should like to express the gratitude we feel to the Board for work which I shall describe to the House in a few minutes—work which has been of enormous importance.
  Sir E. GOULDING: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly answer my hon. Friend's question as to the officials and the payment made to them?
  Mr. MONTAGU: Surely no Department of the size of the Liquor Control Board could work without paying salaries to somebody.
  Sir E. GOULDING: We want to know who they are.
  Mr. MONTAGU: If the hon. Gentleman will put down a question I will get the information, and will make a statement as to the salaries paid. But the members of the Board are not paid. Let me ask in what respect the hon. Gentleman who moved the Resolution thinks that the Board is not sufficiently controlled? One of the hon. Member's statements was that this Board, which is so uncontrolled, has spread its activities over a much wider area than was expected or necessary. I can assure the hon. Member that no Order for scheduling an area is made except on representations made by the Ministry of Munitions, the military authorities, and other representative people concerned in essential output, and no Order is made unless the Ministry of Munitions, acting through the Minister responsible to this House is satisfied that the evidence warrants the preparation of an Order in Council for submission to His Majesty, to schedule an area. So it is not the Liquor Control Board who is to blame for having gone so far, it is the Ministry of Munitions. We are responsible to the House, and, therefore, I cannot see what grievance there is on that head.
  The hon. Member who seconded the Motion said it was quite true they could ask questions of the Ministry of Munitions, but he inquired if the Minister of Munitions had any right to demand an answer to those questions from the Liquor Control Board. He said if he had no right, he ought to have it. I would submit to this House we have not the time nor is it worth our while to embark upon theoretical controversies of this kind. There is no single
  1380
  case in which the Ministry of Munitions has asked the Liquor Control Board for any information which it has not received. I never explore whether it is my right to ask or not. The Control Board know, as everybody working in this country knows, that it is dependent on the good will and support of the country for the conduct of its work, and the method of getting that good will and support is to give complete information to this House. That complete information is given through the Ministry of Munitions, and I say if the Ministry of Munitions did not get the information for which the House asked, then the Minister who represents it, and who is responsible to the House, would be deserving of censure.
  What more is wanted? Is it in connection with finance? There is on the Board of Control a representative of the Treasury who sits there to report to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the expenditure which is sanctioned by the Board. I will endeavour to make that clear step by step. When the purchase of licensed premises in Carlisle was contemplated by the Liquor Control Board, sanction was asked by the Treasury. I was Financial Secretary to the Treasury at the time, and I remember the discussions which preceded the giving of that sanction. The fact is, not only the Minister of Munitions had to be satisfied as to the scheduling of the area, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to be satisfied as to the steps taken, and suggestions for a modification of the scheme were made by the Treasury. The Treasury controls the expenditure. The Ministry of Munitions defrays the expenditure out of the Vote of Credit, and the Vote of Credit bears upon its face the statement that it is applied to given purposes. It is for Parliament, when the Vote of Credit is before the House, to ask whether the money is being spent on purposes which it does not regard as necessary. Through the Vote of Credit, through the Treasury, and through the Ministry of Munitions, there is ample control in regard to the Control Board—more than was contemplated by this House when the Bill was passed. On the Trird Reading, before the House proceeded to assent to the Bill, the Secretary of State for War said:
  "We have not yet appointed a chairman. We are considering various names; but this I can tell' you: he will not be a Minister. We propose to set up a perfectly independent body. We think it very much better that this should be done."

  1381
  So do I, if I may say so with all respect. The only really greater control the House could ask for is that the Chairman of the Board should sit in this House. But then he would be, and must be, subject to all sorts of Parliamentary and political pressure which it was the deliberate object of the House to protect him against in a matter of this kind. You cannot have it both ways in all these questions. We stated in the first Debate in this House that the Board which was to be set up should be a real Board, independent of the House, in order that it should be absolutely impartial.
  Mr. JAMES MASON: The Chairman is a Member of the other House.
  Mr. MONTAGU: The same thing happened in the case of the Road Board. When Parliament has achieved its object I do not think it is entitled to turn round and say we ought to control a body which we deliberately set up to be independent. I would submit you made this Board independent of Parliament, and, having done so, it has worked through the most critical period of its operations, and if we are to go back on our decision of a few months ago it is not a small matter. You cannot do it without making it a more permanent body; you will have to revise its constitution, and you will have to rope it into some public Department—it may be the Home Office—and then you will find you have not got an emergency body set up to deal with the defence of the Realm during the War, but it will most likely become part of the ordinary licensing authority of this country. I would suggest to the hon. Member who moved this Resolution that that really is not what he desires. Besides, there really was no time during the War, when output was being restricted, when time-keeping was bad, and when, owing to high rates of wages, drunkenness might be too prevalent—
  Mr. O'GRADY: Where do you get that from? I declare, emphatically, timekeeping is, not bad and that high rates of wages are not leading to drunkenness.
  Mr. MONTAGU: I endorse that. But my point is that time-keeping is much better and drunkenness is much lower than it would have been had it not been for the work of the Liquor Control Board which is now under discussion.
  Mr. O'GRADY: You might have qualified your statement when you made it.
  Mr. MONTAGU: If the hon. Member will bear with me, my whole case was that we deliberately made this Board independent of Parliament, so that it might act quickly. It was set up because of the representations made about time-keeping; it was set up because of representations made about drunkenness; and it was set up because of the dangers that were apprehended from a large amount of money being available for expenditure. The hon. Member has only to read the Debates at the time—
  Mr. O'GRADY: It was all disputed.
  Mr. MONTAGU: The Bill was passed with the assent of the House on those very grounds. If every Order is to be discussed and debated, if every Order has to come before Parliament—if that is what the hon. Member means by Parliamentary control—I venture to say that the Liquor Control Board would have achieved nothing like what it has achieved. Now I come to the work the Board has done. The hon. Member for Rutland (Colonel Gretton) mentioned the cases of Bedford, Staffordshire, and Burton-on-Trent. With regard to Bedford, he says that all the local authorities in Bedford were against it, and therefore Bedford has not been scheduled. Inquiries have been made on representations received. The Ministry of Munitions was not satisfied that the evidence supported the scheduling of Bedford at present, therefore Bedford has not been scheduled at present. I am referring to the county of Bedford. Inquiries were made. Bedford is coloured red in the map I hold in my hand as an area in which inquiries have been made, but in which no Order was made. In regard to Staffordshire and Burton-on-Trent, the reason why Staffordshire was scheduled was that representations were made to the Control Board by the Home Office, by the colliery owners, by the police, by the owners of munition factories that there was a shortage of coal, and that many of the colliers were only working two full days a week. That was the evidence upon which the Minister of Munitions of the time came to the conclusion that the area of Staffordshire ought to be scheduled.
  Colonel GRETTON: My case was that it was decided to include Burton in the Order for Staffordshire afterwards, and that the case of Burton-on-Trent had been dismissed at the inquiry.
  Mr. MONTAGU: In absolutely deciding the size of the area, regard must be had to travelling facilities, and you must have a zone of protection. If the restrictions are too narrow you do not achieve your object, because people go backwards and forwards. There have been a good many complaints made in this House on the matter. For instance, the hon. Member for Wiltshire complained about the inclusion of agricultural areas. That is done to protect a particular part. A zone of protection is put round a particular area which has been scheduled, for reasons connected with transport, military camps, munition areas, and so forth. You cannot merely take the public-houses in the streets in which the soldiers or workers live. You must have a zone around the district to prevent the people going out beyond it to get drink. Before the House comes to a judgment upon the achievements of this Liquor Control Board, I should like to give one or two figures which I understand have not yet been published—some of them may have been, but others have not—which are the most recent available statistics on these heads. The weekly average of convictions for drunkenness in England from January to September, 1915, were 1,497. The weekly average from January to September, 1916, were 830. In Scotland, the corresponding figures are 722 and 406. Two arguments that have been used in this Debate and elsewhere ought to be mentioned in regard to these figures. In the first place, it is sometimes said that these reductions in the convictions for drunkenness are due to the large number of men who have gone abroad. That is not the case, not only with regard to the statistics for drunkenness, but also the statistics for other offences. I do not think that is the case, because the drop in the number of convictions came immediately after the imposition of the restrictions, whereas the flow of men abroad who consumed beer and alcohol has been going on steadily throughout the War. I would point out further that the diminution in the convictions for drunkenness occur pretty nearly equally in men and in women. I would point out further that there is a marked diminution in the areas which have been especially restricted as against the areas which have not been so restricted. Therefore I think I can claim that there is strong evidence—these figures are very difficult.
  Mr. HAZLETON: Has the right hon. Gentleman the Irish figures?
  Mr. MONTAGU: No, because, as the hon. Member knows well, at the time the Liquor Control Board was set up we agreed that it was not to apply to Ireland until a Member representing Ireland was added to the Board, and no such member has been added to the Board. [An HON. MEMBER: "Nor ever will be!"] Do I understand that the intention of this Motion is that the Liquor Control Board should apply to Ireland?
  Mr. RAWLINSON: Why did you not apply it to Ireland?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Why did you not apply Conscription to Ireland? [HON. MEMBERS: "You ought to have done!"]
  Mr. MONTAGU: As regards beer, from April to September, 1915—the first half of the financial year—15,000,000 barrels were consumed; for 1916, 13,000,000 barrels. As to spirits, the 15,000,000 gallons in 1915 sank to 8,000,000 gallons in 1916. The hon. Member referred to the fact that because drinking had been stopped in licensed premises in all probability there had been an increase in home drinking. I do not think that is the case, because if that were the case there would not be the marked drop in cases of delirium tremens, of attempted suicide and of drunken brawls which the statistics show. I claim that for a war measure the work of the Liquor Control Board, judged by its results, has proved to be eminently satisfactory. I would submit that on the whole, considering the enormous difficulties of the problem which they tackle and are tackling, it has worked remarkably smoothly. It really is not the case that the trade in Lancashire, or Manchester, I think it was, were not consulted. My information is that they were consulted twice. The trade, the hon. Member would admit, is not to be the final arbiter in this matter. They are entitled to be heard and they are represented on the Board. Progressively as the work has extended, the Board has improved its machinery for hearing their representations.
  I would submit further, and finally, that, so far as it has been proved necessary for Parliament to control the activities of the Liquor Control Board, the machinery devised by Parliament when the Act was passed and which is now at work, gives ample safeguards, ample provision, and is sufficient for the needs of the War and for the defence of the realm. It is equally

  1385
  true to say, as the hon. Member quite rightly remarked, that when this Board was set up it was never believed that its activities would extend to so large an area as is shown by the map to which I have referred. Could anybody then have foreseen that this was not going to be by any means a local work and that this would not be confined to particular parts of the United Kingdom, but that in every area every activity and all men's minds were to be fastened on serving and saving the country, and that almost every area would be a munitions area, a naval area or a military area. With the extension of the war work came the extension of the Liquor Control Board, and the increased response which has been made by all classes in every part of the United Kingdom to the necessities of the War has been materially helped by the working of the control of drink which the members of the Liquor Control Board have been able to achieve.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: The House generally will have felt that neither the Mover nor the Seconder of this Motion seemed to realise that he was raising a question of the most vital importance to the conduct of the War. They have discussed the action of the Liquor Control Board from altogether too narrow a standpoint. The Mover seemed to think that the mere question of the particular form in which the House could exercise its control over the Board was an all-important one, instead of in reality being the smallest point and the least important in the matter. The Mover went back to the origin of the Liquor Control Board, and I, also, would like to direct the attention of the House for a moment to the circumstances in which the Control Board was brought into existence. There had been a pretty general sense in the country that there was need of some strong temperance reform at the beginning of last year. There had been deputations of employers from the North asking Parliament not to allow the liquor trade to go on in the old way, interfering—in spite of what the hon. Member below the Gangway (Mr. O'Grady) said—with the output of munitions.
  Mr. O'GRADY: That is not true.
  Mr. JONES: That has been proved again and again. The hon. Member must be absolutely ignorant of the literature on the subject. It is a commonplace that
  1386
  the effect of liquor in this country and every country interferes a great deal with the efficiency of labour.
  Mr. O'GRADY: I hope the hon. Member will not mistake my point. My point is that the statements have been made over and over again in this House, and I now ask him to prove the statement he has just made.
  Mr. JONES: I shall have a good deal to say about it before I sit down and will try to satisfy the hon. Member. I recall the fact that the present Secretary of State for War, then the Chancellor of the Exchequer, went on a pilgrimage to Wales. He declared, and he has not withdrawn his words, that drink was a greater enemy of this country than Germany or Austria. As a result of those declarations and deputations and the general knowledge of the community of the work which drink was doing, it was expected that there would have been proposed by the Government at that time far-reaching temperance reforms. If it was true, as the right hon. Gentleman stated, that drink was a greater enemy than Germany or Austria, ought not we to have dealt with it as we deal with other enemies? It is an offence to trade with the enemy. Why did not the Government make it an offence to trade with this enemy? Instead of that they proposed to nationalise it. That is not what the House generally would desire them to do. They made various proposals for dealing with it. There was the proposal by the present War Secretary for nationalisation, which fell dead. There was a proposal for a high tax on spirits, which was introduced on one day and dropped the following day, or the day after. There was a measure passed for keeping spirits in bond which, as a war measure, seemed to be a mere window-dressing piece of legislation. Having talked about this question and delayed long, in the end this House and the Government did nothing except to hand over the problem unsolved to the Board of Control. Now we are asked by the hon. Member opposite, in the public interest, to resume the powers which the House has entrusted to the Board of Control fifteen months ago, but has the Government any more made up its mind how the trade should be dealt with than it had then? Is the House any more agreed as to the method which ought to be pursued? I have seen one or two pretty ominous signs lately that,

  1387
  although the War Savings Committee is at last realising the importance of this drink question, the Government itself is still in a very uncertain attitude towards drink. We heard yesterday of this book on the women's war work which has just been published by the War Office at a cost of over£720. It gives pictures of the war work which women are doing. On page 51 I find women working upon the railway. On page 55 I find women making shells. On pages 52 and 53 I find women working at beer bottling, and in a brewing factory cleaning brewer's vats. Are we to take it to-day that in the opinion of the War Office the cleaning out of brewers' vats is war work, in the same sense as working on railways and in shell factories?
  I hold in my possession two letters from the Ministry of Munitions. The House knows that building operations may not now proceed without the consent of the Government. Leave was asked to extend a beer-bottling factory and leave was granted. At the same time, in the early part of this year, within a fortnight, leave was asked to extend a factory which was engaged in making clothing for soldiers, and leave was refused by the Minister of Munitions. I will read the two letters. They are to the same builder. The first was:
  "I am in receipt of your letter of the 15th instant with regard to the extension of bottle-making works."
  for a firm of brewers whose name I will not give, though I have it here.
  "Please note you may consider this war work."
  The letter is signed "L. W. Lewellyn, Director of Materials," and it is dated from the Ministry of Munitions. Three weeks later the other application is dealt with.
  "I am in receipt of your letter of the 6th instant. Please note that permission cannot be given for a steel joist to be supplied by the Cooperative Society, and therefore the order must be refused."
  That was for the extension of the clothing factory. I want an explanation from the Minister of Munitions. I wish to know whether it is the policy to allow steel joists for the extension of beer-bottling factories, but to refuse them for clothing factories. The first letter is dated 18th March, 1916, and the second 10th April, 1916, and they are both signed "L. W. Lewellyn, Director of Materials," at the Ministry of Munitions. I want my hon. Friend to take care, however, that the builder who sup-
  1388
  plied me with this information is not in any way under condemnation at the Ministry of Munitions because he expresses amazement at one request being accepted and the other being refused.
  Then I say, if this is still the attitude of the Government, if they are still doubtful how they should deal with the liquor trade, would there be any advantage at all in their taking over a much closer supervision of the operations of the Board of Control? Had the House not much better leave the control where it is? I think we must all recognise who look at it with anything like an impartial eye that good has resulted from the operation of the Orders in different parts of the country. I do not wonder that members of the liquor trade are not satisfied with the control of the Liquor Control Board. It cannot be very gratifying to the feelings of those gentlemen that in a time of war, when all trades and all individuals are called upon to render service to the State, they can render no service to the State, and that all that can be done with them is to place them under the control of a Board which is to safeguard the nation against the operations of the trade. I do not wonder that they feel uneasy at the operations of the Board of Control, but that is no reason why the House of Commons should withdraw its confidence from a Board which is doing its best in an almost impossible task. The House of Commons gave up the problem. They handed it over unsolved to the Board of Control. To this day we do not know what to do with the liquor trade. We have tried this and we have tried the other. We should like the trade to go on and do no harm, but we cannot ensure that. We now give it to the Liquor Control Board to let them do what they can and make the best of it. The Liquor Control Board has been doing its best, though it has not done all it might. It has issued two Reports, and in the second Report, which comes down to May last, there is an account of the work which the Board has undertaken. It has closed a number of houses. In my judgment, it has not closed nearly enough. It might have gone much further in that direction with great advantage to the community. It has shortened the hours of sale. I think the House might have done that, but I think also that everyone who knows the social conditions of our cities and of our country districts will recognise that the shortened hours during which the licensed premises are

  1389
  now open is a very great advantage to the order and conduct of the country. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Gretton) declared that the No-Treating Order had been of no advantage whatever to the country. That is not the testimony of social workers throughout the country. It is not the testimony of the police. On the contrary, the whole verdict of impartial observers is that the No-Treating Order has had a very beneficial effect on order in the country. In many ways the operations of the trade have been restricted by the Board, and the restrictions, according to this Report—and I hope hon. Members have read it—have been most beneficial. I will read a few extracts from it—the verdict of chief constables and others who are responsible for the order of our cities:
  "Newcastle-on-Tyne.—The restrictions imposed by the Board have worked satisfactorily and appear to have had a marked effect on the drinking habits of the people.
  Gateshead.—The effect of the restrictions imposed by the Central Control Board on the sale of liquor has been to reduce drunkenness considerably in this area.
  Yorkshire, North Riding.—The restrictions on the sale of liquor imposed by the Board have been extremely successful in reducing drunkenness."
  So it goes on throughout the country—Yorkshire, Wakefield, Liverpool, Warwickshire, Hampshire—all over the country, England, Scotland, and Wales, there is the same story told, that as the result of the shortened hours of sale, the diminution of facilities for getting liquor, and the restrictive operations of the Board, very great advantage has resulted to public order.
  The Board has gone further. It has endeavoured to set up what it calls counter-attractions, and there I cannot give their operations quite the same hearty support that I have given to their restrictive programme. They are seeking a counter-attraction to what? To drink; to what the Secretary of State for War called the lure of drink; and anyone who considers the problem knows how strong that is. It is to drink that a counter-attraction is required, and I cannot think the Board of Control is acting wisely when it opens refreshment houses, or cinema shows, or bowling greens, and allows the sale of liquor in connection with these counter-attractions. I should have thought the obvious thing was to open counter-attractions without liquor, and not to have the same temptations that are to be found in the old places.
  An HON. MEMBER: Do you make any distinction between beer and spirits?
  Mr. JONES: Certainly. If they prevent the consumption of spirits throughout the country they will have achieved an enormous success. I did not for a moment confuse beer and spirit drinking. I think they would do well to make an end of both. They have opened in Carlisle, in the old post office, a sort of model public-house. They have got a most beautiful room, and furnished it admirably. It is well lighted, and they have music and various attractions, which the old licensees were not allowed to have on their premises, and they have made a very attractive restaurant, and I believe they are having large numbers of visitors there, and the place is much appreciated, but they have associated with it a bar, a very unattractive place along a narrow passage. They have made it as uncomfortable and unattractive as they can. I really do not feel that people who merely want a drink would ever go to that tavern. I think the Board would have done a great deal better to have that tavern without drink in order to show the people of Carlisle that society and good cheer and companionship are not inseparably connected with drink. They would have served a great public purpose if they had opened this as a social institute, where you can get good meals at reasonable prices without beer at all. I still hope it is not too late to get that bar removed. I appeal to the hon. Member for Blackburn to use his influence with the Board to see whether they cannot get the bar removed.
  Colonel HALL WALKER: Has not the number of offences for drunkenness increased in Carlisle?
  Mr. JONES: It is rather too soon to judge of the operations in Carlisle, but I believe the convictions have gone down there as elsewhere. I do not attribute the diminution of convictions in Carlisle to the fact that the Government have there purchased premises, because you see the same diminution in places where they have imposed their restrictions but have not purchased premises. That brings me to a point in the argument where I find myself very much in agreement with the Mover and Seconder of the Resolution, and that is that I do not think this Act was ever intended to allow the Board of Control to indulge in great purchase experiments in regard to liquor. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Montagu) raises his eyebrows and

  1391
  turns to his paper. I am going to refer him to a statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, now Secretary of State for War, when the Bill was passing through the House. I made an effort to exclude from the Bill any power to purchase on the part of the Board, and I received for that Amendment considerable support in quarters of the House which give me very little support when I am speaking on the drink question. So warm was the Debate that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to use all his eloquence to crush the obvious feeling that was rising in the House, that this was too great a power to bestow upon the Board that was to be created, and it required the interposition of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) to explain that this power was not to be widely used, but was merely a necessary part of a general power they were taking to save the nation from great financial loss, and was never to be used except in an emergency. It was only on that appeal from the right hon. Member for West Birmingham that the Amendment was withdrawn and the Clause was allowed to pass. I was so uneasy about this power being given that on the Third Reading I raised this question, and I will read what passed between me and my right hon. Friend. I said:
  "The right hon. Gentleman is taking power to purchase, but he did give a pledge to the House that that power should be used as little as possible.—"
  The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Montagu) accepts that as his predecessor in his present office accepted it.
  "There was another point, and that was the question of various social experiments to be made by the Government during the War. On this question we were assured, after a long Debate on an Amendment which raised the point, that it was not the intention of the Government to make those experments, but, on the contrary, all that they were asking for was power to supply drink as part of the general scheme for supplying refreshments in munition areas.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th May, 1915, cols. 167374, Vol. LXXI.]
  The power to purchase was to be strictly limited to those cases where financial loss to the nation must be involved unless purchase was resorted to. It was not intended that purchase should be resorted to for the mere purpose of carrying out the operations of the Board of Control.
  The right hon. Gentleman accepted what I said. He replied:
  "My hon. Friend the Member for the Rushcliffe Division (Mr. Leif Jones) has given an inventory of
  1392
  all the pledges which I gave. I shall keep that inventory safe, and I have no doubt at all that we shall try to discharge them, and he will find that the document will be duly honoured."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th May, 1915, col. 1675, Vol. LXXI.]
  I want to ask the present Minister of Munitions whether the present Secretary of State for War left that document in the Ministry of Munitions, and whether it is the intention of the present Minister of Munitions to honour the pledge which his predecessor gave, and by reason of which he got the Act passed into law. Such was the feeling of the House in regard to this question of purchase—and that is the real substance that lies behind the Motion today—that the Act would not have been passed in its present form had not those pledges been given by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was not intended, and it is not right, that the Board of Control should use its powers for making experiments in nationalising the liquor traffic in this country. I must complain that the Board of Control, while it has made these large experiments in purchasing, has in no part of the country made any experiment in what is, after all, the most tried and successful method of putting down the evils of the liquor traffic, and that is prohibition. The case for prohibition of the sale of liquor at the present time is overwhelming." I do not know if it has really been put before the House since the War began. It was strong enough at the beginning of the War. Russia, with difficulties as great as our own, if not greater, resorted to this method of husbanding its resources and safeguarding the efficiency of its labouring population and its soldiers, and the result has been to strengthen Russia enormously in the common struggle. I think it is infinitely to be regretted that we in this country have done so little in this matter.
  Mr. ALDENmade an observation which was not audible in the Reporters' Gallery.
  Mr. JONES: That made no difference. What difference does it make? If you wished to prohibit there was nothing to prevent you putting down the sale of liquor by means of an Act of Parliament in just the same way as they did it by fiat in Russia. You would have had to settle the question of compensation after prohibition had been proclaimed. There was no difficulty. The Government have been taking over all sorts of things, and they have been dealing with all kinds of vested interests. Had the Government intended to do it they could have done it.
  Mr. ALDEN: You would not have got it through Parliament.
  Mr. JONES: The hon. Member now says you never would have got it through this House. That is quite a different argument. I must, however, meet him with a direct denial when he says that the mere fact that the liquor trade in this country was not nationalised was the operative cause why we have not got prohibition.
  Mr. ALDEN: What I meant was that if the Government had owned all the houses in this country at the outbreak of the War, then I can see they could prohibit the sale of liquor.
  Mr. JONES: I do not see how the Government could do that without the consent of Parliament, and the hon. Member says that consent would not have been given. I want to press my point upon the attention of the House and upon the attention of the Board of Control
  Colonel WALKER: On a point of Order. May other speakers follow on the lines that are now being taken by the hon. Member, dealing with a subject separate from the Resolution before the House? May other Members argue against or in favour of prohibition?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I understand that Mr. Speaker has indicated to the hon. Member that the Amendment he has on the Paper cannot be moved as it raises an issue remote from the Resolution; but I do not see how I can prevent any hon Member from arguing for or against a proposition which he thinks the Control Board ought to have adopted.
  Mr. JONES: I think my argument is perfectly in order, but I can well understand how distasteful it is to the hon. Member.
  Colonel WALKER: Not at all.
  Mr. JONES: I hope the effect of this discussion will be that the Board of Control will give us a large experiment in prohibition in this country. I am going to give reasons why I think at the present time prohibition should be supported by men who have no sympathy with prohibition on ordinary occasions, and who do not like any interference with the habits of the people. The War Savings Committee have issued a proclamation in which they declare that the truest patriotism demands that everyone of us should do without whatever is not essential for health and
  1394
  efficiency. I claim that practically the whole of the alcohol consumed in this country is unnecessary for either health or efficiency. The waste in connection with drink is unceasing and enormous. There is waste of food in making it, there is waste of money in buying it, and there is waste of men and women in consuming it. I do not know whether hon. Members who are not very familiar with this question know what is the waste of food in connection with the making of drink at the present time. Does the House know that we are using 1,000,000 bushels of corn every week in the making of drink? One million bushels of corn per week would give us the whole of the bread consumed by the French and British Armies. Does the House know that the sugar used in the making of drink at the present time would supply the whole needs of our Army of 5,000,000 men? That is a serious matter with food prices at their present level.
  Mr. W. THORNE: The moral is, do without sugar.
  Mr. JONES: I do not think that is the moral. At any rate that is not the moral I should draw. The moral I should draw is that you should not consume your sugar for a wasteful purpose in the making of drink, but that you should consume your sugar in a useful form. It is not only the question of the waste of food that is involved. A great deal of materials have to be brought to this country in ships from foreign countries. Is it right at a time when one of our greatest difficulties is the carriage of goods from foreign countries to this country by our mercantile marine that you should be allowing millions of tons of tonnage to be wasted in bringing materials to this country for brewing purposes? Then again, the railways are overworked. Is there any common sense in allowing 40,000 tons of drink stuffs to be carried weekly along the railways of this country, when they are understaffed and the utmost difficulty is experienced in the conveyance of goods. The Prime Minister was at a coal conference yesterday, urging upon the miners of this country that they should increase the output of "coal, and pointing out the great difficulty in which the country is involved through the need for coal. Is it common sense at a time like this—this is not teetotal prejudice—that 5,000 or 6,000 miners should be working day in and day out to supply coal to the brewers and distillers of this country? By saving foodstuffs, by saving tonnage, by saving railway carriage, by saving the work of coal miners,

