Sitting of 24 April 1918

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill,
Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.
    OPERATIONS ON WESTERN FRONT.

      GERMAN EXPLOSIVE SHELLS.
      Mr. GILBERTasked the Under-secretary of State for War, now that some wounded men have arrived in England from the recent German advance, whether the enemy has been using any new kind of explosive, or chemical shell, or bomb, and any new kind of gas; and if he can make any general statement as to the wounds received by our men from either of these causes?
      The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): My hon. Friend has furnished me with further information about this question, and I am having urgent inquiries made. I regret that these inquiries are not yet complete, but I will communicate with him as soon as possible.

      DIVISIONS MENTIONED IN DISPATCHES.
      Brigadier-General CROFTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War what divisions have been specially mentioned by the Commander-in-Chief in France during recent operations, including those mentioned in the Cambrai attack; and whether he will state which are Territorial divisions?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: A statement giving this information has been prepared, and I will have it printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

      List of Divisions specially mentioned by the Commander-in-Chief in France
      during recent operations—

      Operations

      Divisions mentioned.

      Divisions of Line.

      Territorial Divisions.

      Cambrai Operations

      1st Cav. Div.

      47th (London) Div.

      5th Cav. Div.

      51st (Highland) Div.

      Guards Div.

      56th (London) Div.

      2nd Division

      62nd (West Riding) Division.

      3rd Division

      6th Division

      12th Division

      16th Division

      20th Division

      29th Division

      36th Division

      40th Division

      Operations since 21st March

      Cavalry Divs.

      42nd (East Lancs.) Division.

      Guards Div.

      1st Division

      50th (Northumbrian) Division.

      3rd Division

      4th Division

      51st (Highland) Div.

      8th Division

      55th (West Lancs.) Division.

      9th Division

      17th Division

      61st (South Midland) Division.

      18th Division

      19th Division

      62nd (West Riding) Division.

      21st Division

      24th Division

      66th (East Lancs.) Division.

      25th Division

      31st Division

      34th Division

      40th Division

      41st Division

      63rd (Royal Naval) Div.

      3rd Australian Div.

      4th Australian Div.

      5th Australian Div.

      New Zealand Division

    ROYAL AIR FORCE.

      TOOLS LOST (COMPENSATION).
      Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether men in the Naval Air Service (Royal Air Force) who provide their own working tools are entitled to compensation for such tools if they are lost under circumstances over which they have no control?
      Colonel GIBBS: All working tools required are now required for men of the Royal Air Force. My hon. Friend's question, therefore, does not arise.
      Mr. WILSON: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware that quite a large number of these men provided their own tools when they joined up, and are still using them?
      Colonel GIBBS: I will inform my hon. and gallant Friend of what the hon. Member says.

      CABINET CHANGES.
      Mr. MACMASTERasked the Prime Minister if he has any statement to make to the House and to the country in regard to recent changes in the Cabinet and in the Air Force?
      The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): I do not think that any statement as to the changes in the Cabinet is necessary, and there will be an opportunity of discussing the Air Force on Monday.
      Mr. MACMASTER: Apart from the opportunity of discussing the appointments, would it not be for the convenience of the House when changes are made in the Government that they should be announced in the House itself?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I hardly think so. It would add a great deal to our discussions, without producing much benefit.
      Mr. MACMASTER: Is the old obsolete practice to be followed?

      GENERAL TRENCHARD'S RESIGNATION.
      Major Sir JOHN SIMONhad given notice of the following question:
      To ask the Prime Minister if he will say on what date Major-General Sir Hugh Trenchard tendered his resignation, and on what date the matter came before the War Cabinet, and the resignation was accepted?
      Brigadier-General McCALMONT: Before this question is answered, may I point out that hitherto it has always been customary for hon. Members of this House who had commissions to refrain from making use of confidential information, which reached them in the course of their duties, in putting questions or taking part in the Debates of this House which affect the conduct of their superiors, and may I ask whether, in view of that
      972
      fact, the right hon. Gentleman expects that practice to be continued in view of the question on the Paper?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: That is a very large question, upon which I do not think that I should be asked now to give a decision. In the main, it must be left to the good sense and the good feeling of the Members in question. Sir Hugh Trenchard tendered his resignation on the 19th of March to the Secretary of State for the Royal Air Force, who, on 10th and 12th April brought the matter before the War Cabinet. The Secretary of State intimated on 12th April to General Trenchard that he accepted his resignation.
      Sir E. CARSON: Has the Secretary of State power to accept the resignation without going to the War Cabinet?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: Certainly.
      Sir J. SIMONasked whether, between the date when General Trenchard's resignation was tendered and the date when it was accepted, the War Cabinet or any member of it ever saw General Trenchard on the subject, and discussed with him the difficulties of his position?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer is in the negative.
      Sir FRANCIS BLAKEasked the Under-Secretary of State to the Air Ministry whether Major-General Sir H. Trenchard's resignation was tendered and accepted some weeks ago; whether he continued his work temporarily upon being requested to do so; and whether he was consulted before the fact of his resignation was made public?
      Colonel GIBBS: The answer to the first part of the question is that the resignation was tendered on 19th March, and accepted a fortnight ago. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the third part in the negative.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
    Mr. PETOasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can now state the terms on which pensions and allowances will be granted to widows and dependants of officers and men in the mercantile marine serving on vessels in Admiralty employ; and when the new scale will be operative?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): I am glad to inform my hon. Friend that it has been agreed that as from this date grants and allowances to the widows and dependants of officers and men, and disablement grants and allowances to officers and men of the mercantile marine who have signed on or may sign on in the Service and pay of the Admiralty for the period of the War on vessels to which the provisions of Section 90 of the Naval Discipline Act have been applied, will be placed upon the Service scales as administered by the Pensions Ministry. There appears to be some doubt as to whether under statutory authority that Ministry is entitled to apply the sums voted to it by Parliament for this particular purpose. That point is being cleared up. But if it be found that the Ministry is not so empowered, steps will be taken to regularise whatever expenditure may be necessary under the concession which I have now announced.
    Mr. PETO: Do I rightly understand that this fresh arrangement will have no retrospective effect, and that widows whose husbands have lost their lives before this date will not get the Service rate of pension?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: It is not retrospective as regards arrears certainly, but already the widows and orphans of men who have signed on for the period of the War are getting the Service rate, though widows and orphans of officers are not; neither are men nor officers themselves as regards disability. They will all be on the Service scale as from this date. The hon. Member had better put a question down, and I will make the point quite clear.
    Mr. SHIRLEY BENNasked the Pensions Minister what steps, if any, he proposes taking to relieve the position of men who were invalided from the Services prior to the War on account of accidents or from being found medically unfit, and who were granted pensions entirely inadequate to meet the cost of living during war-time?
    The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. Hodge): In response to a general public demand I have, as my hon. Friend is aware, secured an increase of pension to soldiers and sailors who are totally incapacitated by reason of disabilities incurred in former wars. It is not, how-
    974
    ever, proposed to increase other disability pensions granted before the outbreak of the present War.
    Mr. BENN: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the justice and advisability of so increasing, for the time of the War, the pensions of the men referred to as to bring them up to the same purchasing value of the sovereign they were before?
    Mr. HODGE: I am afraid the hon. Gentleman must address that question to the Admiralty and the War Office.
    Mr. WATTasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that the separation allowance granted to wives and dependants of soldiers resident in London amounts to 16s. a week, while in other large cities it amounts only to 12s. 6d. weekly; will he say why this substantial difference is made in these allowances; and whether there is any proposal to raise the lower figure?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): This difference arose from the fact that the soldiers' lodging allowance, before the War, was 6d. a day higher in London than elsewhere. There is no intention of raising the rate outside London, as the supplementary rent allowances issued by local war pensions committees take account of the difference in the War Office grants.

    RUSSIA (BRITISH AMBASSADOR).
    Mr. LEES-SMITHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is now intended to appoint an Ambassador to Russia?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Balfour): The answer to this question is in the negative.
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the fact that both France and the United States now have Ambassadors in Russia?
    Mr. BALFOUR: The Ambassadors of France and the United States may be in Russia, but how far they are accredited to the Bolshevik Government I do not know.
    Mr. KING: Inasmuch as we recognise the Russian Embassy here, why should not we have a British Ambassador in Russia?

    BLOEMFONTEIN DECLARATION.
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of the Bloemfontein declaration of the Nationalist party in South Africa; that this declaration, made in July, 1917, by the leaders of a great party in South Africa, has not been reproduced or even referred to in the British Press till 17th April, 1918, and that it advocates a larger independence for South Africa; whether he has had communications on this subject with Lord Buxton; whether, by his orders or at the instigation of the Government, the British Press were warned against reference to this subject; and whether the British Press are now at liberty to disclose the facts?
    The UNDERSECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Hewins): I do not think it necessary or desirable to discuss the matters raised by the hon. Member's question. He appears to be wrong in his facts, and I am not aware that there is any foundation for his suggestions with regard to the British Press.

    CEYLON (GOVERNORSHIP).
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he intends to consult representative native opinion before appointing a new Governor of Ceylon?
    Mr. HEWINS: No, Sir.
    Mr. KING: As this country is fighting for self-determination, could not we make a moderate advance by consulting native populations?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better put down a. further question.

    DEFENCE OF THE REALM ACTS (REGULATIONS).
    Mr. LEES-SMITHasked the Under secretary of State for War whether, under the new Regulation 40 d of the Defence of the Realm Acts, in cases where a woman is accused of soliciting or having inter course with a member of His Majesty's Forces while she is suffering from venereal disease, the man alleged to have been solicited or infected will be called upon to give evidence before she is convicted?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am unable to anticipate what course the magistrate would follow in such a case, but, as it appears to me that the infected soldier would be one of the most material witnesses, I doubt if any magistrate would convict without his evidence being available and the opportunity given of careful cross-examination. A defendant in a case of this kind will have the same right as in other cases to secure the attendance of any person whose evidence is likely to be material in her behalf. If such a witness will not attend voluntarily, he can be compelled to appear, and give evidence on oath under Section 7 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1848.
    Colonel Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will say how many women and girls have been brought up under Regulation 40 d of the Defence of the Realm Act; how they have been dealt with; and whether, in the case of those sent to prison, any attempt is being made to keep the young girls apart from the other prisoners?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir George Cave): Cases occurring under the Defence of the Realm Regulations are not in ordinary course reported to the Home Office, and I cannot say how many persons have been charged under this Regulation, but I believe they must be very few. Care is taken at all prisons to prevent the association of prisoners under twenty-one years of age, and especially those of respectable antecedents, with offenders of a worse class.
    Mr. KING: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been called to a case tried on Friday last in Manchester, when a young girl of seventeen years only was sentenced to six months' imprisonment under this Regulation?
    Sir G. CAVE: No, Sir; I have no report of it.
    Mr. KING: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask for a report, as this case has excited a considerable amount of comment and some indignation?
    Sir G. CAVEwas understood to indicate assent.

    FALLEN SOLDIERS (MEDALLION).
    Mr. STANTONasked the Undersecretary of State for War if the design of the medallion to be granted to the next-of-kin of our fallen soldiers has been agreed upon; what relations are entitled to the same; what its size is; is the medallion made of substantial metal, such as copper or bronze; and when will they be distributed, and by whom?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The design has been approved and particulars have been made known to the public through the medium of the Press. The plaque is circular in form, 5 ins. in diameter, and is to be made of gunmetal. It will be issued to next-of-kin. In view of the present strain in manufacturing resources it is impossible to say when the plaque will be ready for distribution. When it is, information as to mode of issue will be made public.
    Mr. STANTON: Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to fix one up in the neighbourhood of the House, so that Members may look at it?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I will certainly consider that, and see what I can do.

    ARMY DENTISTS.
    Mr. STANTONasked the Undersecretary of State for War if he is aware that there is discontent existing among the rank and file of our Army owing to the lack of proper dental facilities; if his Department will see that every battalion has a full staff of qualified dentists, so that our soldiers of every grade shall have their teeth attended to, and that artificial teeth shall be supplied gratis to the men whilst serving in any branch of His Majesty's Service; and will his Department consider this reform and remove much of the cause of ill-health among our troops?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The number of dentists in the Army has recently been considerably increased, and is now being still further increased, in order to provide adequate dental facilities. Artificial dentures are supplied to troops in categories A and B1, and to those in lower categories when required to fit them for service overseas.

    SOLDIERS' COMPLAINTS.
    Mr. WATTasked the Under-Secretary for War whether the Regulations of his Department give the right to any soldier, feeling himself aggrieved, to see his commanding officer; if not, will he say on what occasions, if any, a soldier has this right?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The soldier, as was stated in this House the other day, has his "Charter" in Section 43 of the Army Act, which sets out his right, if he feels himself wronged, to make a complaint to his commanding officer. It is, moreover, the custom of the Service for the commanding officer to see daily at the orderly room any men who wish to prefer complaints.

    WILTS REGIMENT (PRIVATE J. HAZELL).
    Sir BERTRAM FALLEasked the Under-Secretary for War if he could give any information regarding Private J. Hazell, No. 23068, C Company, 10th Platoon, 2nd Wilts Regiment, as this man is officially (Exeter) reported to be still with his regiment but private letters state that he has been missing since 29th March?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: No casualty to Private Hazell has been reported recently; but, under the conditions of the fighting in France, reports of missing men are sometimes delayed. This is due to the fact that, as a general rule, the evidence is all negative.

    LONG SERVICE MEDAL (TERRITORIAL ARMY).
    General CROFTasked whether any decision has been come to with regard to war service counting as double for the Territorial long service medal; and, if so, whether the ribbon will be issued as it becomes due?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: This proposal is still under consideration. The answer to the last part of my hon. and gallant Friend's question is in the affirmative.
    General CROFT: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us if the issue of the ribbon is still held up, as it was some time ago, and whether, in view of the great value with which this ribbon is regarded by the Territorial soldiers, it will be issued soon?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I answered that question since the beginning of this Session, and I explained to the House then the large increase in the yards of ribbon distributed. I hope that by this time most of the Territorial regiments will have theirs

    COURT-MARTIAL SENTENCE (C. CATCHPOOL).
    Mr. PONSONBYasked the Under secretary for War whether C. Catchpool, now at Ipswich under a third sentence of imprisonment with hard labour, has been awarded the Mons Star; whether he was twice recommended for the Croix de Guerre; whether in the first year of the War he distinguished himself by gallant conduct under fire with the Friends' Ambulance unit; and, if so, will he say for what reason this man, who is perfectly ready to give his services to ambulance work, is repeatedly imprisoned by successive courts-martial?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: If my hon. Friend will furnish me with Catchpool's regimental number and the name of his regiment, I will have inquiry made.

    SPIRIT RATION FOR TROOPS.
    Mr. CHANCELLORasked whether 25,000 barrels of Kentucky whisky have been ordered by the British Government for the use of the men at the front; and, if so, whether this liquor is to be served out in addition to, or in substitution for, the rum ration?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The latter part does not, therefore, arise.

    PRISONERS OF WAR.

      LABOUR IN FRANCE.
      Captain CARR-GOMMasked the Under-Secretary for War if unwounded prisoners are being brought back to this country; and, if so, whether he will arrange with the Commander-in-Chief to employ them behind the lines in France?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: A certain number of unwounded prisoners are transferred from France to this country from time to time, but the greater number are retained for labour in France.

      WORK ON LAND.
      Major HUNTasked the Undersecretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that many German prisoners refuse to do a fair amount of work on the land and are insolent and independent, he can see his way to give officers guarding them disciplinary powers in cases where prisoners are obdurate; and whether he will take into consideration the very hard work our own prisoners are compelled to do and the cruelty and ill-treatment to which they are subjected?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: The reports received indicate that as a rule prisoners of war work well on the land, and this is indicated by the constantly increasing demand for their services. Commandants have adequate disciplinary powers to deal with those whose labour is unsatisfactory.
      Major HUNT: Will the hon. Gentleman say what these disciplinary powers are?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I cannot remember offhand, but if the hon. and gallant Member will put down a question I will get to know.
      Sir J. D. REES: Is it not a fact that the demands for these men exceeds the possibility of the supply of their services?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: That is so, as I have indicated by my answer.

      ISLE OF MAN INTERNMENT CAMP.
      Captain GARR-GOMMasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the total number of prisoners of war placed under his authority in the Isle of Man; the number engaged in the Government brush-making industry; the number engaged in agriculture; and whether any other industries have been started for prisoners on the island?
      Sir G. CAVE: In answer to the first part of the question, the number at the end of March was 18.802. It would not be in the public interest to give the figures asked for in the remainder of the question.
      Captain CARR-GOMM: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the number engaged in this industry?
      Sir G. CAVE: Those are figures which Germany is very anxious to have, and I do not think the hon. and gallant Member will desire to press the question.
      Captain CARR-GOMM: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether these men have to be trained in this industry, or are they expert?
      Sir G. CAVE: No, Sir. It is very simple work.
      Captain CARR-GOMMasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now state what financial profit, if any, has been made from the brush-making industry for prisoners of war in the Isle of Man; how long the industry has been in existence; whether the brushes manufactured have been placed on the market; and whether any brushes have been made for Government issue?
      Sir G. CAVE: The work commenced in September, 1916, and the accounts made up for the period ending December, 1917, showed a small credit balance. Brushes are made for Government issue, and only those not suitable or required for that purpose are placed on the market.
      Captain CARR-GOMMasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will say what technical experts in the brush trade were consulted by the Home Office before the brush-making industry was started in the Isle of Man; whether he has been in communication with the British Brush Manufacturers' Association with regard to this matter; and, if so, whether any modifications of the Government industry have been made in consequence of the representations made by this body?
      Sir G. CAVE: A person possessing technical knowledge was consulted before this industry was started. I have been in communication with the Manufacturers' Association, and, in consequence of their representations, an offer has been made to them to which they have not yet given a definite reply.

      PARCELS FOR PRISONERS IN TURKEY.
      Mr. MACMASTERasked the hon. Member for Sheffield (Central Division) what are the actual Regulations with regard to the sending of parcels, letters, and money to the British prisoners in the hands of the Turks; what facilities there are for ensuring the deliveries to the prisoners; whether he is aware that some of the officers that surrendered at Kut are writing to their relatives that they have received no pay for four months; that the payments previously received from the
      982
      Red Cross have been stopped; that, for lack of money to buy food at exorbitant prices, officers are seen hawking their under-garments in the bazaars, trying to sell them in order to get food; that their clothing is reduced to the lowest possible standard; and that relatives of prisoners are most anxious to send money and comforts if there is any reasonable hope that these will reach the prisoners; and whether arrangements will be made, through the intervention of the Swiss and Spanish authorities, for effecting deliveries to our countrymen, who are evidently suffering grave privations in Turkey?
      Mr. JAMES HOPE (Lord of the Treasury): The answer to this question is a very long one, and I propose to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
      The following is the answer referred to:
      Full facilities exist for the dispatch of parcels, letters, and money to British prisoners of war in Turkish hands. The actual Regulations on the subject are rather too voluminous for quotation, but I shall have pleasure in supplying the hon. Member with them, if he should desire it.
      The facilities for ensuring their delivery to the prisoners are naturally a matter of Turkish administration, and suffer from its shortcomings. Parcels are forwarded through the agency of the Ottoman Red Crescent, as also are the remittances sent through the Netherlands Legation at Constantinople. Letters are forwarded through the Turkish postal and military authorities.
      His Majesty's Government have received, from private sources, quotations from letters written by British officers in Turkey to the effect stated by the hon. Member. They have for some time past been much concerned at the hardships suffered by British prisoners owing to economic conditions in Turkey, and to the difficulties of supply from this country, and they have taken steps, by authorising a suitable increase, in cases of need, of the relief allowances issued by the Netherlands. Minister at Constantinople, to alleviate these hardships as far as possible. This method is, however, not altogether satisfactory, owing to the depreciation of Turkish currency out of all proportion to the rates at which it is possible to remit from this country, and to the extraordinary rise in the prices of all necessaries in Turkey. It is, therefore, hoped to

      983
      dispatch bulk supplies by the vessel which is to effect repatriations under the Berne Agreement—if, indeed, it should not prove possible to send such supplies at an earlier date overland. I am glad to say that I have not heard of any instance in which a remittance sent to a British prisoner through the Netherlands Legation has been lost, although such have frequently been greatly delayed. Parcels, it is true, have frequently been lost, and their transmission through Austria has periodically been suspended by the Austro-Hungarian Government. The Berne Agreement provides, as far as it is possible to provide, for the improvement in the parcel service in Turkey, and His Majesty's Government are addressing the strongest representations to the Government of Austria Hungary respecting the suspension of the service through that country. The representation of British interests at Constantinople is in charge of the Netherlands Minister, and neither the Swiss nor the Spanish Governments are, therefore, concerned with the subject in question.
      Mr. MACMASTER: Will the hon. Gentleman permit me to put some documents before him in connection with this matter?
      Mr. HOPE: Delighted!
      Sir J. D. REES: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether a regular daily post is a feature of Turkish administration in Asia Minor at any time?
      Mr. HOPE: I have only once been in Asia Minor, and I saw no evidence of it.

    SPEECHES TO SOLDIERS.
    Mr. LEES-SMITHasked the Undersecretary of State for War whether any further speeches on the War which soldiers are compelled to attend, such as that recently delivered at Blackpool, have been or are being arranged in any other military centres?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I regret that I have no further information on this subject.

    CONSUMPTIVE SAILORS AND SOLDIERS.
    Major HUNTasked the Pensions Minister whether any home has been provided for sailors and soldiers discharged from the Army suffering from consumption where they can be kept for more than
    984
    three months; and, if not, whether he will consider the necessity of providing such a home for men with this disease, and in view of the fact that men sent home are liable to infect other members of their family with the disease?
    Mr. HODGE: The responsibility for securing the necessary treatment in cases of tuberculosis falls primarily on the National Health Insurance Commissioners, but in cases of advanced disease, in which the danger of infection referred to by the hon. and gallant Member specially applies, I have undertaken to defray the entire cost of treatment for whatever period it may be required, and I have taken steps to secure additional accommodation for cases of this class.

    RAILWAY SEASON TICKETS.
    Mr. STANTONasked the President of the Board of Trade if the season ticket holders who secured their tickets at the commencement of the year are to be charged any increase by the railway companies; if the circumstances of season ticket holders will be considered by the Government; if he is aware that many of the season ticket holders are not able to afford any increase; and are their tickets to be cancelled if they cannot pay?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Wardle): The points raised by the hon. Gentleman are being borne in mind in connection with the question of the restriction of railway facilities, which is now under consideration. My right hon. Friend hopes shortly to be able to make a statement on the subject, and in the meantime I can only say that every effort compatible with the object in view will be made not to impose avoidable hardship on essential travelling.

    TIMBER SUPPLY (WAGES OF FINNS).
    Major HUNTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that there is a feeling amongst the discharged soldiers in Shropshire against the high wages given to Finns working on timber in this country; can he say what wages these men are receiving; and whether there are discharged soldiers who could be employed and who are now out of employment?
    Mr. WARDLE: By arrangement with the National Sailors' and Firemen's

    985
    Union, a certain number of Finns, mostly seamen from torpedoed ships, have been engaged by the Timber Supply Department, under contract, at wages of 9d. per hour, in addition to food and hutting; this is less than seaman's wages. These men are well fitted for timber work, both physically and by early training in their own country. Any discharged soldiers capable of doing timber work, which is heavy, should have no difficulty in finding employment, and I am not aware of the dissatisfaction referred to.

    IRON AND STEEL EXPORTS TO FRANCE.
    Mr. LOUGHasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his Department have agreed with the French Government that all exports of iron and steel from this country to France be en trusted to the Comitédes Forges; and whether he will take steps to prevent the collection of information which would allow it after the War to effectually control all such exports, to exclude British merchant firms, and to restrict this country's exports to France?
    Mr. LOUGHasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that a body called the Comité des Forges, consisting entirely of French manufacturers, has been granted a monopoly to buy British tinplates for French consumers, and if this monopoly has been granted by the French Government at the request of the British Government; whether he is aware that the Comité des Forges is a private association of French iron mine owners and of iron and steel producers and that therefore its interests are in opposition to the interests of British producers and merchants; and will he take steps to protect British firms interested in the iron and steel export trade?
    Mr. WARDLE: Owing to the shortage of steel and tinplates in this country, only limited supplies are available for France, and the French Government were invited to set up machinery for deciding how the limited supplies could best be allocated. All exports of these goods from the United Kingdom are consigned to the body appointed by the French Government to act as a distributing channel between the producers here and the consumers in France. The French Government have selected the body referred to in the question for this
    986
    purpose. Whilst it is recognised that this arrangement has certain inevitable drawbacks, my right hon. Friend is not prepared in the circumstances to interfere with it.
    Mr. LOUGH: Can the hon. Gentleman say why he cannot allow these supplies to proceed through the ordinary channels of business instead of applying to the French Government in the matter or consigning them to one rival firm in France?
    Mr. WARDLE: This is an arrangement with the French Government.