  1395
  and the labour of the men who are making drink, of whom there are 150,000 or there abouts, and 350,000 distributing it, prohibition would be most beneficial. The case for prohibition, from the point of view of the waste in labour and foodstuffs, is overwhelming. I can go further than that.
  I have only referred so far to the making of drink. The drink bill of this country last year was£182,000,000. We are spending practically£500,000 a day on drink in direct expenditure. Since the War, which has now reached its 814th day, we have spent on drink directly in this country over£400,000,000. I have used these figures in public and have been told they are wrong. I challenge investigation. You cannot make the bill any less. The cost to this country has been£400,000,000, and that is a sum which our Chancellor of the Exchequer, cheerful as he is about the financial prospects of the country, might take into account. It would have been better for this country if this money had been thrown into the sea, because the direct expenditure is but half the cost. The indirect expenditure, through the cost of dealing with the results of liquor in the crime, disease, and poverty caused by it, and through the loss of efficiency in labour caused by it, is not less than the direct expenditure. It is very difficult to get exact figures, but no investigator has ever put the indirect cost of drink at less than the direct cost. Therefore, I say with confidence that the cost of the liquor traffic to-day in this country is not less than£1,000,000 a day. We have the example of Russia and we have the example of America. What is it that is making the tremendous movement in the direction of prohibition in the United States of America? It is not the scientific demonstration of the truth about the effect of alcohol. It is proved that the consumption of drink is inconsistent with the efficiency of the nation, and it is that conclusion which is being driven home to the heads of great enterprises in the United States which is making prohibition sweep like a great prairie fire throughout the continent of America. It is that conviction which has made Canada, during the War, in their desire to reach their highest efficiency, declare in province after province, by a vote of the people, in favour of prohibition. Let me read an extract from a paper on this point:
  "It is not the crank,"
  1396
  says this American paper,
  "who is putting the liquor saloons out of business. It is the business man, the railroad man, the banker, the lawyer, the merchant, the worker, and the men who have to depend on someone else for efficiency in important work. Whenever there is a demand for efficiency there is a demand for putting down of the consumption of alcohol."
  6.0 P.M.
  That is the lesson which Russia ought to have taught this country in the two years during which it has had prohibition. I do not know if hon. Members have read the speech of the Russian Minister of Finance, M. Barck, in February last, when introducing his Budget. He is not a teetotaler, but a hard-headed financial Minister who has handled a Budget nearly as big as our Minister has had to handle. He had to give up a revenue of£90,000,000 derived from liquor at the beginning of the War. In February, 1916, as a result of this sacrifice of revenue, he said that Russian finances are in a more stable condition than they have ever been in before. It must always be remembered that there is no net revenue of the country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer can get the money, but more has to be spent by the country as the indirect result of drink than ever the Chancellor of the Exchequer can get from it. M. Barck claimed, as a result of prohibition, that Russian crime had been reduced and the productivity of labour had been increased by from 20 to 30 per cent., and that there had been a general improvement in the popular well-being.
  Mr. W. THORNE: The productivity of labour in this country has increased in the same manner.
  Mr. JONES: No, it has not There has also been in Russia an immense increase in the saving habit. I will give some figures from a Russian factory as to the effect of prohibition I take them from the "Glasgow Herald."
  Mr. O'GRADY: Would you give us figures for this country?
  Mr. JONES: In this large factory, employing 3,500 people, the number of days lost per month before prohibition was 3,376. The same number of workers, over the same number of days, lost per month 1,901 days after prohibition was enacted. That is to say, the lost time was reduced by almost one-half in this Russian factory. And the same thing is going on all over Russia by the mere fact of the prohibition of the sale of drink. I ask hon. Members to investi-

  1397
  gate this matter for themselves, and to realise to what an extent the drink trade has interfered with the efficiency and output of the country.
  Sir E. LAMB: In Russia they have been able to do that because the trade was nationalised.
  Mr. JONES: That is quite irrelevant. It would be quite easy in this country if it was decided to do so. But it is said that one reason why the Board of Control had made no experiment, and why the Government could never give the matter serious consideration was that they think the workers of this country would not consent to prohibition. I think that they under-estimate the patriotism of the workers in this country. The workers in this country have accepted Conscription at the hands of this House. Do you think that that was an easy thing for them to do? Do you think that they did not cherish their liberty? No one in this House will deny that it was a sacrifice for Labour in this country to accept the Military Service Act. They did it because the Government of the day told them that it was necessary in order to win the War. It was because they thought that it was necessary to win the War that they accepted that at the hands of the Government. Had the Government put forth the same effort to induce them to accept prohibition, they would have found no lack of response on the part of the workmen of this country. I have a right to speak as to the opinion of the country at the present time in regard to this matter. So impressed were we with the necessity for cutting down this waste during the War that we got together a Committee and appealed to the people of this country, and asked them whether, in order to safeguard the resources of the country and prevent waste, which we were invited to do by the War Savings Committee, it would not be desirable to prohibit the liquor traffic during the War. In six weeks we received 2,000,000 signatures to that memorial to the Government. I have handed it to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has not given me his answer yet. He has promised, however, careful consideration of this memorial. I hope that it is receiving it. But if he doubts whether that memorial represents the sense of the country, I challenge the Government to take the sense of the country upon this question. I ask them to refer to the localities, to the country as a whole. I do
  1398
  not care what test you take. My belief is that the people of this country do not desire the liquor traffic to go on in the midst of the War.
  I read in the "Licensed World" that not even to win the War would the people have allowed the Government to enforce prohibition. So it has come to this, that the liquor trade can boast that the nation will give its time but not its drink; that it will give its money but not its drink; that it will give its sons but not its drink. That is a foul slander upon the people of this country. The country knows to-day what the War is costing. We know it in this House. We see faces of new Members who have taken the place of the Members who are gone. What is happening in the House is happening all over the country. The people of this country to-day are not asking for luxury or ease or self-indulgence. They are listening for the call of duty. They are waiting for leadership, for guidance from the Government. I appeal to the Government to give it. The people want their lives to be lived on the heights of service and sacrifice, so that they may be worthy of the men who have died, and of the living who are winning victory for us through danger and agony and death.
  Mr. O'GRADY: I do not propose to follow the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down in the statements which he has made as to the question of the Control Board, and the experience acquired by the Board in Carlisle and other places. I rise to protest against the declaration made twice this afternoon, that we were behindhand in the manufacture of munitions as a result of drunkenness among the working men. When the late Minister of Munitions made the statement in the House it was controverted. One instance which was quoted recurs to my mind. It was said that in a certain shipyard the men did not turn up on Sunday morning or Monday morning to go on with their work, and that loss of time was attributed to drinking on the part of the men. I happen to know the circumstances of the case, because two of our men, trade union officials, lifelong teetotalers and ternperance advocates along the Tyne area, were told off specially to investigate the case, and they found that of the number of men concerned, who had remained away from work on Sunday and Monday morning, 60 per cent. were actually teetotalers. The remainder were men who took refresh-

  1399
  ment now and again. The real cause of the men remaining away was that they put on the shift a tired squad, men who had been working hard the whole week. They were put on the vessel on Saturday morning, they were there all day on Saturday and all Saturday night and up to two o'clock on Sunday, working the whole time, and the natural result was that the great majority of the men, although teetotalers, according to the report of our own teetotal officials, remained away from work.
  I do not know how it is, but it is always the working-man who is to blame in this matter. I never heard any declarations made as to managers, directors or highly-paid officials getting drunk and being responsible for the non-production of sufficient munitions of war. I would recall to my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Wing) the experience of our two selves when inquiring into munitions work in Sheffield. In every factory and workshop into which we went we made inquiries of the employer, chairman or board of directors as to what effect, if any, drink had had upon loss of time and in interfering with the production of munitions, and I think that he will agree with me that, with one exception, every single employer said that there was none. Take the case of the famous Hatfield works, employing over 10,000 men. The directors were astonished that the men could go on doing their laborious work and increasing their output without losing time. My hon. Friend will remember that the leaders of these great firms, on the public platform in front of the men, thanked the men for what they had done in producing a tremendous increase of output.
  I notice that Sheffield has been scheduled as a drunken area. I venture to say that, having regard to the circumstances of Sheffield working life, there is no more sober area in the whole country. I come to the question as to whether or not there has been an increase of drunkenness even before the restrictions of the Board came along. I protested in this House at the time that the statement did not apply to Leeds, and I was very careful to get the report of the Chief Constable of Leeds upon this matter. Taking his figures, I find that in 1911 there were 2,337 cases of drunkenness; in 1912 there were 2,741; in 1913, 2,233; in 1914, 2,095; and in 1915, 1,593. I might mention that the Control
  1400
  Board's restrictive Order did not come into operation in Leeds until 22nd November, 1915; and I think the House will agree that these figures show a progressive diminution in this drunkenness which it is alleged is rampant among our people. I have not got the figures for 1916, as this report was only published in February of this year. But the whole facts in reference to drinking among the working people, long before the War, show that—thank God!—year by year we are becoming a sober nation. I have heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer, time after time, since I have been here in 1906, crack the usual jokes with long-drawn face when lamenting the fact that there was a constantly reduced revenue derived because the people of the country, the nation as a whole, were becoming more and more sober year after year.
  I think we are missing the main point of this Motion. I have put down a Motion which I have been told is controversial, but I do not want to raise a controversy about the Control Board; I do not want to denounce it; I frankly admit, from my own experience, that the Control Board has done good work. That is one side of the question. At the same time, I want to qualify that by saying that in certain aspects of the Board's work, particularly in certain places, and certainly one district, it is creating woeful drunkenness, which is more rampant than it ever was before. In regard to the Control Board's Regulations, I have just this observation to make, that I believe every member of the British public resents and objects to anything in the shape of compulsion; they are not going to have these things rammed down their throat. Let there be no mistake about that. The question before us involves a constitutional point, and that was the only reason why I put down my own Motion. Let me take the financial aspect of this subject. Recently we had from the hon. and gallant Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee (Colonel Sir R. Williams) a very interesting and closely reasoned statement, and what was the burden of his observations to the House? It was that this House ought not, under any circumstances, to relinquish its power and control over finance in the interests of the people who pay the taxes. That was the trend of the whole Debate which we had the other evening. I cannot understand, when we know how every Department of the Government is under the

  1401
  control of this House, why this Control Board is allowed to act as it does. The Departments of the Government have first of all to prepare their Estimates; the House debates their Estimates, which are subsequently remitted to the Public Accounts Committee, who again review and criticise them. Spending Departments, like the Admiralty, the War Office, and the Board of Works, have to come to this House with their Estimates, and surely if that be good enough for them it should permit this money to be spent in Carlisle Board in regard to any expenditure they undertake.
  I wonder whether we are going to permit this money to be spent in Carlisle upon something like four breweries, without discussion, without consideration, without examination?. My hon. Friend (Mr. Leif Jones), in his very powerful speech, talked about the nation having accepted military compulsion. They did, tout it was not done until after debates in this House, with full opportunity for Amendments, and a Division. The Control Board, however, do not come under that condition; they are not subject to discussion in this House, and that is my objection. It seems to me that the Control Board is becoming a sort of bureaucracy. Take the case of the munition workers. All those who are engaged in the production of munitions accepted the Munitions Act, which was a very drastic piece of legislation. I got up to defend it, though I did not represent the views of many of the workpeople at that moment; but the whole of the representatives of trade unions came to the conclusion that they must support the Bill in this House. The workers of the country followed the discussion of that Act from the start to the finish, and, though they did not approve of it, they agreed to its acceptance. With regard to military service, we accepted the principle of compulsion because we knew that the country was engaged in a life and death struggle, though it was repulsive to us. What I object to is that the Control Board stands outside the control of Parliament, doing just what it likes. That is a very dangerous precedent to introduce into the Constitution of this country. Supposing the people on some occasion became stubborn on a question of wages, and it was decided that they were not to have wages considered. Indeed, I regret to say we have had a statement from one of the Departments of the State, in a communication
  1402
  to the Committee of Production, that they were to be very careful about awarding any increase of wages to these people. The Parliamentary Secretary shakes his head.
  The PARLIAMENTARY (MILITARY) SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. Neil Primrose): I did not.
  Dr. ADDISON: I shook my head, because no Department has ever issued any such instruction.
  Mr. O'GRADY: I can give an instance where an instruction was given. I will give a case, that of aeroplane building, in which the wages of the men were so low that I was ashamed of the Government over the matter, and although we made out a case the Committee of Production took the instruction of the Department and gave an award against it. If that is done in regard to wages, it is conceivable that this principle of control may so develope as to interfere with the mode of living of the people, and it would mean not merely the fixing of wages, but the fixing of the amount of food they shall consume, their hours of labour, and ultimately to prescribe to trade unions what shall be done. I only wish to point out that if anything approaching that condition of things were to be attempted there would be something like a revolution in this country. Let there be no mistake on that matter. It is because the Control Board are doing their business by methods outside the Constitution that I want it to be brought within the purview, supervision, and control of this House. On the constitutional point, I agree that in time of war we cannot have full liberty; there must be a restriction in the national interest and for the national safety, but I submit, in this instance, that all these proposals with which the Control Board are connected should come before Parliament in order that we may have an opportunity of expressing our opinion upon them and of coming to a decision. Personally, I feel that most strongly. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) and my hon. Friend the Member for Gorton (Mr. Hodge) are members of the Board, and I was sorry to hear the statement made by the hon. Mover of the Motion about my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn. It was invidious to select him alone and to make the statement about him which he did. For myself, I do not hold the views

  1403
  of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, and he does not hold mine, but we respect each other's views. Let there be no mistake about the position of the hon. Member for Blackburn and the hon. Member for Gorton, or the party with whom I am associated, on the constitutional point. We were consulted, and this is why I am sorry the question was raised by the hon. Member opposite.
  Sir J. D. REES: The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. Stephen Walsh) does not think so.
  Mr. O'GRADY: I am simply putting the technical point; it does not mean that there is agreement with all that is done on the part of my hon. Friends. To come to the experiments which have been made, I do not know whether any of my hon. Friends have seen anything of what appeared in the "Dundee Advertiser," dated the 13th of this month, from a correspondent who investigated the results of the experiment at Invergordon. It is fair to observe that the man who wrote it appears to be a prohibitionist or a very strong temperance advocate. I will give a brief résumé of certain passages in his article. He says, in effect, that the matter has been in the experimental stage, and long enough in operation—I think six months—to declare one of two things: either that it has been a success and has therefore elevated the morale of the neighbourhood or that it is the other way about. He declares that he has seen women trundling go-carts along the street—that is, children's little carts—filled with bottles of whisky and bottles of beer. That occurred under the Control Board, and we thus have the handling of liquor by children—by boys and girls. The correspondent declares emphatically that the experiment has brought about a greater state of drunkenness in the locality than ever existed before.
  Sir STEPHEN COLLINS: You said that they were more sober before.
  Mr. O'GRADY: I am talking about this particular locality, and I would point out that where you have people coming from different areas—from the North and the South—people with different methods of living, and all are dumped into one locality, there is bound to be an increase
  1404
  of drinking. Let me say something with regard to the Carlisle experiment. I may quote the "Manchester Guardian" of June 15th last, which says in respect of this experiment:
  "The City Police are handicapped because half of the force of eighty, including the youngest and most vigorous constables, have joined the Army."
  The paragraph in which this passage is quoted goes on:
  "Nevertheless the number of convictions for drunkenness has rapidly increased."
  Then follow figures showing, May, 1915, twelve convictions; May, 1916, 114 convictions; and the report goes on to state:
  "The restriction of the hours of sale, one learns from the last report of the chief constable, has lead to drinking at top speed, and a corresponding quick transition from soberness to intoxication. No drink at all can be sold on Sunday in the Carlisle district, but the evil of secret drinking on that day has been intensified by the Regulation which forbids the off sale of a less quantity of a quart of spirits."
  That is the statement of the "Manchester Guardian," and those are the statements with regard to the experiments of the Control Board in Invergordon and Carlisle, and if they are anything like true, and they may be expressions of opinion, and if they accurately size up the situation, then all I can say is this: that the political plank on which I stood and the members of the party stand, namely, the municipalisation of the drink traffic, has been placed back for a generation. We cannot discuss these propositions upon the floor of the House, simply because the Board is not under the control of Parliament. If a Minister were here to answer for the Control Board, this question could be raised, and if this dangerous development had taken place in areas like Carlisle and Invergordon, then at least the House could take control and insist on the Minister taking action. I do plead to the House to give consideration to this Motion. I know we cannot discuss this question without passion on one side or the other. I interrupted the hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division, but nobody has a more sincere regard for him than myself in the position he has taken up. I think he is wrong, but I am absolutely certain he is honest. He, or I, perhaps, cannot discuss this question without a certain amount of heat. I do think the Motion, in view of the fact that it involves only a question of finance and the constitutional point, ought to be, and I hope will be, accepted by the House.
  Major ASTOR: The House has listened to various aspects of the temperance question and also to statements as to the effects of the action of the Control Board. It is quite right that the House should do this, because it has to decide whether or not the status and past relationship of the Board to this House is to be altered. In coming to a conclusion the House very naturally will want to know the probable effect upon the prosecution of the War of any change it decides to make. In the early days of the War, the House, the country, and everybody realised that there was a certain problem which ought to be dealt with, a problem which was to some extent interfering with the rapid prosecution of the War. It is a problem which is very easy to exaggerate, the drink problem; it is a problem which is frequently minimised and more frequently misunderstood. The problem connected with drink is not merely involved in the discussion of drunkenness, but it is a question of efficiency. I rather thought that the last speaker was slightly influenced by what we have heard outside, namely, that the working-classes have been insulted by the action of the Board. I know that is a charge very frequently made against the Board. In the Army and in the Navy there are very drastic restrictions upon drink. Soldiers and sailors are only allowed to obtain drink at certain limited times, yet nobody has ever suggested that the Army Council or the Admiralty are insulting the men of His Majesty's Forces by putting those restrictions upon the consumption of alcohol. The Army Council and the Admiralty, and, in fact, everybody realises that, for the sake of efficiency, for the sake of having an efficient Army and an efficient Navy, and at the present moment we are trying to get an efficient nation, you must put very drastic restrictions on the consumption of alcohol. It is with that object in mind the Control Board have acted during the last few months and since they were created. Let me say that it is with a genuine feeling of pride that I have seen the response made by the working-classes to those restrictions. Many of them thought that they were deriving a great part of their strength, and that they were getting the whole of their amusement by the unrestricted consumption of alcohol. As soon as it was put to them that for their own sake, and for the sake of those who perhaps were the frailer members of society, certain
  1406
  restrictions ought to be put, they at once responded, and put up with great inconvenience. I think that at the present moment they would be the first to bear testimony to the good work of the Central Control Board.
  The State realised that there was a drink problem, and set about to deal with it. A Defence of the Realm Act was passed, giving certain powers to the military and naval authorities, but those powers did not prove adequate, and so the Central Control Board was created. The Central Control Board was given, certain powers and put in a certain position. Parliament deliberately decided that the Central Control Board should be independent of the daily cross-currents, the daily influences which exist here and in the constituencies, and Parliament deliberately decided that on certain matters of policy it would leave control to the Central Control Board, and that it should not be subject to daily interference. The Board have been actuated throughout with a desire to give reasonable facilities for refreshment consistent with getting the maximum amount of efficiency from the country. Hon. Members have referred to the Report which the Board have issued. We have talked a great deal recently about manpower. We are trying to get men for the Army and trying to keep a necessary number of men in munitions. We also want to get the greatest amount of productivity out of the men in this country. I could quote, if necessary, dozens of cases from employers, from people connected with war industries, as to the beneficial effect coming from the restrictions of the Board. I want to restrict myself to quotations from what I may call War Departments; that is, Departments more intimately connected with the prosecution of the War. I take first of all the Admiralty. Nobody has ever suggested that the Admiralty was teetotal or fanatical or anything like that. Here is the quotation:
  "The most recent authoritative expressions of opinion on this matter which come from admirals and other officers in important commands are summarised by the Admiralty as confirming reports received earlier in the year, that the general effect of the restrictions has been decidedly beneficial. Transport officers are unanimously of the opinion that the restrictions have had a considerable effect upon the efficiency of the transport service."
  There is also the Report of the Board of Trade, which says that:
  "Statements have also been received through the Board of Trade from the larger ports with regard to the effects of the Board's Orders, which are singularly uniform in their testimony to the

  1407
  advantages secured. The work of the ports and docks is reported to proceed with improved punctuality and efficiency, and in general it is affirmed that increased sobriety among sailors, firemen, and dock labourers enables ships to get away and to proceed to sea with greater dispatch than was the case before the Board's restrictions were introduced."
  When we realise the extent to which, now at this time of war, we depend on transport for the importation of food and of munitions of war and for the exportation from this country of our men overseas, for the sending to them of munitions and food, testimony such as this ought to carry the very greatest weight with everyone in this House who is interested in the rapid prosecution of the War. Here is a War Office quotation:
  "The Army Council informed the Board on the 29th January that reports have now been received from various commands, the general effect of which is to show that the Orders of the Board have had a beneficial effect on the discipline, training and efficiency of the soldiers and have helped in the recovery of the sick and wounded."
  That is a short quotation, but I do not think I have ever seen a more eloquent one when one realises that it comes from the War Office. I do not see how anybody interested in the pushing of this War to a successful and rapid termination can lightly suggest that we should alter the status and powers of a Board which has been able to do such good work and which has received such unqualified testimony from the War Office, the Admiralty, and the Board of Trade. I turn to the question of Parliamentary control. The Minister of Munitions dealt with the relations of the Board to Parliament, and I do not think it is necessary to go over that, as he referred so clearly both to the general and constitutional and financial aspects. The House has had two previous occasions on which it has discussed the work and composition of the Board. If there had been any general expression of condemnation of the activities of the Board, and if the House of Commons had shown in those previous Debates by a large majority that it disapproved of the way in which the Board was acting, then, of course, the Prime Minister and the Cabinet would have altered the constitution and the regulations under which the Board works. The House of Commons has periodically an opportunity of reviewing the work of the Board and of expressing its opinion—I do not say daily—and the House of (Commons is constantly asking questions, and quite rightly, as to the nature of the work which the Board does. Over 200
  1408
  questions have been asked and answered concerning the work of the Board. But although Parliament has general control over the activities of the Board, it decided in its wisdom when it was creating a special body that it would make it independent of daily interference.
  What exactly is meant when you ask for greater control? Do hon. Members suggest that every time the Board wishes to schedule an area it shall come to the House and ask for permission? Does it mean that every time the Board proposes to make a restriction it shall come to this House and have a Debate upon it? Why, at present it takes the Board weeks of examination before it can decide whether a particular area ought to be scheduled. They have to go into the question and look at it from every possible side, and, having spent weeks in examining a particular area, discussing boundaries and ascertaining exactly the effect the restrictions would have, is it reasonable at a time like this when we are at war, and when the Board is very often being pushed by the War Office or the Admiralty or the Ministry of Munitions to schedule an area, to ask that it should come here to the mother of Parliaments and ask it to spend hours and days to discuss the whole question over again. It is perfectly inconceivable that in time of war we should do this. If it is proposed that the House of Commons should consider the evidence and examine the motives which have actuated the Board, it could not possibly do it in a few hours. The mother of Parliaments at a time like this has not the time to discuss what are, after all, comparatively small details. The House of Commons cannot possibly in a matter of this kind have both efficiency, which has admittedly been produced by the policy of the Board, and also daily interference.
  It is quite possible that some Members here and a certain section outside do not approve either of the way in which the Board exercises its powers or of the powers which the Board has. But I suggest that the large bulk of moderate people—not the extremists—both in this House and outside, do approve of the work which the Board has done. They realise that the Board has materially assisted in the more rapid and successful prosecution of the War by increasing efficiency, helping the Army, and accelerating transport. I spend a great deal of time trying to keep in touch with Parliamentary

  1409
  opinion, and I am certain that other members of the Board who are also Members of the House do the same. In connection with the work of the Board I travel over the whole United Kingdom, and wherever I go I try to ascertain, not what the prejudiced opinion is, but what the general opinion of the man in the street is. I was in my own Constituency the other day and I tried to get in touch with organised Labour—not officially, but with people who I knew were connected with organised Labour. I try to get in touch with all classes, and I found there, as I have found in other parts of the United Kingdom, the same general approval of the general lines on which the Board has been acting, and of the effect produced thereby. An hon. Member referred to two spheres of the Board's activities—Invergordon and Carlisle. I need hardly remind the House what an important place Invergordon is at the present time. As the hon. Member read newspaper extracts condemning in unmeasured terms the effect of the Board's work, it may interest the House to know that at a recent conference the local Admiral expressed his entire approval of what the Board had done. The local Admiral—who knows far more about it than this writer who came along, spent a few days there, and then went off to write these columns for the newspaper—said that it had been of the greatest assistance to him, to the Admiralty, and to the Fleet generally. I think I may dispose of the Invergordon question with that statement.
  We have heard a great deal to-day about Carlisle. I should like the House to understand that the Board did not dash into Carlisle with the intention of trying a great social experiment. It may interest the House to know exactly how the present situation arose. One must not say too much about munition factories, but it is common knowledge that what was previously moorland waste at Gretna is now occupied by a huge factory connected with the War. The Board was invited to deal with the alcohol problem and with the public-houses in that area. Reference has been made to the increased convictions for drunkenness m Carlisle. The hon. Member did not tell us that with the erection of that factory there came thousands of men to that area. It is unfair, inaccurate, and misleading to quote the figures of drunkenness after these thousands of men had been brought into the area and compare them with the convictions in the period before these men came. I forget the exact number, but
  1410
  possibly something like 15,000 human beings were brought into the area. At any rate, it was a very big number. Therefore, it is perfectly ridiculous to compare the figures of drunkenness in the early days of the War with what existed after there had been this sudden influx of navvies and others connected with the erection of the new factory. If the hon. Member had pursued the subject, he might have told the House that recently the convictions have gone down and there is a general improvement in the district. Owing to the influx of these thousands of men into this area, and owing to special circumstances, the ordinary restrictions of the Board were found to be insufficient. The Board was continually being urged by the people responsible to take more drastic action. It was an urgent and vital matter. Anybody who has been to Gretna and knows the importance of the Gretna factory in the production of munitions of war will realise that the Minister of Munitions was anxious that a better state of affairs should be brought about. In spite of the ordinary restrictions of the Board there was a public scandal in that locality, and the Board was compelled to face the fact that it must do something more. There were two alternatives. The first was prohibition—
  Mr. JONES: Hear, hear!
  Major ASTOR: And the other was direct control. The hon. Member says "Hear, hear!" to prohibition. I agree that the people of this country are so patriotic that if you tell them that a particular thing is necessary in order to win the War, they will put up with any inconvenience; but I do not think that the people of one area would agree to be singled out for exceptional and drastic treatment, such as prohibition. If the Government were to say, "Prohibition throughout the United Kingdom," that would be one thing. It would be quite another thing for the Board of Control to go to one area and say, "We really are going to schedule you as a drunken area; we are going to have total prohibition here, but not elsewhere." From the point of view of practical politics and of common sense, the hon. Member will realise that it could not be done. There was another difficulty. Prohibition for the whole country, while it might be enforced, would not be easy; but just imagine the difficulties of having prohibition in an area like Carlisle. If it was to be enforced, practically everyone

  1411
  who came into the area, every motor and every cart would have to be searched. You have only to state the proposition to see that you cannot have it. Prohibition being out of the question, the Board had to adopt the other alternative—direct control. I have stated the different steps by which the present situation has arisen. The Board did not, when first created, say, "Let us go in for a great social experiment in the nationalisation of the drink traffic." Little by little, step by step circumstances compelled the Board to take action. It is because of that that the present position has grown up.
  It may interest the House to know very generally what the present situation is in the Carlisle area. The Board has taken over something like 150 public-houses, closed a little over thirty, and is considering taking action in connection with others. The work of the Board must of necessity be very slow, because of the shortage of labour. It is trying to give greater facilities for recreation, for food and for refreshment, and to make general improvements. But owing to the shortage of labour—carpenters, plumbers, builders, and so forth—this takes a very long time. Therefore I hope the House will not come to any hasty decision as to the success or failure of what has been done at Carlisle. It would be quite unfair. Any opinion formed to-day would be entirely misleading and of no value. But two things have come out already. The first is that sobriety generally is increased by this factor—that as soon as you have disinterested management there is less inducement to the individual to sell alcohol. To put it another way, when a man does not depend for his livelihood on the takings at the bar, but has a fixed salary, you have a most important factor in obtaining sobriety. Already that is being felt. An hon. Member said that there was a great deal of intoxication on Sundays in Carlisle, and that the No-Treating Order was neglected. What the Board found was that, until they got direct control and direct management, the law of the land which happened to be the restrictions of the Board in that area, was to a great extent a dead letter. It is now being enforced to a far greater extent, and for the first time the ordinary standard restrictions of the Board are being carried out. Therefore you have two most satisfactory results already in the Carlisle area.
  Mr. JONES: Why were they not enforced before?
  An HON. MEMBER: What about taking over the breweries?
  Major ASTOR: My hon Friend will know what is meant by the tied-house system. If you buy 90 per cent. of the houses connected with a brewery you have to pay practically as much as if you bought the whole brewery. After all, in spite of what has been said, we are the watchdogs of the Exchequer, and we do pay attention to that matter. A previous-speaker said that we have not consulted the trade sufficiently. What exactly is meant by "consulting the trade?" If you mean, have we given the trade an adequate opportunity of stating its case, either centrally or locally, my answer is most emphatically, yes. We have given the trade a full, adequate, and sufficient opportunity of stating its case. If you mean, have you acted before having convinced the trade that action is necessary and justified, that is an entirely different proposition. After all, there must be a final tribunal. A friend of mine suggested the other day that there should be a Court of Appeal of three judges. Just imagine what would happen, supposing the Board spent three or four weeks dealing with an area, and then there was an appeal, when three of His Majesty's judges had to spend another three or four weeks on the matter. You must have a final tribunal, and at the moment the Board happens to be that tribunal. Although the Board has given the trade a full and ample opportunity of stating its views, I say quite frankly that very often the trade has disagreed with us; we have not been able to convince its members. But that has not been our fault. They have had plenty of opportunity to put forward their views and to thresh the matter out.
  Another criticism is that we have cast-iron restrictions; that we do not have local variations to suit local requirements. In theory I agree entirely. In theory it is most desirable that the requirements and the special needs of each area, of each section of the community, and of each individual, if you will have it so, should be met. It is only when you try to put it in practical working you find how amazingly difficult it is. As a matter of fact, generally speaking, there has been similarity, but it is also a fact that a great deal of the hostility of areas has been done away with. I remember when a watering place told

  1413
  us that it must have special restrictions, and the Board spent much time in seeing whether it could not alter the restrictions to meet the special requirements of watering places. It found it impossible to do so, and as soon as it was explained to the locality that it was not being singled out for special treatment, or special restrictions, but that competing watering places would have similar restrictions, a great deal of the opposition to the action of the Board was done away with.
  7.0 P.M.
  I think the Mover of the Motion dealt with the absurdity of a man not being able to treat his wife. Prima facie that is a good criticism; a good point. But now what practical suggestion has my hon. and gallant Friend made for enabling a man to treat his wife, and yet for the No-Treating Order to remain in force? When a man goes out he cannot carry his marriage lines in his pocket. How can the seller of liquor possibly tell that the lady who accompanies a man is or is not his wife? We have heard a great deal of the irritating restrictions and inconveniences following upon our restrictions, and connected with them. I admit they are great inconveniences. It is one of the unfortunate tragedies of war that it is accompanied by restrictions which are necessarily inconvenient. To leave this House nightly and try to find my way home in the dark is amazingly inconvenient. The censorship is inconvenient. The whole of the restrictions connected with the War must of necessity be inconvenient, and it is therefore ridiculous to single these out and loose that sort of criticism upon the Board of Control. I said just now that the Board had tried to make local variations, but they have found that the Orders, generally speaking, are interlocked with each other, and that they must be taken as a whole. It is as a whole and not individually that I put them forward and support them to-day. The Orders must be taken as a whole. You may or may not like one or the other, or why it was put into force. Some of the Orders and restrictions which have been most particularly criticised have been put into force as a sort of complement to a previous Order which the Board made. It is because of that that our Orders must be taken as a whole.
  One last thing. We have been told that the Board have gone a great deal further than Parliament expected. That is very
  1414
  probable. It is probable they have gone further than many people in this House expected, or intended the Board should go. But the Board have not gone beyond their powers. I do not know how many people, when this particular Act was passed, realised the development of this War. We talk of "a nation in arms." The whole nation is organised for the purposes of war. Your Armies have grown from thousands into millions. Almost every ship, every passenger ship and transport has been utilised for the prosecution of the War in the interests of the nation. Industrial establishments have been turned into arsenals in the interests of the War. Barren wastes are covered with munition factories and overrun with troops. That is the growth and development necessarily following upon this great War, and it is ridiculous to come down and condemn the Board of Control for having kept pace with the development of this war organisation. The Board of Control has done much. The Board has gone ahead and has done what it has because its members believed that the country desired the Board to keep pace with the growth and development of the War, and was determined that it should. They believed that the country desired that the Board, so far as they were able to do it, should try to produce the maximum of efficiency, should produce every ounce of energy and efficiency in this country. The Board have been able to help the War departments in doing this. I wish the House clearly to realise that the Board have been able to help the War Office, the Admiralty, the Board of Trade, and the Munitions Department because of their exceptional position and status, and because of the exceptional powers which have been given to them. If the Board had not had a certain degree of independence it would never have been able to do what it has done. It would never have been able to help the War Office and the Admiralty in the way it has. It is because of that that I suggest, in the interests of the War, that it would be most unwise to alter the status of the Board.
  Mr. THOMAS: I am sure the House generally is indebted to the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, not only for the speech to which we have just listened, but for the courage with which he has tackled this question. As a Labour leader, I do not think it is necessary to

  1415
  apologise for the statement I am about to make—that nothing is more unfair in the Debates of this kind than the presumption that the working classes are something different to anybody else. No one resents, and will continue to resent more than I, unfair attacks upon the workers of this country. But I would be false to my experience, and I would be playing the hypocrite as a Labour leader, if I did not frankly recognise that there was as much vice amongst my own class as there is in any other class. When something of public policy is done in the interests of the State we have got to realise that it ought to be done for the working classes as well as for anybody else. There is a tendency at all times to drag the workers into this question. When the Board of Control first commenced their operations in London people that had been little heard of in the trade union movement, and whose connection with that movement was very doubtful, were immediately called in as the defenders of trade unionism.
  Mr. W. THORNE: Name!
  Mr. THOMAS: I will name some in [the course of these proceedings, and I will deal with my hon. Friend's union. He will have an opportunity to reply to me. In the early stages the trade union movement, I repeat, was organised and its name was unfairly used, and people took upon themselves to use the movement for ulterior purposes. My own society was connected with this movement. There was a circular issued broadcast to the effect that the railwaymen were opposed to the Board of Control, and they were up in arms against the restrictions. Other unions, including my hon. Friend's union, were also included. I did not concern myself with his business because I presumed he would be quite capable of dealing with it himself. But I immediately asked for proof for associating the National Union of Railwaymen and the railwaymen of London with this bogus agitation. I challenged Mr. Joe Terratt, who is the individual my hon. Friend talks about, to prove that the railwaymen had given him a mandate. He mentioned a branch which, he said, had given him power to speak on their behalf. That branch was composed of 160 members. Because that one branch had passed a resolution, he associated 27,000 railwaymen as being opposed to
  1416
  the Order of the Board of Control. That was not sufficient. This particular branch did not object to the work of the Board of Control. What they did object to was that, unfortunately, like many other trade union branches and friendly society lodges, they were compelled to meet in a public-house for their branch business. That is one question that I hope will be dealt with, because nothing is more cruel and fatal than that of bringing men into an organisation for their benefit and being compelled week after week to put temptation in their way.
  At all events, the fact remains that there are a large number of unions that are compelled to meet in public-houses. The landlords of these public-houses do not go to the men and say: "You are going to be deprived of your beer. We want you to complain." They went to them and said, "Owing to the Order of the Board of Control we have now got to turn you out of your meeting-place." This was absolutely contrary to the instructions of the Board of Control. I took it up with the Board, and got their authority for saying that, whilst it was true that no intoxicants were to be sold after the specified hour in the branch room, there was nothing to compel the landlord to turn the members out of their meeting-place. What did the landlords do? They proceeded immediately to turn them out. This, to my mind, proved conclusively that their only interest in having the meeting-room in their house was because of what was sold and not because of the interests of the particular union. I want to follow that up by the statement that was then made that the whole of the trade unions were up in arms in London and in the country, and that there was going to be a revolt of miners and so on. The remarkable thing is that, although that is over twelve months ago, there is not a trade union in London of any substance protesting to-day. That, I submit, is the best evidence so far as the original agitation is concerned.
  The second point with which I want to deal is this: Is there any Labour leader in this country, with experience of large masses of men, but would be compelled to admit how much better it would be for him, how much easier would be his task, and how much more successful negotiations between employers and workmen if it were possible to deal effectively with the drink traffic? Can anyone challenge the statement that in every appeal which

  1417
  has been made on behalf of improving the conditions of the men the leaders have always had to meet the argument of the lost time of the men? The employer immediately turns round when asked for improved conditions and says: "It is useless for you to talk about a struggle on the part of your men to live when we can show, side by side with your statement, the fact of a large amount of lost time week by week. How can you reconcile the two?" Whether we like it or not, the fact remains that there is better time-keeping where the Board of Control have effectively done their work. That is not all. If there is one class in the community more than another that ought to receive our support at this time, it is the wives of those who are away, and can anybody who is used to going into industrial centres, who is compelled to go into the poorer districts, do other than deplore the sights that we see there every day? It is not that we are saying the soldier's wife is not capable of taking care of herself, but as men of the world we know perfectly well that, with the husband away, and with this sorrow and suffering, these women are more likely to give way at that time than any other. Surely it is our duty to save them, not only in their own interests, but in the interests of the brave fellows who are fighting our battles.
  What are the statistics on this particular point? I am now taking the Liverpool area, and dealing with women alone. The number of suicides was 120 in 1912–13, and the figure was brought down in 1916 to sixty-three. I know it will be said, you cannot attribute all suicides to drunkenness, but I think if you made a close examination, you could attribute a very large number to it. Here is a table taken from Liverpool again, showing the number of cases of delirium tremens. It was 196 in 1913, and seventy-five in 1916. In another district the number was brought down from twenty-seven to eight. But what is even more important—taking another district—of women prosecuted for drunkenness alone, the weekly average, in 1915, prior to the Order, was sixty-seven; the average after the Order was thirty-nine. In another district the average before was thirty-three, which was reduced to thirteen. These figures could be multiplied in many ways, but I do not think any municipal authority or chief constable will seriously challenge the fact that, wherever the Board of Control have
  1418
  put into operation these Orders, it has tended to the benefit of that particular community. On the other hand, strongly as I advocate a temperance policy, I frankly admit that this body ought not, under the guise of war, merely to propagate a temperance policy. I frankly admit that they were not set up for the mere purpose of being temperance advocates. We could deal with that in a normal time. But wherever it could be shown to them that the efficiency of the nation was being impaired, that war work was being retarded, that the best was not being done and it was due to proven drunkenness, in that case I submit they had the power not only to do what they did, but to have gone even considerably further. I realise that this evil of drink cannot be associated with any one cause. Environment, housing, and a hundred and one other things, are all mixed up with it, but I would ask the House to realise that at the present time we can see for ourselves in many quarters the awful and evil effect. If, I submit, this country is now determined to make every sacrifice for the purpose of winning this War, whether it be the working classes or any other classes, if drink is the barrier, then let drink be swept away and victory secured.
  Mr. NIELD: A great deal of what we have listened to to-night might just as well have been, addressed to the House on a Motion to dissolve the Board. All we are asked to-night to do is to declare that this Board should be made amenable to the control of Parliament. I think it would be difficult to find other bodies exercising anything like the power this Board does that is not subject to the control of the House of Commons. I listened with great interest to the admirable speech made by the hon. and gallant Member for Plymouth, and I listened also with interest in order to see what were his objections to Parliament having a better control, or control, over this Board. The reasons he advanced were that if Parliament had proper control over the Board it would be necessary to come to Parliament to sanction every scheduled area.
  Major ASTORmade an observation which was not heard in the Reporters' Gallery.
  Mr. NIELD: I did not understand the hon. and gallant Member to ask whether that was meant by the Motion, but I do

  1419
  say that nobody would suggest for a moment that the Board should be subject to control of that sort. What one does want to see is that this House should have direct control over the policy of the Board and the general and wide principles on which the Board act. I do not propose to go into questions of its effect upon localities. I can only say this from the point of view of the diminution of crime at county Sessions. Of course, crime has enormously diminished since the War started. That began long before the Board of Control came into existence, and I cannot therefore say that the Board of Control is directly responsible for that. But I do criticise some of the methods, and I do think there are cases so extreme that Parliament would be justified in saying that if the Board can take those steps it ought to be made more directly amenable to its jurisdiction. One of the most interesting features of the precincts of this House is the little plate that informs Members as they come along the corridor from the District Railway that so many feet from that spot stood the Star Chamber. Now, the Star Chamber was objected to because it was an uncontrolled Court. There were no means of putting a limit to its jurisdiction or to the character of the penalties which it inflicted. It was absolutely unrestricted, and that is very much the same position in which this Control Board is at the present moment.
  Mr. A. WILLIAMS: Was the Star Chamber set up by Act of Parliament?
  Mr. NIELD: I rather think a Star Chamber existed many centuries before it was destroyed. It was set up by custom and had quite as good a right and title as the old Manorial Courts. It was set up, administered and recognised right through the Tudor period as a lawful tribunal, and it was only when it began to abuse its powers that it was put an end to in the Parliamentary trouble of the seventeenth century. This Board has acted without any opportunity for redress to be given as did that ancient institution. I am going to give the House a little idea of how it disregards the public. Let me quote from a statement of a very well-known public man, at one time a member of this House, Mr. Edmund Broughton Barnard, who sat for some time for Kidderminster, and there is none
  1420
  better known in the county of Hertford or more entitled to speak for it:
  "My experience of the Liquor Board is as under:

  (1) They profess to act in conformity with local opinion.

  (2) Of course, if there is any direct munition or military they act on it.

  (3) Outside the Metropolitan Police district of the county there are no munition works of consequence and hardly any soldiers in the county.

  (4) They called in June a conference to contemplate the necessity for the Order in Bucks, Heros, and Essex. They invited to that conference chairmen of county councils, chief constables, mayors of boroughs, chairmen of petty sessions. As regards Hertfordshire the county council and the chief constable both said there was no sort of need for the Order. The mayors and chairmen of petty sessions agreed that there was no need. The secretary of a Chamber of Agriculture who had never called together the Chamber, said the farmers wanted it. All authorised representation of public opinion said it was unnecessary and quoted the statistics showing that drunkenness had decreased to a minimum without the Order. Yet the Liquor Board publish the Order for the whole of Herts, and say that they do it in deference to public opinion, when all authorised public opinion had asked them not to do so."