    FOOD SUPPLIES.

      MILK.
      Mr. WRIGHTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether it is the view of the Ministry of Food that the formation of farmers' co-operative societies for the purpose of increasing the production and distribution of milk, diversion of supplies of whole milk from condenseries to the large centres of population, and for the protection of the producers against the milk trust is the setting up of useless competition and ought not to be encouraged by the Ministry of Food.
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD (Mr. Clynes): As I informed the hon. Member on 19th March, the whole question of the production and distribution of milk is under consideration by a specially appointed Committee. Their Report is expected shortly.

      CATTLE.
      Mr. WRIGHTasked the. Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether the average price paid for cattle at Irish fairs and markets for export to England and Scotland for killing was, in February, 1918, 77s. per cwt. live-weight for 19,510 animals, in March, 1918, 83s. 2d. per cwt. live-weight for 25,348 animals, in April (one week), 87s. 6d. per cwt. live-weight for 4,181 animals, and by whom was the loss, consisting of the difference between the above average prices and the prices fixed by the Food Controller in Eng land, borne; and what was the amount?
      Mr. CLYNES: The figures given in the first part of the question are believed to be correct. Any losses resulting from transactions of the kind referred to would

      987
      be borne by the purchasers of the cattle, and it is impossible for me to say what those losses were.

      IMPORTS FROM CANADA.
      Mr. WATTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, when merchants in this country make application for allotted space to bring tinned apples from Canada, they are referred by his Department to Mr. Smith, 165, Broadway, New York; if so, will he explain how it is that anyone in that city has control over Canadian shipments to this country; and can he say whether Mr. Smith is likely to grant our merchants any licence to ship the above merchandise urgently wanted by the people here?
      Mr. CLYNES: While it is impossible to give priority to secondary foodstuffs over cereals, meat, bacon, and other articles of primary importance, it sometimes happens that a ship has a small amount of space unexpectedly available for shipment of miscellaneous foods. In order that no such space shall be wasted, private shippers are advised to instruct their agents in America to notify the representative of the Ministry of Food in that country of all foodstuffs available for shipment. Sir Guy Granet, who has succeeded Mr. Owen Smith as representative of my Department in North America, is also Chairman of the Allied Provisions Export Commission, whose offices are at 165, Broadway, New York.

      BUTCHERS' SHOPS (HOURS OF SALE).
      Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that inconvenience is caused to the general public by the practice followed by the retail butchers of only opening their shops for a few hours each day; and whether he will come to an arrangement with the butchers whereby they will keep their shops open for a longer time each day?
      Mr. CLYNES: Under the Meat Rationing Order, 1918, local food committees may, subject to the observance of the General Early Closing Order and of local Early Closing Orders, give directions as to the times at which a retailer shall sell meat. The attention of Food Control Committees is being drawn to their power in this respect.

      RACE-HORSES.
      Sir GEORGE GREENWOODasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food if he will state the number of racehorses now in training in. Great Britain, distinguishing stallions, mares, and geldings; and what rations are assigned to them?
      Mr. WARDLE: I have been asked to reply to this question. The number of racehorses now in training in Great Britain is approximately 1,800, 832 of which are stallions, 736 mares, and 228 geldings. The maximum daily ration allowed in terms of oats is 13lbs. per day.

      LAND FOR SCOTTISH COTTARS.
      Mr. C. WASONasked the Secretary for Scotland whether the Board of Agriculture made any suggestions to the cottars of Tiree that proposals were under consideration under the Defence of the Realm Act for obtaining land for cultivation before they took the law into their own hands; and, if such representations were not made, will he see that the proposals he had under consideration are now fully explained to the cottars, in view of the punishment that they have received already?
      The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Mr. Morison): The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative. My right hon. Friend cannot undertake to negotiate with the cottars who are at present under interdict from entering on the land, and who refused to give an undertaking to the sheriff to refrain from illegal action.
      Mr. WASON: If there is an undertaking, will the question be considered of obtaining land under the Defence of the Realm Act?
      Mr. MORISON: That is a matter which will be considered after the undertaking is given.

      GERMAN PRISONERS (MEAT RATIONS).
      Sir H. ELVERSTONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the inhabitants of the village of Cheadle-Hulme, Cheshire, during the week ending 13th April, could only obtain 4 ozs. of meat, whereas the German prisoners at the Handforth internment camp, 1 mile distant, were supplied with 20 ozs. of meat; and whether, in view of the fact that the German Government

      989
      from the outbreak of war has consistently starved British prisoners interned in Germany, he will arrange that German prisoners interned in this country shall only share equally with, and not take precedence over, civilians in the supply of meat and similar articles of food?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I circulated in the Official REPORT of the 16th instant the scale of rations at present in force for German prisoners of war in this country, in answer to a question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Enfield. I do not think that the German prisoner of war can be considered to be better treated than the British civilian in the matter of rations. It should be remembered that he is restricted to a scale approved by the medical authorities and is not at liberty to add to it by purchasing other foodstuffs, as is the case with civilians.

      HARVEST LABOURERS.
      Mr. C. WASONasked the Minister of National Service whether, in view of the fact that farmers, either by compulsion or from good will, have strenuously cultivated corn and potatoes, he will give some assurance that the men necessary will not be called up until after the harvest is secured?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of NATIONAL SERVICE (Mr. Beck): The great effort in the direction of food production made by the British farmers is fully appreciated, and every endeavour will be made to ensure a sufficiency of labour being available during harvest time. The Ministry of National Service is in constant consultation with the Departments responsible for agriculture. At the same time, in view of the military situation, it is quite impossible to give any general undertaking that men engaged in agriculture will not be called until after the harvest is secured.

    MILITARY SERVICE.

      FINANCIAL RELIEF.
      Mr. WINGasked the Prime Minister if the Government have come to any decision in the direction of protecting men who may be called up and are proprietors of businesses in premises under long leases at heavy rents, and also whose financial existence is imperilled by the whole of their men being called up and their shops
      990
      closed in consequence; and whether he will consider the provision of remedies such as suspension of leases while men are called up or provision of rent while such are serving?
      The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. I am afraid I cannot hold out any expectation that it will be possible to make further provision than is made at present for relieving hardship in the cases referred to.
      Mr. WING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave us to understand last week that the matter would be considered?
      Mr. FISHER: He may have given the answer that it would be considered. It has been, and is being, considered, but I have no hope that we shall be able to enlarge the opportunities which these men will have of applying to the Civil Liabilities Commission and under the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act.
      Mr. WING: I put the question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and not to the right hon. Gentleman?
      Mr. FISHER: I have been asked to answer it on behalf of the Prime Minister.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Are we to understand that the problem has been considered in the light of the new conditions created by the new Military Service Act?
      Mr. FISHER: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to think that it has been, and is being, considered, but we see no hope of these men being able to enlarge their opportunities of applying to the Civil Liabilities Commission and under the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act.

      CONSCRIPTION IN IRELAND.
      Mr. MOLTENOasked whether the Government have received any representations from Australia or any other part of the Empire in regard to Conscription in Ireland?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer is in the negative.

      CONVENTION WITH FRANCE.
      Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the effect of the provision of the Military Service (No. 2) Act, 1918, that every

      991
      male British subject who has at any time since the 14th day of August, 1915, been, or who for the time being is in Great Britain, is liable to military service upon the Convention with France, providing that British subjects in the latter are liable to such military service as they would be if they were in the former country; and whether British subjects who have not visited Great Britain during the qualifying period are liable to military service under the Convention while they are exempted by the Act?
      Mr. BECK: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. The effect of the new Military Service Act upon the existing Convention with France is that any British subjects who are made liable for service under that Convention, and who have not visited Great Britain since the 14th of August, 1915, will, if they return to this country, become immediately liable for service instead of having a period of thirty days after the date of their arrival, as they would have had under previous conditions. As regards those who have visited this country or resided therein since the 14th August, 1915, they become liable to the provisions of the new Act upon arrival in Great Britain.
      Sir J. D. REES: In what category are those who remain in France, or how do they stand?
      Mr. BECK: They stand in the same position as they did under the Convention with the French Government, except that thirty days which was allowed on landing in this country is no longer permitted.
      Sir J. D. REES: Then they are liable?
      Mr. BECK: They have always been liable, but not up to fifty, only up to the military age.

      CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
      Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the conscientious objectors at Princetown are contemplating, if they have not already done so, starting a brass band; that they are appealing to their friends and supporters to provide them with instruments; can he say whether a band is a necessary adjunct to work of national importance; and, if not, will he see that these men, who decline to defend
      992
      their country in. its hour of need, are not allowed to make their quarters at Princetown a centre of amusement for themselves and their friends?
      Sir G. CAVE: These men are kept strictly to their work during working hours, and I see no objection to their having reasonable recreation when they are not at work. But that they should start a brass band under present conditions would, I think, be intolerable, and I have directed that it shall not be allowed.

      APPRENTICES CALLED UP.
      Mr. T. WILSONasked the Prime Minister if he is aware that a number of young men who are being called to the Colours are serving their apprenticeship in engineering works and other workshops and factories, and that this break in their training will seriously affect their future; whether it is the intention of the Government to make any arrangement with their employers regarding their training when the War is over; and, if so, will he state what it is proposed to do?
      Mr. BECK: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. The cases to which my hon. Friend refers are but an illustration of the many serious hardships which are inevitable in such a War as this, and I am afraid that it is not possible for the Government to make any arrangement of the nature suggested.
      Mr. WILSON: Are we to understand that no effort will be made to continue the training of these lads who were apprentices?
      Mr. BECK: I did not say that. I only said I could not promise that this particular suggestion would be adopted. 1 will be glad to talk to my hon. Friend about this matter.
      Mr. SHIRLEY BENN: May I ask if the hon. Gentleman is aware that at the commencement of the War promises were made on recruiting platforms that steps would be taken to safeguard the position, of apprentices who enlisted?
      Mr. BECK: I must have notice of that.

      TRIBUNALS (MILITARY REPRESENTATIVES).
      Sir CHARLES NICHOLSON(by Private Notice) asked the President of the Local Government Board whether it is the wish

      993
      of the Government that men of military age who are members of tribunals should resign, and what is their position with regard to claiming exemption?
      Mr. FISHER: I have been in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of National Service on this subject, and we are agreed that, particularly in view of the arduous duties before tribunals, it is very desirable, in the national interests, that members who are of military age should for the present continue to act. Those members of tribunals whose age and medical standard bring them within the classes from which men are being called up for service will be liable to be called up in due course. If any such member should consider that his circumstances justify his claiming exemption, it will be competent to the Local Government Board, if they think fit, to direct that his case shall be determined by a tribunal other than that of which he is a member. I have also arranged with the Minister of National Service that any member of a tribunal whose age renders him liable to be called up at an early date in pursuance of a public notice may, if he so desires, be medically examined as soon as possible in order that he may know his medical grade.
      Mr. CHANCELLOR: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any special arrangements are to be made for members of local government bodies—boards of guardians, and so forth?
      Mr. FISHER: My hon. Friend had better put down the question.

    BRITISH SUBJECTS ABROAD.
    Sir H. ELVERSTONasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that in the chief towns of Norway, Sweden, and Denmark Deutscher Hülfsverin are readily available to give information as to hotels, boat sailings, etc., and financial help in case of necessity; and if he will consider whether some similar service can be organised to help British people who are stranded in those countries?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The work performed by the societies named is undertaken by British Consular officers, who arc always most ready to give their assistance to British subjects when it is asked for.

    SECOND CHAMBER.

      RECONSTRUCTION COMMITTEE.
      Major NEWMANasked whether the Committee on the Reconstruction of the Second Chamber have concluded their work; when their Report will be made public; and will it be in the hands of Members before they are called on to discuss any system of Union Government for the British Isles?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The Report will shortly be laid upon the Table.
      Major NEWMAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman get the Prime Minister to read the Report when it comes out?

    WAR CABINET.
    Major HUNTasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the War Cabinet does not contain any members with any practical knowledge of war by sea or land, and in view of the mistakes made by the various Cabinets during the War, he can see his way to add to the War Cabinet Admiral Lord Jellicoe and General Sir William Robertson?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The Government is not prepared to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion.
    Major HUNT: What is supposed to be the use of a War Cabinet with nobody on it who understands anything about war?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: That is a rather difficult conundrum, but I thought that the charge against this Government was that they imagined that they did understand something about war.
    Major HUNT: It is all imagination.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The principle on which we have always carried on the Government of the country is that the heads of the Departments were not supposed to be experts in the sense of my hon. Friend.
    Major HUNT: Is it not quite time that this was changed?

    WAR MUSEUM.
    Mr. PETOasked whether an opportunity will be afforded to debate the question of expenditure on a permanent war

    995
    museum before any scheme is adopted; and what, if any, expenditure of public money for this purpose is intended?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: No decision as to a permanent building has been reached, and an opportunity for discussion will certainly be given before action is taken.

    INCOME TAX.
    Mr. CROOKSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is now the practice to assess the allowances paid to children of officers in respect to the payment of Income Tax; and whether he will favourably consider exempting these allowances from assessment, especially in cases where the number of children in the family exceeds four?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: As I have already stated, these additional emoluments payable to officers are assessable to Income Tax equally with the rest of their emoluments. The statutory Income Tax allowances in respect of children apply, of course, in the case of officers as to any other taxpayers.
    Mr. PETOasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the insertion in the Finance Bill of a Schedule showing the amount of Income Tax and Super-tax combined to which the subject is liable for every £100 of gross income and the deduction allowed?
    Mr. ALDENasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the advisability of including in the Finance Bill of this year a Schedule in scale showing the net rate per £ of incomes payable from Income Tax and Super-tax on incomes of £130 to £20,000, so that all persons may know the true graduation of the tax?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Such information as it is practicable to give is contained in Table VII. of the recent White Paper. But in view of the great variety of circumstances on which the liability in any individual case depends, it would not be possible to draw up a Schedule giving the net rate of liability as suggested.
    Mr. PETO: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this White Paper, or any White Paper, is not current throughout the country and available for taxpayers in the same way as the Finance Act is, because
    996
    an Act can be obtained by any taxpayer? Therefore would he not think it desirable, in view of the great complications of the present Income Tax and the Super-tax, to have set forth exactly what the liabilities of each taxpayer are?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: As I have pointed out, it is impossible to give the net liability of any individual taxpayer, because there may be circumstances not connected with the general rate of Income Tax or Super-tax which affect him. I am afraid that for that reason the suggestion is not practicable.
    Mr. PETO: Could he not see his way to combine the incidence of the two taxes and leave out the special exemptions to which he is referring?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: That surely is all on the White Paper. I fancy that taxpayers are as likely to have a copy of the White Paper as of the Finance Act.
    Captain WRIGHTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, before proposing to double the assessment on which farmers are to pay Income Tax or come under Schedule D, he took into consideration that 90 per cent. of them will not be able to avail themselves of the alternative and will have to pay on the increased assessment; that the prices of all farm produce were fixed by the Food Controller in advance of his, the Chancellor's, present proposals and on the basis of a fair profit to the producer, and that the rate of wages for agricultural labourers has increased and is increasing since those prices were fixed; and whether he will, in the interest of the nation's food supply, further consider his proposals?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Every farmer who is assessed under Schedule B, in the ordinary course upon the basis of double the rental value, will, if he proves that his actual profits for the year—that is, the year of assessment, pot the three preceding years as in Schedule D—are less than the sum assessed, be entitled to a reduction of the charge to the amount of his actual profits, and all possible assistance will be afforded him if he finds any difficulty in establishing his claim. I have every reason to believe that such cases will form a very small proportion of the number of farmers assessed.
    Captain WRIGHT: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that the question of food production is more important

    997
    than the question of extra revenue, and that the farmers in connection with the production of food have better work to do than to start keeping accounts?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: In making this proposal we took into account—as, indeed, I mentioned to the House—the question of the national need, and I do not believe that the farmers will relax their exertions in producing food by anything we ask of them that is obviously fair.
    Mr. ALDENasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the word "dependant" in his Budget statement would include a child over sixteen mentally or physically defective or an entirely dependent invalid relative?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer is in the affirmative.
    Mr. T. WILSON: Does it apply to a son maintaining an invalid father?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes, I think so.
    Mr. WING: Does it apply to an adopted child?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of that question.
    Mr. WATTasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether final notices for Income Tax, House Duty, and Land Tax have been sent out on 2nd April in some parts of Scotland, threatening costs if not paid in seven days; if so, will he say whether such have been sent out in any part of England or Wales, and at what date it is proposed to send them out in London; and will he in future see that his Department treats all parts of the United Kingdom alike in the way of taxation?
    Mr. HOPE: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension in suggesting that thero is preferential treatment in particular areas as regards the collection of these duties. I am informed that in all parts of the country the issue of final notices has been in process since the latter part of February.

    BRITISH RESIDENTS IN BELGIUM.
    Sir JAMES AGG-GARDNERasked the hon. Member for Sheffield (Central Division) whether, in consideration of the hardship imposed upon British residents in Belgium by the absence of any arrangement to enable them to interchange cor-
    998
    respondence with friends and relatives in the British Empire, His Majesty's Government will endeavour to obtain some concession in this matter from the German Government on conditions similar to those which have been extended to prisoners of war and other interned persons in the belligerent countries?
    Mr. HOPE: The action suggested by my hon. Friend was taken many months ago, and on their continued refusal to allow correspondence with British subjects in Belgium, the German Government were informed early last year that a similar prohibition would be enforced on German subjects in German territory in British occupation. This prohibition is accordingly now in force.

    MUNITIONS.

      WIRE RODS.
      Captain BARNETTasked the Minister of Munitions whether there is a shortage of wire rods in this country and that in consequence wire-drawing mills have a large proportion of their plant idle, while manufactured wire products are being imported from abroad; and, if so, whether, in view of the great demand for all typos of war material manufactured from wire, he will endeavour to arrange with the Ministry of Shipping for immediate shipping facilities to be granted in respect of the large quantities of wire rods intended for Great Britain which have been congesting the docks in United States ports for months past?
      Mr. FORSTER: There is a temporary shortage of wire rods, but it is not a fact that a large proportion of wire-drawing plant is idle in consequence, and the increased output of British rods should fully employ all wire-drawing plant in the near future. Priority for shipping wire rods from America cannot be asked for at present in view of more urgent requirements.
      Colonel GRETTON: Has the Minister of Munitions consulted the trade as to what is required?
      Mr. FORSTER: I will make inquiry.

    DAY NURSERIES.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the President of the Board of Education whether, in view of the fact that

    999
    the present Grant to day nurseries outside munitions areas of 4d. per attendance is inadequate to meet the increased cost of maintenance, and seeing that the amount allowed to day nurseries in munitions areas is 1s. per attendance, he will increase the Grant to other day nurseries to 8d. per attendance in order to ensure the continuance of this valuable work?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): I recognise the difficulties in which these institutions are placed, and I am considering the position.

    POSTAL SERVICE.
    Mr. S. BENNasked the Postmaster-General if Civil servants who have completed their term of service, and by their contract are entitled to retire, are bound to continue serving when asked to do so on patriotic grounds or are punished for deciding contrary to the wishes of the Postmaster-General by not being recommended for the Imperial service medal awarded for good and long service already performed?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Illingworth): In view of the need for men at the present time, Civil servants of sixty years of age whose efficiency and health are unimpaired, are requested to postpone their retirement. I do not recommend for the Imperial service medal any officer who is capable of rendering further service, but insists on retiring during the War contrary to the express wish of the Government.

    ENEMY ALIENS.
    Mr. WATTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that a naturalised German called E. A. Meyer is permitted to reside in London and daily conduct his business in the employment of other naturalised Germans, Schiff and Company, Throgmorton Street, notwithstanding the fact that lie was ordered out of Westcliff-on-Sea by the police there, because of his pro-German leanings and conversation; and, if so, will he say why this man is allowed in London when he is not allowed in Westcliff-on-Sea?
    Sir G. CAVE: I find that this man was required to leave Westcliff in October, 1914, by an Order made by the Competent Military Authority under the Defence of the Realm Regulations, after consultation with the police, and that no objection was taken to his residing in London. No reason has since appeared for his removal from London.
    Mr. WATT: Are we to understand that the man who was ordered out of a seaport town can come to London and live there with impunity?
    Sir G. CAVE: Not necessarily be. Different considerations apply to seaports from those applicable to London.
    Mr. WATT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this German retains his house at the seaport town, and that he is in constant communication with it?
    Sir G. CAVE: I am not aware of that. I will make inquiries.
    Major HUNT: If it was dangerous for him to live in a seaport town, why not in London?
    Sir G. CAVE: The military authorities looked into the matter, and they thought it desirable that he should not live in the seaport town, but they saw no objection to his living in London.

    BUDGET PROPOSALS.

      SPIRIT DUTY (MEDICAL PREPARATIONS).
      Mr. GLYN-JONESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the provisions of the Finance Act, 1915, which provided, in respect of mixtures, compounds, or preparations used for medical purposes for the exemption from or rebate of the additional duties imposed by that Act on spirits, will be made applicable to the increased duties now being imposed on spirits?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement on this subject made yesterday by my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury.

    DOMESTIC SERVANTS (EXCESSIVE NUMBERS).
    Major HUNTasked the Minister of National Service whether, in view of the fact that in some families of only two or

    1001
    three from six to ten servants are kept, he can see his way to take steps to prevent this waste of labour in the country during the War?
    Mr. BECK: As my hon. and gallant Friend is no doubt aware, under the Order of the 9th April all certificates of exemption granted or renewed wholly or partly on occupational grounds are withdrawn in. the case of all male domestic indoor or outdoor servants who fall within the specified conditions of age and medical grades.
    With regard to female servants, though there may still be some cases where an excessive number is employed, the appeals for recruits for the various women's corps have been responded to by large numbers of women with experience of domestic service, and I do not consider that any direct action by the Government is at present necessary.

    ANGLO-TURKISH AGREEMENT.

      REPATRIATION OF INVALID COMBATANT PRISONERS.
      Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS(by Private Notice) asked the hon. Member for Sheffield (Central Division) whether the statement in this morning's papers to the effect that Turkey has now ratified the Berne Agreement for an exchange of prisoners is correct; and, if so, whether he will now state to the House what are the terms of the Agreement?
      Mr. HOPE: The Agreement signed at Berne on 28th December has now been ratified by the Turkish Government. Its main feature is to provide by a relatively easy medical qualification for the repatriation of all invalid combatant prisoners, irrespective of rank. It also provides for the repatriation of all members of the medical staff who are not required for the care of the prisoners who remain. One thousand British and Indian invalids are at once to be repatriated without waiting for medical formalities. The Agreement also contains articles providing for the inspection of prison camps by representatives of neutral Powers, for the better delivery of supplies and correspondence, for sanitation and opportunities for exercise, for the mitigation of punishments, and other matters. The text of the Agreement will be published immediately.
      Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: Can the hon. Member give any indication as to how
      1002
      soon it is hoped the Agreement will be carried out, having in view the difficulties of transport at the present time?
      Mr. HOPE: No; I am afraid I should not like to give any estimate on that point.
      Mr. PETO: May I ask if the Agreement has no provision in it dealing with the question of the repatriation of prisoners of war and civilian prisoners, such as members of the mercantile marine, who have been prisoners of war or interned for two or three years or more?
      Mr. HOPE: Yes; I ought to have added that there was a provision for the repatriation of civilians, subject to certain qualifications.
      Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: Is there not also a provision for the repatriation of men who have been prisoners for eighteen months, as in the Agreement with Germany, under which officers and non-commissioned officers are sent to Holland?
      Mr. HOPE: I think my hon. and learned Friend is mistaken. There is no provision for the repatriation of prisoners on the ground of time in the Agreement with Germany. There is a provision in this Agreement for transfer to a neutral country. This in the case of Turkey was considered, but, owing to transport and geographical conditions, was found to be impracticable.
      General MCCALMONT: Can my hon. Friend say who will select the thousand, and whether there are any means by which urgent cases can be brought to the notice of the authorities, in which officers' lives might be saved?
      Mr. HOPE: I am afraid it is not possible for anyone in our service to make that selection, but, as the arrangement will be mutual, I fully hope that the Turkish authorities will do their best to select the worst cases first, and will be aided in their judgment by our own medical officers who are prisoners.

    Gambling in Cotton.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India proposes, in order to abate the gambling in cotton which at present prevails on the Bombay market, to take any steps similar to those taken in England when dealing in cotton futures was pro-

    1003
    hibited, and when transactions on the London Stock Exchange were restricted to bonâ-fide sales and purchases for actual delivery?
    Mr. HERBERT FISHER: The hon. Member will, no doubt, have seen a report in the Press that the Government of India have undertaken to issue an Ordinance fixing the price of broach cotton, on the trade agreeing to a price, and on measures being taken to restrict forward business in next season's crop.

    Metallic Currency (India).
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for India what measures have been adopted to provide India with a sufficiency of metallic currency?
    Mr. FISHER: Between February, 1915, and the 31st March, 1918, 214,000,000 standard ounces of silver, of the approximate value of £34,800,000, were purchased for coinage. By exchange with the Imperial Government the Government of India acquired in 1917 £3,000,000 in sovereigns in India against the like amount previously held by the Secretary of State in London; and under an Ordinance of 29th June, 1917, they also acquired £12,800,000 of gold imported into India by private importers. This year £2,000,000 gold bullion has been acquired in India from His Majesty's Government. I may mention, too, that a Bill has just been passed through the United States Congress empowering the United States Government to melt and sell 350,000,000 dollars from their revenue to pay for imports and for other purposes. It is hoped that a portion of this silver may be shipped by the United States Government to India.

    Voters (Registration).
    Sir ARTHUR FELLasked the President of the Local Government Board if he has considered the difficulties experienced by householders in filling up the form recently sent them for the registration of voters under the Representation of the People Act, particularly with regard to the women entitled to vote; and if he will consider the necessity of issuing an explanatory circular on the matter?
    Mr. FISHER: I fear that the form may present some difficulties to those who are inexperienced in filling up forms
    1004
    for claiming votes, but the form adopted is, I think, as free from difficulty as any that could be devised if the instructions printed on it are carefully read and followed. In cases of doubt the registration officer and his staff will, I am sure, be ready to give any necessary assistance. The issue of a Circular to householders is not under present circumstances practicable.
    Sir A. FELL: Is it proposed in this Circular that women should be entered as occupiers, and does that apply to domestic servants, housekeepers and persons of that kind?
    Mr. FISHER: I cannot answer a question of that somewhat vague character. I must ask my hon. Friend to put it down.
    Sir A. FELL: Can women who wish to claim be entered in the form which is issued.
    Mr. FISHER: Certainly; they can be entered in the form.

STANDING ORDERS.
Resolutions reported from the Select Committee:

1. "That, in the case of the Sligo Corporation [Lords], Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

2. "That, in the case of the West Bromwich Corporation [Lords], Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

Resolutions agreed to.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Corporation of Morcambe to provide and work motor omnibuses; and for other purposes." [Morcambe Corporation Bill [Lords.]
And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Chepstow Gas and Coke Consumers Company to raise additional capital, to extend the limits of supply, and to change the name of the Company; and for other purposes." [Chepstow Gas Bill [Lords.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Morecambe Corporation Bill [Lords], Chepstow Gas Bill [Lords],
Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. H. SAMUEL: May I ask the Leader of the House whether it is proposed to ask the House to sit on Friday?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: After consulting my Noble Friend (Lord Edmund Talbot), I think it is not absolutely necessary that we should ask the House to sit on Friday, but I am afraid that this is the last occasion on which the House will not be asked to sit on Friday?
  Mr. LOUGH: With regard to the statement made yesterday as to the business to be taken today, can the right hon. Gentleman now say that if the first two Orders are disposed of today, he will not proceed further than that?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: If time be available, I think there ought to be no objection to the Second Reading of the third Order—Defence of the Realm (Food Profits) Bill. All details can be discussed on subsequent stages.
  Mr. LOUGH: Another day would be more convenient to some Members.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I hoped that Bill would not be contentious, but, if it be so, there is all the more reason to make some progress. The contentious part can be taken at a later stage.

  INCREASE OF RENT, ETC. (AMENDMENT), BILL [Lords].
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  INCREASE OF RENT, ETC. (AMENDMENT), BILL [Lords].

    CLAUSE 1.—(Restriction of Meaning of Landlord in 5 & 6 Geo. 5, c. 97, s. 1 (3).)
    Sub-section (3) of Section one of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (War Restrictions) Act, 1915, shall have effect as if at the end thereof the following provision was inserted:—
    For the purposes of this Sub-section the expression "landlord" shall not include any person who since the twelfth day of March nineteen hundred and eighteen has become landlord by the acquisition of the dwelling-house or any interest therein otherwise than by the devolution thereof to him under a settlement made before the said date, or under a testamentary disposition or an intestacy.
    The following Amendments stood on the Paper in the name of Sir Herbert Nield: At the beginning of the Clause to insert (1); and to leave out the word "provision" ["the following provision"], and to insert instead thereof the word "provisions."
    The CHAIRMAN: The first two Amendments standing on the Notice Paper in the name of the hon. and learned Member (Sir H. Nield) are intended, I see, to lead up to some later Amendments on the Paper. They are not necessary in that respect, and I am afraid the later ones are outside the scope of the Bill.
    Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: I beg to move, after the word "Sub-section" ["For the purposes of this Sub-section"] to insert the words
    "in all such districts as may be set forth in an Order in Council."
    This Bill is intended, as I understand, to meet more or less exceptional circumstances in certain towns where people have come from air-raid districts and are offering large sums for houses, and the present tenants are in danger of being turned out. I have no objection to that object. That seems reasonable enough. But the Local Government Board have taken the easiest way of getting out of a difficulty. They have not given themselves the necessary trouble, I submit, so to specify these places that injury will not be done to the hundreds of other towns which are out of these areas, and for which there is no earthly reason why this Bill should be submitted. I would like to give a concrete case. There is a town of 2,000 inhabitants far away from any danger of air raids, where there are no munition factories and no abnormal movement of population. Near by, a farmer, an old man, who, being unable to get any labour, and his son having been taken away and killed, has broken down, and last year, seeing no way of getting over his difficulty of cultivating the farm, he gave notice, and he leaves the farm in May. He has sold off his stock, and has bought a small house. Are you going to stop this man getting into that house? Why should this Bill relate to hundreds of towns, large and small, where none of the objections which this Bill is intended to meet applies? Therefore, I ask, and I do not think it is too much to ask, that the areas should be set forth in the Schedule attached to this Bill, or by Order in Council. I really do not know

    1019
    there is any answer. It is bad enough to upset the ordinary law in places where there is need for it, but you propose in this Bill to go away to the North-West of Scotland and the North-West of England, where there is not the slightest danger of anything of the kind, and to upset the ordinary law there, simply because you will not take the trouble to schedule the places where it is necessary, and to which I offer not the slightest objection.
    Mr. ADAMSON: I hope the President of the Local Government Board will give serious consideration to this Amendment, because I can assure the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee that the trouble which has arisen over this question is of a much more general character than my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen has hinted. Members of the Labour party have received many letters, which are coming from nearly every part of the country, urging us to get this Bill passed at the earliest possible moment, and to make it retrospective. I hope the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, will not agree to the Amendment, which would limit the Bill and make the difficulties of administration quite as serious as they are under the present law.
    Mr. RENDALL: It has to be remembered that the desire for the Bill came entirely from the populous centres of this country. The matter applies almost entirely to those centres, and almost solely to munition centres. It has never been demanded in the country districts at all. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] I think I am right in saying that. I do not think that any agricultural Member has received any complaint in the matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!"] Well, it may be so in the West of England, where, perhaps, there have been complaints. What, however, it seems to me is that the right hon. Gentleman might do is to accept this Amendment. He would still have the power by Order in Council, at once, if thought desirable, to cover the whole of the country. It would not deprive him of any power, and would enable him to avoid conferring, say, upon either Cornwall or Dorsetshire, which are purely agricultural counties, what may be intended for their benefit, but which might prove to have far greater disadvantages, and is, furthermore, an Act which they do not want. It would appear that in the country there exists
    1020
    a need for some such measure as this, but that is no reason why we should thrust it upon large parts of the country where the conditions do not exist which this Act is intended to meet.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: I trust the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board will give very serious consideration to this Amendment before accepting it. First of all, I desire to ask him just to put his officials on to the point of trying to draw up a list of those parts of the country that have to be incorporated in any such suggested Schedule. So far as my experience goes, and it is a fairly wide one on this question, I have correspondence from all parts of the country—and not confined to England— from places, indeed, which one little expected would properly come within the scope of this measure. I quite agree that in the first instance the most glaring cases sprang from the munition areas; but when the cases began to be dealt with from those munition areas it was soon found out that a large number of other places were affected. My hon. Friend who introduced this Amendment told us of a case in Scotland where the farmtr had retired from his farm and had taken a cottage. He did not give us the point of view of the person who had to be evicted from that cottage. Surely he had something to say! Where are such persons as he to get other places?
    Mr. PRINGLE: There is no shortage there!
    Mr. ROWLANDS: My answer to that is that if there is no shortage in that town, that is the only case which could possibly be made out as an illustration. The farmer, under the Act, if he could show that he had a reasonable case, would be able to get reasonable possession, because there would be no difficulty whatever in the present tenant getting another suitable place. Therefore, there is no need whatever for this Order in Council. Once you begin to issue Orders in Council, and the President of the Local Government Board has to make out Schedules, he will find that he has started a task which will take his officials through the whole country. Since the last Debate I have had correspondence from Waves, and these letters tell of some very glaring case. These include a case from one of the leading officials of my hon. Friend's own political party, a gentleman whom I happen to know, living in an extremely

    1021
    populous part of Wales. I have letters also from Surrey; in fact, from all over the country. I do hope that this Amendment will not be accepted.
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): We cannot accept this Amendment, and I am going to tell the House why. The original Act applies to the whole country—and Wales. When the Bill was originally brought forward this matter was very well considered as to whether or not we should have an Order in Council applying it, first of all to one part of the country, and then to another. Very great difficulties were presented to our minds. I may say that those difficulties are still more present to our minds now, because under the Defence of the Realm Act the Minister of Munitions has these very powers—that is to say, he has the power to declare that certain parts of England, Scotland, and Wales shall be areas in which no ejectment order shall take effect. He scheduled some of these areas, and, having done so, found all kinds of cases which the Act was intended to meet just outside these areas. He has found himself faced by this difficulty to such an extent that he has asked the Local Government Board, so far as possible, to take action for him; and he wishes to drop his powers of limiting the Act to particular areas and, to make defensive action, or operative action, on the part of the tenant practically universal. Clearly, it would be a strange thing if we were to leave the original Act operative through the whole of the country while limiting the Amending Act only to certain parts. It is true that the Act itself was brought forward and found favour in this House because of circumstances which were a cause of agitation by the dwellers in places like Glasgow, the East of London, and other similar places. That is quite true; but after that Act had been passed it became apparent to everybody that cruel action on the part of landlords was becoming a very common thing in different parts of the country. My correspondence shows that it is becoming very widespread, and that if you apply the Act to only one part of the country, then you would certainly find, in a short time, that even villages themselves had become congested from the very fact that munition factories were being rapidly run up in those areas. You would require to apply the Act week by week to different parts of the country. For that reason,
    1022
    and as this is an Amending Act, and as the Act itself must have universal application, we cannot accept the Amendment.
    Mr. HENDERSON: The original Act was well considered. My right hon. Friend says power was given to come in. Now you are taking that away. Of course, I agree with a great deal of what has been said. There are undoubtedly places throughout the country in the north-west, and north-east also of England and Scotland, where there is no necessity for anything of the kind. It was put upon the landlord always before he could evict the tenant to find a place for him. Is that the law of the land? Of course not! It is a most absurd thing that to save themselves a little trouble to schedule these various places the Department is going to force this through the House.
    Sir H. NIELD: The last speaker evidently represents Scottish opinion, and Scottish opinion only.
    HON. MEMBERS: No, no!
    4.0 P.M.
    Sir H. NIELD: Well, then, all I can say is that I have here beside me letters from every conceivable part of England as to the way in which this Act has been interpreted. Let me remind the hon. Gentleman how these words came to be put into the original Act. The representative of the Board of Agriculture, when the Bill was in its original form, rising in his place on his own account, or invited by an agricultural Member on this side of the House, admitted that it was a great hardship to the agricultural farmer or the agricultural tenant, or the gentleman farmer farming his own land whose shepherd, herdsman or dairyman had been compelled or volunteered to go to the War, and who had to leave his wife and children in the cottage—that it would be extremely hard for the tenant farmer or the owner, as the case might be, to be obliged to meet the difficulty of getting a new farm servant to undertake the duties of the man who had left, to live at a distance, and to have to come in from the distance because the cottage on the farm, or in close proximity to the farm, was occupied by the family of his former tenant. It was for that reason that these words were inserted. I venture to think, as one who takes the keenest interest in this matter, that the necessity for protection has extended very much further west. The county of Buckingham has been a positive Eldorado to the unscrupulous

    1023
    landlords. Men are being made to pay through the nose, and are being evicted, because they have refused to pay additional rent. These words were inserted to protect purely the agricultural tenant or farmer from having additional difficulty to get labour in proximity to his place. Unscrupulous landlords all over the country have taken advantage of these words, and County Court judges have not had the courage in many cases to construe the Act widely, and so the result has been that in different parts of the country the most deplorable and distressing cases have occurred and orders of ejectment have been made. I know there is a difference of opinion in regard to construing the Act. Some people have taken a wider view, and hold that there must be some very strong reasons for the landlord to get the tenant out, while others have accepted the mere statement, "I want to bring my mother-in-law from Deptford to protect her against air raids." I need hardly say that she was going into a district where air raids have been far more prevalent. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is a good reason!"] Evidently my hon. Friend thinks mothers-in-law ought to be jeopardised, but I am not going to discuss relations of that sort. I have heard it stated how mush more prized mothers-in-law are since the Man-Power Bill was brought in. I hope the Committee will support the Government on this point, and before the Bill leaves the Committee I trust it will be drastically amended.
    Amendment negatived.
    Sir J. BOYTON: I beg to move, after the word "not" to insert the words "except with the consent of the Court."
    This Amendment is moved in the interests of 95 per cent. of those who occupy houses under building societies. If this Bill is passed in the way suggested it will have a very far-reaching effect upon the fortunes of building societies and the large number of people who have invested their money in them. I will give some figures furnished by the Secretary of the Halifax Building Society, which go to show that notwithstanding the War the working classes have invested very largely in house property. In 1914 the receipts of this building society were £1,524,000. In 1918 they were £2,643,000, or an increase of £1,119,000 in four years. Their assets have increased during that period by
    1024
    £1,263,000. They have opened accounts numbering 60,100, as compared with 44,000 in 1914. There have been applications for mortgages during the past year for large sums, and they have advanced by way of mortgage £717,000 to 1,694 new borrowers, and they now have 35,000 shareholders and 25,000 depositors. That will show how very widespread the movement is for providing homes for occupation by the working classes, and it shows how this Bill will interfere with them unless some reasonable modification is made. Hon. Members have referred to the enormous amount of correspondence which they have received from tenants, but I must confess that I have not been troubled with many complaints from tenants. On the contrary my complaints come from the landlords, which point to a very different state of things to what hon. Members have spoken about.
    It has been said that in 1915, when the original Bill was introduced, the President of the Board of Agriculture obtained the insertion of an Amendment that possession could be recovered by the owner if ho could show that he required the house for himself, or for some other person in his employ. Sales of agricultural estates have been going on all over the country, and there never has before been such a breaking up of agricultural estates as at present. Under this Bill the new comer who buys the estate will not be able to utilise the cottages on that estate because he cannot turn the tenants out. He may have better men for husbandry and farming than those who arc living in the cottages. If it was possible in 1915 for a private Member to succeed in obtaining an Amendment of that kind, surely the same reasons hold good to-day. All I ask for is that if difficulties arise and disputes occur there should be some Court of Appeal at which you should be able to get the rough-and-ready justice which you get in a County Court, where you can have the dispute adjudicated upon.
    Knowing the sympathies that animate us all at present and the feeling throughout the country is to help and befriend not all and sundry but all those who have suffered for us and who are liable to meet with considerable misfortune if they return and find their homes occupied, I am sure County Court judges would be exceedingly sympathetic and this would provide a rough-and-ready means of settling disputes, which I do not really

    1025
    believe will occur to anything like the same extent if there is a safety-valve provided. Two men are much more reasonable in Court, although they may talk a lot outside, because directly they come before the powers that be in Court they are generally very humble. If the President will not give all I want I should be ready to accept almost any modification or qualification of my Amendment provided it gave an Appeal Court. I have evidence to show the temperament of those who are largely interested in house property. Here is a letter written by the leading spirit of a large property investment corporation, and this is how he looks at this question. He lays down the following conditions:
    "1. That he or she is a British subject by birth, or a person who has served in the Army overseas or in the Navy afloat, and has been discharged with a good character.
    2. That he or she occupied premises as a dwelling, the conditions of the tenure of which compels removal, or that the health of himself or his wife (or family) will suffer materially unless ho or they can obtain other and more suitable premises.
    3. That he will sustain substantial pecuniary damage if he, or a definite person employed by him, cannot occupy the premises.
    4. The Court to have power to refuse an order for possession in cases where the enforced removal of the sitting tenant is proved to be injurious to the prosecution of the War."
    Those are reasonable suggestions to which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will agree. I do not ask for any hard and fast line, but I do think it would be only fair that some appeal should be provided. One hon. Member stated that Buckinghamshire was a perfect Eldorado for landlords, but that does not appear to be the case, judging from a communication which I have received from a gentleman who writes from Chorley Wood. He says:
    "I had occasion to take a house in Chorley Wood—"—"
    —[An HON. MEMBER: "That is Hertfordshire."]—At any rate, it is quite near, and perhaps neither of those counties are Eldorados—
    "About eight years ago I had as second mortgagee to take over a house at Chorley Wood, built in 1902 at a cost of £1,000, to include the land. The mortgagor, an elderly man, who occupied the house, died during the time, and I took possession as mortgagee, having paid off the first mortgage. The house was rated at £50 a year on the footing of the tenant paying rates. I endeavoured to sell the house but without success, and it remained empty for a time. The Master of the O.B.H., whom I knew, asked me to allow one of the huntsmen to live there temporarily until the house was sold, as he could
    1026
    not get a cottage for him, and I agreed to do so, and a small rent of 8s. a week was paid me by the Master."
    The house afterwards became empty, and it was let to a builder's clerk at 8s. a week, who is employed in London, and the owner agreed to sell the house for £850, but owing to the temporary reduction in the assessment made before the War he cannot take advantage of Sub-section (6) of Section 2 of the Act of 1915, and this Bill makes no provision for exceptional circumstances of this character. I only want to look at it from a fair point of view. The difficulties I have referred to cannot be met by any hard and fast Act of Parliament brought forward at a time when it is hoped it will pass through on account of sympathy and good feeling for these people I think the right hon. Gentleman might at least consent to give a right of appeal.
    Mr. DUNDAS WHITE: I hope the President of the Local Government Board will not accept this Amendment. If he were to accept this proposal he might as well drop the Bill—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—Because every reason that has been alleged against this Amendment may be put as a reason against the measure as a whole. In the opinion of many people this Bill has been made far too narrow by the title that has been given to it. The object of the measure is to prevent tenants being evicted by landlords, or by those who, up to a certain date, become the landlords of the property. Instead of narrowing the objection of this Bill we should extend it, and make the dates more retrospective. If we once begin to make an exception and to say that the landlord may evict the tenant if he can get the consent of the Court, then we leave every case open to litigation. You give absolute protection to no tenant, because it would always be open to the landlord to go to the Court, and, unless the tenants were also prepared to go to the Court, and spend a great deal of time and money, the landlord, the other side not being heard and perhaps not having an opportunity of being heard, would win and turn the tenant out almost every time. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment said that when people got into Court they were generally more reasonable. I do not know to which of the parties he referred. Does he think if this power is conferred that the landlord will be more reasonable? I will tell the hon. Gentle-

    1027
    man who, from his point of view, will be more reasonable. It is the tenant, who my find, unless he can put in an appearance in Court and incur the expenditure of having his side of the case put forward, that he will be compelled to come to terms. That is what is commonly called being more reasonable. Our object is not to make these poor people more reasonable, but to defend their rights, and from that point of view T certainly hope that the Government will accept this Amendment.
    Colonel ASHLEY: I must say that I very much resent the tone of the speech just delivered by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. D. White). I came down here with every sympathy with this Bill, and I want to do absolutely what is fair and right, but I do object to motives being imputed to people who happen to be landlords any more than that motives should be imputed to people who are tenants. We are here to try and do what is right, and I thought that the hon. Member who moved the Amendment (Sir J. Boyton) made a very honest, fair, and conciliatory speech. I am quite sure that in the majority of cases, if you gave this power to the Court, the tenant's interests would be at once protected. They would be protected in ninety-nine cases out of 100. There are undoubtedly certain cases where, if you make a cast-iron rule, a tenant who is not a deserving man will get an advantage to which he has no right. Therefore, I hope the Government will accept, possibly not this Amendment, but some means whereby the Court in these hard cases can adjudicate between the tenant and landlord.
    Mr. ADAMSON: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill will not accept the Amendment which has been moved. The Committee may remember that, in dealing with the difficulties that have arisen regarding houses and the administration of this Bill on a Second Reading, I pointed out that one of the greatest difficulties was the amount of litigation which had arisen in connection with the present Act. Already the administration of this Bill is far too costly. The Committee should remember that the Bill was brought in to protect the very poorest section of the community, and, if you insert a Clause of this character, you are going to undo all the benefit that you have conferred. It
    1028
    would lead to much more litigation, and you would thereby be penalising the section of the community that this Bill was brought in to protect. I think the Committee should consider well before doing anything of the kind. Why should we give encouragement to costly litigation? The House should make every effort when laws arc being framed here to make them as clear as possible so as to avoid litigation, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will refuse to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. RENDALL: I think everybody has forgotten the object of this Bill. It is brought in because doubts have been cast by judges on their power to do that which this Bill actually empowers them to do. If this Bill does actually confer that power upon them, then we are making the law precisely what we thought it was when we passed the original Act. I cannot see why we want to go further. It seems to be forgotten that a very large number of landlords of working-men's houses are working men themselves. It seems to me unnecessary to try and prevent a man selling his house unless you are going to do some real service to somebody else who ought to receive that service. You want to do something just and valuable on the merits and not merely because you are bound to some theory. In my division I have got a working builder who has ten houses in a row. A large employer came to him and said, "Will you sell these houses? Nine of them are already occupied by workmen in my employ. Will you sell, and give us occupation of the tenth house? We want another man, and we are doing work of national importance." Thereupon the working builder went to the tenth occupier and said, "Will you go out?" He said, "No; I will not." Under this Bill he will be protected. The consequence is that the working builder, who has all sorts of mortgages and bank charges, will miss his chance of selling. These small builders are really the landlords to-day, although they did not intend to remain so when they put the houses up. If they had not built them and raised mortgages to do so, we should be in an extraordinarily difficult position to-day. In a case like that the Court ought to have the power to say: "Here is a bonâ fide sale. The employer wants houses for his men who are doing work of national importance. If we say