  That is an illustration of the way in which they start their proceedings. Let us see how they treat that disinterested management which has been spoken of with commendation from time to time in this House. A number of well-intentioned and public-spirited gentlemen have put their hands in their pockets from time to time to try to remedy this question of drunkenness in a reasonable spirit, and one which would be in accordance with the large volume of sober opinion in the kingdom. The Home Counties Public House Trust was one of such bodies. I need not call attention to the great number of names of those on the Council. They are most eminent men, including many noblemen belonging to the other House. I will only mention the names, amongst others, of Lord Kinnaird, Viscount Hardinge, Lord Rayleigh, and our much-esteemed Whip, the hon. Member for Chichester (Lord E. Talbot). Those are only quite a few of the members of the Council of this body who are acting through directors, of whom the Earl of Lytton is the chairman. Some of these are business men and some men of leisure, but all giving their time, and many of them a great deal of money, to this movement to acquire public houses in order to instal disinterested management, to get rid of the publican who lives, as my Friend said, on the profits, and to substitute a manager who has a greater commission on the sale of food and nonalcoholic drink than he gets on the alcoholic drink, there being every possible inducement on the part of the manage-

  1421
  ment to push the sale of other than alcoholic refreshments. Lord Lytton says in the "Trust Review" of April last:
  "As soon as the Liquor Control Board was appointed, the Home Counties Public House Trust Company expressed its willingness to place its services at the disposal of the Board. Our managing director spent much time in interviewing several of its members, and supplying information on matters concerning which his advice was sought. At the personal request of the chairman of the Board, we prepared and submitted a scheme for the management of the retail trade in any area which the Board might select, and subject to any restriction which they might impose. Our scheme provided for the payment of the market value of any property acquired, and for handing over to the Control Board the entire proceeds of the trade after providing for the expenses of management. In short, we offered to act as the agents of the Board, to relieve them of all administrative responsibility, and to provide out of the trade of the houses the funds required for their acquisition. Instead of accepting our offer the Board have decided to manage the trade themselves, and have actually selected an area, which already included one of our houses, for their first experiment. At the same time they frankly and fully admitted that our management of this house was unexceptionable."
  This place was carried on at the time of this Order under the most favourable conditions in the interests of temperance. The lease had fourteen years unexpired, and the landlords were a body of public trustees. These included the Board of Conservators for the River Lea, selected from various councils and urban areas, and were essentially a public board. The only exception to this membership was a representative who was elected by the barge owners for the Port of London. There was also a member representing the Water Board, the County Council, and I had the honour to represent the County of Middlesex. We were the landlords, and we let this house, which is close to Enfield, under a very restricted lease, and it was occupied by the Home Counties Public House Trust. What happened? I know the defence of the Board is that they could not treat one house different to another. But why not? In the interests of temperance I should have thought that they might have differentiated between houses under disinterested management and doing everything they could to provide meals for the workers in the small arms factories and ordinary licensed houses of which there were two, if not three, in the same locality. Let the House consider the position, and note the action the Board of Control has taken in relation to the question whether it ought to Toe subject to the direct control of this House. Here is an extract from a letter from the managing director of the Home Counties Public House Trust (Limited):
  1422
  "In March, 1915, in order to make sure whether the catering facilities were adequate, I inquired from the Government authorities in the Small Arms Factory whether there was any need of increased catering facilities, and I was informed that there was not. Two months later I was informed by our manager that further accommodation was desirable, and I at once took steps to effect this. Unfortunately, I met with much delay and difficulty, occasioned by the officials at the factory, which controls the gas supply and also the drainage, and three months passed before I could obtain an enlarged gas-meter from them. These delays prevented the completion of the alterations and additions, but rather more than a month ago these were completed at a cost of many hundreds of pounds, and they afford accommodation sufficient for the feeding of at least half as many men again. Thousands of men are being fed weekly, and to their satisfaction, and none had to be refused. On the 22nd of December, in common with other interests affected, we received a notice of the intention of the Control Board to acquire our premises within ten days."
  Just fancy what that meant. The whole of this house, which admittedly was doing a public service, feeding thousands of these men, received a summary notice. Having on their own initiative, after the authorities had said it was not necessary to extend their premises, built additional dining rooms, and having laid out money for that purpose, they are treated as if they were an ordinary licenced victualler making no provision for food but simply trying to get as many people to drink liquor as fast as they could and get out of the bar. I wonder if the House ever thought, when they were giving this power to the Ministry of Munitions under this Act, it would be possible to give a notice of this sort, and ten days after that, without any investigation of title, with no intermediate requirements like those which are recognised when there is a transfer of real property, take possession of the property. The letter proceeds:
  "I will not dwell at length upon the subsequent extraordinary high-handed action of the Board and that of the officials which it employed. I will merely enumerate some of them and content myself with saying that they are all facts which can be proved up to the hilt by correspondence and other testimony. They gave us only ten days' notice to make arrangements, with Christmas holidays intervening. They commandeered our valuers after we had disclosed our case to them. They changed the date of acquisition without consulting our valuers, or acquainting us of the fact, and this at the eleventh hour. They endeavoured to induce our manager and staff to enter their service instead of remaining with us by a promise of greatly inflated wages, and this after the manager had made his election to remain with us. They agreed to the valuation of certain costly fixtures, including a dining-room and coffee stall, and at the last moment, when it was too late to remove them, seized them without payment to us."
  Can any conduct be more high-handed than that; and is it not time that the House of Commons had some control over this Board?

  1423
  "Finally, after giving notice of the change at 3 p.m. on 4th January, they took the building and its contents at twelve noon, before I could arrive or protest. They paid for the consumable stock and such selected fixtures as they thought fit, and they seized all the remainder, took advantage of all the new improvements and alterations and of the very valuable lease and goodwill without making any offer of or giving any undertaking as to compensation, although an individual member of the Board had previously assured me that we should receive the fullest compensation.'
  This is how they treated a public company trying to do a public work:
  "Thus we have lost, through no fault of our own, while admittedly doing our full duty to the public, all we possess at the Swan and Pike Inn, amounting (including the value of the lease) to some£11,000 to£12,000. But there is a much wider question than this."
  He goes on to deal with the general subject of the injustice which has been done. Could the House possibly conceive a greater need for control than is revealed in this case? Can it possibly justify the taking and seizing of some hundreds of pounds of expenditure on improvements honestly done by public-spirited individuals merely on the ground that they can make no difference between that house and the other licensed houses? They have repeated the same operation in the case of the other licensed houses in the immediate vicinity. These places were, roughly speaking, worth£23,000, and they have proceeded to take those premises, and the owners have got to go to the Commission set up to settle war claims. I am told that the Government valuer actually admitted privately that this place was worth at least£10,000. The sum of money that was subsequently offered to include the£817 expended in improvements was the sum of£1,700. While inquiries were proceeding with regard to the needs of the county of Hereford and the adjoining part in Middlesex, every information was given by this public-spirited body of gentlemen, and afterwards that information was used against them. I know there are a large number of hon. Members wishing to speak, and there is a great deal more I could say in relation to this particular house and its treatment by the Board of Control, which was the subject of a letter written to the London newspapers on the 11th of January, which nobody has controverted or challenged in respect of any facts disclosed by that letter. I think that shows that the facts cannot be controverted. If that be so, is it not a very strong case for putting some limitation by the control of Parliament upon the operations of this Board?
  1424
  Let me mention one fact as to the way in which this particular house is managed since it has been taken over by the Board of Control. I am not going to say that there is any drunkenness, but I have it on the information of a. gentleman I have known for many years, whose official residence is immediately opposite, that on the night of the 2nd of September, when there was a Zeppelin raid, when we know one of the objectives was that particular locality, between twelve and one at night, when the workers come out for what they call their dinner hour, this very public-house, situated on the side of the River Lea, was ablaze with light which reflected on to the water in close proximity to an important Small Arms Factory. That was the way the house was controlled upon an important occasion when every light should have been low in order to conceal the light of the place. I can vouch for that circumstance, and I mention it because I know it cannot be challenged, because the gentleman who told me, and whose life was jeopardised, would have every right to complain, because if an explosion had taken place he and his family would have been the sufferers, because they lived just on the other side of this illuminated river upon which the public-house threw its light. I am not advocating the abolition of this Board, and I am not attempting to enter into questions relating to temperance. I think it is a pity that any of these wider questions should have come in when we have arranged a political truce, because this is a very large matter. I do feel, however, that although the exigencies of the situation may require this Board to be in existence and to have extensive powers, yet it ought not to be a Board absolutely beyond the control of this House spending public money, acquiring premises when they might have leased them, because they could have leased the whole of these houses. They could have placed them under stringent regulations, to which they could have made every one of them conform. No one would have objected to that, hut to confiscate property and to act in that drastic way under pressure of war and under the unlimited powers we have given to the Ministry of Munitions is a very grave scandal on the part of the Board of Control. Under the Licensing Act the trade hast very largely provided the fund for the purpose of the extinction of licences which has been going on quietly for years,

  1425
  and in many places great improvements have taken place. The funds derived from the trade have been appropriated to buy out houses upon a fair valuation to be agreed upon by a valuer appointed by the justices and a valuer appointed by the brewers. The compensation paid under the Licensing Act is based on the true value. I am in the presence of one of the Commissioners and I hesitate to make any prophecy, but from the proceedings which have hitherto taken place, I should imagine that the compensation paid by them bears no relation to that which is ordinarily paid to a publican for the extinction of his licence under the Licensing Act. It is a grievous thing that there should be this difference. Surely if it is right in one case to pay upon a proper basis of valuation, then in the other case the Board of Control ought not to be allowed to come in and buy them on another basis, giving nothing more than broken-metal prices. I think the House should put some limitation on the action of this Board, and that is why I have risen to-night.
  Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: The speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Plymouth (Major Astor), a very eloquent and patriotic speech, really brought the House back to the realities of the situation. This is a War Emergency Board, and its sole object is to attain the greatest degree of efficiency in this country and to safeguard the nation against an admitted national danger. The only standard of criticism which applies to a Debate such as the present one is whether the Board in the exercise of its powers has or has not protected the public interest. It has been made very manifest that no other object has been in the minds of the members of the Board than that of how they can best serve their country at the present time, and I think the view of the country would be: Let the Board get on with its work; let it succeed in eliminating the danger in our midst, and let it have full powers to do so. I am one of those who regret very deeply that the Government did not at an earlier stage have the courage to deal with this question itself direct. It has, however, appointed a Board, all of whose members have shown themselves anxious to serve their country in the best possible way. They are all men of great public spirit, and there is no criticism which can be fairly attached to any individual on the Board for having failed to realise the importance of the very difficult task entrusted to him.
  1426
  It is very advantageous that such a Board should be removed from all direct political influences and party considerations. On the other hand, I believe, as the Minister of Munitions stated, that the Board ought to keep in touch with public opinion throughout the country and to feel satisfied that it is giving effect to the wishes of the people of the districts where it is putting its Orders into operation.
  If I have any criticism to make upon the Board it is that in soma respects they might, with the full assent of the public opinion in Scotland, carry still further the restrictions which they are empowered to impose, and the prohibitions which they are empowered to make. I would also submit to the members of the Board present that there is very strong feeling in favour of the extension of the prohibition? of the sale of spirits throughout the whole of the areas which they have scheduled in Scotland.
  I understand that the procedure of the Board is to consult the local interests or local opinion that they can summon to their conferences. That is a wise method, but I should like to suggest, when they are considering public opinion in each district, that they should take particularly into account the views of those who are in positions of authority, representing public bodies, local authorities, and licensing courts. I should like also to suggest that they should consider particularly in regard to the extension of the prohibition of the sale of spirits in Scotland, the results which have been obtained in the three areas which have been already delimited and in which that particular prohibition obtains at the present time. I am quite sure that I can appeal to the hon. members who are serving on this Board with great force when I say that the restrictions—I refer particularly to the prohibition of the sale of spirits—in the North-West area, in the North Coast area, and in the Northern area of Scotland, have been very successful. The people in those districts have indicated that in their opinion the restriction ought to be continued and made permanent at least during the period of the War. I would ask that effect should be given to the opinions which have been expressed in other areas that a similar prohibition should apply to them. Surely it is rather illogical for the Board to suggest that in only three areas in the North of Scotland, where there is something like a population of 142,000, prohibition of spirits should be enacted while

  1427
  leaving out of account large areas, munitions area, and other important areas, in the East and West of Scotland, where there is still great room for improvement.
  The views of the licensing authorities are worthy of consideration. The Board, I understand, attach importance to these views. I happen to represent a district in which the Licensing Court has refused to renew any licence in the borough of Motherwell except upon the condition that no spirits shall be sold. The question whether that is a legal action on the part of the magistrates is at present being considered by the Court, and, therefore, being sub judice, I do not refer to the legal aspect of the question at all. I desire, however, to draw attention to the fact that you have a Licensing Court in a great industrial district—the Glasgow Licensing Court take the same view—supported by the Licensing Appeal Court, presided over by the largest employer of labour in the district, in favour of the extension of this prohibition of the sale of spirits throughout the whole of the licensing district. I appeal to the Liquor Control Board to give effect to that opinion in the district, and I hope note will be taken of the situation there and of the excellent results which have followed from the restriction on the sale of spirits in the district. Despite the fact that the area is limited, and that men can go outside to get their spirits, there has been a marked improvement throughout the community and almost a complete cessation of drinking among women. There has been only one woman brought before the police bar in that area in one month, whereas they were numerous before. It was necessary for the liquor trade to go to London to get an orator to address a protest meeting in the Town Hall against the restrictions imposed by the Licensing Court. If public opinion is to serve in these matters and to be consulted, I do not think that the Board could find a more suitable illustration of the desire of the community, employers and employed, that further action should be taken in this direction. Surely public opinion is at the foundation of all their inquiries. We can have confidence in the actions of the Board only if we believe that they are willing to consult the localities. There is great need for further action being taken. The Chairman of the Board has twice delivered speeches in the West of Scotland. I am glad to have the
  1428
  opportunity of testifying to the results which have followed from the action of the Board throughout Scotland. I can assure him that Scottish people are very grateful for what has been done, but I suggest that there is need for something further. I would like to refer particularly to the speech which he delivered on the last occasion he visited Glasgow. I think it is of some importance. He said:
  "If the figures for Glasgow are compared with those for large areas similarly employed further south, it will be found that the amount of drunkenness per 10,000 of population is, roughly speaking, twice as great here as in those areas.… A consideration of these facts and figures appears to me to lead directly to two conclusions. It would be absurd to claim that in Scotland the problem of the drink traffic and of drink control has been completely solved. A comparison with the condition of affairs in other cities of the united Kingdom, engaged in similar industries, appears to show that there is still a great deal to do, but that further improvement is clearly within our grasp, provided that there is effective administration, sufficient determination, and sufficient courage to deal with the difficulties inherent in the problem."
  8.0 P.M.
  I am well aware that there are many individuals who believe that further success will be obtained by continuing on the lines of the present restrictions and by more efficient administration of the law. May I remind the Liquor Control Board that in this matter of enforcement of the law the remedy is in their own hands. They have the power to shut down any licensed premises where they are satisfied that there has been an infringement of the law. They have exercised that power in Glasgow with very good results, but there is not a district in the country where, if the Liquor Control Board were to say they proposed to exercise their power to the full, if there were infringements of the Regulations, the licence holders would not be prepared to accept and 'carry out in every respect the provisions of the law. There is room for great improvement with regard to the position in Glasgow and the West of Scotland. No doubt the figures for drunkenness show a marked decrease. I do not want to criticise those figures. It would be ungenerous to suggest that they do not in themselves afford a fair indication of the diminution in drinking, but if I may say so, from considerable experience as a Crown Prosecutor in Scotland, and as having some knowledge of the conditions that prevail, you will not find the whole story written in these statistics. You will not find the whole story written in police statistics. There are many hon. Members who are familiar with that fact. It may be evidence up to a certain point,

  1429
  but there is an immense amount of drinking which never appears in the Police Court. There is a great deal of secret drinking among women still going on in Scotland, and there is a great deal of saturation by individuals who never get drunk in the popular sense, but who lose their efficiency, and who, when they go back to work, cost their fellows a good deal in disorganisation by not doing their bit. I listened with very great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas), and I am very glad that the House had an opportunity of hearing it. "We have been led to believe by hon. Members below the Gangway that, in this matter, the workers are not with us in regard to further restrictions. I believe that is a libel on the working man. I represent a big industrial constituency, and I am quite willing to test their views and votes on the subject. The workers are as anxious as any class to see the War successfully prosecuted to the end and to accept any measures which will assist in that object. I have had tributes again and again paid by men in my own Constituency to the good effects of the restriction of the sale of spirits. They have come from men working under very high pressure, and from employers of labour who have seen the benefits which accrue from such restrictions. I do not want to enter into any controversy with my hon. Friends over this question. A challenge has been thrown down with regard to the loss of time, and I believe, if investigation were made into that subject, it would be found that the figures with regard to the time lost at some of our yards are much more conclusive than is supposed as showing the result of the excessive consumption of liquor in Scotland and elsewhere. It would show there is undoubtedly a great loss of time as well as in efficiency, and, as far as my experience goes, those workers who are the best workers and who take most out of themselves are among the first to acknowledge the fact and are willing to support everything calculated to remove temptation from their midst.
  We have been told that this is not a matter for the trade, or for those who are popularly described as cranks, or believers in temperance reform, but that it is for moderate people to decide the question. I would ask hon. Members to consider what is moderate opinion. Take Scotland, for instance. We have there a very influential newspaper, the "Glasgow Herald".—a newspaper which has never been
  1430
  associated with this side of the House, which has taken an independent view, and which has generally supported the other party. This newspaper has indicated very clearly its view of the situation in the West of Scotland, and has called upon the Liquor Control Board to go still further. In quoting the remarks of Lord D'Abernon, the Chairman of the Board, that drunkenness in Glasgow, under the system of liquor control, is double the rate recorded in areas further south comparable in size and industrial occupation with Clydeside, it goes on to say:
  "We are bound to confess that the system is capable of being enormously improved."…
  "The measure to which we have repeatedly directed the attention of the Board is that mentioned by a deputation of employers yesterday—prohibition of the sale of spirits in the country during at least the continuance of the War."
  It goes on to say that
  "control will always be more or less of a failure because its essentia! principle is recognition and toleration of an evil which can only be got rid of by the way of drastic suppression."
  That is sound opinion, and one which is backed up by the Association of Chief Constables in Scotland and supported by the Licensing Courts in Scotland, particularly in the City of Glasgow, and by many public bodies, corporations, school boards, and parish councils, as well as by the Scottish Co-operative Congress of 800 delegates, representing 480,000 families. The women of Scotland have already spoken through their great memorial to the Prime Minister. When we have the employers and large numbers of our workers in every district in favour of further steps being taken, then I say the time has come for the Board to go further. It is always said that when these restrictions have been allowed progress is made. I am willing to admit that progress has been made. But may I point out that when you go a step further a great deal more progress is made. How are you to know what the result will be of prohibiting the sale of spirits throughout the whole of these areas of Scotland until you try it? How are you to know that the progress made by that step will not be the biggest of all?
  Looking to the experience we have had in Scotland, I should like to suggest to the Liquor Board that in prohibiting spirits they will receive support not only from the great masses of the population, but also from the naval and military authorities. I believe the naval authorities especially would welcome such further restrictions. Take the

  1431
  cases of Glasgow and the Forth. There has been strong opinion expressed by the leading naval authorities in favour of carrying the matter further. This is a matter of vital importance to the nation, and I do hope that the result of this Debate will be not to hinder, not to restrict the operations of the Board in its very difficult and very important task, but rather to hearten it to further effort. At a time when parties are united in trying to secure the successful conclusion of this great conflict, there should be no want of harmony so far as Parliament is concerned in helping on that work, and I trust, too, that no endeavour will be made by any private interest, for the sake of private gain, to hamper the Board in carrying out its operations for the public good.
  Sir J. D. REES: My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Plymouth (Major Astor) made a very able and eloquent speech, in which he skilfully combined the development of his strong points with the total suppression of his weak points, and I feel it requires some temerity to point out that he adopted the attitude of an anti-alcoholic autocrat. He said the Board had not gone beyond its powers, and then he asked, "What is the limit of the powers of the Board? Is there any limit?" I understand that under the Defence of the Realm Act there is practically no limit to what the Ministry of Munitions can do. I am glad of it. But, so far as I am aware, there is equally unlimited power exercised by the Liquor Control Board, and I am sorry for it. I wish to answer my hon. and gallant Friend, and I think I shall be employing my time far more profitably, and be more strictly in order in so doing, than if I enter into a general disquisition on prohibition—a subject which does not appear to me to be relevant to this Motion, the sole point being that there should be some Parliamentary control over the Board. My hon. and gallant Friend was good enough to say he was willing to put the public on the same footing as the Army and Navy. That is monstrously good of him, but it shows the lines on which the Board has acted. The Board is not supposed to allowance the whole country or to rob the poor man of his drink. He says he is willing to give them reasonable alcoholic provision. What is reasonable: alcoholic provision? Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to settle a point which has puzzled the wisest heads?
  How will Parliamentary control, particularly in regard to finance, impair the
  1432
  functions of this Board? Higher bodies entrusted with similarly important functions are able to submit to Parliamentary control. My hon. Friend asks, "When we inquire into this matter, are we to go to the Mother of Parliaments and ask leave to do it?" I do not wish the Mother of Parliaments to become a grandmother of Parliaments and to interfere with details, or exercise meticulous control, and if my hon. Friend is out to abolish Parliament so far as may be, he will find me as ready to follow him as many other Members; but the only proposition now before the House is that there shall be proper Parliamentary control. I have tried myself on several occasions to elicit from the Minister of Munitions some information as to the cost of the extensive operations undertaken at Carlisle. I have failed completely. I think Parliament should know the facts, but they do not know even now what money is being spent there. The Minister of Munitions to-day told us that this body was entirely independent. But that is quite inconsistent with his statement that it only acts under the Ministry of Munitions on the advice of the military authorities. He told us that the money it expended comes before Parliament on the Votes. I should like to know on what Vote, and whether it is specifically stated on that Vote that a certain sum of money is to be spent by this Board. My right hon. Friend knows that it is not so stated. Where, then, is our control? Where is our opportunity, seeing that he will not answer questions regarding the expenditure of the Board, and seeing that the expenditure of the Board is wrapped up in one of those enormous books, weighing ounces upon ounces, in which the Estimates are contained? Where, I again ask, is our opportunity of controlling the expenditure of this body? I have never been able to find out, although I have been greatly interested in its operations, and have regarded them with an extremely critical eye, ever since the Board was constituted.
  The Minister of Munitions seems to think that anybody who drinks ends his career in delirium tremens, or by suicide, and he apparently suggests that, because there has not been so much delirium tremens and so many suicides lately, the Board therefore has admirably performed its functions. That was not the remark of a practical man, and I would suggest to my right hon. Friend that in the future he" should associate with more moderate drinkers; then

  1433
  he would not present to the House arguments which seem so little suitable on such a serious occasion. I understand there is a prospect of a Vote being taken on this question to-night, and therefore, as the Debate is to be interrupted with another subject, I may as well spend the remainder of the time at my disposal in replying to the speech of the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. L. Jones), whose arguments seemed to consist chiefly of quotations from the Reports of the Board, and who repeated with satisfaction paragraphs from that Report in which they poured butter on their own heads.
  Mr. JONES: I quoted from the reports of chief constables, which were in favour of the Board, and who, to use the phrase of the hon. Gentleman, "poured butter" on it.
  Sir J. D. REES: I am sorry if I misunderstood my hon. Friend.

SHOPS (EARLIER CLOSING).

  MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.
  It being a quarter-past eight of the clock, and leave having been given to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.
  Captain BARNETT: I beg to move, "That this House do now adjourn."
  I rise to move the Adjournment of the House with feelings of confidence mingled with misgiving—confidence because I am speaking in this august House for the first time, and I know the way in which the House is prepared to overlook the shortcomings of the newcomer and misgiving, because I feel that the task I have undertaken is one that might have been in better hands. It is through no lack of modesty that I am making this Motion. I waited vainly in the hope that another Member of longer experience and better standing would come forward to raise this question, which is of such vital importance to a large section of my own Constituents, and it was only when no other Member came forward that I, very hesitatingly, threw myself into the breach. I speak with a certain amount of reluctance, because I was returned only ten days ago to give a loyal but discriminating support to the Government. I am sorry that
  1434
  the need for discrimination has come so soon. It would be impossible for any Metropolitan Member who goes carefully through his post-bag to overlook the fact that a very large section of his constituents view this Order of the Home Office as one that is going to cause them serious injury. I am speaking with studious moderation. The Order will cause inconvenience and hardship to all and ruin to many. This method of legislation by Regulation and administrative Order is not an ideal one. At a time when the House of Commons is sitting only three days a week—I express the opinion with all deference and humility—a great question of this kind, which affects vitally the interests of a large section of the electors, ought to have been submitted to the judgment of this House as the representatives of the people.
  What has happened? A Regulation has been made under the Defence of the Realm Act under which the Secretary of State for the Home Department has issued the Shop Closing Order. No one can deny that the Home Secretary possesses the gift of sympathy with working classes, but anyone who has studied this Order must say that in this departmental legislation there is a great want of imagination and insight. I am going to ask the right hon. Gentleman to imagine himself for a moment a man who has put the whole of his little savings into a tobacconist's shop in Camden Town. He has been going through a very difficult time. His eldest son, if he is old enough to have one, is at the War. He is suffering from heavy taxation. Many of his best customers have gone to the front, many of them, alas, will not come back again. He has kept going under these adverse conditions. Suddenly, the high gods of Olympus introduce a Shop Closing Order which is absolutely fatal to his prospects. He is not consulted about it and has no chance of saying what he thinks about it. One fine morning he reads in his newspaper that in future his shop is to be closed at seven p.m., although all his business or 80 per cent. of it has been done after seven p.m. That is a change which ought not to be sprung by administrative Order upon any section of our citizens. It is eminently a question upon which the House of Commons ought to have been consulted.
  I suppose we shall hear later that there is some good, I will not say suffi-

  1435
  cient, reason for this proposed Order. It is made under the Defence of the Realm Act. We all want to respect anything that is said or done under the Defence of the Realm Act, but really, when you come to apply the test of fact to this particular Order, it is difficult to see how the Realm is going to be more effectually defended by this Shop Closing Order. Is it a question of enemy aircraft? I do not think it can be that, because those aircraft have got into the habit of coming on Saturday nights, and the Shop Closing Order says that shops may remain open on Saturdays until 9 p.m. As a further concession, during the last day or two it has been conceded that shops may remain open on Fridays until 8 p.m. If it is safe for shops to be open on Saturdays until 9 p.m. and on Fridays until 8 p.m., it is very difficult indeed to realise how the Defence of the Realm is going to be seriously endangered by the shops being open till 8 p.m. on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, or for three days a week, leaving out the early closing day. We shall probably find that the right hon. Gentleman bases his defence of this Order not upon anti-aircraft legislation, but upon the saving of fuel used for lighting and heating. He will tell us that large quantities of electric current and gas are used by these wicked confectioners and tobacconists. I should like to take the right hon. Gentleman for a promenade one evening alone one or two of the highways where these shops are found. I think he will find there is very little waste of light, for it is extremely difficult to see one's hand in front of one's face, and the little shopkeepers, who are most cruelly affected by the proposed measure, are people who, for the most part, live behind or over their shops. The fuel that they consume would be consumed whether their shops are open or closed, and the light they burn would be burnt whether their shops were open or shut. There is not going to be any saving here to speak of.
  If the right hon. Gentleman wants to make a really big saving in fuel and light, his course is obvious—let him shut the shops altogether. Then he will save something. There will be a saving of fuel and light because your workhouses may be crowded, and, upon the Prussian system of not supplying artificial heat where you have a large number of people
  1436
  in a room, you will be able to dispense with the light and fuel used at present in these small shops. Speaking seriously, I await with curiosity the explanation which, no doubt, the right hon. Gentleman will have to make as to the cause of this Order. The Order has created an enormous amount of distrust and dissatisfaction amongst the small shopkeeping class of the community, and it is very difficult to see with a microscope the slightest possible usefulness in it. What does the right hon. Gentleman do when he is met with these criticisms? He circulates through the Press a reference to non-essential trades. This is what he says:
  "It will not be possible to justify an exemption for non-essential trades, such as the sale of tobacco or sweets. Trade may be expected to adapt itself to the new conditions."
  Of course it will. I am told that eels when skinned always adapt themselves to the new conditions and get to like it in time, and many of these unfortunate small shopkeepers who are deprived of their means of livelihood will go on, no doubt, quietly to the workhouse, while other people get the trade which they have enjoyed in the past. When you say that trade will adapt itself to the new conditions it seems to me a sort of revival of the old idea we had in those long distant days before the War in the controversy about Free Trade, that if a business was driven out of the country it did not matter, as the manufacturer removed his capital to something else—to a new industry. How is my little confectioner or tobacconist in Camden Town, crushed under the heavy weight of the right hon. Gentleman's Shop Closing Order, to transfer his capital to another industry? I do not think it can be done, and a crop of small insolvencies may be expected to result from the carrying out of this Order. As for essential trades, after all, tobacconists and confectioners are God's creatures. It is not yet criminal in this country to be either a tobacconist or a confectioner, and if a man is living quietly, paying his rates and his rent and struggling on, a good member of society, I fail to see why he should be subjected to legislation of this kind of administrative Order which crushes him down to the ground, without having a chance of reply and for no possible reason or excuse which will bear a moment's investigation.
  There is one class which has received an exemption from the right hon. Gentleman—the chemists. The chemist, apparently,

  1437
  is neither essential nor non-essential. He occupies a half-way position between the two. He is not allowed to have his shop open after seven o'clock in the evening. On the other hand, he is not absolutely closed. What he does under the Shop Closing Order is to sit like some spider in his web in a locked shop, sufficiently darkened, and when someone comes and rings the bell and wants to buy medicine the right hon. Gentleman will let the shop be opened and will allow the chemist to supply the medicine on condition that when he has sold it he locks the shop door, turns the light out, and stands at ease. That is the way the chemist is affected under this scheme. Is it not ludicrous? I do not think at present there is any great waste of light and fuel in the chemists' shops, in my Constituency, at any rate. I am quite sure there will not be any less if the Shop Closing Order is carried into effect. I hope in this matter, which has aroused the very greatest interest and the greatest apprehension among a large class of small traders, we shall meet with sympathetic consideration from the Home Secretary. I hope he will come down from his Olympus and make the very small concession we are asking for. If we get eight o'clock instead of seven, it would not meet the demands of the extremists, but I can assure him it would meet the demands of most reasonable people. Take the case of a small shopkeeper, a very large part of whose trade is done after seven o'clock in the evening and many of whose customers go in the day to the West End or the City. If you extend the hour, as you have already done on Friday, to eight o'clock, you will give him a chance of doing some business. You will not be striking at his little trade the vital blow which you are striking under present conditions, and I make a strong appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider his scheme at least to that extent and to give us eight o'clock instead of seven for the other days of the week.
  Mr. CHANCELLOR: May I congratulate the hon. and gallant Gentleman on his maiden speech and on the occasion which has called him to his feet—sympathy with a certain class of his constituents, a class which is scattered very widely over different parts of London and which probably exists in no greater numbers in any other constituency than in mine. I should like to know what this Order is for and what is the purpose for which it is imposed. I do not quite understand the
  1438
  object my right hon. Friend has in view. If we had had that explained before, possibly we should not have moved the Adjournment now. All I know is that it has created great disturbance in the minds of the small traders throughout London—those conducting small retail shops. In any case the small trader is gradually being squeezed out of existence. Year by year it is becoming more difficult for him to make money enough to pay his rates and taxes and make a living for himself. That may be a desirable economic development or it may not. I am extremely sorry that the number of persons who live an independent life and are not mere wage earners is getting fewer as the years go on. Everything is playing into the hands of the big shopkeeper and the big establishment. Early closing has always been advocated by the owners of large establishments. That has not prevented me from supporting it for the last twenty-five years. I have been a subscriber to both early closing associations and I have advocated early closing in every possible way. I am extremely anxious that so far as possible the hours of work for shop assistants shall be curtailed. It may, therefore, seem inconsistent that I should be supporting this Resolution, but I want to do so because of the large number of letters received from people in different parts of my Constituency pointing out the grave injustice which it will inflict upon them. I will read one:
  "I have been a shopkeeper in the grocery and provision trade for twenty-four years, paying rates and taxes, and the best part of my trade is. done in the evening after the poor women who work in the City, mostly office cleaning, and do not return till eight or ten o'clock at night, when they have to buy their food for supper, chiefly consisting of cheese, tinned meat, sausages, bread, butter, etc. If I have to close at seven I might just as well put the shutters up for good, while my neighbour who sells fried fish may keep open and therefore take my living away. I am a widow with one son, whom they are taking from me to join the Army, and I have no other means of getting my living."
  That will be a tragedy which will be multiplied by th"e thousand all over London. There must be some very strong reason for the imposition of a rule which would bear so hardly on that class of trader. They exist, more or less, collected in all constituencies, and in some districts, especially in the East End of London and in North-East London, they exist by the hundred. Nearly all their customers are working people employed during the day in factories, sometimes miles away. These factories generally close at six o'clock in the evening, sometimes earlier, but mostly-

  1439
  not before six o'clock After the closing of the factory the little provisions required for the evening meal oftentimes have to be purchased. It may be said that they are purchased by the housewife, but it must be remembered that the housewife is herself very largely engaged in industry to-day, and unless these shops are allowed to remain open long enough to enable people to return to their homes and then go out to make their purchases it will inflict great hardship and inconvenience upon those working people, besides ruining those who supply their needs. I suggest that if eight o'clock is fixed as the closing hour, reasonable time will be given for these purchases. If seven o'clock is fixed it will be almost impossible either to conduct the trade or for these working people to obtain what provisions they require.
  They are not able during the day time to make their purchases whenever they like. In quite a large number of cases payments are made daily, and the money is not in hand until the end of the day. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that if he will alter the rule to eight o'clock, instead of seven o'clock, he will meet the objection of large numbers of people and will not do, any injury to the working classes. I understand that some of the Labour representatives are going to oppose this Motion on the ground that it may perhaps increase the number of hours during which certain people may have to work. It will not affect the workers in that way. The change I suggest will set at rest the minds of a great number of people who are greatly disturbed. The reason why we have brought this matter forward to-night is that the Order is to be put into operation next Tuesday. I hope it will not be put into operation in its present form. If the right hon. Gentleman will make the suggested concession, and allow the closing hour to be eight o'clock for all days up to Friday, and nine o'clock on Saturday, it will meet the objection practically of us all.
  Mr. SHIRLEY BENN: I am afraid that I cannot agree with all that has been said by the speakers who have preceded me, although I should like to congratulate the hon. Member who opened this discussion on the very able speech which he gave. I object to this Order very strongly, becuase I feel that it is unjust to certain classes
  1440
  and that it will not create the economy that we all desire. Economy is necessary to enable us to win the War, but this is not the sort of economy that will help us to win the War. We must have prosperity that will enable people not only to pay taxes, but to lend money to the country to carry on the War. This Order will affect a great many people in seaport towns, and in dockyard towns, and it will affect a great many people in the Constituency of which I have the honour to be one of the representatives. I have in my hands a copy of a letter written by the Town Clerk of Plymouth, in which he says:
  "The attention of the proper committee of the Plymouth Town Council has been directed to the Home Secretary's statement in Parliament as to the intention of the Government to issue an Order for the closing of all shops during the winter months at seven o'clock on days other than Saturday and weekly half-holidays, and at nine o'clock on Saturdays. I am instructed to say that in this fortress a large number of small traders, estimated at 3,000, depend largely for their livelihood on the custom of operatives engaged in the dockyard and other Government establishments, and of soldiers and sailors, who find it impossible to complete their shopping by the hours named. The committee hope the interests of the small traders and of the population on which they depened will be carefully safeguarded in any Order which may be issued. Unless this is done it is feared that serious and unnecessary hardship will be suffered by many deserving persons. I have to express the hope that in framing the exceptions proposed to be allowed these considerations will be borne in mind."
  At the present time we all know that the leisured class have become very small in this country. Nearly everybody are trying to do their bit for the War. People are working, and it is going to be extremely hard that men and women who are working throughout the day for their country should not be able to do their shopping. Surely it is right that shops which wish to keep open should keep open, so that men and women working during the day should be able to go, when they have completed their day's work, and buy what they need to live on. A further point I wish to raise is that the class of people who are running these small shops are nearly always men who have made a little bit of money and put it into a business of their own, and who wish to keep it. Numbers of them who work daily in their own shops say that the greater bulk of their business is done in the evening when the workers come home. Some of these shops are run by women whose husbands are fighting for us at the front, and some are run by widows who have lost their husbands fighting for our country; and these are the very people who are going

  1441
  to be affected by this Order. I know that the Home Secretary is very sympathetic, and I hope that he will give serious consideration to this matter, and realise that though we want economy we want prosperity; and we want the whole of our citizens to work shoulder to shoulder to win this War.
  Colonel Sir CHARLES SEELY: I rise to add a few words to the appeal which has already been made to the Government in regard to this question. I speak with a certain amount of diffidence, because I have been absent long from this House, and it is somewhat new to me to have to speak on information received from the public Press, and not on information rendered to Members in this House. I cannot say after that what I have heard to-night, either in this Debate or in the previous one, has given me the impression that it is a great improvement, this acting by Departmental Committees instead of acting after full consideration in this House, and after full information. I would like to add my word to what has been said as to the desirability of His Majesty's Government reconsidering what they are doing in regard to this Order, more particularly from the point of view of the smaller shopkeeper. I rose especially because I have had sent to me one case which I think is typical of many, and which seems to me an exceedingly hard one. A man who went to the War early, in the days before there was any compulsion, bought his wife a small shop in order to support her while he was absent. The information given to me is that this shop is one of a character which is dependent almost entirely for its trade upon men who come late from their work and who stop there and make small purchases on their way home. We all know that the large shops have many advantages over the small ones. They buy on a larger scale, and they have better sources of information as to what credit they can give, and many other reasons. The small shop has one advantage. It belongs to the person who lives in the shop who, therefore, can keep it open without inconvenience to themselves at times when it is obviously not convenient for the large shops to remain open. I would ask the Government to consider what has been said by many people this evening and to consider the case which I have put before them. My informant may be right or wrong, but his information is
  1442
  that in this case the Order that has been made by the Government, a purely administrative Order as to which this House has not been consulted, will result in practical ruin, and doing away with the provision which a man has made for the support of his wife when he went across the seas to fight for his country.
  Mr. R. McNEILL: The hon. Member who has just sat down has joined with my hon. and gallant Friend behind me (Captain Barnett) who opened this Debate in expressing a view which I think is very widely held in regard to legislation by administrative Order. No one will be willing as a general principle to defend legislation by administrative Order, though we recognise that in time of war administrative Order may be a necessity, and, that in the peculiar circumstances in which we are living at present, it would be impossible to depend entirely upon the well tried constitutional methods of altering the law into into an emergency law for the moment. But that imposes all the more obligation upon the executive Government, to show the very strongest possible justification to this House when they interfere violently with the accustomed liberties of the people of this country by administrative Order. They should show that the particular Order which they have issued is required for some definite purpose with relation to the peculiar circumstances of the War. I do not know, of course, what the right hon. Gentleman has got to say, but I think that he will have to give a very unexpectedly strong reply to the case which has been already made if he is going to persuade this House and the country that this particular Order is justified on the grounds that I have mentioned. My hon. and gallant Friend, and the hon. Member for Haggerston (Mr. Chancellor) agree in saying that the requirements of the case will be met if it were decided to allow houses to remain open until eight o'clock. My hon. and gallant Friend said that that was the opinion of most reasonable persons. My hon. and gallant Friend and the hon. Gentleman opposite both speak for Metropolitan constituencies, and I am not prepared to say that that may not be right so far as their constituents are concerned. But the conditions which obtain in the Metropolis are not in all respects similar to those which govern other constituencies in other parts of the country.
  I, for example, speak mainly for seacoast towns, provincial towns, towns

  1443
  which have been already very heavily hit by the unavoidable circumstances of the War, their prosperity destroyed by want of visitors, large numbers of small householders and property owners unable to pay their taxes, with the necessity for some scheme devised by the local authorities, often in conjunction with the Local Government Board, for meeting the exceptional distress which has been brought about, and in the particular coast towns for which I am entitled to speak, having the additional disadvantage, so to speak, of being in the very forefront of the country most open to enemy attacks. In those circumstances, one would have expected that the utmost consideration would be given to any person in those areas who was in the position to make his own living, to pay rates and taxes, to keep his head above water, not in any circumstances, I am afraid, of enjoying any great prosperity, but of being able to tide over difficult times and keep his small business together until the end of the war, renders it reasonable to hope that he may return to something like the prosperity which he enjoyed before the War began. In many cases these small businesses in such places will be absolutely detroyed by the Order which the right hon. Gentleman has issued. We have often heard in this House, perhaps, rhetorical expressions to the effect that such-and-such legislation would cause widespread ruin, and that such-and-such interests would have to close down or put up shutters. But it is the literal truth that very large numbers of people will have to close down and depend either upon charity or upon the Poor Law if this administrative Order is carried out.
  That cannot be the object of the Government. It cannot be the object of the Government to destroy any trade, even if it should be non-essential, if it is perfectly innocent. and if it enables people to pay their way who otherwise would be unable to do so. I, therefore, am absolutely opposed to this Order altogether. The people for whom I speak would not be content, and should not be content, by even such a modification as would suit the Metropolitan constituencies. But I would say that while I am against the Order altogether, unless such a case is shown as we have had no foreshadowing of at present, some totally unexpected case, yet, even supposing that the right hon. Gentleman feels himself unable for any reason to go the whole length of abandoning this, as
  1444
  I consider, ill-advised Order, there are no doubt grades of hardship, and I venture very urgently to press upon him specially the case for exceptional treatment of the confectionery trade. In a great deal which has been said on this subject, since the Order was made, we have had the tobacconists and the confectionery trades grouped together as exceptionally hard cases. I dare say that that is so, but there is a great difference between the two.
  9.0 P.M.
  The tobacconist, in such a case as my hon. and gallant Friend has put, no doubt may suffer very severely if he is not allowed to be open just at the time when experience shows him that his customers come in. But, taking generally the matter of trade methods, the person who buys tobacco can supply himself at other times of the day, and the ordinary consumer of tobacco carries it on his person. But the consumer of confectionery does not. He is a consumer who goes in for the moment to buy a commodity which he wishes to get. He does not carry it about on his person. Therefore, it is of vital importance that the confectioner should be able to keep his shop open at the particular moment which is the most suitable for his customer to come in. I do not know to what extent the right hon. Gentleman has really considered, or has been in a position to consider, the particular circumstances of the confectionery trade. In provincial towns, at all events, my information is that it is very closely dependent upon the public amusements of the case. The small confectioner sells his goods to the people who are flocking to the local theatres and cinemas, and recreations of all sorts. If he is not able to sell at that time of day, he will not sell at all. If the Order is persisted in, may I point out one of the effects that will follow? The confectioners are licensed dealers in mineral waters. Under the present regime, at all events, it remains open until nine o'clock. If the public-house remains open to that hour, and the confectioner's shop, licensed to deal in mineral waters, is closed down at seven o'clock, a large number of persons, who go to the local cinema show or theatre, when they come out between the acts, or after the turns are over, into the darkened streets, go to the confectioner's shop for some sweetmeats, or pastry, and perhaps a drink of mineral water.
  What will happen when these confectionery shops are closed? The public-

  1445
  house is not the real resort of people who have a sweet tooth, and are fond of chocolate creams, but, unable to obtain what they want, they may go to the public-house and take a glass of beer or a glass of whisky. The result of this administrative legislation of the right hon. Gentleman will be that these innocent people, coming out of the cinema show, and unable to get confectionery or mineral waters, will be driven of necessity into the public-house, where they may not be content with the drinks that have hitherto satisfied them, and the right hon. Gentleman may be responsible for a change of habits in these people. In addition, let me point out how very objectionable this is from the point of view of the population of the towns. At the present, in East Coast towns, the authorities rightly reduce the public lighting of the streets to the minimum, but it causes a great deal of things that are objectionable, or possibly dangerous, to the population. The right hon. Gentleman, who is constantly in communication with the police, who are under his Department, must know perfectly well the sort of objectionable occurrences which may arise by the reduction in the public lighting to the minimum. But the right hon. Gentleman proposes to close down all the shops at seven o'clock, including even the confectionery shops, into which innocent couples may go to obtain a drink of mineral waters, and purchase some confectionery, before they go home. He is going to close these shops, and to turn the thousands of people into the streets at an earlier hour than they meant to go home. How can these people wander about the darkened streets during long evenings of winter, having no confectionery shops open, to which they have been accustomed to go to get what they require? May they not be driven to enter the public-house, a place to which they have not gone hitherto. That is a piece of social legislation of a very retrograde character, and I cannot believe that the right hon. Gentleman has given real consideration to the matter, or as to the ultimate effects of what he proposes. The right hon. Gentleman wants to reduce expenditure. Does he think, in this war and in face of the national expenditure to-day, that he is really going to do anything serious or substantial in the matter of war economy
  1446
  by preventing the drinking of mineral waters or the purchase of a packet of sweets or of chocolate creams? The thing is ridiculous. You cannot produce national economy by these small pinpricks in various directions, and I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to justify his Order on that ground. My hon. and gallant Friend suggested that it might be an economy in lighting and fuel. If that be the contention, you are met by this extraordinary inconsistency, that the right hon. Gentleman, so far as I know, is making no attempt to close the places of local entertainment. He is not closing the theatres, nor is he closing the cinema shows, which consume more electric light or gas in an hour than all the small shops put together. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to act fairly and equitably towards the confectionery trade he should, at the same time, do something that would possibly show substantial results in the matter of economy. He is closing the confectionery shops at seven o'clock. Let him insist in the same way in closing theatres and cinema shows, and then everybody would go to bed at seven o'clock at night Such a course, at any rate, might be regarded as having a consistent and equitable element in it in respect of the different interests.
  But may I remind the right hon. Gentleman of this, that these cinema shows and theatres which he is keeping open, while closing the confectionery shops, are actually trade competitors of the confectioners, so that the unfairness becomes even more obvious. People who go to places of entertainment can buy their confectionery there, and that is competition which the confectioner has at all times to meet. The right hon. Gentleman, I submit, is going to do a gross injustice to a perfectly innocent trade, and he is going to destroy it by closing down shops to the benefit of trade rivals. All these are considerations which I wish to put with great respect to the right hon. Gentleman. I do not know whether they have been within his knowledge. I freely confess that they were not within mine until very recently. One learns these things when proposals of this sort are made against some particular branch of trade or industry, or the social life of the people. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider the fact that up to now there has been a unanimous expression of

  1447
  hostility to this Order, and that he will not feel hurt in his amor propre, or think that he is saving his face in any way, if he realises that, with the best possible intentions, which we all acknowledge, he has made a very gross error, and I trust that he will be led by his advisers to retire from his present position.
  Mr. W. THORNE: The hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down stated that the one or two concessions which the Home Secretary is prepared to make will not satisfy him so far as he is concerned. So far as I am concerned, I want to make my position perfectly plain. I am a member of the Labour party, but, on this occasion, I am not speaking in their behalf, but entirely on my own responsibility for the Constituents I represent.
  Mr. STANTON: A proper thing to do, Will.
  Mr. THORNE: Not always; but I think I am justified on this occasion in saying that as soon as the Order was made known I received more postcards and letters in regard to it than I had ever received before. When the Military Service Act was under discussion I, like all Members, I believe, received great numbers of letters or postcards and communications, but, great as their' number was, it was exceeded by the number of letters and postcards addressed to me from all parts with regard to this Order. The Division I represent contains, I believe, more small shopkeepers than any other Division in London, or, at any rate, as many as in any other Metropolitan Division. In the Division I represent there is a very large dock area which would be greatly affected by this Order, if carried out in the way intended. In many large dock areas, not only London, but in Liverpool and in the North and other parts of the country, there are many dock labourers who do casual labour at the docks. When they have finished the day's work at seven, or eight or nine o'clock, they usually get paid for the day. If this Order is carried out and the shopkeeper has got to close at seven o'clock, you will find that it will be quite impossible for a very large number of those people to buy any kind of food, and that a number of homes will be without bread, and I think it certainly will happen in some cases that, instead
  1448
  of the men going to work the next morning at four or five or six o'clock, they will be inclined to stay at home until the shops are open. I do not think that it is going to induce men to attend to their work. I do not think that the Home Secretary has any intention of inflicting hardships of that kind on anyone. Therefore, I feel I am justified in speaking in the name of a very large number of shopkeepers, not only in my own Division, but for a very large number all over London. I cannot say that I speak for shopkeepers in provincial towns. I have just had a special letter sent by express from the organisation which represents the London confectioners, stating that they had a meeting this afternoon, and that they would like the hour ' altered from seven o'clock to eight o'clock for the first five nights of the week, and nine o'clock on Saturday night, so that if the Home Secretary is willing to make that concession they will be perfectly satisfied. I do not know why I have had all these telegrams and letters sent to me, but I have had bundles from various people. There is one here signed by the chairman of a large meeting held this afternoon, representing tobacconists and confectioners. He says that they will be perfectly satisfied if the Home Secretary would make this concession of eight o'clock for the first five nights of the week. I saw the secretary of the Small Retailers' Association last night, and he said also that, so far as they were concerned, they will be perfectly satisfied if they could have the shops opened for those days to eight o'clock, and that they will then raise no objection to the Order at all.
  Sir F. BANBURY: All shops?
  Mr. THORNE: Yes. In reply to a supplementary question this afternoon, as to whether hotels and public-houses would be allowed to sell tobacco, cigars, and cigarettes after seven o'clock, or eight or nine o'clock, whichever hour was fixed, the Home Secretary said "No, that they would not." I am perfectly certain that if a vote of the House were taken that provision would be wiped out altogether, and it is one which would inflict great hardship on hotel keepers and public-houses. Personally, I think that if the Home Secretary makes the concession which is asked, namely, to extend the Order from seven o'clock to eight o'clock, that he would then be perfectly