    1029
    this man is to go out, he can find another house, and he will be compensated for the loss that he will suffer in going." If the Court had those powers in such a case the tenant could not be injured. If we pass the Bill without the Amendment, it prevents such a sale being carried through, and the tenant really gains nothing of any value. If there is another house, and he is compensated for any loss or trouble in going into it, why should he not go and allow the sale to take place? For these reasons, it does seems to me that this Amendment might be accepted. It would really give to all tenants all that they can reasonably want. It would give them perfect safety that they would not be interfered with unless there were good grounds which would convince a judge, who would also be enabled to award them compensation if they were evicted.
    Mr. W. WATSON: While I feel considerable sympathy with the Amendment, I am very reluctant, in view of the, hard cases of which I have heard for a long time past, to leave the matter entirely at the mercy of the County Court judges in this country and the sheriffs in Scotland. If it were possible for the Local Government Board to issue a set of reasons which should actuate judges and sheriffs all over the country, that course might possibly be adopted. The Sub-section in the original Act which I am anxious to see altered is the one which relates to a new landlord, who wants the premises for his own occupation. Along comes a man who would naturally desire to be a tenant but he finds himself up against this Subsection, and it is suggested to him that he can evade the Act by borrowing the money, or by the old landlord leaving the price as a bond on the property, he paying what is in effect a rent. That is the class of case where the hardship has arisen, and it is one which I am quite sure that the whole House wants in the fairest way to remedy. It would satisfy my views if this consent of the Court were excluded from the cases where the landlord required the premises for his own occupation, and if it were allowed to operate where the new landlord really brought for the occupation of a person in his employ or in the employ of the tenant. That would cover most of the cases to which the last speaker referred. It would cover the agricultural cases where undoubtedly hardship may arise if the Bill
    1030
    is passed as drafted. I venture to make that suggestion as one which would meet the hard cases that I have in mind.
    Sir H. NIELD: I have an Amendment on the Paper which deals specifically with the cause which has created the whole of this trouble. We have here another illustration of the unfortunate way in which we make our laws without a proper skilled revision and reconsideration, with the advice of Parliamentary draftsmen. If we could have that we should get rid of half the trouble, because any Parliamentary draftsman looking at the original Bill as it left the Committee, would have said: "This will not do, because in working it will be either too indefinite or contradictory, and something is implied which is not expressed. These difficulties ought to be corrected before the Bill gets the Third Reading.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: Do not the Government draftsmen ordinarily do that?
    Sir H. NIELD: I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have known that we pick a Bill to pieces in Committee and prevent the draftsman from having the opportunity of putting it into shipshape. This Bill is so narrowly drawn that it is impossible to resist the conviction that it must have been purposely so drawn. The fourth Section of the Amendment which I have put down, although it is out of order—
    The CHAIRMAN: Really, we had better not anticipate that Amendment.
    Sir H. NIELD: Although I have had the temerity to put it down, I have done so with the fullest knowledge that Sub-clause (4) is out of order, as being outside the scope of the Bill.
    The CHAIRMAN: If that is the case, then still more we had better not argue it now. I promised to hear the hon. Gentleman when the time comes.
    Sir H. NIELD: The principal argument adduced by my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. W. Watson), and by my hon. Friend below the Gangway (Mr. Rendall), would be at once corrected by that provision which, I regret, is outside the scope of the Bill. I want to deal with the Hertfordshire house at 8s. a week. I should think that it is haunted, and I should imagine that the 8s. was a special premium to help to lay the ghost. I want to refute what has been said about Buckinghamshire.
    The CHAIRMAN: The Committee have just negatived the Amendment to limit the Section as far as area is concerned. We are now on a different Section.
    Sir H. NIELD: My hon. Friend behind me said that I had declared that Buckingham was an Eldorado for landlords.
    The CHAIRMAN: That was on the preceding Amendment.
    Sir H. NIELD: No, it was on this Amendment. He did not speak on the other occasion. In opening his Amendment, he alluded to the fact that I had made the statement on the earlier Amendment, and he refuted it. What does it come to? He gave an illustration of an extraordinary kind, a case which it is certainly not reasonable to suppose prevails to any great extent. I do not deal with the geographical area. I shall only give this as an illustration to show that my hon. Friend is mistaken. Here are evidences from parts of Hertfordshire which show that in each case it is not the difficulty which the hon. Member for the Thornbury Division (Mr. Rendall) pointed out, of wanting to get possession for the purpose of enabling a man to do important business, but the very things about which the public is so disturbed, namely, air raid refugees coming down to Buckinghamshire, bidding all amounts of money and turning out the tenants. Those are the persons with whom we want to deal. We want to stop people being dislodged from a home where they have lived perhaps for many years past, and in the occupation of which many of them have succeeded their parents.
    I will not weary the Committee by giving a number of these cases, but here is one of them. Here is a house in which the writer of the letter has lived for very many years. It has been bought by a lady. I am afraid that ladies, young and old, are the chief offenders. This lady has bought this house as a temporary residence, still keeping up a London house, so that when the phases of the moon are dangerous to London she removes to Buckinghamshire. The original tenants are compelled to make way for these temporary birds of passage. I am not at all sure whether, if a County Court judge were given this discretion and words were added that it ought to be established to his satisfaction, that is to say, putting the onus upon the person who desires to recover possession, the mischief
    1032
    would be met. If we had not got this narrow Bill, words could be put in providing that in every case the applicant should satisfy the County Court judge. That would put the onus upon the applicant to prove that there was a good case why he should dispossess the tenant, and would get rid of the hard cases, from the landlord's point of view, of unsatisfactory tenants claiming to remain upon a kind of charter. On the whole, I hope the words will be accepted, but, if the ruling of the Chair prevents me from moving them, I hope that the representatives of the Local Government Board, who have been collecting information from all over the country and are really desirous of doing the right thing, will see their way to bring in promptly legislation, wider in its scope, in order to put an end to this very unsatisfactory condition of things and these hard cases.
    Mr. FISHER: I am very glad, and I am sure the Committee is very glad, that the landlords should have so excellent a champion as my hon. Friend the Member for East Marylebone (Sir J. Boyton), who knows the case well, and states it with great persuasiveness. He has stated it with great persuasiveness to-day. I am quite sure that not one of us wants to do any injustice to the great body of landlords. For my part, I can hardly listen with patience to any sweeping condemnation of the great body of landlords. I believe the great majority of them would have done justice and equity to their tenants even had no such Act been passed as that which we are seeking to amend. But it was obvious that there was a considerable minority of landlords who were taking advantage of the great shortage of houses and the great inrush of population to press for extortionate terms from tenants who had inhabited their houses year after year. Great injustice was being done, and great discontent was being created—a discontent which seriously interfered with the proper provision of munitions and with the peace and contentment which we are all trying to foster in the country in these extremely anxious and trying times. That really was the situation with which we had to deal. How did the House deal with it? It passed an Act of Parliament which provided, where the tenant paid the rent which he had paid up to 3rd August, 1914, and obeyed the conditions of his tenancy, where he was not in any way a nuisance and where he was what he

    1033
    called a reasonable and good tenant, that that tenant, although the house might be bought by another landlord, should not have an order made against him by which he would be ejected from the tenancy of the house, provided he paid his rent and maintained the general conditions of the tenancy. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Marylebone pointed out, it was suggested by my right hon. Friend who is now the President of the Board of Agriculture, but who was then a private Member, that that would operate unfairly and prejudicially to the State in the case of landlords who wanted certain cottages with which to work their farms. It was largely in consequence of the arguments adduced by my right hon. Friend that the House consented to put in an exception to the Act which did enable a landlord who reasonably required the house for his own occupation or for that of his employé, notwithstanding that the tenant had paid his rent and subscribed to the conditions, to turn the tenant out of the house, because, as the argument was put, he wanted that house for the purposes of his business.
    Then the House discovered, by evidence which reached one from every quarter, that this exception was being exploited for the use of an entirely different set of landlords altogether, landlords who could not put forward the plea that they wanted the house in connection with the business they were carrying on for the benefit of the State, or indeed in connection with any business of any sort or kind, and landlords who probably would not put forward the real reason for which they wanted the house, which too often was to escape the ambit of the Gothas. This exception having been so exploited, great pressure has been put upon the Government to bring forward this amending Bill by which the landlord, who is an exception under the original Act and who can obtain possession of the house, shall be limited hereafter to the landlord who acquires the house, not by purchase, but by devolution under a settlement or under a testamentary disposition, or in some similar way. Thereupon an Amendment is put down—which will certainly find a good deal of support in the Committee—which says that the Committee shall not take upon itself to define the landlords to whom this amending Bill shall apply, but that the Courts shall take it upon themselves to define those land-
    1034
    lords. How would that work? There are scores, if not hundreds, of Courts that deal with this particular question. It is not only the County Court, but the Sessional Court; therefore there are hundreds of Courts to whom you give the power to say whether or not a particular purchaser was a purchaser to whom this narrow definition should or should not apply.
    How would that operate? You would have an infinite variety of decisions all over the country. It is well-known that judges, like other people, have opinions of their own. There are judges who have opinions of their own with regard to Acts of Parliament. There are judges who hold the view that it was a very great misfortune ever to interfere with the good economic rule by which there was perfect freedom of contract for sale and purchase as regards house property even in a time of war. There are other County Court judges and other Courts who will probably, on this question, take the opposite view. There will not be the slightest certainty for a tenant as to how he will be treated where a purchaser has come along, and once several decisions have been given by the County Court judges, or the Sessional Courts dealing with this question, practically in favour of the purchasing landlord and against the tenant, we may be quite sure that would lead to enormous sales and purchases of houses. Purchasers living in the particular district where that particular County Court judge presides would say, "We are quite certain he will take such-and-such a view of the law, and will say that in all the circumstances the purchasing landlord has a perfect right to purchase it, and therefore he will give an order for ejectment." In other districts the judges may take an exactly opposite view of the law. It would be a sea without a shore. It would lead to an enormous variety of conflicting decisions.
    I do not think it is possible for the Courts to deal with this matter. How is the Court going to summon before it all the evidence it ought to see before saying whether or not a particular purchaser comes within this definition of a landlord? If the Court is to have that power, if the Court is to be able to impose conditions and is able to say to the tenant, "We will make an order against you for your ejectment unless you stop that subletting of which your landlord complains, or unless you comply with certain other

    1035
    conditions which the landlord is imposing upon you," it would be impossible to amend this particular Bill in that way. I admit it is a very narrow Bill. I have previously invited the House to consider whether or not it has come into the possession of evidence on which a Bill of a far larger character will be based. All along I have been anxious—this is the course the Government have adopted—that we should stop this particular evil of which so much complaint is made. We believe this Bill will stop that evil, and that it will stop something like 80 or 90 per cent. of the cases where injustice is done. For my own part, I look ahead to the operation of this Bill when the War is ended. Some day or other the House will probably have to consider the whole matter from the wider point of view which has been mentioned by several speakers in this Debate. We shall have to consider whether some Court of Equity must not be set up here, there and everywhere to deal with these questions between landlords and tenants. That would raise the whole question of fair rents, fixity of tenure and all kinds of questions which must be controversial. Such provisions, if placed in this Bill, would prevent the Government from passing the Bill within any reasonable limit of time. When the Committee remembers, as it does, the great congestion of Government business at this time, I think it would be wise, whatever opinions hon. Members may hold on Amendments of this kind, not to press for an Amendment of this kind, but to leave it for some future date, when the whole question can be considered adequately and some larger Bill can be introduced into the House dealing with the many questions which have been raised to-day.
    Mr. DENMAN: The speech of the President of the Local Government Board, with all his usual persuasiveness, has hardly convinced the Committee that this particular Amendment will not completely cover the ground of those who desire the Bill to be somewhat changed. It is perfectly true that we all want one thing. We want a Parliamentary mandate to stop an obvious leak. But in stopping the leak is not the President going too far? I want to put the case of the wholly unreasonable tenant, who is absolutely protected in his unreasonableness by this Bill. I will give a case from my own district, where there is a considerable shortage of houses. A tenant occupied a
    1036
    house that was larger than he needed. A man came to do Government work in that district who was prepared to buy the house and to use it properly. He got an ejectment order before this Bill was produced, and when he got the order, and not until then, the tenant went out and found for himself another house, adequate to his needs. If this Bill had been in existence as an Act the original tenant there would have been absolutely protected, and the newcomer would not have been able to find a house at all. I submit that the President of the Local Government Board does not want to give additional rent to landlords of whose action complaint is made. This Bill, where you have a reasonable tenant, will give absolute security, no doubt, but if the right hon. Gentleman cannot accept this particular Amendment, may I suggest that at a later stage words should be put In which will provide the necessary safeguard. Objection has been raised that excessive litigation is involved, and that thereby fresh hardships are being created for the tenant. Under this Amendment, I agree the door is opened very widely to litigation; no specific points are laid down upon which the Courts shall pronounce a decision. Would it not be possible to set out quite clearly certain reasons upon which the landlord might appear in Court and claim an ejectment order? I would suggest these words:
    "Provided that this Act shall not apply when it is shown to the satisfaction of the Court that there is a shortage of houses in the neighbourhood, and that the tenant is not making full use of the house."
    Under such a provision as that the landlord would have to satisfy the Court on two points; first, that there is a shortage of houses—a simple question of fact—and, second, that the tenant is not making full use of the house. Surely if he can do that the Court might fairly be asked to decide that the applicant shall obtain possession of his house. I feel that the present Amendment will not secure that.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: Undoubtedly in this matter, under the limitations laid down the Bill is very much too restricted, although probably the measure will deal with the majority of cases of hardship which have come to my notice. But by the Amendment we should be creating further hardships, especially in the case of perfectly bonâ fide purchasers of houses for their own occupation, who will be left completely stranded, because they will not be able to turn out the tenants

    1037
    of the houses which they have bought. I do suggest there is a possibility in many places of getting rid of the existing difficulty by utilising to better purposes existing house accommodation. There are—for instance, in Ayrshire—a large number of houses which are only let for a certain part of the year, and stand empty for the rest of the twelve months. Nobel's Explosive Company, and other companies, which are doing Government work in the district, require accommodation for their employés, yet there is no possibility of taking over these houses and utilising them for the occupation of workmen, although they are standing empty for nine months in the year. If this Bill had not been so narrowly drawn we might have amended it in order to deal with questions of that kind, and we could have remedied one hardship without creating another. I still hope that by some means or other—such, for instance, as that adopted in the Emergency Courts Act, which deals with the relations between debtor and creditor—this Bill may be amended so as to enable cases of hardship to be considered by the Courts, and practices of the kind complained of stopped.
    It is not so much a question of construing the law. The President of the Local Government Board has talked about the different views which judges may hold in regard to the law, but surely there should be a power of interference on their part which will enable them to deal with cases of undoubted hardship. Any sheriff in Scotland could settle these questions in a very few minutes. The Government proposal does not meet the case of tenants, now protected by Act of Parliament, who sub-let rooms at exorbitant rents—and these people are to be found right and left—while the landlord, who has to pay higher rates and a higher cost of repairs, gets no help whatever to meet his extra charges. Some of these tenants are now getting £10 a week where they used to earn only about 30s. weekly, yet they are protected against an increase of rent, and by sub-letting rooms are making a big profit over and above their rent. If the President of the Local Government Board gets the Bill through, as he will do, I hope he will not consider that he is absolved from any obligation to go further with this matter. The whole thing requires to be gone into, because undoubtedly landlords cannot afford to pay higher mortgage interest and continue to keep their houses in repair at the present rents.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman has taken up the attitude he has. No doubt there is enormous hard ship on tenants, but, at the same time, landlords are also suffering hardships, and if the Amendment had been accepted I cannot see why the County Court judge—and I understand that is to be the Court—
    Mr. FISHER: Not always!
    Sir F. BANBURY: Well, the County Court judge or whatever other judge may be entrusted with the duty—I cannot see why he cannot adjudicate on the cases that would be brought before him and decide whether or not there is a real hardship either on the tenant or on the landlord. Personally, I have sufficient faith in our judges to believe that, in the majority of cases, they would give a sound decision. No doubt these cases must entail some trouble on the person who thinks himself aggrieved, but there is no real difficulty, and it would be far better to provide a Court of Appeal, where these people would have an opportunity of stating their grievances. It is all very well to say that in the future some Bill will be introduced which is going to put all these matters right. But we have a great deal to do in these days, and I think it is perfectly clear that no amending Bill, or any Bill dealing with such a complicated question, can be introduced into this House and passed within the next two or three years. In the meantime investments in house property will be discouraged, and a large number of persons who have invested their money in this class of property and who are not receiving an adequate return for that money will be further injured. The hon. Baronet the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger) has cited the cases of people who are absolute profiteers, who are earning several times their pre-war wage, and are taking advantage of the fact that there is a shortage of house accommodation to further increase their incomes by letting rooms in their houses at exorbitant rents. I suppose it is no use appealing to the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider his decision. If he will not do that, perhaps he will give some assurance that a Court of Appeal shall be provided either now or at another stage. If we cannot get such an assurance, then I hope the hon. Member who moved the Amendment will press it to a Division. An hon. Member who spoke just now talked about the trouble of going to law, but you cannot avoid that.

    1039
    An Act of Parliament must always be subjected to legal construction as to what Parliament means, and it is utterly impossible for Parliament to lay down rules or to pass a Bill so framed that under no circumstances can a Court of law interfere. As far as my experience goes, the mere going to a County Court is not a very troublesome matter. I have been there once myself; it did not take very long, and I came out victorious, so that I do not look upon the process with such great dread as my hon. Friend. I see no signs of yielding in the face of my right hon. Friend, but I still hope he may be induced to make some concession.
    Mr. MORRELL: The Debate, so far as it has proceeded, shows that the Bill is not satisfactory to any quarter of this House. We all know what we want. We want to stop the practice which is now going on of ruthlessly turning people out of their houses. It may be it is very desirable there should be some sort of Appeal Court provided by this Bill, and I, for one, am disappointed at the decision of the right hon. Gentleman, although I feel he could not have accepted this particular Amendment. I am disappointed that he has not been able to suggest any other way of meeting the difficulty, except by a rather vague promise that we may have a Bill when the War is over to provide for it.
    Mr. FISHER: I did not go so far as that.
    Mr. MORRELL: I regret having misrepresented the right hon. Gentleman. I endeavoured to put what he said in rather too summary a phrase. I am interested in this matter really on behalf of a, certain class of large building societies which are in no way landlords in the wicked sense. I learn from their representatives that they are very seriously concerned because they find that under this Bill their operations will be very greatly interfered with unless some more elasticity is introduced than is to be found in the measure as at present drafted. Still, I hope that the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment will not think it necessary to divide the Committee upon it. This discussion has served a very useful purpose, and I would seriously ask the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill whether he cannot see his way to provide some machinery for meeting the complaints, with which I am sure he is very familiar, of the building
    1040
    societies with regard to the difficulties in which they are put by the present condition of the law upon this question.
    5.0 P.M.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: I was very glad to hear the President of the Local Government Board explain so lucidly what would be the whole position if this Amendment were carried. I have had an opportunity of discussing it with the persons who drafted it, and it would nullify the whole value of this Bill, which is so necessary at the present time. We should be throwing ourselves back into the same position as we were in, and the President of the Local Government Board in a very little time would have to draft another Bill. In spite of what was said as to the whole of these cases going before the County Court judge, it is the fact that they do not all go before the County Court judge. They go before other Courts, and the decisions of those Courts only need to be followed—for the composition of the Courts is well known—to find that you do not get a fair treatment of the case from the legal standpoint. No doubt the people on the bench think they are doing justice, but it is justice according to their untrained minds, and not what you would expect from a County Court judge. I will give an example of what can be found outside London. You have a County Court judge who tried a number of these cases and took a broad and generous view of the intention of Parliament in putting that Amendment in. But he has been called to more important work in connection with the War, and his successor takes an entirely different and very narrow view indeed, and declares that he is going to do so until legislation such as is proposed to-day sets him right in the matter. He interprets the Amendments of the Minister of Agriculture in quite a different way from that intended by Parliament. It was never intended by Parliament when the Act of 1915 was passed to open the Law Courts to litigation on the whole of these cases. The broad principle was laid down, an exception was made in some cases, and it is that exception which has led to the difficulties of the present time.
    Sir J. BOYTON: I must say that I am very keenly disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Fisher) has not held out some hope of accepting my Amendment in some qualified form. As I said, I am speaking to-night on behalf

    1041
    of people who have contributed to the working classes 95 per cent. of all the houses that exist. The position to-day is that the right hon. Gentleman himself, as President of the Local Government Board, is concerned about the houses of the people, and he no doubt expects to be assisted by private enterprise as well as by local authorities. He contemplates building 300,000 houses after the War. I do not believe that the local authorities will accept the terms he offers, or that 300,000 houses will be built by the local authorities after the War. What are you doing at a time like this? You are paralysing private enterprise, you are breaking their hearts and causing them, as must be the case, to give up their businesses of building—to kill an industry which has provided the houses for the working classes and to bring entire ruin on what is probably the greatest industry, that of the brick and mortar trade, in this country. In no unmeasured terms do I express my keen disappointment that although in moving my Amendment I moved it in a moderate sense, hoping there would be some qualified justice done, that is ruled out, and we are told that we cannot have anything but this Bill—that we must accept it whether we like it or not. I say that that will bring ruin upon this great industry,
    Mr. PETO: Before we part with this Amendment I want to ask one question, and to put a point of view on this subject which has not been touched upon in the Debate. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out that the whole reason for this Bill was Section 2, Sub-section (3), of the original Act, which was intended for the protection of such small cottage property as was needed for carrying on agriculture and putting in a new agricultural farm labourer. He also pointed out that the basis of the Bill is that that limitation on the houses which at that time was reasonably required, with the food production problem as it was then, was being taken advantage of by a totally different class of landlord. This Amendment, whatever its merits or demerits, would give to the County Court the power of saying that this amending Bill, giving a new definition of landlords and shutting out all landlords by purchase, should not apply in certain cases where it was contrary to the public interest. I imagine that the kind of case that the County Court would decide as contrary to the public interest would be a case where a farm had changed hands. A
    1042
    new owner comes in, and he urgently needs two or three cottages for the cultivation of the farm, for men who are wanted actually to work upon it. I agree with what the President of the Local Government Board said as to our being unable to accept this Amendment providing all kinds of landlords and all kinds of law, as decided by a hundred different County and other Courts throughout the country. There I am entirely in agreement with him, but I would like to ask whether, as he is refusing this Amendment, and leaving this small amending Bill as of universal application, and in every case shutting out the landlord by purchase from any right of re entry into small property, he would accept a proviso at the end of the operative part of this Bill of something to this effect:
    "That this provision shall not apply in any cases in which it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that the premises are reasonably required for the occupation of some person engaged or employed in agriculture."
    I have given the President of the Local Government Board a case where a small cottage in my own Constituency changed hands, and where the new owner did not intend to use it for any such purpose at all. In such a case, where the dependants of a number of men who are fighting at the front would be dispossessed, I welcome this amending Bill, but I do think that the President of the Local Government Board may very seriously consider, in shutting this door, whether he will not accept some words by way of modification that will make it possible to carry on the work of all farms with the greatest efficiency.
    Mr. FISHER: I think there is a good deal in what my hon. Friend (Mr. Peto) has just said. The House was very strongly of the opinion when it passed the original Act that a landlord should be able to acquire possession of his house, even though occupied by the wife of a soldier at the front, if he required it for the actual purpose of farming, more especially in these days, when it is incumbent on every landlord and every farmer to produce the greatest amount from his soil. There is a weak point, undoubtedly, in the Bill as framed. It provides that in future the only landlords who will be able to obtain possession will be those landlords who have acquired their property by devolution. If the Bill is passed as it is framed undoubtedly an owning landlord may sell to another landlord a large estate most valuable to the State, from the point of view of agriculture at the present time.