  1449
  justified in going back to what I may call the old regime, and to allow hotel keepers to sell in the usual way without any restrictions. So far as the retail trade is concerned, in the event of the concession, they would raise no objection to that, and the reason they raised an objection now is because the hotel keepers and the public-houses would secure their trade, and no doubt they are perfectly justified in making that objection. I make an earnest appeal to the Home Secretary, and although I am not speaking in the name of the Labour party, I do speak on behalf of a very large number of poor small shopkeepers. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will make the concession, and if he does I feel sure that the shopkeepers, if not altogether satisfied, will be pleased for the time being.
  Mr. J. W. WILSON: We have heard a good deal of the views of the small shopkeepers in the Metropolitan district. I desire to bring before the Home Secretary the case of the small shopkeepers in the provincial districts. Many of us feel that there is a great deal to be said for the Order, and that when large shops are diminishing the hours of trade and allowing their assistants to get home in better time, we do not wish to say that an Order of this sort is not desirable, yet we would welcome some concession in favour of the small trader, who in many industrial districts, as many of us know well, do the hulk of their trade after seven o'clock at night. I have had letters about this, very reasonable ones, which recognise that we are living in an age of restrictions of all sorts, and that they cannot expect to he entirely free. I would ask the Home Secretary to make the concession of extending the hour from seven to eight o'clock, and I can assure him that the benefit to those concerned would be quite out of proportion to the actual sixty minutes of the hour.
  Mr. STANTON: I am sure that after the series of speeches we have heard there is not much necessity to add further arguments. In Wales, from which I come, we have probably more small shops than anywhere else. After explosions in mines widows very often open such small shops and endeavour in that way to make a livelihood. Like other hon. Members, I have received a large number of letters and certainly sufficient to justify me in rising to support the appeal which has been put forward. We have cases of women who have sons at the front and who carry on
  1450
  these small shops, and such an Order as this would mean ruin to them. The Order also means a good deal of inconvenience to the workers. We have for munition purposes three shifts among the miners, the morning, afternoon, and night shifts, and very often those men do not know their requirements until they get to their homes, and they could get their supplies hitherto from the small shops. They are a general convenience to the public who live around, and, after all,' we know what is best for ourselves. If there was anything to be gained by the Home Secretary's proposal, I should not rise to object to it, but I fail to see what is to be gained except that you will impose a hardship. I have no right to complain of the procedure of the House, but I should have liked to have heard first of all what the Home Secretary had to say. It might have prevented my rising. If his defence is sufficient, all right; but, if not, I hope, as another hon. Member has said, that he will not try to save his face by backing up a bad case. I do not think he would do that. These poor widows and people in different parts of the country are trying to struggle on. They are serving the convenience of the public, maintaining their little homesteads, and in many cases saving cost which would otherwise fall on the Government. This concession could be made without any great risk. These shops are not like cinema shows, which always have a large blaze of light; they have not sufficient light. They do not want too much light, because then you might see the sample of goods they have. But they serve the convenience of the public. This is one of the things that could well be left alone. Do not let us have any grandmotherly legislation. Let us do the best thing at the right time. We are all out to win the War. We do not want to show any light. We do not want to do anything that is wicked or wrong or damaging to the Empire. But, whatever we do, do not let us inflict a hardship upon these poor women who are struggling to maintain their little households while perhaps their husbands are sick and their boys are fighting at the front.
  Mr. MOLTENO: There is one class of case that has not yet been referred to—I mean that of munition workers, who have to live a considerable distance from the munition factories. Thousands of these workers have to travel many miles by rail, and it is quite impossible for them even to get home by seven o'clock, much less to make any purchases. Even eight o'clock

  1451
  does not leave sufficient time for a considerable time to get in the necessaries of life. It is really a very serious matter. The Order could not possibly be carried out in the areas to which I refer. I sympathise with those Members who have said that the extension to eight o'clock would not be sufficient. The hour would have to be later if the absolute necessities of these areas, with which I am well acquainted, are to be met. I earnestly hope that the Home Secretary will pay attention to the representations which have been made from all parts of the House.
  Mr. YEO: There is no doubt that if it had been necessary we could have given the House such a demonstration that there would have been no need to discuss this proposed Order. Everywhere in London the people, apart from the large traders, seriously want the hour extended from even to eight o'clock. Who has asked for this early closing? It is all very well for Brompton Road, Oxford Street, and Regent Street, but it will not suit the docks of Poplar or West Ham. The men in these places are working all day, and seven or eight o'clock is the hour when they can go and spend the few shillings that they have earned. I have had scores of letters even to-day on the subject. No tradesman desires in any way to hamper the Government or needlessly to find fault with their proposals. They all wish in the most honest way to see this War got over and business resumed under normal conditions. But what they say is that their business in nine cases out of ten is done between seven and eight o'clock. If the small shopkeepers had been as well organised as the big people in the West End, I do not think we should have heard anything about bringing in these hours of closing. The people who go to the West End shops have plenty of money, and early closing does not affect them; they can drive up in their motors or carriages, have their flunkeys to open the door, get their goods, and go home. But this House has to remember that the working classes also must have some consideration when legislation is proposed on the question of shops I make my appeal also on another ground. Many of these small shopkeepers will be hit because they will want to shut on Saturday and open on Monday. Why does not the Home Secretary take his courage in his hands and ask the House to pass an Order pro-
  1452
  hibiting Sunday trading? What would happen? [AN HON. MEMBER: "There would be a row."] Of course there would be a row. Moreover, the small shopkeeper has some concern in the payment of rates and taxes. He is doing his bit to pay for the War. People are being urged to save and to buy War Loan Certificates, and yet when they are struggling to do their best we are asked to consent to an Order which will shut down for ever many of these small tradespeople. I appeal to the Home Secretary to make this concession, so that the tradespeople will be satisfied and the people generally much more contented.
  Colonel YATE: I cannot speak for London, but I can speak for my own Constituency and the town of Leicester. I have some 9,000 Constituents, most of whom are engaged in boot and hosiery factories. Not only the men, but their wives and daughters are employed. These people are all working till nearly seven o'clock every night. Both shopkeepers and residents have appealed to me to object to this new rule. They look on it as a great tyranny, and on their behalf I beg to support the appeal to the Home Secretary to alter the Order.
  Mr. GLYN-JONES: Whilst I, too, would like to criticise the Order, I desire to strike a note which has not yet been struck, namely, one of thanks to the Home Secretary for, despite the experience of his predecessor, making an attempt to deal with what is undoubtedly a great evil. Everybody must admit that the late hours to which shops are kept open is an evil, and one with which nearly every branch of retail trade has for years been trying to deal. The great majority of those trades—I think I am right in saying the great majority—have in various ways been trying to bring about a shortening of the hours in which shops have to be kept open. I hope neither the Home Secretary, the House of Commons, nor the country will take this Debate to-night as an indication that no one wants that evil dealt with. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO, no!"] Well, I thought it was wise to make that suggestion. I think almost every one of the predecessors of the Home Secretary during, at any rate, the last few years, has made some attempt or other to deal with this question of shop hours. Some of us well remember the weeks that we spent upstairs in Grand Committee on the occasion of the last Shop Hours Act. All these questions were very closely examined and discussed. With what result? That in

  1453
  order to save a small portion of the Bill the then Home Secretary had, at the last moment, to sacrifice about thirty of the Clauses in his Bill. All these points, with many others, were brought up. They included the question of the small shopkeeper. If this evil, which at some time or other must be dealt with, is to be dealt with effectively, I think we can ride too far the difficulties of the widow carrying on a small business. You have to consider the greatest good of the greatest number. Are we never to have any reform which does not hurt or injure somebody who by force of circumstances has to carry on business under conditions which ought not to obtain? One of my hon. Friends, representing, like myself, an East End constituency, has said that this is all very well for Brompton Road: "these conditions will suit Brompton Road but not Poplar." Certainly they will not suit Stepney. But my concern is to see that the people of Stepney and Poplar are able to live under conditions which will enable these altered conditions to suit them. That is the difficulty. The difficulty is that the whole condition of the people in the East End is such that you cannot have those beneficial conditions which apply to the West End. Having said this, it seems perhaps a little ungracious for me to say that I think in this particularly drastic form of Order the Home Secretary is making a mistake. I do not want here to press the case of the shopkeeper who is carrying on business in a very small way in a neighbourhood. I want to emphasise the case of the whole retail trade of a particular neighbourhood as against another. Let anyone go, say, to the top of Aldgate and see the people there between seven and eight o'clock pouring into the City before the shops in the East End are open. Then let the same person try to get a tram or 'bus at Aldgate at seven or eight o'clock at night. You cannot get on except with great difficulty, because these people are pouring back home again. If you have this Order fixing the time at seven o'clock the effect of it will be that these people will never be able to shop in the place in which they live. The trade of any particular district will lose the custom of many of the inhabitants of the district because they will have no opportunity of shopping except in places where they happen to be before seven o'clock in the evening.
  I have no doubt it will be said, "Oh, but the bread-winner does not do much shop-
  1454
  ping." That is perfectly true, but you have no right to deprive the whole of the traders of a given district of the trade that the bread-winner brings into the district. It is a very big trade indeed. The workman who wants to buy a collar or a hat surely ought to be able to buy it in his own district? The shopkeepers in that district have a right to that trade. Take the tobacconists and fancy dealers. Why should they, in any suburb of London, be deprived of the trade in the articles they sell? They will lose the trade of the people who live in the districts because those people will not be there until after the time this Order fixes for the shops to be closed. I do not go further than to ask the Home Secretary to extend the hour to eight o'clock, because I am bound to say that I believe in many cases—I do not say in all—late shopping is a question of habit. I do believe that a great improvement can be brought about in the habits of the people, to their own benefit, and to the benefit of the shopkeeper. I do not think it can be done in this sudden way, unless—and I make this proviso—the Home Secretary is able to show that there is really so great an advantage in the Order that it outweighs all these disadvantages. Then I for one have no more to say, and I think that will be the attitude of most people. But I should think it would be very difficul indeed to show that the closing of shops between seven and eight will have so overwhelmingly beneficial an effect or be so overwhelmingly necessary as to outweigh all the disadvantages which have been pointed out.
  Mention has been made of the fact of the sale of cigars and tobacco in licensed houses. The hope of the speakers was that the Home Secretary would not interfere with the sale of these commodities in licensed premises after eight o'clock if he changed the Order to eight. I want most emphatically to dissociate myself from that suggestion. If you are going by law to say that a man whose business it is shall not sell tobacco after eight o'clock you have no right to allow any other trade whose business it is not to sell after that hour. One of the difficulties that the Government have in dealing with these questions is to make the thing fair. People do not mind so much the inconvenience, if it appears necessary, provided they are fairly dealt with. For the life of me, however, I cannot see what argument there is in favour of the suggestion that it is necessary to close tobacconists' shops

  1455
  to prevent sales after eight o'clock and right for the licensed houses to sell after that hour. The point made by the hon. Member opposite in regard to confectioners and mineral water dealers is really an important one. If the effect of the Order is that nobody will be able to get non-intoxicating beverages after the hour of closing except by going to a licensed house, that is, I think, a very serious defect in the Order. I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that if the Order does include the sale of non-intoxicating beverages he had better exclude them from the Order altogether. I can quite conceive it may be impossible to prevent licensed houses from selling non-intoxicating liquors during the hours they are open. I apologise for having detained the House at such length, but in closing I do want to emphasise the point that I made at the start: that I hope the Home Secretary will not be discouraged by the criticism of this particular Order, and that his Department will take the necessary steps at leisure.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: After the War!
  Mr. GLYN-JONES: Well, at any rate, not to wait until an emergency arises, and then do as recently, to my own knowledge, had been done by the Home Office, send draft copies of an Order—as in this case—to various organised bodies of shopkeepers I have no doubt the Home Secretary will tell us the result of his inquiry. But this is much too intricate a matter to be dealt with in the course of a few days, and I hope, with the modification of this Order, the Home Office will continue its efforts to see if some scheme can be devised which will deal with what is an undoubted evil, namely, the abnormally late hours in which trade is carried on in some districts.
  Mr. GILBERT: As an old supporter of early closing, I am quite in favour of what the last speaker has said. You cannot get efficient early closing unless you have a compulsory Order, but I do wish to join issue with the last speaker when I say I think this Order of the Home Secretary is far too drastic. I speak purely as a London Member, representing one of the central districts of South London, which is typical of a good many other districts on London. We have one or two main streets which are crowded with shops, and a good many crowded areas in back streets
  1456
  containing a great number of small shops. I think the Order which is proposed by the Home Secretary is going to do a very great injustice to a great number of these small shops, and also to a number of the medium shops. It would be very interesting if the Home Secretary could give us the number of small shops that exist in this great county of London. I think the House would be surprised if it knew the number, and I wish to suggest to the Home Secretary that you cannot deal with London in the same way as the small provincial city, and you cannot make one Order which will apply equally to all parts of London. The right hon. Gentleman will know that on the application of the Early Closing Act at the present time London is turned into a series of zones, and you have one closing hour for the central parts of London and another closing hour for suburban parts.
  What I want to put specially before the Home Secretary is that these shopkeepers, both small and medium, during the War have had up to now a very difficult time. They have been hit very considerably by higher prices for their goods, and in very many cases they have had to sell goods at the same price as before. They have also had great difficulty in obtaining goods from the wholesale houses and factories, and therefore the position of the small shopkeeper in London to-day is more difficult than ever it was before. He is highly rated, and in many cases the man or the woman who makes a small income has been hit by the new Income Tax regulation, and had to pay Income Tax for the first time because of the reduction in the amount of allowance. As I said just now, London under the Early Closing Act is turned into a series of zones, and the people who live in certain trading districts work a long way from their district. The worker in the central part of London or the West End generally lives a long way from his work, and has the Home Secretary considered the great difficulty that has arisen since the War for the worker returning to his home? It takes the or worker, whether man, woman, or girl, probably twice, if not more than twice, as long to reach his or her work in the morning, and to reach home in the evening, as before the War? In many districts of London, suburban train services have been taken off, and the trams and the electric underground railways are overcrowded, 'buses have been reduced, and everybody

  1457
  knows that it takes a considerable time to get from your home to your work, or from your work to your home.
  The effect of this Early Closing Order will be that it will be absolutely impossible for the people to shop in the district in which they live. I am very anxious to know, like other speakers, what is the object of the Home Secretary in proposing this Order. Does he wish to shut up some of these shops? Because, if that is his object, his Order will do it. If he wants to shut up these shops, he is going to reduce the trade of the wholesale houses. If he wants to close down factories, that will be done if he persists in this Order. I have always understood it is very desirable that we should try to keep the trade of the country going as well as we can, and therefore I cannot fathom at all the object of the Home Secretary. Other Members have mentioned the case of a labourer who is paid by the day. We have a great number of these people in London. Women particularly have gone into a great number of industries, and, on account of the small allowances they are receiving, a good many soldiers' wives are doing work, and they do not reach home until very late. You are going to cause the greatest suffering and inconvenience to that type of woman in obtaining food and other necessaries if you close the small shops in the neighbourhood in which they live. A good many women have gone into the carrying trade. They drive carriers' vans and shopkeepers' vans, and everyone knows that the hours are generally late. As the hon. Member for West Ham has said, that type of people is to be absolutely debarred from obtaining ordinary food if the shops are closed at seven o'clock. I have received numerous letters and postcards from constituents of mine, and a good many of my shopkeepers will not be satisfied with eight o'clock closing on the first four days of the week. At any rate, I think the bulk of them will accept eight o'clock on the first four days of the week, nine o'clock on Friday, and ten o'clock on Saturday. I hope the Home Secretary will consider this matter in the interests of the small trader who has been hard hit by the War, and who will in many cases be exterminated if this Order is passed. I hope, therefore, that we shall have some concession made.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Herbert Samuel): I think the House would desire
  1458
  me now to reply to the speeches which have been made. There has been a very considerable unanimity of opinion, and I think all Members of the House will unite in greeting the new Member who has moved this Motion to-night, and I feel sure all hon. Members will agree that both the matter and the manner of his first speech will make us welcome succeeding occasions when he may address us. We are all glad to see again the hon. Member for the Mansfield Division (Colonel Sir C. Seely), who has made not his maiden speech but his first speech en secondes noces. Hon. Members have asked what is the origin of this Order? The Order is in no small degree a consequence of the Lighting Orders made throughout the country in consequence of war conditions. These Lighting Orders have reduced shopping hours to a very great extent, and a large number of shopkeepers already close their shops at a much earlier hour than they were accustomed to do before the War. A great number of them now close at seven o'clock, and some at six o'clock. In some districts, by voluntary arrangement, the general early closing hour is six o'clock, at least on several days of the week.
  The Home Office received very many representations from all over the country pointing out that although this was possible in many places there were others where unanimity could not be obtained, and where shopkeepers who were anxious to close earlier could not do so on account of competition with those who would remain open. We received a very large number of representations from important organisations in that sense. Further, the Coal Supply Committee of the Board of Trade communicated with the Home Office, and urged, as they were most anxious to effect economy in our coal supplies, that if the early closing movement could be encouraged and developed, it would have a very valuable effect in lessening the amount of coal consumed for the lighting and heating of shops during the winter months. It was impossible for the Home Office to ignore those representations, backed as they were by communications from those who represent a million and a quarter persons employed as shop assistants. They have always urged strongly earlier closing, and they were anxious to forward a movement already going on during the War and to secure Government support for it. I do not think hon. Members will agree with the hon. Member for St. Augustine's (Mr. Ronald

  1459
  McNeill) in the protest he made on behalf of the shop assistant who, after many hours' work, would be turned out of the warm shops into the dark streets, when he would have nowhere to go unless he went to bed. I have received representations from Labour organisations. Hon. Members have spoken about the hardship existing in regard to working classes in the dock districts, and the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. W. Thorne) has spoken in that sense. I may say that I received some time ago from the secretary of the East Ham Trades and Labour Council and Labour Representation Committee a letter, as follows:
  "My council, having its attention drawn to the proposal to curtail the hours of business in shops, has directed me to inform you that it is of opinion that the compulsory closing of all shops not later than 7 o'clock p.m. would be a step in the best interests not only of the public generally, but of shop workers especially."
  I also had a letter from the secretary to the Shields and District Trades and Labour Council, in which they say:
  "I am instructed to forward you the following resolution: 'That this council appeals to the Home Office to make a national closing Order not later than 6 p.m. on four days of the week, 1 p.m. on one day, and 8 p.m. on Saturdays.'"
  I have received all these representations in the interests of economising coal supply, and in the interests of meeting the desire of the shopkeepers throughout the country who have sent petitions to the Home Office; and I have also had communications from various labour organisations making representations on the subject, and I thought it would be inconsistent with my duty if I put them all aside and simply did nothing, which is always the easiest course for a Minister when he is urged to take action of any kind. Any Minister who tries to benefit his fellow men must take his life in his hands, and that has been my experience this evening. Before making the Order I published it widely, and I consulted the local authorities. I sent it in draft to the town councils of Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, Birmingham, and Sheffield, and all of them replied strongly commending the Order and urging me to proceed with it. I also consulted the following trade representatives: The trades associations—
  Mr. CHANCELLOR: The local authorities—the Borough Councils in London?
  Mr. SAMUEL: No, there was not time for that. With regard to the shopkeepers' associations, I sent a draft Order to the
  1460
  following, all of which approved: The National Association of Goldsmiths, the National Federation of Meat Traders' Associations, the Drapers' Chamber of Trade, the National Federation of Shopkeepers' and Small Traders' Protection Associations, the National Chamber of Trade, the Federation of Grocers' Associations of the United Kingdom, the National Association of Master Bakers and Confectioners, the Ironmongers' Federated Association, the Parliamentary Committee of the Co-operative Congress, the National Federation of Hairdressers, and the National Federation of Dairymen's Associations. One hon. Member said the Order as it affected the chemists was absurd, but the Pharmaceutical Society was consulted and cordially approved of it in the terms in which it was drawn, and perhaps the chemists knew their own business best. There was one association which disapproved, and that was the National Federation of Shopkeepers' and Small Traders' Protection Association, and it was known before that they were against this Order. I consulted two representatives of the Labour party especiallly qualified to speak on this matter, and both of them advised me to proceed, while the Press generally throughout the country approved the Order, making the usual complaint that the Government had not done this very obvious and useful thing long ago. I think the House will agree that this is not a case in which a Minister arbitrarily and hastily, without consulting any of the bodies interested, sought in an autocratic fashion and by a stroke of the pen to endeavour to foist upon the country a measure which had not been asked for. That is the history of the Order, and I am sure the House will acquit me of having either wantonly or gratuitously taken up the subject unnecessarily, and also of having proceeded without consultation with the parties interested.
  I think the House will also agree that if the Order were withdrawn altogether and nothing done at all there would be a very widespread disappointment in very many circles, and all these great associations of shopkeepers would feel indignant that their efforts to promote earlier closing had been frustrated. Those who speak for the million and a quarter shop assistants would not thank the House for depriving them of some further degree of

  1461
  leisure in view of the excessively long hours which some of them have to work. The suggestion has not been made this evening by any hon. Member that we should endeavour to make an Order which should exempt small shops as such and apply only to the large shops. Hon. Members who have paid some attention to the subject know that it would not be practicable to say in any particular street to one shopkeeper, "You shall be closed because you employ a girl to assist you," and to another, "You may remain open because you employ no one," the shop, perhaps, being worked by the shopkeeper himself and his family. It would obviously give rise to the grossest inequalities, and the most legitimate complaint would be made by the man whose shop had been closed because he employed an assistant and by his assistant when a shop across the road or along the street was allowed to remain open competing with his business and capturing his trade. I am sure hon. Members will agree, whatever course is proposed, that it is not possible to say that a shop which employs no assistants may remain open, and that every other shop must be closed. Consequently, if you do anything, you must treat all alike, and if you say that no small shop is to be closed you must in no way shut the larger shops, and you must do nothing in respect of shop assistants, economy of coal, and the like, in the larger businesses.
  The great majority of hon. Members who have spoken, including the Mover and Seconder of this Motion, have declared that the case would be met if the hour were extended to eight on all the days in the week except Saturday, when it should be nine o'clock. The hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. W. Thorne) said that he had received a communication from the Small Traders' Association to the effect that that would meet their case. The One-Man Business Owners' Association, of which the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Yeo) is the president, and which conducted a very effective agitation not long ago, has written to say that their case would be met if the Order were altered to eight o'clock instead of seven o'clock. I have received communications from the confectioners and newsagents to the same effect. It is always somewhat difficult to gauge what is really the feeling of the House of Commons. I am anxious to meet the wish of the House of Commons so far as I am able to gauge it from the
  1462
  Debate of one hour and a half which we had before I rose. I am under the impression that the House would not wish to destroy the Order altogether—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]—but would wish to meet the claim of the small shopkeeper that the shops should be allowed to remain open until eight o'clock instead of seven o'clock. A member of the Government is naturally, as I say, very anxious to meet the general desire of this House, particularly in view of the fact that we are proceeding under war conditions by virtue of most exceptional powers granted to the Executive. The House has very readily given the Government large powers under the Defence of the Realm Act, and I think the House is very ready to give a free hand to the Government, wherever the defence of the realm is quite directly touched, in all naval and military matters; but because the House is so ready to give the Government that free hand the duty devolves upon the Government, on the other hand, where the action is only indirectly connected with the defence of the realm, to endeavour in every manner to meet the wishes of the House of Commons as a whole. The House is reluctant to divide on questions like this, and there is therefore all the more necessity for Ministers to meet the desires expressed in debate. Consequently, in view of the speeches delivered this evening, I shall have great pleasure in acceding to the case which has been made and of issuing to-morrow an Amended Order permitting the keeping open of shops until eight o'clock on five days in the week and until nine o'clock on Saturdays.
  10.0 P.M.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: I am sure the House will have heard with satisfaction the statement which the right hon. Gentleman has just made. He has rightly said that he has to consult the House of Commons on all these occasions and recognise the opinion of the House. I would remind him, however, that but for the action of a private Member this afternoon and the support of forty Members, without any support from the Government, the House of Commons would never have had an opportunity at all of discussing this matter. This Order would have come into force on Tuesday next. We have the satisfaction of knowing that almost every borough council throughout the country, almost every trade organisation and every chamber of Commerce, and all people who might be interested in it have had an opportunity of seeing the Order before it was issued—in fact every representative

  1463
  body except the House of Commons itself. We are at this moment discussing an Order of vital importance which, I venture to say, would mean the ruin of thousands of people throughout this country, and the House of Commons is not in possession of a copy of it although it has been sent by the right hon. Gentleman to so many others. That is a state of affairs which is absolutely indefensible on the part of the Government. I gladly thank the right hon. Gentleman for his concession, but I do point out that but for the extraordinary procedure which has been taken this afternoon the House of Commons would have had no voice whatever in this very important departure in regard to legislation. I would say to my right hon. Friend and to all those whom it may concern that in future, when an important legislative step of this character is being taken, they really ought to take the pains to find out what the House of Commons think of it before it is put into force. I heard with some surprise that the new Labour Adviser of the Government had been consulted with regard to this matter and had given it his support. They were right to consult the Labour Adviser of the Government because the position has been heralded with so much acclamation in many quarters, but I cannot congratulate him on the first step that he has recommended the Government to take nor on the result of the recommendation he has made. I do not think there is very much advantage to be got from that point of view. I am one of the few Members of the House who has got a copy of this Order, and while, on the whole, it represents what has been stated to-night, it also contains things which have not been indicated. In the first place, I am not quite sure how far the Order extends. It extends, I presume, to the whole of England and Wales, but I do not know whether it extends to Scotland.
  Mr. SAMUEL: The Secretary for Scotland will make an Order for Scotland.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: In due time the Secretary for Scotland will make an Order for Scotland, so that the law will be the same in England and Scotland. Is it to apply to Ireland?
  Mr. SAMUEL: The lighting restrictions do not apply to Ireland.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: It is difficult to understand exactly where we are. In the ordinary course, procedure of this kind, taken under the Defence of the Realm Act, would presumably only apply to lighting restrictions, consumption of gas, and other matters which directly bear upon the War and the operations of the Defence of the Realm Act. I would remind my right hon. Friend that a great portion of his speech was not devoted to that at all; in fact, that portion of his speech was not at all complete. He made a great case out for the overworked shop assistant, but it is entirely outside a matter of this kind to bring in the question of the number of hours that are worked by shop assistants. That really does not come under the Defence of the Realm Act. The shop assistants by their organisations and by the association of the different trades in the different parts of the country have been able practically to close the shops at any time they please. The result is that the particular classes which would have been directly affected if the original procedure had been carried into effect are really not concerned in these voluntary associations at all. It is not fair or just in a case for action under the Defence of the Realm Act to bring forward a matter which ought to be settled on its merits. I venture to say that the House of Commons would be unanimous in supporting any fair or just claim that overworked shop assistants might make.
  I desire to point out the difficulty that there would be in carrying out this Order. All cigarette and cigar shops were to be closed at seven. They are now to be closed at eight. In order that there may be similar treatment throughout the whole of the country, you are also going to apply that rule to restaurants, hotels, and to clubs. Therefore, after eight o'clock at night, you can buy spirits, beer, and champagne. I do not know that you will be able to buy ginger ale. I presume that you will in hotels and restaurants, but lemonade and ginger ale shops are going to be closed. There is some justification for what my hon. Friend has said with regard to driving people to drink. You will be able to have dinner at a restaurant or hotel; you can invite your friends there, but after eight o'clock you will not be able to offer them a cigar. [An HON. MEMBER: "Fill your case beforehand!"] Usually, when one dines at a restaurant, he buys his cigars there. He does not take them with him, for that would be rather hard

  1465
  on the proprietor. The working man may go into a public-house and drink as much beer as he likes up till half-past nine, but after eight o'clock he is not to be allowed to buy an ounce of tobacco, a cigar, or a cigarette. That is a rather ridiculous state of affairs. The House of Commons will be the only place in the whole country where it will be possible to buy a cigarette or cigar after seven p.m. [An HON. MEMBER: "And Ireland!"] Ireland has special privileges for special reasons, but at any rate the House of Commons will be the only place in England, Scotland, and Wales where anyone, after seven o'clock, will be able to buy a cigarette, cigar, or ounce of tobacco. At any rate, we have some privileges left us in this part of the country.
  There is one other point to which I should like to draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention. I understand he is going to prevent shops selling cold meat after eight o'clock, there being a special provision that only newly-cooked provisions can be sold after that hour for consumption off the premises. But who is to decide what is newly cooked? Surely it will be very difficult of definition! One will not be able to buy cold ham to take home for supper unless the proper authority—is it to be the local constable?—decides that it is newly cooked. I am afraid my right hon. Friend, with the best intentions in the world, has not made out a very good case, because in the great majority of shops they sell both cigars and newspapers. They are to be allowed to keep open for the sale of newspapers, but they may not sell cigars. While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his small concession, I do not think he has made a case for an important alteration of the law more especially at a time when the shopkeepers are being harassed by taxation, and by the fact that their assistants, and very often the head of the business itself, are taken away. I could have hoped the right hon. Gentleman would have spared us the introduction of this legislative step.
  Mr. LOUGH: It may seem a little ungrateful to the right hon. Gentleman to say, notwithstanding his concession, that I think the Government have done the wrong thing in the wrong way. If we had any of the rights this House should have in an important matter of this kind, if we had any rights over the procedure which the Government have taken, I do not believe this proposal would have gone through. It certainly could only have gone
  1466
  through in the form of a Bill, if at all, with some substantial additions. I, too, like the right hon. Gentleman who last spoke, have a copy of the Order in some mysterious way, and I would like to ask why was not this House furnished with copies of it, so that every Member during the Debate might have had an opportunity of seeing exactly what was being talked about. My right hon. Friend, I admit, has made a very conciliatory speech as far as form is concerned, but has he said a single thing which connects this matter with the Defence of the Realm Act? Yet it is under this procedure, which, perhaps, the House has too readily given the Government, a procedure which enables them to do almost anything, that he is acting, and I am afraid this is an instance in which the power has been grossly abused. Some of the points raised do not come in under the Order at all. There is a question of the small shop and the large shop. Anybody can close the large shop at any hour they please, but here the House is dealing with the livelihood of a number of people, and it is only the indignation manifested by the House that has wrung out this concession.
  I think we ought to ask the Government to indicate why these powers are asked for under the Defence of the Realm Act. [An HON. MEMBER: "Lighting Orders!"] My hon. Friend is mistaken. There is nothing in this Order with reference to lighting. A shop may have no light at all and yet it may not be kept open, or it may be moonlight and still it is to be closed. My hon. Friend, with the best intention in the world, is trying to put a feeble prop under the Government. I suggest that in an important case of this kind, the Government ought to have presented a Bill. The right hon. Gentleman read a long list of trade councils, corporations, and other bodies who have passed resolutions supporting his Order. I want the House to note the contrast between that and the thing called public opinion, so far as legislation is concerned. Resolutions passed by labour organisations and trades councils are matters to which people pay no attention. They think them got-up jobs, and so very often they are. In dealing with proposals affecting the liberties of the people, the Government should proceed in a constitutional way, and it is most remarkable, if this proposal is so popular as has been suggested, that no independent Member of this House has spoken in support of it. I do not like the Order in

  1467
  the amended form, but then what can one do? We cannot propose any Amendment. We have to swallow it as a whole. It is a. very ungrateful thing to have to make the speech I am making, but I do think that under the circumstances it would have been far better for the right hon. Gentleman to leave the whole thing alone. I believe I am not taking too much on myself in saying that the general opinion of the House is that it would have been far better for the Government to have dealt with this matter, not by an Order in Council, which has been hastily and badly drawn, seeing that they are interfering with the livelihood and freedom of large numbers of people, but to have brought in a Bill in the regular way and allowed the subject to be discussed on the various stages of that measure.
  Captain BARNETT: In view of the concession made by the right hon. Gentleman, for which I ask to be allowed to thank him on behalf of the small shopkeepers, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
  Mr. JONATHAN SAMUELrose—
  Mr. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member object?
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: For the moment, yes.
  Mr. SPEAKER: If the objection is pressed, the matter must go to a Division.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

CENTRAL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).
Postponed proceedings resumed on Question, "That, in the opinion of this House, the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) should no longer be independent of the control of Parliament, and that its proceedings and expenditure should be made subject to the control of a Minister responsible to Parliament."—[Colonel Gretton.]
Question again proposed.
Sir J. D. REES: If the House will be so indulgent as to allow me to finish the speech which I had commenced when the Debate was interrupted, I think I can promise that the end will not be far off. I was dealing with the speech of the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. L. Jones).
1468
He said, in a rhetorical manner:
"The House is now asked to deprive the Board of powers which have been granted to it."
I submit that that is not the case. No such request was made in the Motion of my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Gretton). It only asks that the proceedings and expenditure of the Board should be subject to the control of a Minister responsible to Parliament. The hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division then urged that the Board had not closed enough public-houses. The House is aware that the Board can never close enough public-houses to satisfy the hon. Member. It is his case that all public-houses should be closed. That argument, therefore, is not worthy to be addressed to the House of Commons. Further, he objected to the existence of a bar at a certain munitions establishment, the name of which I will not mention. Again, he objects to anyone having a drink, therefore the House will not regard him as a fitting authority to speak to a Motion like this, in which the issue, drink or no drink, is not brought before the House. The hon. Member also referred to the waste of food in the manufacture of alcoholic liquors. In all seriousness, I would mention to the House, and particularly the opposite side, an argument that was given to me by a representative of the greatest milk-producing business in the United Kingdom. This gentleman told me that one result of the fanatical campaign against the brewing of beer is that the cheapest and best food upon which he had to feed his cows, namely, brewers' grains, had very much diminished in quantity, and actually in striking in this unreasonable manner at the brewing trade these fanatics are depriving the children of the country of the milk of which they stand so much in need. [Laughter.] I am quite prepared to find that that argument admits of not being regarded as seriously as it was put to me by that extremely good authority. I repeat it in perfectly good faith. At any rate, it illustrates the danger of fanatical adherence to one sole line of argument. I come to another instance. The hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division went on to refer to the action taken in Russia. He said:
"If they could stop the drinking in Russia, why not stop it altogether in this country? "
It is hardly credible that a Member of this House should compare a raw spirit like vodka with the wholesome and

1469
healthy drink which is the national beverage in this country. The Russian mujik, one of the most lovable and admirable creatures in this world, has his little faults. Nobody has the gift of friendship, nobody is worthy of having friends, who does not love his friends in spite of, and perhaps because of, their faults. I admit that the Russian peasant has his little faults, and that he is not the man for botanical beer. Not having port to drink, he drinks vodka, and now and again is likely to drink a little more than is good for him of that fiery, raw spirit. The hon. Member comes to this House and compares vodka with beer, and says that because the consumption of vodka has been stopped by Imperial ukase in Russia, the House of Commons should stop the drinking of beer in England. I submit that such an argument as that is not a reasonable one to place before a reasonable assembly. He then argued that nations of teetotalers have always subdued and will always subdue nations which drink—even moderate drinkers. Is that the case? Have the nations of the East, which are extremely temperate, subdued the moderate drinkers of the West? I should like the hon. Member to answer that question. I could give him an instance—rather a sinister instance at this moment—the Roumanians, who are far more Latin than would be believed by anyone unacquainted with them. Are they at present conspicuously stronger and more vigorous than the beer-drinking barbarians by whom they are confronted. Nowhere in history will you find any instance to confirm the doctrine which the hon. Gentleman has so confidently placed before the House.
Mr. L. JONES: Do I understand that the hon. Member prefers the Germans to the Roumanians?
Sir J. D. REES: No; I was taking the hon. Member's own instance. He said the moderate drinkers were always overcome by the total teetotalers, a case which I will undertake to say neither individual nor public experience will in any way confirm. I am surprised that the Minister of Munitions did not accept the extremely moderate Motion of my hon. and gallant Friend which was laid before the House, and seconded in speeches of the most conspicuous moderation. It would have been so easy to say the Government had the matter under consideration. That would, perhaps, to
1470
some extent have satisfied us. [An HON. MEMBER: "No!"] I do not know that it would, but I am surprised that it should have been met with so direct and rather contemptuous a negative as it has received from the right hon. Gentleman. He actually said that the Board did not deal with controversial subjects. I ask the whole House of Commons, is there any more controversial subject than Sunday closing in Monmouthshire? If there is, I have never seen it in the course of my twelve years in this House. They settled that by a stroke of the pen, which no party and no Government here has ever been able to settle before. He also referred to the personnel of the Board. I do not wish to be led into anything personal, but it is very obvious that where you have a gentleman who, however sincere, is an extreme teetotaler he cannot be a very suitable person for the administration of the Regulations which this Board has to administer. I know cases where a farmer living in the depths of the country goes into his market town or sends out for a bottle of brandy for medicinal purposes on market day and cannot get it. He cannot get a certificate from a doctor, and goes home disappointed to find his patient worse, perhaps really dying for want of a little stimulant. Brandy is a most valuable stimulant. Port wine is an extraordinarily useful medicine. It has saved many people's lives. This same Board has just issued an autocratic decree that all spirits shall be reduced to 30 per cent. under proof. Anyone who has ever seen whisky is aware that it should be bright and brillant. You cannot reduce it to 30 per cent. below proof without making it muddy, murky, and unattractive to the people who want to drink it in perfect moderation, and who are none the worse for so doing.
I thought it was necessary to answer some of the points made by the hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division, because I thought every single argument he used admitted of immediate and complete refutation. If I have not succeeded in that effort I sincerely hope that somebody else will do so. I do not think the hon. Member's speech was relevant to my hon. and gallant Friend's Motion. If it was relevant it did not address itself to the point which we, who are supporting the Motion, wish to have brought forward, and that is that there should not be expenditure of large sums of money on alcoholic control without matters coming under the control of Parliament. I am

1471
astonished that those who are so democratic as some of the hon. Gentlemen who have spoken on the other side do not see that to accept this Motion would be a proper step to take for democratic as well as for other reasons.
Mr. PRIMROSE: I am only going to intervene for a few moments because this subject has been dealt with in all its aspects by people who are far more qualified to deal with it than I am. Sitting on this Bench and listening to the Debate all the afternoon, one felt rather like, I imagine, a person might feel in "No Man's Land" when nobody is actually shooting at him, but whom an occasional chance shot may hit. I would like, first of all, to remove an impression given in an intervention by the hon. Member for East Leeds (Mr. O'Grady), that the Minister of Munitions attributes all bad time-keeping to drunkenness. I would deprecate most earnestly any remark of that kind going forth from this Debate. It was not the intention of my right hon. Friend to make any remark of that kind, and to my recollection he did not. At a moment when great changes are going on in industrial conditions, I think it would be very regrettable that any remark of that kind should he attributed to my right hon. Friend. I have listened to the speeches this afternoon and evening, and I think I may say, without fear of much contradiction, that the general policy of the Control Board has been approved. The exception which has been mentioned by many speakers has been the case of Carlisle. Carlisle was not an experiment. Carlisle was a particular system which was introduced to meet particular circumstances.
I do not think I am giving away any great secret if I refer to the gigantic factory at Gretna. A year ago Gretna was a rural district connected in our minds principally with romance. Another page has been written in its history which is perhaps as romantic as any that has been written before. Within ten months, owing to the labours of several thousand workmen, a great factory has sprung into being, which is already contributing its quota to the munitions of war. It was to meet the state of affairs which thousands of newcomers into Carlisle might possibly create that this particular system was set up. I may go further and say that all the neighbouring local authorities thoroughly
1472
approved of the scheme. But I think that I may be permitted to state to the House on this particular point that it is quite clear that no general application of State purchase to any large area can be made without Parliamentary and Treasury sanction.
There is another complaint which I have heard this afternoon—that is, the method which the Board have adopted to hear evidence on any particular question. I heard one speaker regret that his evidence was not heard in public. There is in the method followed by us nothing in the nature of a hole-and-corner inquiry. The local representatives of the trade are met, and though it is true that the proceedings are not published in the Press, there is no question of any great secrecy. But I would remind hon. Members that if it had to be publicly announced that owing to the intention of the Government, either to quarter a large body of troops in that particular area or to start to build a factory for munitions in a particular area, this Order was probably going to be scheduled, it would give an indication which might not be desirable from the point of view of the enemy. It seems to me that really the groundwork of the opposition to this Board is that it is considered to lack Parliamentary control. I should have thought that this Debate rather disposed of that idea, because every action of the Board has been the subject of the most minute and searching criticism, and at the same time, in my judgment, has made the most adequate defence, and I do not think that we can say that Parliament has no control over it. One cannot help feeling that under the guise of this constitutional argument there is a wish to stop the activities of the Board in a policy which the Board has carried out. We are not in normal times. In ordinary times we should have a Commission of Inquiry which would sit for many months and take evidence at portentous length, ultimately giving its decision to the House, which decision might or might not be adopted after considerable debate. That is wholly impossible in these times, and the same argument applies to every Department. During this War every Department connected with the War—and no one can deny that the Ministry of Munitions is very intimately connected with the War—has to carry through things which would be unthinkable in ordinary times.

1473
I do ask the House to consider the argument seriously that though the Ministry of Munitions are perfectly prepared to be saddled with any responsibility for what this Board may do, it would really hinder its activity very considerably in a way of which I really do not think the majority of members would approve if every action which it wished to perform had to be submitted for the approval of this House. Since I have come back to England I have been dealing largely with the labour side of the Ministry of Munitions. I have seen a great many of the trade union representatives, not only in this country but in Scotland, and I can assure the House that from not one single trade union representative have I heard any complaint made against the Liquor Control Board. I am perfectly prepared to agree with hon. Members that no support would be found for objects of this kind in peace time, but when it is said that the Board is exceeding its statutory rights, is exceeding what it is meant to do, I would urge once more, for consideration, that the great mass of the workers in munition factories whose representatives I am constantly seeing, have never uttered a single complaint about that. I do not know whether the Mover of the Motion is going to carry it to a Division. I sincerely hope he is not, because I think that at a time like this, when the opinion of the House is asked, that opinion should be unanimous, but I am afraid that it will not be unanimous if a Division is taken. What are we asked to vote about? The activities of the Liquor Control Board, even in our scheduled areas, are nothing to cause them to reproach themselves. I think that if you were to ask our soldiers what their thought was of the hardship of only getting alcohol at the hours at present fixed, it would be that they would regard it as a very great luxury indeed. I do earnestly urge the House to deal with this matter impartially, to realise that it is an independent Board, with no axe to grind and with no self-interest; and, in my judgment, as I believe in the judgment of the majority of Members of this House, it is doing its work well and for the utmost good of the country.
Sir F. BANBURY: Neither the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down nor the right hon Gentleman the Minister of Munitions has really dealt with the Motion before the House. That Motion does not deal with the merits of the action of the Central Control Board; it does not
1474
mention anything as to their action at all; it only says they should be responsible to this House through a Minister. The Minister of Munitions said the Control Board was responsible to this House, and that he did not accept the Motion because there was a Vote of Credit. But a Vote of Credit gives no power to this House in that direction. I took the opportunity of consulting the book of Sir Erskine May, and I find that it would be impossible on the Vote of Credit to move an Amendment limiting the direction in which money is to be spent. Under these circumstances, the only power of the House is to refuse to give any Vote of Credit. Let the House consider what that would mean and what the answer would be. We would be told that the Government have come down to ask for three or four hundred millions, or whatever sum was necessary to prosecute the War, and that we were refusing to give them that sum because we had some small grievance in connection with the Control Board. Therefore, it is perfectly evident that the House of Commons, as matters stand at present, has no control whatever over the Board. This is a constitutional question and nothing else. The Board may have been like angels from Heaven and may have done their work in the very best possible manner, but that does not allow them to be free from the control of this House. All we want is that there should be a responsible Minister who could control the Board and who would be responsible to this House. All we are asking for is that the old constitutional system, which said that every part of the Government and every action in the country of the Government should be under the control of this House., should be maintained. It is a very simple question, and I am surprised that a democratic Government can refuse it. [An HON. MEMBER: "A Coalition Government!"] I am not a Democrat and I have never pretended to be, but I have always maintained that the power of the House of Commons should be supreme over everything. It is a democratic Government which flouts the House of Commons. A short time ago they brought in an Order without consulting the House of Commons, and when the House of Commons was consulted they had to alter the Order. This is exactly the same thing.
Mr. CHANCELLOR: Would you repeal the Defence of the Realm Act?
Sir F. BANBURY: No, but I would not give the powers conferred by that Act to the Government if I understood they were going to use them in this way. What I got up to show to the House was that neither of the Members of the 'Government who have answered has really dealt with the question at all. They have endeavoured to confuse the issue by trying to make out that what we ask for is an investigation into the actual acts of the Control Board, whereas what we ask for is that the old constitutional principle should be maintained and that whatever Department exists that that Department should be subject ultimately to the control of this House.
Sir THOMAS WHITTAKER: The best comment on the speech of the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) is the speech delivered early this evening by the hon. Member for the Ealing Division of Middlesex (Mr. Nield). The right hon. Baronet said he had no desire to enter into a discussion of the decisions or procedure of the Control Board. The speech of the hon. Member for the Ealing Division was an illustration of the undesirability and futility of such discussion as they wish to have. What was the case of the hon. Member? He complained, first, that a special public house because it belonged to the Publichouse Refreshment House Association should be dealt with exceptionally and specially and not as other public houses in the area were to be dealt with. His other complaint was that the Board in their discretion had declined to accept the services of this company to manage the whole thing for them.
Mr. NIELD: No, no! I read Lord Lytton's own note on the subject.
Sir T. WHITTAKER: The next complaint was that the amount of compensation given in the case of this particular house was insufficient. But the amount of compensation has not been settled, and it will not be settled by this Board. The criticism should not be applied to the Control Board at all, but to the Commission which settles the compensation in case of war loss. How does the hon. Member know that the compensation will not be sufficient? He is criticising an award which has not yet been given, and he is criticising the wrong body. That is an indication of the kind of thing we should have. A great constitutional question is raised!
1476
Yes, and in every case it is raised by a critic and opponent of the Board. It is only a disguised attack. We have the Government and Government Departments dealing with many matters in this country, besides the liquor trade. They are acquiring other property without the sanction of this House and without any special inquiry. But these hon. Members who are so anxious for constitutional procedure and propriety, have never felt moved to bring forward a Motion until you have touched what is to them practically the Ark of the Covenant. They want to know what are the salaries paid to the officials. There is no such inquiry in connection with any other Department. They do not want to know what are the salaries of the hundreds and thousands of other men who are employed in other directions. This constitutional complaint is pure fudge. They dare not openly attack this Board; therefore they resort to this method.
The hon. Member for Rutland (Colonel Gretton), in moving the Motion, carefully avoided details. Every comment he made upon the Board was one of disapproval. He said that he neither approved nor disapproved. He certainly did not approve of a single thing the Board has done. But he did indicate where he disapproved. It is the old story: they are all in favour of promoting sobriety, but not thus, and not now. Who in this country is the worse for the restrictions which the Board has imposed? Go to any of the great munition districts—Newcastle, the Clyde, Liverpool—and ask employers, police authorities, medical officers, and trade union leaders if they have any complaint. No; they will tell you that they approve.
Mr. STANTON: Go to the recruiting sergeants, too.
Sir T. WHITTAKER: Certainly. What is the real trouble? This Control Board is not a temperance organisation.
Mr. STANTON: But very much like one.
Several HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Sir T. WHITTAKER: There are thirteen members.
Mr. STANTON: A very unfortunate number.
Several HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Sir T. WHITTAKER: Now we are getting to the real point. Now we see what is at the back of the Motion. There