    1043
    The new landlord may desire to eject from two cottages the tenants, however desirable those tenants may be, because he requires them for ploughmen, shepherds, thatchers, or skilled agricultural labourers without whose assistance he cannot farm his land to its full value. Undoubtedly that purchaser would not be a landlord within the meaning of this amending Bill, and he would not be able to turn out those tenants, even though, I think, any one of us would say that—for the particular purpose and looking to the fact that it is of great national importance to produce the greatest amount of crops from the land—having to decide which of the two people should suffer hardship, it should be the sitting tenant, and that the landlord should be able to get back those cottages for the purposes of his business which conduces to the greatest amount of food for the nation. I am a little surprised there has been no Amendment on the Paper on the subject. I rather understood that those interested in agriculture were about to put down some Amendments to make an exception in these cases. All I can say is that I am quite ready to consider any such Amendments, and, indeed, I am prepared to move an Amendment either on Report, or to see whether some Amendment cannot be put in in another place.
    Mr. RENDALL: Would my Amendment do?
    Mr. FISHER: I am afraid the Amendment of the hon. Member is far too wide, but a limited Amendment of the kind which would cover the case to which my hon. Friend has called attention would be acceptable if it could be put in the proper form and limited to such cases as he has mentioned, which I think should be provided for.
    Sir H. NIELD: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the first paragraph of my next Amendment?
    The CHAIRMAN: Had we not better get on with the Amendment which the Committee really wants to discuss?
    Captain Sir C. BATHURST: I should just like to say, after what the President of the Local Government Board has said, that I fancy an Amendment very carefully restricted in its words would be of considerable value to the large number of farm tenants who at the present time are purchasing their farms from their land-
    1044
    lords; but I do think it wants most careful working if injustice is not going to be done to those farm labourers who are normally in continuous employment, not the ordinary farm labourers employed for a part of the year, or even for the twelve months, but those more skilled labourers who are in normal circumstances of great value to the farm, and who are now fighting their country's battles overseas. I think that the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman is going to accept in a modified form should be so framed as to offer sufficient protection to those persons.
    Mr. HOHLER: This is a very important point, and I do commend to the attention of the President of the Local Government Board the desirability of some Amendment, because a practice in use in my Constituency in regard to this matter is as follows: A man wants to get a change of tenant, and thereupon the landlord pretends that he really requires the premises himself. He gives notice to that effect; he occupies one room for a week, and after that lets it to a new tenant. Obviously, that is the very thing that Parliament never intended. The history of this Clause was to give power to assist agriculture where cottages were occupied by field men who found it necessary to be near their horses, or by shepherds who found it necessary to be near their flocks. If the right hon. Gentleman would frame an Amendment so as to meet the case and confine it to agricultural tenancies it would be of great value. I would further point out that it would get rid of the abuse now complained of entirely. It is also to be observed that in the amending Bill as I read it, supposing there is a change in the agricultural tenant, the old tenant goes out through death or the expiry of the lease, or something of that sort, he will not get any right at all. He would be excluded, as I read the Clause, from any right to recover possession of a cottage essential to him, namely, the wagoner's cottage or the shepherd's cottage as the case might be. That could never have been intended. Therefore, whilst I strongly support this measure, I ask the President of the Local Government Board to consider what was the object Parliament really had in view in passing the original Act. I suggest that the Clause requires some Amendment both for the protection of people in towns, and further to give a like benefit in regard to agriculture to a new tenant as is now possessed by the present tenant.
    Mr. WATT: I support the Amendment, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will go to a Division in order to show the strength that is behind it. I supported an earlier Amendment moved by my hon. Friend (Mr. Henderson) which limited the area in which the Bill would apply, and now I support this, which limits the conditions under which the Bill will apply, namely, that you must go to Court to have the matter decided. The Act, of which this is an Amendment, is admittedly unjust, and so will this be. It is expedient, but it is unjust. Surely no one would say it was just that the owner of property should be unable to raise the rent and that the holder of a mortgage should be unable to raise his interest. In no other sphere have prices been limited as they have been in this matter of property. Limited prices have been put upon merchandise, but never the pre-war limitation. The prewar limitation is only put on rents and mortgage interest. This amending Bill will actually prevent a man who buys a house from taking possession of it—surely a most unjust thing to do—therefore, any Amendment limiting this unjust Bill should be acceptable to the Committee, first as to area, which needs an Order in Council now, and now as to Courts—to let them have to go to Court to establish that there is an injustice. The outcry is such, and the treatment of tenants in some instances is such, that it is expedient, almost necessary, that Parliament should intervene, and Parliament is now intervening, but Parliament should certainly intervene in a limited way and give the established Courts of justice an opportunity of saying where the Act should apply and where it should not.
    Sir H. ELVERSTON: I have no particular love for landlords, but I think the Committee should consider what effect this Bill is going to have upon the housing problem at a later stage. You have at present good and bad landlords, and you have also good and bad tenants, but you are certainly penalising the good landlord by this legislation. I recently had an opportunity of seeing the accounts in connection with £100,000 worth of house property, which gives a good average. For the three years since the outbreak of the War the average return upon the capital is only 2 per cent. to 2¾ per cent., and by this legislation you will tend to further restrict that return. With a return of 2 per cent. to 2¼ per cent. you
    1046
    are certainly not going to attract capital into the building of houses, and whatever scheme the President of the Local Government Board may introduce, I am quite sure it will not be sufficiently comprehensive to supersede private initiative in this matter. We should have been very badly off if there had been no private landlords, and we shall be very badly off indeed after the War if people have come to look upon house property as a class of investment which it is in no way desirable to enter into. I am sure everyone in the House is in sympathy with the object of the Bill and fully realises how serious is the housing problem, which is getting worse and worse year after year, but I am inclined to think the evil is not quite so widespread as the President of the Local Government Board says. Overcrowding is more serious on the Tyneside than in any other part of the country, but no complaints have been made of anyone dispossessing present tenants. Be that as it may, we have this outstanding fact, that you want to improve the housing conditions of this country and you are not going to do it by legislation of this kind. It is going to have very far-reaching effects. I would appeal to the President of the Local Government Board to give us some encouragement by putting down some carefully considered Amendment which will deal with genuine cases of hardship and give the right of entry on agricultural land and places like that where it is quite clear that the interest of the community will suffer if the Bill as it is at present is carried into force.
    Sir D. GODDARD: I think the discussion is being led a little far away from the Amendment. The far-reaching effects of which we have heard have nothing to do really with the Amendment. I am not going to take any strong general view as against all landlords. I quite realise that there are good landlords, and I have no doubt there are some who will suffer. I am a trustee of one of these large societies which we are told will be ruined.
    Sir J. BOYTON: I did not say societies; I said the building trade.
    Sir D. GODDARD: I have not had any representation from building societies on this subject, but I have had any quantity of representations in favour of the Bill. This Amendment obliges an appeal to some kind of Court. The cases which come under my observation are for the

    1047
    most part cases of speculation in houses. I ask any reasonable person, if those cases are brought before a Court, who has the advantage? The speculator distinctly has the advantage. He has money at his disposal, and can spend it. The defendant in most cases is a poor man, and very likely loses his time to defend his position. If he has to engage legal assistance it will cost money which he can ill afford. I do not think it is a fair thing at all, and for that reason I cannot approve of the Amendment, and shall vote against it. I was very glad to hear the President of the Local Government Board take so strong and clear a view on the Amendment. I shall be quite willing to listen favourably to any suggestion in regard to agriculture if those cases can be made good later on, but I cannot vote for the Amendment.
    Mr. HUDSON: I shall certainly oppose the Amendment if it should go to a Division. I quite believe there is a very large number of very good landlords. I quite admit that laws have to be made in many cases for the minority and not for the majority. I do not think I should have risen had it not been that I wanted to follow the hon. Gentleman (Sir H. Elverston) who mentioned Tyneside. In large munition areas such as that there has been a tremendous influx of population during the last three years. To give an example, take one large works where there were about 30,000 employés prior to the War, where now there are over 100,000. That gives a fair idea of what is happening. Houses are exceedingly scarce. There are not enough by a very long way to go round. The Act which we are seeking to amend operated very favourably to the sitting tenants there, yet quite a number, though I do not say a majority, of landlords took advantage of the ignorance of the tenants, and when the last amending Bill was before the House I called attention to overcharges in rent, and produced a rent-book to show that it was operating unjustly, and that they were trading upon the ignorance of the people. Again the hon. Gentleman says he has heard of no complaints. I have had numerous complaints. I have complaints of this character, that the wives and families of men who are engaged in munition work and in Government Departments, and men who are serving at the front, have been approached asking if they were
    1048
    willing to accept an increase of rent voluntarily. They refused, naturally, knowing the law. The week following they are told that the house is to be sold and they can buy if they wish. They had an opportunity of purchasing some few years ago, at the time they became occupiers, but they considered the purchase price much too high. Now the offer is to purchase, but to put as far as £15 or £20 more on to what was considered an excessive price in the first instance. I have one case in particular where the occupier refused to buy. A fortnight later a house agent approached him and told him he had bought the house, and consequently he must take notice to quit. Under that notice he is to cease his tenancy in August next. These are the kind of cases which we have to provide against. There is not the least doubt that many of these cases of purchase can be proved to be nothing more than bogus. They put down £20, £30, or £40, get a mortgage, turn out the tenant and use the house as they think proper. I have the case of a lady whose husband and son are both serving in France. The house was required. She agreed to pay £12 per year more rent in order to be left alone, but the other week she was advised that the house had been sold and that she must remove. She has not the faintest idea where she can get a house when the removal takes place. I have another case of a man who is living in Newcastle-on-Tyne, who has been removed there by a Government Department for the convenience of the Department, and he informs me that he is threatened with the sale of the house, and that if he is turned out he has not the ghost of an idea where he can get another house. If this Amendment is carried, and all these cases were taken to Court you would force these people either to spend money which they can very ill spare to defend their case, or, on the other hand, to lose the case. I am very pleased that the President of the Local Government Board declines to accept the Amendment. I do not object to the landlord being protected if you can do it, but it is the bad landlord who has brought about this position, and the good landlord should seek to deal with the bad one.
    Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: I am afraid that the feeling of the House is that the tenant is always the hero and the landlord always the villain of the piece. I wish the Committee to consider the situation for a

    1049
    moment. I would like the hon. Member to tell me if he is to protect the bad tenant from the good landlord.
    Mr. ANDERSON: Are there any good landlords?
    Mr. HENDERSON: That is the prejudice which the hon. Member has. It is as I say, the landlord is always regarded as the villain. My hon. Friend (Mr. Hudson) spoke of munition workers. This Bill was brought in in 1915, and I venture to say that there is no landlord who lets a house at £26 a year rent who does the repairs who is not very nearly, if not quite losing money on it to-day. We know perfectly well that the repairs have gone up 300 per cent., and no landlord can afford to let a house at the pre-war rate, having regard to the cost of repairs. The other day I had a little repairs to a cottage, and one article which cost me £6 before the War now costs £12 10s. I could demonstrate to this Committee from figures within my own knowledge the seriousness of this position. The tenant has been sitting at a rent which he could not get to-day if he took a house, having regard to the cost of repairs, which are constantly increasing. If you are going to say to a landlord, "You must continue this, and continue to have no return for your money," what sort of inducement is that for any man to come forward and build the houses that are so much required? He could not do it, and he would be a fool to do it.
    Mr. PRINGLE: He cannot build now!
    Mr. HENDERSON: After the War is over. With respect to the munition centres. Did the munitions people go to their employers and ask for more wages? Of course they did, but it is a sin when a landlord asks for more rent. That is a totally different matter. The tenants are the heroes and the landlords are the villains. I assure the Committee that there are men who are deliberately availing themselves of this restriction, and I ask that the decent landlord should have some sort of protection against the tenant who is imposing on him and taking advantage of this Act. For the ordinary tenant I have the greatest sympathy. The hon. Member (Mr. Hudson) mentioned cases in Newcastle-on-Tyne. That is an area which might be included in the Bill, but there are other districts where it would be impossible for the landlord to do repairs and not lose money by letting the house at the
    1050
    rent which has been fixed, and which he cannot increase. Therefore, I ask my right hon. Friend to consider whether he cannot find some means which will give the landlord some sort of protection against the tenant who takes advantage of this Act when there is no necessity of doing it, and when he only wants to remain at a cheap rent, although he knows perfectly well that if he goes to another house he will have to pay more rent.
    Mr. PETO: May I point out to the hon. Member (Mr. Henderson) that what he is asking for is impossible under this Bill? And I want to say to the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Hudson) that the case of the tenant who paid £12 a year extra rent is probably also outside this Bill, because it does not seem likely that such an increase of rent would be on a £26 house. I do not believe that the majority of sitting tenants would object for a moment to a reasonable increase of rent in proportion to the increased cost of repairs, or to cover the increased cost of repairs actually incurred. That is on the one side, and it has nothing to do with good landlords or bad landlords. On the other side this wretched little Bill, if I may use the term, is absolutely impotent to meet what I believe to be the real and most urgent case, which is that of the wives and dependants of men serving in the Army, the Navy, and the merchant service, who, in a large proportion of cases, are not covered at all by this absurdly small rent of £26. Therefore, I thank the Chair for giving us some latitude. I would not have intervened if I had not noticed the course of the previous speeches, because we are really beating the air, except that the President of the Local Government Board did say on the Second Reading that ho wanted to ascertain from the Committee what were their views. I hops he has got them. I think it is a most unfortunate thing that we should be asked to consider a Bill from another place which is so limited in its scope that it is merely a Bill to amend the definition of a landlord in one particular Sub-section of one Clause of another Bill. That being the case, what is the use of doing more than indicate to the President of the Local Government Board that we are entirely dissatisfied with this Bill, both on the side of the landlord and on the side of the tenant, and that we ask him to withdraw the Bill and bring in a sensible Bill? The latter is much the best course, or, on the other hand, we

    1051
    should get this Bill through at once, after having got some promise from the President of the Local Government Board that he will introduce another Bill forthwith to deal with the obvious hardships from the landlord's point of view and the cases
    of great hardship as regards the tenant which are not covered either by the original Bill or this amending Bill.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 53; Noes, 140.

    Division No. 28.]

    AYES.

    [5.40 p.m.

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    France, Gerald Ashburner

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Col. Martin

    Gretton, John

    Newman, Major john R. P.

    Ashley, Wilfred W.

    Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

    Nuttall, Harry

    Baker, Maj. Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

    Harris, Sir Henry P. (Paddington, S.)

    Parkes, Sir Edward

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G.

    Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

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

    Beckett Hon. Gervase

    Hermon-Hodge, Sir R. T.

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Bentham, G. J.

    Hickman, Brig.-Gen. Thomas E.

    Shortt, Edward

    Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Bliss, Joseph

    Hort, Richard Durning

    Thomas, Sir G. (Monmouth, S.)

    Bull, Sir William James

    Horne, Edgar

    Thomas-Stanford, Charles

    Cator John

    Hunt, Major Rowland

    Tickler, T. G.

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord Hugh (Oxford U.)

    Hunter, Major Sir Charles Rodk.

    Watt, Henry A.

    Clough, William

    Jacobsen, Thomas Owen

    Weigall, Lieut.-Col. W. E, G. A.

    Coats, Sir Stuart A. (Wimbledon)

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Colvin, Col. Richard Beale

    McMicking, Major Gilbert

    Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)

    Cory, Sir Clifford (St. Ives)

    Malcolm, Ian

    Falle, Sir Bertram Godfray

    Marriott, John Arthur Ransome

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir J.

    Fleming, Sir John

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    Boyton and Mr. Denman.

    Foster, Philip Staveley

    Morrell, Philip

    NOES.

    Adamson, William

    Greig, Col. J. W.

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

    Hall, Lt.-Col. Sir Fred (Dulwich)

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Hamersley, Lt.-Col. Alfred St. George

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Anderson, W. C.

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Harmood-Banner, Sir J. S.

    Rea Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, S.)

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Barnes, Rt. Hon. George N.

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Barran, Sir R. (Leeds, N.)

    Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Bathurst, Capt. Sir C. (Wilts, Wilton)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Robertson, Rt. Hon. John M.

    Beach, William F. H.

    Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

    Robinson, Sidney

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Rowlands, James

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish

    Homes, Daniel Turner

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Hope James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith

    Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

    Sanders, Col. Robert Arthur

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Shaw, Hon. A.

    Brace, Rt. Hon. William

    Hudson, Walter

    Smallwood, Edward

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Stanton, Charles Butt

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Stewart, Gershom

    Chancellor, Henry George

    King, Joseph

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southward, West)

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts., Cricklade)

    Sutherland, John E.

    Clynes, John R.

    Larmor, Sir Joseph

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Collins, Sir W. (Derby)

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Tillett, B.

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Lindsay, William Arthur

    Tootill, Robert

    Cory, James H. (Cardiff)

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Cowan, Sir W. H.

    Lonsdale, James R.

    Turton, Edmund Russborough

    Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, E.)

    Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Crooks, Rt. Hon. William

    Lowther, Col, C. (Cumberland, Eskdale)

    Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

    Dalrymple, Hon. H. H.

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

    Waring, Major Walter

    Davies, M. Vauqhan-(Cardigan)

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

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Denniss, E. R B.

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Watson, Hon. W. (Lanark, S.)

    Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir J. B.

    Macmaster, Donald

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Du Pre, Major W. Baring

    Macpherson, James Ian

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

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Williams, Thomas J (Swansea)

    Fell, Sir Arthur

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

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

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Middlebrook, Sir William

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes (Fulham)

    Morison, Hector (Hackney, S.)

    Wilson-Fox, Henry

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Morison, Thomas B. (Inverness)

    Wood, Rt. Hon T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Mount, William Arthur

    Worthington Evans, Major Sir L

    Galbraith, Samuel

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Yeo, Sir Alfred William

    Gibbs, Col. George Abraham

    Nield, Sir Herbert

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Gilbert, J. D.

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Gilmour, Lieut.-Col. John

    Pearce, Sir Robert (Staffs., Leek)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord Edmund Talbot and Captain Guest.

    Goddard, Rt. Hon. Sir Daniel Ford

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbt. Pike (Darlington)

    Greenwood, Sir Hamar (Sunderland)

    Peel, Major Hon. G. (Spalding)

    Mr. RENDALL: I beg to move, after the word "person" to insert the words "other than a person engaged in work of national importance as certified by the Ministry of National Service."
    The object of the original Act was to enable men who were working on munitions to retain their houses, because men in various munitions areas were being denied fixity of tenure. If that is the object of the Bill, when a man buys a house and is engaged in work of national importance, and wants a house to live in in the neighbourhood to do that work, it seems to me that he should have a preference over another man who is not engaged in work of national importance. What I am asking here is that an exception should be made in favour of the new purchaser of a house who happens to be working at munitions or on work of national importance. These words cover the cases which have been brought to our notice by the hon. Member for Devizes and the hon. Member for Wilton. They enable the agricultural labourer and the employer of agricultural labour to obtain possession of a house on the condition, which is extremely easy to comply with, of showing that there is work of national importance to be done in the place. But in order that there may be no doubt on the subject, I have added the words "as certified by the Ministry of National Service." The Ministry is now represented all over the country, and that certificate can be got very easily. I know a case at present of people who ran away from London because of air raids and bought a house. That particular house is wanted by people who are engaged on work of national importance. If this Bill is passed as it is drawn those people who ran away from the raids will be allowed to remain in possession of that house for the whole of the War, while the person who is wanted to work at munitions in the same town cannot get a house. Those cases ought to be and can be dealt with by words of this kind. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that these words are too wide, by all means qualify them; but we should not leave the Bill in such a form as to prevent persons who are doing work of national importance having a house to live in. That is practically what you are doing if you do not agree to this Amendment.
    Mr. J. W. WILSON: I hope that before the President replies he will give very careful consideration to this Amendment.
    1054
    I cannot support it myself because I feel that it would create a very great grievance in many parts of the country, particularly in the munitions areas, where it would tend to produce an effect practically the opposite to that which the hon. Member desires, because in these places the young men who have stayed behind and are earning good wages, more than they ever earned before, are buying out houses and clearing out in most cases the wives and families who have been left behind by soldiers and who are utterly unable to resist, though occasionally they may succeed on technical points which are brought before the Court in getting a decision in their favour. In a great many cases it is those young men who have got the protection of munition work and have stayed behind and are making plenty of money who are coming in and buying up the houses over the heads of the wives and families of soldiers. Of course, I have given a very flagrant case, but there are a great many almost equally deserving cases, in which great hardship has occurred. Discrimination in favour of these munition workers should not be granted under this Bill. Otherwise I fear it will foment the injustice and inequalities which have given rise to the demand for it, particularly in the munitions areas.
    Mr. FISHER: I cannot disguise my dislike to this Amendment. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment says that there is to be an exception to what we are providing in the Bill, and that anyone who buys a house and can prove to the Minister of National Service that he is engaged on work of national importance should be able to get an order to turn the tenant out, even though the tenant is doing work of great national importance. What is work of national importance as certified by the Ministry of National Service? Soldiers would be certified as doing work of national importance. Therefore if any of them want to buy a house for their wives they would be persons who would come within the Amendment of the hon. Member. All those who are doing work in the Army or Navy, or are engaged at munitions work, or many other kinds of work, are doing work of national importance. There are a great many tribunals engaged in saying what is work of national importance, and it is certain that there would be 4,000,000 or 5,000,000 people in this country

    1055
    who would be exceptions to the Bill. The Amendment is really one which would destroy the Bill and I cannot accept it.
    Mr. RENDALL: I agree that the Amendment is not accurately drawn. My whole object was that if there were two persons, one an idler and one doing work of national importance, the latter should have the preference for the house. That is not achieved in the Bill, but it would have been achieved under my Amendment subject to alteration. I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. RENDALL: I beg to move, in the same Sub-section, after the word "person" ["any person who sits"], to insert the words "other than a tenant thereof."
    6.0 P.M.
    I am informed by a high authority, well acquainted with the law, that by the Bill a person who has purchased a property or house would be precluded from exercising the right given under the Act of 1915. The point raised is a technical one, and it will be necessary, I think, to deal with it on Report. If the right hon. Gentleman is not able to insert the words now, perhaps he will give them his consideration on the Report stage.
    Mr. FISHER: If I accepted this Amendment it might cause a great deal of confusion between landlords and tenants, but I will take an opportunity of considering the point before Report. I cannot give a decision now.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: Before the next Amendment is called, would it not be for the convenience of the Committee that the whole of the Amendments dealing with the question of date should form the subject of a general discussion on the one particular Amendment which is to be taken?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir Donald Maclean): I think the question of date in the various proposals, would naturally arise for discussion on the next Amendment.
    Colonel ASHLEY: I beg to move, to leave out the words "twelfth day of March." and to insert instead thereof the words "first day of January."
    I think the question of date is one of the most difficult arising under this Bill.
    1056
    We all wish, I think, whatever may be our view as to the date fixed, that there shall be no injustice done either to landlords or tenants, especially the tenants. I think that the Committee will conclude, after a discussion, that whatever date is inserted, the date twelfth of March cannot possibly stand. In the first place the quarter day in many parts of the country occurs in February. Many hundreds of notices are given in February to the tenants to quit their houses, and if we allow the 12th March to stand, as it does in the Bill, we shall let into possession a large number of aliens and other people who fled from the Metropolis and other towns to the Home counties, as far even as Portsmouth, and right down to Poole, in Dorsetshire, from the effects of the raids in November, December, and January. They turned out a number of tenants who had been in their houses for many years, and took possession. Therefore the 12th March seems to be an impossible date. Let us go to the other end. An hon. Member below the Gangway has put down the date for May of last year. I think that is going very much too far in the opposite direction. After all, there are a great number of men. who purchased houses perfectly legally and genuinely long before these air raids became severe or intense. They took possession of those houses, and if we are to go back and say that any man who purchased a house in May last year is to be turned out, a very grave injustice will be done. I submit that to go back so far as May would do injustice. If this House were really driven to some date between 1st December and 1st February, I think that the date I suggest, 1st January, would enable us to meet the case of a large number of tenants I would point out that 1st January is a most favourable date, for on that date you would not have to turn out many people who had got possession in January and you would protect all the people in regard to whom this Bill has been brought in—the people who were turned out by aliens, who went into the Home counties and other parts because of the air raids, which were most intense in October and December—and these people could return to the houses they had occupied previously. I have not given very clear and coherent reasons, I fear, why I say one date should be chosen rather than another. It is a very difficult question, but I do submit that the 1st January should be taken.
    Sir H. NIELD: I have an Amendment upon the Paper to insert the words "the thirtieth day of September, one thousand nine hundred and seventeen." That is the date following Michaelmas, and it is about the date on which began these raids. We have had a number of day raids. We had one on the 13th of June, and another on the 7th day of July. I have reason to remember the latter date, because while I was sitting at my duties I heard the noise of the explosions at half-past ten in the morning. The raids commenced in September, and on the 1st October and the following nights there were very severe raids. It was at that time the exit commenced, the aliens, particularly, leaving the East End of London for districts in the West End, and going along in the direction of Harrow. There were large numbers of these aliens, and they went to the districts to which I refer because it was a cheap railway journey, and because they were removed from the area of danger. Later, however, they saw reason to go still further out of London. It is because of these circumstances that I have suggested, as appears in my Amendment, the 30th of September as the date for retrospective effect. It is admitted, apparently, that the Bill should be retrospective, for on the 14th of March in another place the Lord Chancellor, speaking on the Second Reading of the Bill, said:
    "My Noble Friend is quite right. The Bill, as drawn, has no retrospective effect. It stops the thing for the future. But I am bound to say, now that attention is called to it, that very recently a good deal of information has come to me which leads me to think that it may deserve consideration, whether to a certain extent, the Bill might be made retrospective. The state of things in some parts of Scotland, I am told, is such as to make anything of that kind, if it could be done, very desirable."
    In the Committee stage on the Bill, on the 19th March, 1918, after the speech of Lord Camperdown, the Lord Chancellor said:
    "I, of course, have had very much in my mind the observations made by the Noble Earl at the previous stage as to the advisability of making this Bill retrospective. The matter has formed the subject of very careful consideration, not only by myself, but in consultation with the various Departments—and there are a good many of them—who are concerned. What is felt is this that we are hardly in possession at the present moment of sufficient materials for taking the step to make this Bill relate back to an anteceded time, but materials are coming in, and I should hope, before the Bill arrives at the Committee stage in another place, that sufficient material will be available for the decision of the
    1058
    question, and for deciding what the extent of the retrospective effect of the Hill should be."
    It will be seen that the other House, therefore, is of opinion, without coming to any conclusion, that there should be a retrospective effect of this Bill. I shall be glad to hear that since the Lord Chancellor expressed this view, on the 19th March, the Local Government Board have found material sufficient to induce them to make up their mind what shall be the date of this measure's retrospective effect. I have no great sympathy with that class of person who have succeeded in getting orders of ejectment from the County Court judge, and who object to interference with rights of contract between parties, and who urge that unless effect be given to their objection, and it is very clearly expressed in the Bill, no effect could be given to it in Court, and that in those cases an equitable line should be taken. It is a legal axiom that hard cases make bad law, but that is an axiom which, in this instance, might be applied inversely. I think that there is no real case for saying that because these orders have been made they should not be interfered with, the mischief having been persistently pursued notwithstanding all the complaints and all the notices in the London Press and the notices in the provincial Press calling attention to the hardship—these men, who are essentially profiteering in the very worst sense of the term, have deliberately gone on, knowing perfectly well that Parliament was so congested with work that it would be some time before any amendment could be made to the Act, and that in the meantime the Courts were appealing to the strict letter of the Act. As I pointed out before, the provision which was intended for one thing was diverted to another purpose entirely, and was used in this way by unprincipled persons. These persons are, I venture to submit, entitled to no consideration at all, and, even though these transactions have been completed, I believe with my hon. and gallant Friend (Mr. Ashley) that some of these people have not yet succeeded in getting actual possession, and I hope some steps will be taken in those cases to prevent persons being turned out who have not yet been turned out, and that even if the warrant is in the hands of the County Court bailiffs these persons will be saved. A person who has got possession should be obliged to redeliver the premises to any person who has been turned out since the 30th September. We have the expression from the Noble Lord on the Woolsack

    1059
    that this Bill might be made retrospective, the only point being to what extent it should be retrospective, and in view of that I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept the date I have proposed.
    Mr. EVELYN CECIL: I want to ask the President of the Local Government Board to accept this Amendment, if he can see his way to do so. We all in this House, I think, agree that this Bill is a good Bill, and there is no doubt that if it is so it should become operative from the earliest practicable moment. The only difficulty is, Where can you exactly draw the line? What is practicable and what is just? Arguments have been advanced by my two hon. Friends who have just spoken which show the reasons balancing both sides of the question. I do not think we can go very far back in making the Bill retrospective, but, on the other hand, I feel that we should go further back than the 12th of March. The question really is whether you can properly dispossess a purchaser who has been in possession for some considerable time. Personally, I do not think you can, but I should argue that to be in possession since the 1st of January is not a reasonable time which for this purpose need be respected, and, in view of the known circumstances that the main Act has been deliberately evaded, so to speak, through a loophole which was not at that time anticipated, but which was very well known subsequently to exist, I think Parliament is justified in making any amending Act retrospective so as to cover the transactions that have taken place. I strongly urge on my right hon. Friend that the Amendment should be accepted.
    Mr. ADAMSON: I hope the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill will consider another date than the one mentioned in the Amendment moved by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Mr. Ashley), namely, the 1st January. I hope he will even consider a date prior to that mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Ealing (Sir H. Nield), namely, the 30th September. I think too much has been made of aliens rushing from London to the Home Counties in the course of this Debate. We would have required the Bill supposing there had been no air raids. We would have required the Bill to protect our people against a raid of an entirely different character from the one that has
    1060
    been so frequently mentioned. Consequently, I think we should consider this from a broader aspect than the one so strongly urged by the hon. and gallant Member who moved the Amendment and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Ealing. The date I suggest should be put in the Bill, namely, 28th May, 1917, is one that has been suggested to me by the secretary of the Glasgow and West of Scotland Labour Housing Association. This association has had a large amount of experience in dealing with the hard cases that have arisen in connection with the administration of the original Act. and the secretary is of opinion, from his large experience, that if we are to properly protect the tenants you require to make the amending Act retrospective to 28th May, 1917. If you are entirely to cover all the hard cases that have arisen, you require to make it retrospective to the date that I and my hon. Friend (Mr. Tyson Wilson) have put on the Amendment Paper. If that is not possible, the secretary of the housing association I have named says that the date should not be put beyond the 1st August, 1917. That date would not entirely cover all the hard cases, but it would certainly cover a considerable number more than either of the dates named by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved the first Amendment and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Ealing. In moving one of the recent Amendments an hon. Member for one of the Glasgow divisions stated that the reason why this Act of 1915 was passed and placed on the Statute Book and made the law of the land was because the House wanted to protect those who were doing work of national importance. Well, I desire to respectfully disagree with that opinion. That Act was passed in order to avoid serious industrial trouble that has arisen in several parts of the country in connection with the housing problem. It was introduced largely on the initiative of Glasgow, and it is therefore all the more surprising that an hon. Member representing a Glasgow division should state this afternoon that this Bill was an unjust Bill.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We are going a little wide of the special point of the Amendment, and I think it is quite time the Committee came flown to a discussion of the particular Amendment, after the very liberal way the Chair has allowed the Debate to run.
    Mr. ADAMSON: I accept your ruling, Sir, and will not pursue that line of argument further. As a matter of fact, I simply content myself by urging on the President of the Local Government Board to give serious and full consideration to the date I have put down on the Amendment Paper, namely, the 28th May, 1917.
    Mr. J. W. WILSON: I rise to support the appeal made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Aston Manor (Mr. Evelyn Cecil) and by the Mover of this Amendment to the Minister in charge of the Bill to accept this date, the 1st January. I think a good deal might be said for an earlier date, as the last speaker has just been arguing, but if you take a date as early as the one he mentioned I am afraid it would lead to a great deal of confusion. The House could not accept it in the form in which it is on the Paper, but only with certain provisos with regard to turning out the new tenant and Clauses for his protection. If you go back to the 1st January it is about as far as you can go without making special provision for the hardship which might and would have arisen by the removal of the previous tenant and the occupation of the landlord. He would have to be re-turned out, and the person who had taken his house that he had let in order to take up his new occupation would not welcome any provision of Parliament that he should be turned out, and in congested areas there will be all this confusion and doubt as to where the present sitting occupation landlord should go to. It might be very hard on him, he having given up his previous house. However, I think in the great majority of cases the question between the 1st January and the 12th March would not be a very large one. The notices in many of these cases have been delayed. The evictions have been delayed by the Courts in order to mitigate hardship to a large extent, and therefore occupation has not taken place as soon after purchase as it might have done if it had not been largely contested action, as it has been in many localities. Therefore, if the Committee was willing to accept the 1st January, the Amendment might go through without any proviso in regard to occupation. If you go to an earlier date you must give some protection where occupation has already taken place. You might, of course, vary it in the direction in which the hon. Member has just argued by saying that in cases where purchase had taken place before the 1st January,
    1062
    and where occupation had not yet been given, this should apply; but I think if you give that you will also have to give it where occupation has taken place since the 1st January. Personally, I would sooner have a clean cut of the 1st January without any proviso about occupation at all.
    Mr. W. WATSON: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will make two points quite clear, because they seem to bear on the question of dates and on the construction of his Bill. In the first place, the expression he has used is, "has become landlord by the acquisition of the dwelling house." I rather think that is ambiguous, but I fancy it means the date at which the new purchaser acquires the right of turning the tenant out. If that is so, the date of the contract or agreement for sale may be a very different date altogether. It may be very much earlier. It may be months earlier. Is this the date at which the new purchaser absolutely becomes the landlord and has the rights of a landlord over the tenant? That is the first point.
    That is one point I would like the right hon. Gentleman to deal with. The other point I would particularly ask him to consider—and it is one which has an important bearing on the question we are discussing—is whether this Clause will affect any cases where orders for eviction have already been made. As I read it, this will not, because the Sub-section which we are amending begins, "No order…shall be made." Therefore, as I read this Bill, all cases in which the purchase had already been carried through, and an order has been made, will not be affected by the Bill as drawn. That excludes a great many cases to which hon. Members have been referring—not only cases where an order has been made already and not carried out, but cases where an order has been made and has been carried out. Therefore, where a new tenant has been put in, or the new purchaser himself has gone in prior to the passing of this Act, he will not be affected by this Act at all.
    That removes at once from the question of date a very large class, and removes the kind of hard case to which the right hon. Gentleman who last spoke was referring. In other words, it is not retrospective in that sense at all. It will not turn out a new purchaser who has got possession for himself, or a new tenant put in by the purchaser under an order of eject-

    1063
    ment. Nor will it, as I understand, affect the case where an ordinary ejectment has been got for the new purchaser and has either not been put into operation, or has been attempted to be put into operation but has not succeeded—in other words, the old tenant has resisted. There are a good many of those cases in Scotland, some of which I have heard, and some of which I know the hon. Member for West Fife has heard, and some in which the resistance has lasted at least as far back as November last. I take it these cases will be really cases of hardship as regards the sitting tenant, and it is the type of cases that this Bill was particularly intended to safeguard. As the new purchaser has been kept out all that time, and the sitting tenant is still there, I think it will be a great service, as it is the intention of the Bill, to cover those cases: but, as 1 say, I do not think they are affected by this Clause at all. This Clause, as I read it, will only affect a purchaser who, after the passing of this Bill, applies for an order of ejectment. Then the question he will be asked will be, "When did you become landlord?" and I personally will support the furthest date that is suggested if I am correct in the reading of the Bill, because, if I am right, it only applies to a new landlord who, after the passing of this Act, asks for an order. What hardship is there making it date back as far as possible? It does not seem to me there can be any hardship in making it as retrospective as the 28th May, and it is important in Scotland to go back at least as far as that date. It is important to go a good way back, always assuming that I am right in my reading of the Bill.
    I would remind the Committee that, as regards making the Act retrospective in Scotland, in response to a question of the hon. Member for the College Division of Glasgow (Mr. Watt)—who does not seem quite so sympathetic towards this Bill to day as he did previously to this class of question—in March, 1917, the Secretary for Scotland said that if this evil persisted he would require to take steps to legislate. That warning was repeated later on and therefore, so far as Scotland is concerned, there has been fair warning given that legislation might be expected if this evil went on. I do ask the Committee to consider these points, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will deal with them. If my view is correct, it will
    1064
    be seen how little hardship is involved on any landlord in putting the date far back, because it covers such a limited number of cases, whereas, on the other hand, if a person became a landlord last August and has taken no steps to turn out the sitting tenant until now, I think it would be very hard to turn out a sitting tenant on an order asked for after the passing of this Act.
    Major DAVIES: If the remarks of the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down are correct, most of us who put down this Amendment to the Bill feel rather in a fog, and I have risen to elucidate some of the points which the hon. and learned Member has put before the Committee. I hope, therefore, the President of the Local Government Board will be able to shed some light as to what the proper position is. If the hon. Gentleman opposite is correct, I think we might accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for West Fife, and go back to the 28th May, 1917. On the other hand, if he is not correct, then I hope the Government will accept the 1st January, 1918. For my own part, I do not particulary mind what the date is, provided the Government do make this measure retrospective in order to cover the hard cases already alluded to in the course of the Debate. The people I am particularly anxious about are widows and wives of officers and soldiers serving at the front, and I think the Committee would be quite willing to go back to any date in order to safeguard their interests, and to ensure that they will not be hardly dealt with. I venture to appeal, as other hon. Members have done, to the President of the Local Government Board to make this measure as stringent as he can, and make the date as far back as is possible and practicable.
    Mr. PETO: I entirely agree, if I may say so, with the hon. and learned Member for South Lanark (Mr. Watson). I never personally imagined there was any question of any Amendment being possibly put down giving retrospective effect to this Clause doing more than alter, so far as the date was concerned, the Sub-section that this Bill is introduced to amend, and to which it is strictly limited I myself put down an Amendment dealing with the special point raised by the hon. and gallant Member opposite as to the wives and dependants of these men who are fighting for us. If they have been ejected

    1065
    they should be able to go back. But I felt perfectly certain that Amendment was not in order, and I do not suppose it would be allowed, or anything else which deals with the real hardships we ought to be dealing with. I differ on one point from the hon. and learned Member for South Lanark. He says that this is restricted by the words of the Sub-section, that—
    "No order for the recovery of possession of a dwelling-house to which this Act applies or for the ejectment of a tenant therefrom shall be made—"
    and so forth. That being the limit of the powers, it is said we might just as well go back as far as the hon. Member for West Fife suggests, namely, 28th May, 1917, because there is no hardship in the matter. I do not altogether agree with that, because it seems futile to carry back this Bill, with its narrow limit, to last May. If a landlord purchased property as far back as last May, for the purpose of getting possession and turning out the tenant, surely it is almost inconceivable that he should have taken no steps up to the present time to move for the recovery of his premises! It is not the least likely. I rather argue that, as the matter is so very limited, the real hardship, which was considered in another place, was that it was quite likely that for a limited period before 12th March a landlord might have purchased property with the intention of doing precisely what we wished to stop being done, and have taken no steps, and just because he purchased in February or the first few days of March he would be deemed a landlord within the meaning of Sub-section (3), although he had acquired the property by purchase, and therefore moved for the ejectment of the tenant. Therefore, I think the whole weight of the argument is in favour of fixing a date not unreasonably long. I think you will practically deal with all cases if the 1st January is accepted. There is no question, as the hon. and learned Member for Ealing pointed out, in quoting the actual words of the Lord Chancellor in another place, that the Government are practically pledged to give a retrospective date, whatever that date may be, according to the weight of the argument in the Committee stage in this House. The Bill, such as it is, is the Lord Chancellor's Bill. I hope it will soon be succeeded by a more useful measure, but in the meantime I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept the 1st January, because I do not think any earlier date than that would serve a useful purpose.
    Mr. FISHER: We have had a very interesting Debate as to whether the Bill should be retrospective at all, and, if so, how far it should be retrospective. One Amendment proposes to make it prospective, but that has not been argued. One does not like the idea of making any legislation of this kind retrospective from some points of view, because obviously there is nothing in any way illegal, or, let us say, immoral or inequitable, in many cases in the purchase of these houses. I must say I have a certain sympathy with some of those who have purchased these houses, knowing that they were not doing an illegal act, and perhaps for some very good reason; but, unless we do make this Bill retrospective, we shall not block a good deal of entries on most undesirable grounds which have been made by a certain class of purchaser whom the original Act was undoubtedly intended to stop, and we shall not enable a very considerable number of tenants to remain in their present houses unless we do make it to a certain extent retrospective. Therefore, in considering this Bill, we have to consider the balance of hardship, and in striking that we ought to remember what was the main purpose of the original Act. The main purpose of the original Act was to protect tenants, and therefore if we have to cast ourselves on one side or the other in a fairly evenly balanced situation, I think we ought to cast ourselves on the side of the tenant, to protect whom we framed an Act which has not given that protection, because a coach-and-four can be driven through the Act. Therefore, I am quite prepared to follow the Lord Chancellor in another place, and to make this Bill retrospective.
    Now, as to the date. A variety of dates have been proposed. I quite agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South Lanarkshire that we should very carefully have in our minds what really is the meaning of these words. First of all, I was asked by my hon. Friend, "What do you mean by the word 'acquisition?'" To the best of my ability I will give an answer. The acquisition of a dwelling-house is the date on which the new purchaser acquires the rights of the landlord to receive the rent and to eject the tenant, if the latter doe?s not pay or perform his other duties. I say that is the ordinary and proper meaning of the word "acquisition?" the meaning which the lawyers would apply; the meaning which the lawyers would give, and the definition

    1067
    given whenever it has become disputed in a Court of justice. A much more important question than that is, Will this Bill affect the cases where the order has not been executed? I take it it will not affect any cases where the order has not been executed—that is to say, whatever the date we choose to put into this Bill, whatever the retrospective date may be, it will not cause a reinstatement of any tenant who has been evicted under an order executed. I hope I have made that quite clear, because it affects our judgment in considering the date in the Bill. Having to make up my mind on behalf of the Government as to what date I will accept—
    Captain JOHN WATSON: Has the right hon. Gentleman exhausted the last point? Will this Bill prevent ejectments if the order has already been made?
    Mr. FISHER:I think we meet that point in another Amendment.
    Captain WATSON: The Bill as drawn will not prevent the Amendment that is necessary?
    Mr. FISHER: I think that point is covered by another Amendment. On the whole, I think it better, perhaps, to divide the distance, and to take the date suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Ealing, 30th September. I think it is sufficient to go back to 30th September. After all, there may be a Scottish case—Ido not think a very strong one—for taking 28th May. There is no English case for that date. I cannot help thinking, after all, that there must have been very few purchasers in Scotland as far back as 28th May. Most would probably be between 28th May and 30th September, and they will have taken steps to obtain an order and obtain possession of properties which they have purchased. Looking, then, on the whole balance-sheet as between landlords and tenants, looking at the whole of these transactions which have taken place, the Committee, I think, will act wisely, and fulfil the justice of the case, if it takes to put in the Bill the date 30th September. I am quite prepared, therefore, on behalf of the Government, to accept the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend—that of 30th September. I hope that will be acceptable to the Committee. I think it will meet most of the cases, which have become very aggravated, caused by
    1068
    people living in certain areas desiring to escape from air raids. It is quite true you must not only look at air raids. There are a great many other cases for which purchase of a house is made, but I quite admit that here, at all events in England, in certain parts, that has been the reason for the purchases which have been so large, and which we desire to frustrate, if we possibly can. They have been very largely caused by the desire, mainly of aliens, to escape from the air-raided districts. I do not say that is a very strong case, but one way and another I think upon the whole I have met the wishes of the House by the date I have mentioned—30th September.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: It was quite evident to most of us when we read the Bill that the date in the Bill was not the date that would suffice. It has not been supported by any speaker in the Debate. I put down an Amendment to alter the 12th of March to the 1st of January. Since I put that Amendment down I have received information in regard to a number of cases that would not be covered by the 1st of January. There are cases in which notice only has been given, but the ejectments have not been applied for, and it may be that these will be covered by the date mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, the 30th September, because it was that quarter in which the notices were given. It is the date that will meet the majority of the cases mentioned.
    Mr. T. WILSON: I fully recognise that the right hon. Gentleman has met the House very, very fairly indeed. I am very well pleased with the concession he has made. The cases that I have had brought to my notice are not those concerned at all with air raids, but a little more serious, perhaps, than people taking houses out of the danger zone. They are cases where in various congested areas men are buying houses over the top of each other, and I am very glad that the Bill has been introduced and that the date mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman is going to make the matter retrospective. So far as I am concerned I am quite satisfied to take it in place of my Amendment, and to accept the date put forward by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Ealing.
    Colonel THORNE: There is one point, I think, in the statement made by the hon. Member for East Lanark which requires

    1069
    to be cleared up before this Bill goes from the House. He has already stated that where landlords have applied for orders and have got notices for ejectment that these are not covered at all by this Bill. I want to point out to the President that I have got at least a dozen cases in my hand now concerning this one particular point. They are at Watford. As a matter of fact to-morrow morning, if the landlord likes, he can turn a number of these tenants out because he has got the ejectment orders. I believe the orders are out now in the hands of the bailiffs. Therefore, if this Bill, as it stands now, is not to cover cases of that kind, I say without any hesitation at all that there are hundreds of cases in different parts of the country where ejectment orders can be put into force and the tenants turned out on the roadside. That is a very serious position. It is quite true, as the President of the Local Government Board said, that the statement made by the hon. Member for East Lanark could be met by the insertion of some other words. I am hoping that before the Bill leaves the Committee the right hon. Gentleman will add some words so as to prevent even the orders that have been obtained now by the landlord being put into force and so putting a very large number of tenants into the roadside. As a matter of fact, it is quite impossible for the wage-earners of this country to obtain houses anywhere. You cannot obtain them for love or money. It does not matter at what price—they are unobtainable. I have in my possession cases of men working on the railways or in munition works, and it will be a very serious position, I feel sure, to allow this Clause, a very important one, to go through as it is. The concession made by the right hon. Gentleman, I think, is acceptable to the Committee. But the one point I think we ought to have cleared up is about the present orders being obtained by the Court, and as to whether they could be put into force to-morrow morning, if necessary,
    The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): I understand the view of the Committee is to agree to this proposal made on behalf of the Government. I do not see in his place the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Mover of the Amendment (Colonel Ashley).
    Mr. PETO: My name is on the Paper against the Amendment. I do not know whether I would be in order in withdrawing it to allow the change?
    The CHAIRMAN: No, I am afraid it can only be withdrawn by the Mover. We might, however, do it in this way, by leaving out "twelfth day of March," and inserting instead the "first day of January," then subsequently taking those out and making it "thirtieth day of September, nineteen hundred and seventeen."
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put and negatived.
    Question proposed, "That the proposed words 'first day of January be there inserted."
    The CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the Government will now bring up their Amendment.
    Mr. FISHER: I beg to move to leave out the words "first day of January," and to insert instead thereof the words "thirtieth day of September, nineteen hundred and seventeen."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Colonel THORNE: Shall I be in order in repeating to the President of the Local Government Board the question I put a few moments ago?
    The CHAIRMAN: There is no question before the Committee at present.
    The following Amendments stood on the Paper in the name of Mr. Peto: At the end of the Clause to add the words:
    "nor any person in respect of the ownership of a dwelling-house, of which the tenant is the wife, widow, or immediate dependant of an officer or man who is serving or has served in the present War in His Majesty's Navy, or Army, or in the Mercantile Marine, and in such a case the tenant shall not be liable to ejectment, whether the annual amount of the standard rent of the house is below thirty-five pounds in the Metropolitan police district, thirty pounds in Scotland, twenty-six pounds elsewhere or not."
    At the end of the Clause to add the words:
    "Provided that where any person who is the wife, widow, or dependant of an officer or man serving, or who has served, in the present War in His Majesty's Navy, Army, or in the Mercantile Marine has been ejected from a dwelling-house since the passing of the principal Act such person shall be entitled to resume possession of and to occupy the dwelling-house."
    The CHAIRMAN: The two Amendments on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Devizes are beyond the scope of the Bill.
    7.0 P.M.
    Mr. PETO: On a point of Order, Mr. Whitley. I do not for a moment desire to dispute your ruling, but I would ask your