1477
are thirteen members of this Board, and ten of them are not teetotalers. Has the work of the Board been justified? Look at the diminution in the arrests for drunkenness in these areas. [AN HON. MEMBER: "That has nothing to do with it."] It has everything to do with the real issue. And under what circumstances has there been this diminution? In most of these areas there are more men to-day than there were in peace time, and they are earning much larger wages. Yet the arrests for drunkenness have gone down by about one-half. It is not isolated. It is universal. Take districts like Newcastle and the North-East Coast, rough districts, where there are seamen, dock labourers, coal-miners, shipbuilders, and others, who have hard work to do in exposed conditions. The climate is cold and raw. Wages are high. The convictions during he War, before he Order was made, increased by 40 per cent. After the Order they diminished by 50 per cent. The police, the justices, medical officers of health, and the employers all report favourably.
We have heard a good deal about home drinking. That is an old story! We have had it in connection with every Sunday Closing Act promoted for Ireland, Wales, and Scotland. In every case we have had Commissions and Committees appointed specially to inquire into the allegation, and it has been in every instance disproved. It is a most difficult charge to deal with and disprove, but careful inquiries show that it is without foundation. Fewer women have been proceeded against for drunkenness. Take Newcastle. In the first six months of 1915 the average per month of charges was 67. In the first six months of 1916 the sixty-seven had dropped to thirty-nine. In Gateshead, during the same period, the charges of drunkenness against women have fallen from thirty-three per month to eighteen. There is no evidence whatever of an increase in that direction. Then as to the taking of the liquor home. The House will pardon me if I read a statement made by the manager of a large lodging-house for about 400 men in Newcastle. He reports that
"drunkenness amongst these men has gradually decreased; the number of bottles found there has enormously decreased."
Mr. RUTHERFORD: What has become of the corks?
Sir T. WHITTAKER: What is the charge? That when the public-houses are closed, men buy the liquor in bottles and
1478
take it home. Here it is disproved. What about the Carlisle experiment? Personally, I do not at all wish the Board of Control to acquire public-houses in districts and manage them. In my judgment, they are not the best body for the purpose. Further, it is not a favourable opportunity for trying an experiment of the kind. In the third place, I think, if we ever attempt anything of the kind, the basis of purchase ought to be distinctly laid down by Parliament. I am not, therefore, anxious that they should make this experiment. But, as I understand the position, the necessities of the case in Carlisle, and in one or two districts of the kind, forced them into it. It was, practically, their only alternative. As to the compensation to be paid, that is to be settled by the Commission for awarding compensation for war losses. As was stated, the Board cannot make any of these purchases until they have been approved by the Ministry of Munitions or by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Further, the Board cannot schedule any district for restrictions unless the proposal has been sanctioned by the Ministry of Munitions. There you have Parliamentary responsibility. You can tackle as you like the Minister of Munitions for his responsibility in this matter, and you can tackle the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But that is not what they want. From the kind of speech made by the hon. and learned Member for Ealing (Mr. Nield)—ex-parte statements made about particular cases of which we have no knowledge here and cannot have any knowledge—we cannot come to a proper decision.
There is one difficulty in connection with this matter, and that is the difficulty of enforcing the law. If the justices and the police would enforce those Regulations more stringently—aye, if the Board itself had been a little more strict than it has been! The Board itself has closed forty public-houses for infringement of its Regulations, but those Regulations are infringed, and the great difficulty of all our licensing legislation is to get it enforced. And why cannot we get it enforced? Because of the financial interest, and we should not have had this Motion to-night but for the financial interest.
Colonel GRETTONrose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question. Debate resumed.
Mr. CARADOC REES: I suggest it is impossible in this case to dissociate the constitutional point from the point of policy. If the policy of this Control Board has been good, then why raise the constitutional point during the War? But with regard to the constitutional point, the Minister of Munitions has said that he is the Minister responsible to this House. With regard to the policy of the Control Board, the Board have been peculiarly fortunate in having as one of their defenders the hon. and gallant Member for Plymouth. His speech on the policy of the Control Board, I am certain, carried conviction to every Member of this House. There may be a Division. How will that Division be regarded by the people of this country? They will look upon a vote for this Resolution as a vote for the extension of drinking facilities during the War. Do it if you dare to do it. This trade is a trade that is injurious to the interests of the country during the War, and that is why the Act was passed to control this trade, and it is a trade that needs controlling. What has this trade done to help the War? Has it helped the man-power of the country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!"] How? Has it helped the finances of the War? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!"] Let me tell the House a tale of Mark Twain. Meeting a lady who had lumbago, Mark Twain said, "I will cure you of the lumbago, Madam." She replied, "I am very much obliged; what am I to do"? "You must give up drinking and smoking," he said. "I neither drink nor smoke," the lady retorted, "and I hope
you don't want to insult me." "Madam," he said, "your case is a very bad one; you have no margin to pull up on." In this War we have a big margin on which to pull up, and that is the drink traffic;£180,000,000 is equal to 4 per cent. on£4,500,000,000 of War Loan. Take, if you like, from that the taxes that are deducted from this trade, leaving, say,£120,000,000, which is equal to 4 per cent. on a£3,000,000,000 War Loan. This trade is the one trade that is hampering and hindering the finances of this country. Let me take another point. Members on the other side say this trade pays a lot towards the taxes of the country—
Colonel GRETTONrose in his place, and clamed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question. Debate resumed.
It being after Eleven of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER poceeded to interrupt the business,
Whereupon SIR FREDERICK BANBURY rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put accordingly, "That, in the opinion of this House, the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) should no longer be independent of the control of Parliament, and that its proceedings and expenditure should be made subject to the control of a Minister responsible to Parliament."
The House divided: Ayes, 85; Noes, 97.

Division No. 62.]

AYES.

[11.0 p.m.

Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

Dixon, C. H.

Mills, Lieut. Arthur R.

Baldwin, Stanley

Doris, William

Neville, Reginald J. N.

Banbury. Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

Duffy, William J.

Newdegate, F. A.

Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

Newman, John R. P.

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

Fletcher, John Samuel

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

Bellairs, Commander C. W.

Ganzoni, Francis John C.

Nield, Herbert

Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

Grant, James Augustus

Nolan, Joseph

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C W.

Gretton, John

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Boyton, James

Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

Brookes, Warwick

Hackett, John

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

Broughton, Urban Hanion

Hewins, William Albert Samuel

Pennefather, De Fonblanque

Burgoyne, A. H.

Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

Perkins, Walter F.

Butcher, John George

Hunt, Major Rowland

Peto, Basil Edward

Byrne, Alfred

Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Carnegie, Major D. G.

Ingleby, Holcombe

Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

Cator, John

Jowett, Frederick William

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Cautley, Henry Strother

Joynson-Hicks, William

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

Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

Keating, Matthew

Remnant, James Farquharson

Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Coats, Sir Stuart A. (Wimbledon)

Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

Rutherford, Sir John (Darwen)

Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

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

Cosgrave, James

Lynch, Arthur Alfred

Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

Croft, Lieut.-Col. Henry Page

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

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

Crumley, Patrick

Mason, David M. (Coventry)

Smith, Harold (Warrington)

Denniss, E. R. B.

Meux, Hon. Sir Hedworth

Stanton, Charles Butt

Swift, Rigby

Whiteley, Herbert James

Younger, Sir George

Thomas-Stanford, Charles

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Tickler, T. G.

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

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir Edward Goulding and Mr. O'Grady.

Touche, George Alexander

Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

Walker, Colonel William Hall

NOES.

Alden, Percy

Greenwood, Sir G. G. (Peterborough)

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Astor, Hon. Waldorl

Hanson, Charles Augustin

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Baird, John Lawrence

Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

Rees, G. C. (Carnarvonshire, Arfon)

Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

Hodge, John

Rendall, Athelstan

Barnes, Rt. Hon. George N.

Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Barnett, Captain R. W.

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbigh)

Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

Hudson, Walter

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Beale, Sir William Phipson

Jacobsen, Thomas Owen

Roe, Sir Thomas

Beauchamp, Sir Edward

Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

Rowlands, James

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

John, Edward Thomas

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Bliss, Joseph

Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

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

Bridgeman, William Clive

Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Brldgeton)

Brunner, John F. L.

Kellaway, Frederick George

Sherwell, Arthur James

Byles, Sir William Pollard

King, Joseph

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

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

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Smith, Sir Swire (Keighley, Yorks)

Chancellor, Henry George

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

Stewart, Gershom

Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

Layland-Barrett, Sir F.

Swann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

Coote, William

M'Callum, Sir John M.

Thomas, J. H.

Cowan, William Henry

Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

Mackinder, Halford J.

Toulmin, Sir George

Crooks, Rt. Hon. William

M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs, Spalding)

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

M'Micking. Major Gilbert

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

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

Mallalieu, Frederick William

Watt', Henry A.

Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Wllloughby H.

Marks, Sir George Croydon

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

Duke, Rt. Hon. Henry Edward

Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

Wiles, Thomas

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Pearce, Sir Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

Essex, Sir Richard Walter

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

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

Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

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

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

Finney, Samuel

Pratt, J. W.

Wing, Thomas Edward

Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

Pretyman, Ernest George

Yeo, Alfred William

Forster, Henry William

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

Galbraith, Samuel

Primrose, Hen. Neil James

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

GlanviTle, Harold James

Radford, Sir George Heynes

Goddard, Rt. Hon. Sir Daniel Ford

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

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

CONSTABULARY AND POLICE (IRELAND)— [MONEY].
Committee to consider of authorising further provision out of moneys provided by Parliament for the pay of members of the Royal Irish Constabulary and Dublin Meropolitan Police and for pensions, allowances and gratuities to members of those forces, their widows and children, in pursuance of any Act of the present Session; to amend the law relating to the pay and pensions of the Royal Irish Constabulary and Dublin Metropolitan Police (King's 'Recommendation signified) upon Tuesday next.—[Mr. Duke.]
DISTURBANCES IN IRELAND.

  UNTRIED PRISONERS.
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 22nd February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Mr. BYRNE: Six months have now virtually passed since the rebellion in
  1482
  Ireland, and I have been endeavouring to obtain some humane and proper treatment for the Irish prisoners. I was somewhat inspired to continue my exertions by the speech which was delivered last night by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board (Mr. Hayes Fisher), who said:
  "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."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th October, 1916, col. 1263.]
  The mockery and insincerity of the whole thing as applied to Ireland is very painfully seen in the treatment of the Irish prisoners at Frongoch. There is no humanity, no protection for the Irish. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of our fighting for small nationalities. I agree that it is a splendid thing to do, but I ask hon. and right hon. Members on the Government Benches when do they intend to do a little of what they are preaching in the case of that unfortunate country of Ireland. Since the outbreak of the rebellion in Ireland, the question of the treatment of our Irish prisoners has been brought before you day after day. I will not

  1483
  attempt to describe the inhuman treatment that the Irish prisoners met in the barracks of the City of Dublin. When the matter was brought before the Prime Minister he said it was not his desire or wish that prisoners should be treated in the way it was stated they were being treated. He immediately went over, and the moment after his visit I must certainly say that the improvement in the conditions was wonderful. The least we thought might happen would be that when the Irich prisoners came to this country they would receive the same treatment in regard to food and general conditions as was ensured for them by the Prime Minister when he visited Dublin. There are 570 young Irishmen interned at Frongoch as prisoners of War. They sleep in malt stores. These are close wooden buildingss, very dark and dismal. There is no ventilation—or very little, and I understand that water flows through, sometimes to the extent of an inch or two inches when heavy rains fall. I am informed too that the place is infested with rats, and a letter I have just received—not got through unknown means because it is marked "Opened by the Censor," states that the beds are infested with vermin, which nobody would desire. The conditions at present are that they rise at six in the morning and are locked up at six in the evening. I believe that during the summer months their hours are a little longer. The food is poor and insufficient. In connection with this matter I might refer to the sweeping statement made by the Home Secretary yesterday week, when he said that all my complaints were baseless. The very next day he admitted in this House that 176lbs of meat sent to the Irish prisoners was declared unfit for human consumption. I would ask the Government, as the question of contracts has taken up a little of their time, do they intend to prosecute the contractor who supplied that quantity of meat for our Irish prisoners? I believe that the meat was intended for the guard. The guard refused to accept it, and it was ordered to the kitchen cook, who was in charge of the Irish prisoners. He refused to accept it, and sent to the commandant. The commandant told him that if he made any complaint he would lock him up. He forgot that he had to deal with intelligent men, not prisoners of the common class, for some of these young chaps are the cleanest, brightest, and best
  1484
  of Ireland and know their rights. They insisted upon a doctor coming forward. A doctor came forward and condemned the food. I believe that on that occasion the commandant was most insulting and abusive to the doctor, who sent for his assistant, saying that in case anything further happened he wished to have proof. His assistant came in and condemned the same quantity of meat, with the result that it was thrown out. Previously to that the commandant stated to the cook:
  "I admit it smells bad. Wash it with vinegar and the stench will be removed."
  I ask is that the way you expect your prisoners to be treated in Germany, that their food should have to be washed in vinegar to remove the bad smell? Not being satisfied with the food they get, their friends send them food—tinned food, and of late it has become the habit of the Commandant to open the tins and the parcels and leave them almost unfit for use. As to the work they were given, I was glad to hear the Home Secretary say only to-day that they would not be asked to do this work any more. They were asked to clean out the soldiers' huts and refuse of a very objectionable nature that no young men with any spirit, especially of the spirit of the fighting Irishmen could do. They refused to do it, with the result that eight a day were put in confinement—what they call "in clink"—and deprived of all the rights and privileges of prisoners of war for one week. They had no visitors and were not allowed to smoke, to get newspapers or receive letters, and every little privilege the Home Office had given them was taken away by a military despot. The Home Secretary, in any special case which I have brought to his notice was most obliging. He tried to relieve, as far as lay in his power, the pressure which is being put upon him. Any time I asked for a pass to see the prisoners he was kind enough to give me one, and he has also been kind enough to get many concessions I asked for granted. This is all caused by the military officer in charge. Ha has a bitter hatred of everything that is Irish. He displayed that hatred on the first day that I had the good fortune to obtain a pass to see the prisoners.
  My pass was made out by General Childs to visit all the prisons, and this man kept my pass from me. He said he would send a copy of it to all the various prisons I had to get round. When I went to

  1485
  Stafford prison, that being after Frongoch, I found there was no such thing as a pass sent, and if it had not been for the goodness of the Governor of that prison accepting my word I should not have got in to see the prisoners. To show the hatred that this man has to these Irish boys, one of them once forgot to say "Sir" to him, and he was immediately given twenty-four hours' confinement, on bread and water. If this man thinks that these attempts to break the spirit of these men are going to succeed he has made them more firm and more determined than ever to uphold their principles. The only way to break their spirit is by kindness.
  The Home Secretary said my charges were baseless. If so, why does he refuse to allow four Members, one representing each party, to inspect for themselves and see whether my statements are true or not? I guarantee that every word I say will be proved, because it has been allowed out by the censor at Frongoch. If these statements were incorrect he would send the letters back, as he has sent many letters back. I understand that last week the cells, 180 in number, were completely filled up and he resorted to locking ten men up in each hut when he had no more cells for them. If you would place these men under civil authority I believe you would have no further trouble in this House so far as complaints of bad food and ill-treatment are concerned. Is it fair to place them under military guard? After all, these men, to use the phrase of an hon. Member opposite, have "seen red." Having seen red at the hands of the rebels, can those concerned expect any fair treatment or any justice from their gaolers? That also reminds me of the composition of courts-martial in Dublin. Was it ever known before that a section of men on one side fighting a section of men on the other side should be called together to judge the men who had been attacked. I believe if these men who have been sentenced to various terms of imprisonment had had an opportunity of a civil trial, no civil authority on earth, no person with any sense of justice or common fair play would have allowed them to be sentenced to the terms of imprisonment or to meet the death which they did.
  My attention has been drawn also to the treatment of some of the men who have been released. One of them is a member of the Dublin Corporation, Alderman James J. Kelly, Justice of the Peace, and an ex-High Sheriff of Dublin. He was
  1486
  arrested and badly treated; his house was wrecked, and his goods were looted. A very eminent firm of accountants in Dublin estimated his loss at£6,000, but the Government to-day have offered him£1,450 as sufficient compensation—all done, probably, with a view of ruining this man. I would ask the Chief Secretary if he will not have the matter inquired into and see why it is, after this eminent firm of accountants have given their valuation, their decision has been questioned so much that the amount is reduced to£1,450. I might also refer, in order to prove my case, to another instance of ill-treatment. I have a letter from a lady, in which she says:
  "My brother was arrested with the Galway prisoners and detained for three months at Richmond, Wandsworth, and Frongoch. He had no charge whatever against him before the Advisory Committee. My poor brother has since died, and on his death-bed he stated that his death was caused by the severe and bad treatment which he met with at Wandsworth and Frongoch."
  Does the right hon. Gentleman think that that is the right way to treat those prisoners? They fought for what they believed to be the best interests of their country. Is it not time that he should release them? I believe, if he would go through their cases again, at least half of them would be released during the next week. I think that, pending their release, at any rate we ought to be assured that they will get some fair, humane treatment.
  Mr. SAMUEL: The hon. Member, when he gave notice that he proposed to raise this matter on, the Adjournment, said that he had made a number of charges against the administration of the camp at Frongoch, and that when he had the opportunity in this House he would proceed to prove them all. He laid much emphasis on the word "prove." Hon. Members who have listened to his statement this evening will have been waiting for the proof. There was much assertion but no proof, and the only evidence that he desired to lay before the House in support of his statements was the fact that he had received a letter or several letters from the camp, and that the contents must be true because they had been passed by the censor. If the hon. Member is credulous enough to believe everything he receives in letters and to think that they must have a foundation in fact because the Censor has not stopped them on their way, he must have a very imperfect grasp of the value of evidence. The Censor allows

  1487
  complaints through because there is no desire to interfere with the proper means of communication from persons who are confined in Government camps, and those who desire in matters such as this to speak on their behalf, particularly where these Irish prisoners are concerned. Let me deal with the specific statements which the hon. Member makes. In the first place, he says that these prisoners are confined in a malthouse. In the first place, none of them are now in the distillery that was converted into a barrack. They have all been transferred some little while ago into the North Camp, which consists of huts precisely of the same kind as are provided for our own troops who are in the military camps. Therefore the hon. Member's statement is, from the beginning, incorrect. They were for some time in a distillery which had been converted into a barrack for the use of German interned prisoners, and while so used it was visited by the representative of the American Embassy and declared to be absolutely suitable in every respect. Those who were confined there were far fewer in number than the building was designed to accommodate. The barracks consists of six sleeping rooms, a large dining room, ablution rooms, hospital, lavatory accommodation, cookhouse, and so forth. The hon. Mem-
  1488
  ber says that the rain flows in. I have a report on that, and I am told that it is, quite untrue that there was never any surface water from the ground flowing into the building, and that a slight flooding of a few yards in extent which took place in one of the rooms was caused by the bursting of a pipe. The hon. Member said that the place was infested by rats. It is true that there was trouble from rats, but the use of a rat poison has got rid of the vermin, which are to be found, I believe, in most large buildings, and it cannot be said that the place was made uninhabitable by them.
  It being Half-past Eleven of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Half after Eleven o'clock till Tuesday next, 31st October, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of this day.

PETITION PRESENTED.
The following Petition was presented and ordered to lie upon the Table:—
WEDNESDAY.
Sale of Intoxicating Liquors during the War,—Petition from Tough, for prohibition.
WAR.
  LAW OFFICERS.
  LAW OFFICERS.
  METRIC SYSTEM.
  METRIC SYSTEM.
  VISCOUNT GREY.
  VISCOUNT GREY.
  BEER AND SPIRITS CLEARED (HOME CONSUMPTION).
  BEER AND SPIRITS CLEARED (HOME CONSUMPTION).
  GERMAN BANKS IN LONDON.
  GERMAN BANKS IN LONDON.
  NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS, IRELAND (PENSIONS).
  NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS, IRELAND (PENSIONS).
  EMIGRATION FROM IRELAND.
  EMIGRATION FROM IRELAND.
  RECRUITING IN IRELAND.
  RECRUITING IN IRELAND.
  PIT PROPS.
  PIT PROPS.
  POTATO SUPPLY.
  POTATO SUPPLY.
  ADMIRALTY SHIPPING RATES (TRAMP STEAMERS).
  ADMIRALTY SHIPPING RATES (TRAMP STEAMERS).
  MILITARY SERVICE.
    FISHERMEN.
    FISHERMEN.
    ABSENTEE.
    ABSENTEE.
    ARMY SCHOOLS DEPARTMENT.
    ARMY SCHOOLS DEPARTMENT.
    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
    HANTS REGIMENT, NEWPORT (I.W.).
    HANTS REGIMENT, NEWPORT (I.W.).
    BRITISH SUBJECTS ABROAD.
    BRITISH SUBJECTS ABROAD.
    ARMY DISCHARGE.
    ARMY DISCHARGE.
    CALLING-UP NOTICES.
    CALLING-UP NOTICES.
    MINERS.
    MINERS.
    MEN CALLED UP (APPEALS).
    MEN CALLED UP (APPEALS).
  TROOPS IN IRELAND.
  TROOPS IN IRELAND.
  SCOTTISH TROOPS (CONCERTS).
  SCOTTISH TROOPS (CONCERTS).
  IRISH MIGRATORY LABOURERS.
  IRISH MIGRATORY LABOURERS.
  CANADIAN FORCES (RIFLE).
  CANADIAN FORCES (RIFLE).
  CONNAUGHT RANGERS.
  CONNAUGHT RANGERS.
  HOME HOSPITAL RESERVE.
  HOME HOSPITAL RESERVE.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  PRISONERS OF WAR.
  PRISONERS OF WAR.
  SUBALTERNS WOUNDED.
  SUBALTERNS WOUNDED.
  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR AND MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT.
  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR AND MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT.
  DEATH OF SOLDIER (YORK).
  DEATH OF SOLDIER (YORK).
  HAY PURCHASES.
  HAY PURCHASES.
  ARMY ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT.
  ARMY ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT.
  "TANK" CREWS.
  "TANK" CREWS.
  BRITISH OFFICERS IN FRANCE (RAILWAY FACILITIES).
  BRITISH OFFICERS IN FRANCE (RAILWAY FACILITIES).
  OFFICERS' SERVICE DRESS.
  OFFICERS' SERVICE DRESS.
  MILITARY HOSPITALS.
  MILITARY HOSPITALS.
  SOLDIERS' LEAVE
  SOLDIERS' LEAVE
  IRISHMEN WITH COLOURS.
  IRISHMEN WITH COLOURS.
  DISTURBANCES IN IRELAND.
    CAPTAIN BOWEN-COLTHURST.
    CAPTAIN BOWEN-COLTHURST.
    UNTRIED IRISH PRISONERS.
    UNTRIED IRISH PRISONERS.
    AMERICAN SYMPATHY.
    AMERICAN SYMPATHY.
  DISABLED SOLDIERS AND SAILORS DISCHARGED.
  DISABLED SOLDIERS AND SAILORS DISCHARGED.
  MUNITIONS.
    CENTRAL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).
    CENTRAL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).
    CONVICTIONS FOR DRUNKENNESS.
    CONVICTIONS FOR DRUNKENNESS.
  MILITARY HOSPITALS (INDIA).
  MILITARY HOSPITALS (INDIA).
  MESOPOTAMIA CAMPAIGN.
  MESOPOTAMIA CAMPAIGN.
  COMMANDING ROYAL ENGINEER AT LUCKNOW.
  COMMANDING ROYAL ENGINEER AT LUCKNOW.
  COAL-TAR COLOUR INDUSTRY.
  COAL-TAR COLOUR INDUSTRY.
  GREAT SOUTHERN AND WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY (IRELAND).
  GREAT SOUTHERN AND WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY (IRELAND).
  HOP IMPORTATION.
  HOP IMPORTATION.
  LOCAL MARINE BOARD, DUBLIN.
  LOCAL MARINE BOARD, DUBLIN.
  SHEEP CLEARANCES (SCOTLAND).
  SHEEP CLEARANCES (SCOTLAND).
  Housing Accommodation (Dublin).
  Housing Accommodation (Dublin).
  Clanricarde Estate (Surrender of Farm).
  Clanricarde Estate (Surrender of Farm).
  Fowling-Piece.
  Fowling-Piece.