    1071
    further ruling on this: The Bill is entitled, "An Act to restrict the meaning of the expression landlord in Sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (War Restrictions) Act, 1915." As far as the Bill goes, it provides that a landlord shall not be deemed to be a landlord within the meaning of the principal Act under that Sub-section when certain things happen. For instance, when he has become the owner of any dwelling-house by purchase prior to the 30th September, 1917. That is perfectly arbitrary, and, indeed, it reminds one of the question that used to be asked in the nursery, "When is a door not a door?" the answer being, "When it is ajar." The question in this case is "When is a landlord not a landlord?" and the answer is "When he has become a landlord by purchase and not by inheritance." If that is the scope of the Bill, why is it not in order to say that the term landlord must not include "any person who is the owner of a dwelling-house of which the tenant is the wife, widow or immediate dependant of an officer or man who is serving or has served in the present War in the Navy or Army or Mercantile Marine." That seems quite reasonable. May I move the first part of my Amendment if the second part is out of order, because that deals with standard rent in the Metropolitan police district, in Scotland, and elsewhere?
    The CHAIRMAN: That is one of the points that I had to consider, and it leaves so much open that you might say all sorts of other persons are landlords when they are not. I am bound to take the meaning of the Bill as approved on the Second Reading, and when leave was asked to introduce it. I take the scope of the Bill which was to limit a landlord in the definition of time. I am certain it is not my duty to admit as coming within the Scope of the Bill this kind of Amendment which is going far beyond its scope as defined on the Second Reading.
    Mr. PETO: May I ask if it would be equally out of order to move any proviso with regard to the eviction of a tenant, which is in the Bill, and which is not a question of actual definition of the word "landlord" which is the purpose of the Bill?
    The CHAIRMAN: I have no such Amendment before me. It may be possible
    1072
    to do that, and the Government may be considering that point, but I see no Amendment before me which does that, although I will not rule against that probability.
    The following Amendment stood on the Paper in the name of Major HAMILTON:
    At the end of the Clause to insert the words:
    "Unless such person has been previously approved of by an order from the County Court for the time being for the district in which the dwelling-house in question shall be situate, or by purchase with the previous consent in writing of the tenant of the said dwelling-house at the time of the said purchase, or after the tenant of the said dwelling-house, having been previously served with fourteen days' notice in writing by the landlord of the said dwelling house of the intention of the said landlord to sell the said dwelling-house, has failed to lodge before the expiry of the said fourteen days' claim in the aforesaid County Court that the completion of the said purchase shall be restrained on the ground that the same is oppressive or inequitable, and has subsequently satisfied the said County Court that the completion of the said purchase should be so restrained."
    The CHAIRMAN: The same ruling applies to the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Altrincham (Major Hamilton).
    Major HAMILTON: Is the part of my Amendment which says, "or by purchase with the previous consent in writing of the tenant of the said dwelling-house at the time of the said purchases" in order?
    The CHAIRMAN: I think we had a long discussion on that question, and it has been negatived.
    Major HAMILTON: This is another alternative, where the tenant has agreed to the purchase such purchase should be allowed, and it has nothing to do with the County Court at all.
    The CHAIRMAN: That is either a negative of what we have already done or it has no effect on the Bill. The same ruling applies to the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Sheffield (Sir Samuel Roberts), and the hon. Member for Cornwall (Sir G. Croydon Marks).
    The following Amendment stood on the Paper in the name of Sir HERBERT NIELD:
    At the end of the Clause to add:
    "(2) The said expression 'landlord' shall be deemed to apply only to a landlord of agricultural property or premises which are occupied by

    1073
    persons wholly or principally engaged in agriculture, or market gardening, or in the cultivation of small holdings when such occupation is part of the wages of such occupiers or is necessary for the performance of such employment.
    (3.) Any such landlord as aforesaid shall not be entitled to recover possession until after notice to quit in writing has been duly served upon the tenant or person in occupation, and such notice shall specifically set forth the grounds upon which possession is claimed.
    (4.) Provided that all proceedings for recovery of possession or for ejectment shall be commenced and brought in the County Court for the district in which the premises are situate and not otherwise; and no order shall be made or judgment given for possession unless the applicant satisfies the Court that the premises are required for the occupation of himself or some person in his employ or in the employ of some tenant of his, and that such premises have been accustomed to be occupied by him or his tenant or the servants of either of them in connection with or in relation to their employment and are bonâ fide so required to be used."
    The CHAIRMAN: With regard to the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Ealing (Sir H. Nield), I have given further consideration to that point, and I am quite clear that that again is an Amendment of the principal Act, and quite beyond the scope of the present Bill.
    Sir H. NIELD: I have searched the pages of Erskine May to find out the difference between a matter which is outside the Preamble and one which is outside the scope of a Bill, and Erskine May affords me no satisfaction, and it seems to me to be the difference between Tweedledum and Tweedledee. The expression "landlord" as used in the Act of 1915 is to be curtailed and defined, and if that is so, surely an Amendment which seeks to put affirmatively in the Bill the very reason why the word "landlord" was put in, is in order. This Amendment not only seeks to limit the word "landlord" but to make right the very mischief that has arisen by the decision of the Committee to except agriculture. I do not understand your ruling if you insist. That is the very thing that has caused the mischief, and yet it is outside the scope of the Bill.
    The CHAIRMAN: On merits the arguments of the hon. Member may be perfectly sound, but that does not challenge the ruling of the Chair.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 2 (Short Title) ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    The CHAIRMAN: All the new Clauses on the Paper are, for the reasons I have already stated, beyond the scope of this Bill.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Tuesday next.

  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (ILLEGAL EMPLOYMENT) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Brace): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  I hope the House will treat this measure as entirely uncontroversial. Its aim is to remove a legal disability attaching to certain workpeople, likely most often to be women or children, injured in the course of their employment. This disability may even arise from the existence of an Act passed by Parliament for the protection of the person concerned. I will quote an illustrative case, that of Pountrey v. Turton, heard in the Court of Appeal on the 21st November, 1917: A boy aged thirteen was injured while leading a barge horse at three o'clock in the morning. The employment of a boy of this age at this hour is forbidden by the Employment of Children Act, 1903, and the Court felt bound to hold that, the employment being illegal, the contract of employment was also illegal, and the boy therefore could not recover compensation for his injury. I am sure the House would not wish such a state of affairs to exist just now when, owing to war pressure, women and children may here and there be employed in circumstances rendering the employment technically illegal. But in the present state of the law the committee, arbitrator or judge acting under the Workmen's Compensation Act, have no power to award compensation in such cases. The Bill therefore proposes to give them power in Clause 1, the material words of which are as follows:
  "If … it appears to the arbitrator that the contract … was illegal, the arbitrator may, if, having regard to all the circumstances of the case he thinks it proper so to do deal with the matter as if the injured person had at the time aforesaid been a person working under a valid contract …
  The Bill does not require compensation to be awarded. Cases may well be imagined in which the illegality

  1075
  of the employment is such that a claim to compensation could not be recognised. The Bill leaves it entirely to the discretion of the committee or the arbitrator, or the County Court judge, sitting as the authority under the Workmen's Compensation Act, to use his discretion. I hope that the House will receive this very necessary Bill favourably.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Could the right hon. Gentleman inform the House whether there are any other cases of illegal employment except the case which he has just cited or cases which apply to children under age or women who are doing something which under an Act of Parliament they ought not to do?
  Mr. BRACE: There is another case that has been tried in Court, but I am afraid that a large number of cases do take place day after day, particularly during the pressure of the War. It is because we are afraid that serious injustice may be done—it certainly could be done—unless we brought in this measure that we venture to trouble the House.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I am afraid that I did not put my point quite clearly. I am not arguing that the case which the right hon. Gentleman has brought forward is not a reasonable case or that there is no justification for the Bill. I want to know what is an illegal employment. I could not understand what was illegal employment. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that if you employ a boy or a child under a certain age at a certain hour in the day it is illegal employment. The same thing applies to women. Are there any other illegal employments?
  Mr. BRACE: Yes; quite a number could take place.
  Colonel THORNE: Look in the "Labour Gazette" for the prosecutions.
  Mr. BRACE: There are quite a number. For instance, a miner under pressure may work over hours. He may work more than the statutory eight hours. Before women can be employed in certain cases in factories you have to have a Home Office Order. It has not been unknown in the interval of seeking the order that the pressure has been such that women and children, too, have been employed illegally. Those are the kinds of cases which could arise. Although the Bill is a small Bill,
  1076
  it deals with a very vital point. It seems to me to be only fair, if people are illegally employed, that the fact that they are illegally employed ought not to be used against them as a reason for not giving them compensation if they are injured. I am glad to say that very few cases have arisen. Employers have been fair and reasonable, and if their workpeople have been injured when illegally employed they have paid compensation. We think, as a Government, that it ought not to be open either to employers or to insurance companies to go to the Courts on a technical point and get these cases ruled out when the persons concerned may have been rendering service to the State under great pressure. Consequently, we have brought forward this Bill, and I hope that the House will receive it sympathetically and favourably, and I should like to have all the stages of the Bill this evening.
  Mr. DENMAN: I should be lacking in courtesy if I did not take this opportunity of thanking the Home Office for their promptitude in bringing forward this Bill in response to a pledge which the Home Secretary gave when I asked him a question on the subject not long ago. The one case which has arisen was peculiarly hard. It was the case of a child who was illegally employed and who was injured, but who was held not to be entitled to any compensation. As the Home Secretary rightly said, that could not be tolerated, and I can only thank him very warmly for dealing so promptly with the matter.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time.
  Resolved, That this House will immediately resolve itself into Committee on the Bill.—[Colonel Gibbs.]
  Bill accordingly considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

  DEFENCE OF THE REALM (FOOD PROFITS) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD (Mr. Clynes): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  It is clear from the face of the Bill that it has one and only one object, which is to impose penalties upon profiteers which

  1077
  cannot be imposed under the provisions of the Defence of the Realm Act and the Regulations made under that Act. The public indignation manifested in regard to some few cases of illicit profit making is mainly our justification for seeking this further power. The fixing of food prices has been accepted as a necessary war measure, and those prices have been justified by the great advantages which have been conferred upon the public of the country. The law breaker in respect to food under war conditions must be regarded by us as one who is not only violating the law in a technical sense, but as one who is giving substantial assistance to the enemy with whom we are at war. We look to this Bill in its general effect, regarding certain of the large traders, to be an effective deterrent against some of the offences which have already been committed. It is a matter of very great pleasure to us that we are able to say that our countrymen generally in their trade relations have acted up to a standard of honesty and of good conduct, and in introducing this Bill there is no imputation to be made against the general character and trade conduct of that large community supplying and distributing foods in different parts of the country. The object of the measure is to deal with the exceptions. The exceptions in themselves are rather serious, and we have found, unless some such authority as this is placed at the disposal of the Ministry of Food, that it will be possible for men to make immense sums of money by wrongdoing without it being in any way possible for the Ministry of Food to recover that money or to impose any salutary or sufficient penalty upon those who violate the law.
  I may mention that during the course of this year there have been up to now some 7,000 odd prosecutions undertaken by the Ministry of Food. These prosecutions have been for profiteering reasons, and in more than 6,600 of those cases convictions have been secured. This Bill is not intended to deal with the ordinary small trade instance of profiteering, but rather with the more serious and larger cases. For instance, there may be a very large wholesale dealer doing business in any one of the many articles of food with which we are concerned. He may have many agents or salesmen. He may have representatives in different parts of the country all able to commit a serious offence, and when all the offences are put together it may mean
  1078
  that a very large sum has been exacted from the consuming public through the means of excess profits. The fines which at present can be imposed by any Court of law must not exceed £100. There have been cases where excess profits have been made to the extent of several thousands of pounds. It is now the view of the Ministry of Food that it is not sufficient to impose a fine even up to £100. It is not sufficient even to imprison a man to the extent of six months, as is possible under the existing law. It is, in our judgment, necessary to go further, and take from the wrongdoer not merely all that he has been able to make in the way of illicit profits, but double the amount which he has been able to secure by his evasions of the law. Plainly, then, this Bill provides power to enable the Food Ministry not only to imprison, and not only to fine, but also to make the offender a debtor to the Crown to the extent of double the amount of the illicit gains which he has been able to secure. Without labouring the point, I would urge upon the House the necessity of giving us this power to deal with these serious though exceptional cases, in order to meet public opinion, and in order to act as an effective deterrent upon those who up till now have been able to break the law and have been able easily to pay the money penalties out of the enormous profits which they have derived.
  Mr. LOUGH: I beg to move to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
  I am glad to have had the opportunity of having heard the arguments of my hon. Friend in support of this Bill. It is the most astounding proposal for any Government to make to a decent House of Commons. There is on the back of the Bill these words, "Defence of the Realm (Food Profits) Bill." My hon. Friend has talked all the time about food profits and profiteering in which he has had a very melancholy experience but, would you believe it, there is not a word about profits in the Bill? The Bill is all about food prices, and it is an attempt on the part of gentlemen who have had a very bad experience of this sort of thing to tackle that problem, which has puzzled Governments ever since there have been Governments, of fixing the prices of commodities apart from the great laws which govern those prices. I was

  1079
  glad to hear my hon. Friend say, although he contradicted it afterwards, that he did not make the slightest charge against the great trades in this country of anything in the shape of profiteering. I wish I could say the same of the Ministry of Food. The disgraceful profiteering which the Ministry has carried on, the unnecessarily high prices it has fixed, the unblushing profits it gets without giving any accounts either to this House or to the people of the country, are among the most shocking experiences we have experienced in this time of War. A friend of mine, who is one of the greatest importers of frozen meat—an article of which I know nothing—told me that the Ministry of Food had taken over vast quantities at 6½d. a lb. and were charging 13d. a lb. wholesale for it, a most gigantic profit in a matter of most vital interest to the public of this country, especially the poor.
  My hon. Friend said that he did not charge the great trades in this country with the offences dealt with in this Bill. He might well say that! I do not speak on behalf of any trade. The only trade with which I have close experience has made only one complaint with regard to the prices fixed in that trade—that is, they are too high. They have been made, in a sense, parties to a swindle. The Food Ministry has insisted upon a great article of consumption being spoiled. The Food Ministry has laid down the order that the lowest form of the product—I am speaking of tea—is to be mixed with the other quality. The object of all honest traders in this trade, not merely for the last year or two because they have not invented these lines to meet the severe crisis which now exists in this country—but for half a century has been to eliminate the bad article and to give the people of this country not merely in the matter of tea, but in all other articles a clean, honest and high standard of food. The Ministry of Food has the exactly opposite policy in view. I was interested to hear the hon. Gentleman the other day say with regard to cheese—he is succeeding splendidly with regard to cheese—that he wanted the bad stuff mixed with the good. He said, "I want you all to have your share of the bad food and then you may get a little of the good food at the end of the month." I think I am quoting his words accurately; at any rate I am giving the sense of them,
  1080
  because I do not attempt to read his speeches, although all his speeches are very interesting.
  I have the greatest admiration for the hon. Gentleman. He comes forward courageously to defend the worst proposals I have ever heard made by a Government in this House. He is always courageous, and puts them forward in the name of a Ministry supposed to be composed of business men, who ought to know better, for they ought to be trained in those economic laws which my hon. Friend does not understand. Not one of the members of the Ministry, in a matter of extreme magnitude and of vital interest to the people of this country, not one of these supposed business men has ever put his name on the back of one of these bad Bills. I see we are to have another one. which has only the name of my hon. Friend on it. In this case we have the name of my hon. Friend and of a Lord of the Treasury (Mr. Parker)—I am glad the Parliamentary Secretary has someone who has the courage to back him up—and the name of the Solicitor-General, whom I suppose we shall see in Committee. The Parliamentary Secretary gave the great tradesmen in the country a clean bill of health with regard to this Bill. He said there was no case against them. I ask him to give in respect of one of the 7,000 prosecutions he mentioned any respectable house in any trade which has charged more than the price fixed by the Food Controller or the Government. I do not like to say there has not been one such case, but it has not come to my knowledge if there is, for the very good reason that the Food Controller fixes very good prices. He gives them all a very good share of the profit, and any man would be very greedy who wanted any more than the Food Controller gives him.
  In the distribution of these articles, especially when you remember the bad quality they are forced to distribute by Order of the Ministry, they are almost made parties to, I think I said "swindle" before, but I do not want to use too strong language; therefore, I will say they were made parties to practices which, if the trade were left to run on the ordinary high lines on which it is run in this country, would not be permitted. Although my hon. Friend gave this clean bill of health to the great tradesmen of the country, yet a little later on he gave us an illustration of the reason for the Bill a large wholesale man who made very large profits. I do

  1081
  not know many such wholesale men. I do not believe the Bill is aimed at such practices at all, because such practices do not exist. The Bill is totally unnecessary for the reason that, as my hon. Friend admitted, very heavy penalties are possible at the present time. He has had no difficulty whatever about his prosecutions. He said he has had 7,000 of them, and, so far as I understand from the figures, which are very interesting, he has only failed in about 400. I noticed some very bad cases of failure in the prosecutions by the Ministry of Food—little hoarding prosecutions for a few pounds of food. when there was no law to guide the people. I was very glad to see the Ministry exposed in several cases where they started these prosecutions and had to abandon them. Here my hon. Friend comes forward with the most extraordinary Bill the House ever saw. I do not suppose that even you, Mr. Speaker, in your long experience, ever met with one like it. It is printed on a half sheet of paper with my hon. Friend's name on the back of it. Its object has no connection with profits, although that is the Title. Its object is to fix prices.
  Let the House consider for a moment the dreadful experience the hon. Member has had with regard to the fixing of prices. It is the most difficult thing in the world to do We hear of Lord Rhondda doing it. Poor Lord Rhondda! I believe he is perfectly innocent of most of the proceedings attributed to him. I believe he has been ill during the last month, and I am sure the House will be sorry for it. Lord Rhondda is only a name with which to conjure. These prices are really fixed by wretched Committees which sit in the Food Control Department. These supposed business men consider the articles with which they are to deal and fix an arbitrary price They have not been able to maintain for three months the prices they have fixed. Now they come down with this Bill, after having had the dreadful experiences of the prices they have fixed, and they say, "Although we cannot fix a proper price, yet we will fix heavy penalties for anybody who breaks our prices." Who is it that breaks their prices most? The Ministry itself. My hon. Friend himself will admit that he has told us he is the buyer of butter at 4s. 6d. a lb. What price does he fix? Two shillings a lb. Nothing will induce him to vary his price of 2s., while he buys it by hundreds of tons at 4s. and 5s. I
  1082
  do not blame him for buying it at the high price, but I do blame him for fixing a price which is only one-half the value, and for starving and promoting scarcity in this country by such wicked methods as those which are followed. Take another case—every article is practically the same—beef. How was the famine in beef produced in, this country? Simply by fixing the wrong price. He not only fixed the price, but he gave the unhappy producer notice that the price would be reduced. I suppose it was done through one of these Committees. I do not like to associate-Lord Rhondda with it, because he is a man of good sense. In August or September the price of beef was 76s. a cwt. He said it must be put down to 60s. What was the effect? Every business man among the farmers said that in view of the high price of feeding-stuffs they could not produce beef at that price, and thereby a great scarcity was created. Two hundred and twenty thousand immature cattle were killed, and the country was deprived of many hundred tons of good meat simply because of the price that was fixed. How can they punish people for not observing principles they themselves do not observe? By January, when they had frightened all the people and created a famine, they altered the price of beef by about 20s. a cwt., raising it to 76s. I suppose that when poor Lord Rhondda fixed the price at 60s. for June he thought that it would not matter to fix a low price for June, because January is winter and June is summer. Now he has put it forward to June, 1919, as if anybody cares what price he fixes fifteen months ahead. In butter, beef, and bacon it is the same. He has fixed the price of bacon at 20s. a cwt. after creating a famine. No one can get a rasher of bacon now for breakfast. [HON MEMBERS: "Yes, we can!"] Well, I had a little this morning, but I have not had any for a fortnight. There should be no scarcity. The only reason for the scarcity of bacon or beef was the foolish prices which my hon. Friend—I really think he is responsible for a great deal of it—fixed for these articles. It only requires a few months to produce these things in abundance. He has only to give a remunerative price, and the articles will be produced. What do we find? That the Ministry of Food were not able to fix any price which would stand. They are the greatest profiteers existing in the country, and they come down here to make this House a party to it and ask that huge

  1083
  penalties should be enforced against anybody who breaks the funny prices they have set up. Let me look at the matter from one or two other points of view. Let us treat this great matter seriously for a moment and look at one or two objections. If we are to avoid famine in the dreadful time that is before this country, then the tricks that have been played upon the producers, about which we do not hear a word, must be brought to an end.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think that this is an occasion for a general criticism of the policy of the Ministry of Food. This Bill merely increases the penalties which are already payable for the sale of goods at prices in excess of those allowed by the Food Controller. It is already an offence to charge a price which exceeds the price fixed. This is a proposal to add to the penalties enacted by the Defence of the Realm Regulations.
  Mr. LOUGH: Perhaps I was digressing into too many details, and I will devote myself strictly to the terms of the Bill. As you said, Sir, there are very heavy penalties at the present time. My point is that they are quite sufficient, and that the Bill is unnecessary. The real reason for the production of the Bill is that my hon. Friend and his Committees at the Food Control Department do not trust the magistrates. The magistrates take all the circumstances into account. Instead of allowing the magistrates to look at the circumstances and impose a penalty in accordance with them, the Food Ministry want to direct the sentence that shall be passed. The Bill is very bad, cruel, and harsh from that point of view. There is no permission under the Bill. It does not contain the words "not exceeding." It says that a certain penalty must be enforced in any case. There is a great objection to that. The Bill also is retrospective. I think it is a monstrous thing. Does the hon. Gentleman intend that it shall be so?
  Mr. CLYNES: No; it is not intended to be.
  Mr. LOUGH: I am very glad to hear that. As it reads, however, it would be. It is most difficult to fix prices. The experience of the hon. Member has shown that. Still, I think I have said enough on that point. The Ministry itself at this moment is conniving at people getting more than their price. I would remind
  1084
  him of the case of the Irish cattle trade. He knows very well he is paying much more every week for the cattle he gets from Ireland. He is paying an excess price because he wants the cattle here and because he has fixed an impossibly low price. He himself is breaking his prices constantly, and it is very hard that he should try to enforce on producers of the country a standard of virtue which he himself does not live up to. I believe in this matter of the Irish cattle trade the excess price he is paying amounts to £40,000 or £50,000 weekly, because it is so necessary to get the beasts here.
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is not really relevant to the Bill. It is for the Ministry of Food to fix the prices from time to time.
  Mr. LOUGH: But ought he not to adhere to his own prices?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That depends on the amount of meat or food available. It must vary from time to time.
  Mr. LOUGH: If it is understood that the price is to be varied from time to time, I shall be satisfied. But the Minister has fixed a rigid price for everybody but himself. However, I do not want to argue that point. I have stated that he is constantly varying the price himself, and is paying a great deal more than the figures he is fixing. For the reasons I have mentioned, I hold there are very grave objections to this Bill. There will be great difficulty in working it. I would like to acknowledge what the hon. Gentleman said as to the general conduct of business men in this country. I have no sympathy at all with business men who do not observe the rule laid down by the Food Controller or any other Government Department, because those rules allow too high a profit. I have been trying, I am afraid not very successfully, to show that there are great economic laws affecting the production of food vital now to the people of this country which this Bill offends. Past experience has proved how difficult it is to fix prices, and I am afraid that the working of this Bill, if it works at all, can only have a very bad effect. There appears to be no necessity for it, seeing that the penalties already imposable are quite sufficient. I think it would be wiser for the Government to leave the matter alone and not go further with it, and that is why I beg formally to move that the Bill be now read a second time this day six months.
  Mr. BOOTH: I only rise to ask a question. I understand now that the Bill is not to be retrospective, but the first Clause does not make that clear. In view of the proceedings we are familiar with throughout the country, will the Government on the Committee stage make it quite clear that the Bill is not retrospective?
  Mr. CLYNES: Certainly.
  Amendment negatived.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.—[Lord Edmund Talbot.]

  TRAMWAY, ETC. (STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS).
  Lord E. TALBOT (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): I beg to move, "That a Select Committee be appointed to consider and report whether it is expedient that some provision should be made for the temporary modification of statutory requirements with regard to the Charges for the conveyance of traffic on Tramways and Light Railways constructed wholly or mainly on public roads, in the case of undertakings whose financial circumstances have been injuriously affected by causes arising out of the War; and, if so, on what terms and conditions, and whether by private Bill or by general legislation."
  Mr. BOOTH: Are we to have any more of these Committees? I do not see how this is to be defended unless there is some idea of completing the process. Will there be a Committee appointed, for instance, to deal with electrical undertakings, or with any similar subject? It seems to me that if there are to be any others we should be told now, and I would like to ask whether there is any intention to put any other Resolution on the Paper, because, in my opinion, they should be all taken together.
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir A. Stanley): I think there is a very particular reason why the terms of reference to the Committee appointed to deal with gas charges were not framed so as to include tramway charges. They are quite separate and distinct propositions. It had been represented to me for a considerable time that there is a real need for dealing immediately with the gas
  1086
  question, and that matter had to be decided before the tramway question was raised. This came up later, after I had received a deputation from representatives of a very considerable number of tramway undertakings in the country, both municipal and company, who put to me that owing to the enormous rise in wages and the very heavy increase of charges for material they had a real case for asking for consideration with respect to the charges they were making to the public. I did not feel I could take upon myself the responsibility of determining the question, particularly in view of the fact that I had previously given an undertaking to this House that the Board of Trade would not deal with the question of increased tramway fares without first referring it to this House. It is because of that pledge that I ask this House to agree to the appointment of this Select Committee to investigate this question and determine whether or not there is ground for an increase in these tramway charges. As to whether there will be any need for dealing with other public utility undertakings later on, I am not prepared to say at this moment. I think we had better wait and see what recommendations are made both by the Committee on Gas and by this particular Committee. There is outstanding a question about the charges of electricity undertakings, and also with regard to water companies, but they are a very small number, and they can be dealt with later on. I think at the moment it would be better, and perhaps expedite matters, to limit the procedure to these two Committees at this particular moment.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That Captain Barnett be a member of the Committee."—[Lord E. Talbot.]
  Mr. BOOTH: I have no objection to this hon. Member, but I wish to point out that if a number of Committees are to be appointed it will mean that a large number of business men in this House will have their time occupied at great length in dealing with what is practically one problem, and I would suggest that if other Committees are set up it would be as well to reappoint the Committee now being elected, so that they may deal with all the remaining questions. It will save the time of hon. Members, because the issue involved in all these Committees is practically the same.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Sir James Boyton, Mr. Broughton, Mr. Cochrane, Sir Arthur Fell, Mr. Nugent, Sir William Pearce, Mr. Rendall, Mr. Tootill, and Mr. Watt also nominated members of the Committee:
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records:
  Ordered, That Three be a quorum.—[Lord E. Talbot.]
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 13th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Three minutes before Eight o'clock

WAR.
  INCOME TAX.
  INCOME TAX.
  TITHE RENT-CHARGE
  TITHE RENT-CHARGE
  CIVIL SERVICE (TRANSFERS).
  CIVIL SERVICE (TRANSFERS).
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  WATFORD FOOD COMMITTEE.
  WATFORD FOOD COMMITTEE.
  REGISTRATION EXPENSES.
  REGISTRATION EXPENSES.
  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
  LIGHTHOUSES AND LIGHTSHIPS.
  LIGHTHOUSES AND LIGHTSHIPS.
MILITARY SERVICE.
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  CASES UNDER INQUIRY.
  CASES UNDER INQUIRY.
  SOLDIERS OF EIGHTEEN AND A HALF YEARS.
  SOLDIERS OF EIGHTEEN AND A HALF YEARS.
  MILITARY HOSPITALS (COOKS).
  MILITARY HOSPITALS (COOKS).
  ARMY FORAGE DEPARTMENT.
  ARMY FORAGE DEPARTMENT.
  MINISTRY OF MUNITIONS (STAFF).
  MINISTRY OF MUNITIONS (STAFF).
  MOTOR FIRE ENGINES (REPAIRS, Etc.).
  MOTOR FIRE ENGINES (REPAIRS, Etc.).
  INSPECTOR OF PENSIONS (NORTH WALES).
  INSPECTOR OF PENSIONS (NORTH WALES).
  AFFORESTATION.
  AFFORESTATION.
  "TRUXTUN" TRUCK UNIT.
  "TRUXTUN" TRUCK UNIT.

CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the Criminal Law Amendment Acts, 1885 to 1912, and to move that it he read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Viscount Sandhurst.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

COINAGE (DECIMAL SYSTEM) BILL. [H.L.]
LORD SOUTHWARK: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the Coinage Acts, 1870 and 1891, and to sanction a decimal system of coinage; and I move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Southwark.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

ADMIRALTY CONTRACTS.
LORD BALFOUR or BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR or BURLEIGH had the following Question on the Paper—
To ask whether the Government will state the terms of the contract under which large works are being carried out for the Admiralty or any other Department at Throsk, in Stirlingshire; and if so, whether the remuneration is to be at the rate of 5 per cent. on the expenditure, and what supervision on behalf of Government is being exercised as to the cost of the work; and whether it is not the fact that special inducements for Sunday labour at double rates of pay are being promiscuously offered to any one who will accept it, whether otherwise in the employment of the contractor or not.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, before actually asking the Question standing in my name I should like to explain to the House that I have postponed the Question which I had put down in relation to another matter. Lord Rothermere is unable to be
844
in London this week owing to being less well than usual, and he has asked me to put that subject off until next week—a request with which, of course, any one of your Lordships would comply.
I may say that since I put down the Question printed upon the Paper to-day I have been told—I do not attach more credence to it than necessary—that the terms of the contract are 10 per cent. on the expenditure, and not 5 per cent., to the contractor. We know locally that the contractor is Sir John Jackson, who has had considerable experience in thee matters. I have no doubt that he makes the best bargain he can for himself, and the fact that there have been question, affecting his contracts in other matters does not give those of us who are locally-interested in Throsk any greater confidence in this contract. It is obvious, whether the amount be 5 per cent. or 10 per cent., that the payment of a percentage is a premium upon extravagance, because the more the contractor spends the more he gets for himself. Therefore it is in my opinion detrimental to the public interest that any contracts should be made on terms of this kind, or on any terms like them.
I am told—and I have done my best to verify it—that many of the workmen are taken to the place of their work by means of a two hours' journey, an hour each way, and that they are paid during the whole of the time that they are in the train. The contractor, I am informed, also pays the expense of the train. It will be rather interesting to know whether the contractor gets 5 per cent. on the expenditure which he pays to the railway company for the train. The train takes the men over a route some fourteen or sixteen miles in length, but there is a shorter route across the old Forth Bridge which would take them a distance of only about a mile and a half. There may be some reason for not taking them by that route, but trains run across the bridge five or six times a day direct from Alloa, and I sec no reason why the train conveying these workmen should go by way of Stirling, a distance of fourteen or fifteen miles and occupying something like an hour each way. The men are paid by the hour; therefore if they are paid 10½d. an hour for these two hours in the train, the cost, instead of being 10½d. an hour for the nine hours day, works out at about 1s. 2d. an hour.
Turning to the question of Sunday labour, it scents to me that one of the worst aspects of this transaction is that the longer and the more the men work on Sunday the greater is the expenditure incurred. I understand that this Sunday labour is not confined to the people who are in the contractor's own employment, but that men are taken who are in the employment during the rest of the week of other local contractors, and that it is really a very insidious form of bribery. Take, for instance, the case of carpenters and joiners employed on ship production. If a man has done a good week's work from Monday to Saturday in ship production at Alloa, and gets an offer to work elsewhere on Sunday and is paid 24 s. for a single day's work, it is rather difficult for him to resist the temptation. Consequently the shipbuilders by whom these men are employed during the rest of the week have to suffer a reaction in this respect, that the men are exhausted by the work they do elsewhere on Sunday and are unable to do a full day's work on the Monday. Upon that point I have a letter written by a man whom I have known for forty years and who is employed on a contract for a shipbuilding yard which is being constructed at express speed to try and counteract the shipping shortage. The people for whom he has the contract wrote to him complaining that he was not getting on fast enough with the work, and this is what he wrote to them in reply—
"With reference to your complaint to-day about the slow progress I am making with putting in the foundations at your works, I am sorry to say that owing to the great demand for labouring men and the inducements held out to them from other sources I have been unable to keep my regular squad together. You are no doubt aware that Sir John Jackson has started on the other side of the Forth, almost opposite Alloa, and wants 1,000 men, and to get them is paying eleven hours per day for nine hours work, and that for work which to all appearances could stand at present and allow the shipbuilding yard work to get on, which is far more urgent. There is an extra demand on to-day, and I shall be glad to be advised what to do."
Since I came into the House I have received another letter from the manager of a coal company close to this district, in which he says—
"We may say that we have suffered very much indeed from surface workers leaving our colliery and going to Throsk, so much so that we are almost unable to continue work at the pit. The men at Throsk are getting 2s. a day more than we can pay them, and their railway fare is paid from Alloa and Stirling. For Sunday work it is
846
reported they get double pay, and it is common report that the men say it is the softest job they have ever had."
I do not understand what this work is for. Perhaps the noble Earl who represents the Admiralty can tell us. It is a mystery to me. I have known the district all my life. The place where the work is going on is above the old Forth Bridge, which can only be opened at high tide, and only then for a very short period, so that any communication to take away anything made at this place to the east, down the Forth, by a vessel of any size cannot occur. At this place the contractor is driving railways, roads, and bridges through some of the finest arable land in Scotland, and I cannot understand what the object of this is, for no big ship and no destroyer can possibly come there. Stores and ammunition would have to be sent from the place—if it is a place for storing ammunition—by barges to a more convenient centre before war vessels could take them on board. I understand, further, that the contract is to last for five years, so that it cannot be war work; and by that tune I hope, whatever may happen to us, that we shall have won the war. It seems to me that there is a strong case for some explanation, not only of the terms of the contract, but of the whole object of the undertaking, and I trust that the noble Earl who represents the Admiralty in this House will be able to give us some satisfaction on these points.
THE ADDITIONAL PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY of THE ADMIRALTY (THE EARL OF LYTTON): My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for affording me an opportunity of giving an explanation of this contract. The facts regarding it are substantially as stated by the noble Lord in his Question, but in describing them he has, I think, given an implication of negligence or extravagance on the part of the Admiralty which I feel sure he will be ready to admit, when he hears my explanation, is not justified by the facts.
First of all, the noble Lord asked me what is the object of the work. I was not prepared for all the criticisms which he brought forward. I endeavoured to inform myself upon the points which the noble Lord placed upon the Paper. On some of the matters for which I was not prepared I am unable to answer him; but the object of the work is to create a sub-depot to

847
Crombie, and it is required for magazines and naval stores. I am not prepared at the moment to justify the choice of that place, but the noble Lord may rest assured that it would not have been selected, nor would the work have been allowed to be undertaken, unless the work was considered to be of first-class urgency and importance.
The terms of the contract which Sir John Jackson, Limited, are carrying out for the Admiralty at this place near Throsk are quite usual for Government work at the present time. The work is estimated to cost £350,000. The contractor is to receive for his profit 5 per cent. of the total cost of the work; the figure is quite correctly stated in the Question. It is 5 per cent. and not 10 per cent., although I may say that 10 per cent. is the usual manufacturers' profit for work of this kind. In addition, the contractor receives l½ per cent. for his London office expenses.
Then the noble Lord asks what supervision on the part of the Government is being exercised. The work is being supervised by the superintendent civil engineer at Rosyth. I may explain that a percentage on the cost of the work, plus a further percentage for establishment charges, is the almost invariable practice in Government contracts at the present time. I quite agree with the noble Lord that it is a bad principle, and that it necessarily tends more to extravagance than would an estimate for the total cost of the work. But the abnormal conditions of labour and cost of material at the present time make it quite impossible to obtain of any contractor a fixed price for the carrying out of work of this kind. It is very often necessary to submit to competitive tender the percentage which the manufacturer is to receive upon the cost of the work. In this case the rate of percentage is below the average, and the supervision of the civil engineer who represents the Admiralty is a protection against unnecessary cost.
I am unable to tell the noble Lord whether or not his statement about the time spent by the workmen in the train going to and returning from their work is correct. I will make inquiries upon it, but that is a point which the superintendent civil engineer would necessarily scrutinise in our interests. If it is true it would, imagine, be because it is impossible to get workmen resident on the spot or close at
848
hand. I am afraid I cannot give more information on that point.
As regards Sunday labour, this has recently been stopped all over the country by a decision of the Cabinet. It used to be very prevalent, and owing to the double rate of pay always given for Sunday labour it was naturally very popular with the work-people. The result was that contractors used to advertise freely that their men were employed upon Sunday labour, and it became almost impossible for any contractor who did not work on Sunday to obtain labour to carry out his work. I quite agree with the noble Lord that it was a thoroughly unsatisfactory system, and no one suffered more rom it than we did at the Admiralty. I am glad to say that this practice has now been stopped. No Sunday work is allowed except in special cases where it is necessary in order to enable the labour of the weekdays to be carried on without interruption—I mean upon such work as the blowing out of boilers, the shifting of railway lines, or altering water services; work which, if it were not done on the Sunday, would hold up the work on the weekdays. In this particular case special permission was given to work on three Sundays only, April 7, 14, and 21, within the terms of the Cabinet decision, to enable the contractor to construct a bridge over the stream to bring his material on to the site. Last Sunday was the final day on which Sunday labour was permitted, and there will be no more Sunday work until the completion of the contract. Of course, on these three Sundays the usual rate of extra pay for Sundays was paid.
As I have explained, the contract is in a perfectly usual form; we have nothing either to conceal or to apologise for in connection with it, and I hope that the noble Lord will see that it is not really deserving of the censure which I think he was inclined to direct to it.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Will the noble Earl ascertain whether the 5 per cent. is or is not actually paid on the cost of the railway journey, and why the railway journey is taken fourteen to sixteen miles round, which I know to be a fact, when there is a railway of 1½ miles, over which I have gone hundreds of times myself, from the main point of population to the site of the works. Of course, I must not criticise, because I am quite sure the Admiralty

849
would never have selected the site unless they had examined it and thought over it; but it does seem to us locally an extraordinary thing that a site for storage should be put definitely above a bridge which closes the whole traffic on the river except twice a day at high tide.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I will inform myself with regard to those points, and communicate with the noble Lord.

PRISONERS OF WAR.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE THE EARL OF SELBORNE rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they are now able to make any statement with reference to the Agreement relating to prisoners of war concluded between British and Turkish delegates at Berne in December last.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the whole country for many months past has been in a state of special anxiety as to the fate of British prisoners of war in the hands of the Turks. Greatly concerned as public opinion has been about the fate of all our prisoners of war at one time or another, we have naturally been more concerned about those in Turkey than those elsewhere—in the first place, because we knew so little authoritatively about their condition; and, in the second place, because we thought that under the peculiar réime of the Turks their lot would be likely to be a specially hard one.
It is common knowledge that the noble Lord to whom I address this Question has been in charge of this matter at the Foreign Office for a long time past. It is also known that he has given to this task the utmost devotion and care. He was sent by His Majesty's Government to Switzerland at the close of last year to try and complete negotiations with the Turks for the release of these prisoners, who include among their number, I would remind your Lordships, the remains of that magnificient Division that had to capitulate at Kut. I shall be very glad if my noble friend can tell us whether the devoted work which he gave to this matter in Switzerland at the close of last year has borne the fruit which we all hope, or whether the matter is not yet concluded. This is a question which not only concerns the whole nation, as I have said, but on his answer are banging the hopes of the relatives of these unfortunate men.
THE ASSISTANT UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD NEWTON): My Lords, as my noble friend and the House have no doubt observed, the Agreement of which he speaks has, I am happy to say, just been ratified.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Hear, hear.
LORD NEWTON: And, as my noble friend was good enough to make some complimentary observations with regard to my individual services, I should like to say that I am already sufficiently accustomed to public life not to expect any gratitude from any particular quarter; but at the same time I do not think that there has ever been so much unjust abuse lavished upon myself and the other persons concerned as has been the case over this question of prisoners in Turkey. I do not think that the ordinary person realises in the least that the difficulties attending prisoner questions in Turkey are infinitely greater than those which surround similar questions in Germany. In the first place, the Turks, like the Germans, had no desire to exchange any prisoners at all. They were in all probability extremely proud of being in a position to hold European captives. These prisoners were in addition to that, probably a source of profit to them; and as regards their own people, whom we held in very much greater numbers, they were indifferent as regards their condition, knowing, of course, that they were well treated. There was, in fact, only one individual in whom they have ever shown the slightest interest. As a matter of fact, the battle—if I may so call it—regarding the exchanges has been largely fought round this one personage; and the noble Earl will not be surprised to learn that as this individual was the only valuable asset we possessed we were not likely to let him go without a thoroughly satisfactory equivalent.
Now, as regards the fruitless efforts which His Majesty's Government continually made to secure the exchange of these prisoners and the amelioration of their surroundings, I may say without exaggeration that I think we corresponded with the Turkish Government for something like a year with no effect being produced. Then I persuaded the War Cabinet to allow me to enter into direct communication with the Turkish delegates in Switzerland. It took the Turks five months to assent to a

851
meeting, and when I eventually proceeded to Berne I spent five weeks arguing and haggling with these representatives before we were able to arrive at an Agreement. An Agreement having been arrived at and I having been personally assured by these representatives that ratification would be only a question of a few hours, no less than four months have elapsed since that took place. This will give the House some indication of the laboriousness of effecting any satisfactory arrangement with these people.
I do not wish to impute any particular blame to the Turkish delegates whom I met with regard to this excessive delay. I honestly think that they were well disposed, and that, so far as it lay within their power, they were anxious to improve the circumstances of their captives. But I feel bound to add that they were not particularly well equipped for their task; because unfortunately their information regarding the question was of a very rudimentary and imperfect character. For instance, I was never able to obtain from these gentlemen any precise figures as to the number of captives they held. Whenever I asked how many British prisoners there were in their hands, they would reply that they thought there were about 10,000. It really would not have surprised me in the least if they had answered, with Oriental imagery, that the captives were as numerous as the sands on the seashore, or the leaves of the forest. It was evident that they were completely ignorant as to the real figures. Our own calculation is that there are something like 8,000 prisoners in Turkey altogether. Then they suffered from the disability of being without instructions; they were in the habit of mislaying or losing important documents which were submitted to them; and when we complained of irregularities—for instance, with regard to the delivery of parcels or with regard to correspondence—their reply was, "Oh, we are very sorry, but we are in just as had a case ourselves; our correspondence is equally deficient; unfortunately that is one of the things which we must all be expected to bear."
As an example of their ingenuousness, I cannot help drawing attention to one particular circumstance. The noble Earl will observe when he reads the text of the Agreement that there is a paragraph expressing the hope that the British prisoner camps in future will be surrounded by plain wire instead of barbed wire. As people who are acquainted with prisoner
852
questions are aware, a new disease has been invented known as "barbed wire disease." It is, of course, only a paraphrase for nervous breakdown; but these Turkish gentlemen were evidently under the impression that "barbed wire disease" was communicated by the points of the barbed wire, possibly by the prisoners rubbing themselves against them and so contracting the malady. Therefore they ask that special provision shall be made under which in future prisoners should be retained within plain instead of barbed wire. I presume that this is not the first occasion upon which an unconscious joke has appeared in an international document. At all events, I did not think it worth while to make any alteration with regard to this particular matter.
To turn now to the Agreement itself. In view of the alarming reports which had reached this country from time to time respecting the condition of our men—a condition which I am inclined to think was due not so much to systematic cruelty as to incapacity, to carelessness, and to the economic condition of the country—in view of this it was obviously desirable to aim at two main objects, namely, the exchange of as many prisoners as possible and the securing of inspection of camps by the protecting Legation, the Dutch Legation. With regard to exchanges, as my noble friend is aware, His Majesty's Government do not countenance the exchange of able-bodied combatants; and, as he is also aware, the system by which invalids are selected for exchange necessitates visits by Dutch Commissions and by Swiss Commissions, and is altogether a very laborious and complicated procedure. It appeared to me that in dealing with Orientals it would be much more tactful to adopt a more rapid and simple system. Therefore with the consent of my military colleague I proposed and arranged with the Turks that this examination, instead of being conducted by an elaborate Commission of neutrals, should be carried out in the following way—namely, that one British doctor should be left per thousand prisoners, and that he, in conjunction with a couple of Turkish doctors, should select the individuals who appeared eligible for exchange, under, of course, reciprocal conditions as regards prisoners in our possession.
It was also agreed that this selection should be made irrespective of rank and

853
date of capture, and should be dependent solely upon the physical condition of the officer or man. In order to accelerate matters pending examination, it was further agreed that there should be an immediate selection made of 1,000 British prisoners on one side and 1,500 Turkish prisoners on the other, who should be exchanged as soon as the ship could be provided and necessary measures taken for securing the safety of the ship. The port of Scala Nuova, in the South of Smyrna, was selected as the port of debarkation in Turkey. The steamer will proceed from Egypt, and on her return voyage will disembark at Taranto such British prisoners as are entitled to be returned to this country. As regards civilians, it has been arranged that all civilians who wish to be repatriated, under military age and above military age, shall be repatriated, and that as regards those above military age they shall be exchanged on a head for head basis. With regard to inspections, as the House is no doubt aware, inspections were obstinately refused until this meeting took place. I am happy to say that this concession has at last been obtained, and it has been arranged that the Dutch Legation shall be authorised to visit all camps in Asiatic Turkey outside the military district of the Taurus, and the Turkish Government undertake to bring back men within the Taurus region to the regions which are liable to inspection as soon as the necessary arrangements can be made.
The other provisions, which are of less importance, relate to the formation of Help Committees in the camps, improved medical treatment, facilities for the purchase of food and clothing and the transmission of supplies, and Agreements have been arrived at with regard to punishments, reprisals, trials, and matters of that kind on the lines of the Agreement come to at The Hague with the German Government. The censorship of parcels and matters of that kind is to be relaxed, correspondence is to be accelerated, and the vessels which will transport the exchanged prisoners are to be permitted to carry supplies both of food and clothing which will be distributed by the Dutch Legation.
These are the main provisions of the Agreement, and as the War Office have now sanctioned largely increased allowances to British prisoners in Turkey, it may be hoped that the lot of these men will now
854
be considerably more tolerable. I am not by any means an optimist by nature, and I do not wish to encourage any undue hopes. It is unfortunately the case that there is bound to be considerable delay in view of what has already happened. At the same time, without being an optimist, I do feel that the ratification of this Agreement, although arrived at very late in the day, is in itself a hopeful sign. I also flatter myself that I was able to convince the Turkish delegates that the carrying out of the Agreement was just as much, if not more, in their interest as it is in our own.
I only desire to say this in conclusion. Whereas there were a large number of people in this country who vehemently denounced any suggestion of meeting either German or Turkish delegates and who predicted that nothing would ever result from such a meeting, and that even if Agreements were arrived at they would never be carried out by the German Government, I desire to point out that these people have shown themselves to be completely in error. The Agreement made with the Germans by direct communication with German delegates at The Hague has at all events resulted in this, that there are thousands of Englishmen walking about free at the present moment who, if that meeting had not taken place, would still be prisoners in Germany. That is a fact which nobody can get over; and again I repeat that, while not an optimist, I do not see any reason why eventually the same process should not take place with regard to such of our men as have been unfortunate enough to be prisoners of the Turks during the last two years.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I think I shall be only expressing the view of your Lordships when I congratulate the Government, and my noble friend in particular, upon the statement which he has been able to make. We have watched with the greatest sympathy and interest the efforts which my noble friend has made over all these months to help these unfortunate prisoners both in Germany and in Turkey, and it is clear that his persistence and industry—and, may I say, his diplomatic tact?—have been crowned with very conspicuous success. I congratulate him, and thank him warmly for the observations he has been able to make.

ARMY ANNUAL BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD FINLAY): My Lords, I need saw very little in asking you to give this Bill a Second Reading. The Army Act comes to an end with this month, and it is necessary that it should be kept in force for the year which begins on the first of next month. This Bill keeps the Army Act in force, and also proposes a certain number of Amendments. Those Amendments are set out very clearly on the face of the Bill, and no purpose would be gained by going through them now, although I am quite prepared to do so if any of your Lordships should so desire. They will, of course, be considered in Committee. I will only add that as the matter is one of extreme urgency I give notice that in the event of your Lordships giving a Second Reading to the measure to-day I shall to-morrow move that Standing Order No. XXXIX be considered with a view to its being suspended in respect of the remaining stages of this Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House tomorrow.

PRIVATE BILLS.
[From Minutes of April 23.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House. That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:
British Aluminium Company (Lochaber Water Power). [H.L.]
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

LAND DRAINAGE (LOTTING FEN) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.
PONTYPOOL GAS AND WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
WEAR NAVIGATION AND SUNDERLAND DOCK BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
RED CROSS AND ORDER OF ST. JOHN BILL. [H.L.]
  PONTYPRIDD AND RHONDDA JOINT WATER BOARD BILL. [H.L.]

    RAILWAY PASSENGERS ASSURANCE BILL. [H.L.]
    YORKSHIRE ELECTRIC POWER BILL. [H.L.]
    Reported, with Amendments.

  NELSON CORPORATION WATER BILL. [H.L.]

    ALDERSHOT GAS, WATER, AND DISTRICT LIGHTING BILL. [H.L.]
    Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee adjourned on Friday last over yesterday; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
    House adjourned at ten minutes past five o'clock.