Sitting of 2 August 1918

Preamble
The House met at Twelve of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Shropshire, Worcestershire, and Staffordshire Electric Power Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Third Reading deferred till Monday next, at a quarter-past Eight of the clock.
Ipswich Dock Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 7) Bill,
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 8) Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill,
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the third time upon Monday next.

LUNACY AND MENTAL DEFICIENCY.
Report [presented 1st August] to be printed. [No. 102.]
MERCHANT SEAMEN'S FUND.
Order [1st August] that the Paper relative thereto be printed, read, and discharged.
CHELSEA HOSPITAL (ARMY PRIZE MONEY AND LEGACY FUNDS).
Account presented of the Receipts and Expenditure of the Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital (for Services other than those voted by Parliament) in the year ended 31st March, 1918, with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 104.]
EXPERIMENTS ON LIVING ANIMALS.
Address for "Return showing the number of Experiments on Living Animals during the year 1917, under licences granted under the Act 39 and 40 Vic, c. 77, distinguishing the nature of the experiments (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 108, of Session 1917–18)."—[Mr. Brace.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (ATTENDANCE).
    Mr. DAVIDSON DALZIELasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability of introducing, at an early date, legislation making it compulsory that any person elected as a Member of this House shall present himself and take the oath of allegiance within two months of his election, failing which, unless he can show cause to the satisfaction of the House why such period of delay may be extended, he shall automatically cease to be a Member of this House?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): The Government are not prepared to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion.

    LOTTERIES BILL.
    Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister if he has considered the Lotteries Bill introduced in another place; and whether, in view of the strong objection felt to it in certain quarters, he will give an assurance that facilities for this Bill will not be given till after the Recess?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I know that there is some opposition to this Bill, but, on the other hand, I am informed that there is a strong desire that it should be passed. In these circumstances, I think it would be right to submit it to the House.
    Mr. KING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Chief Whip, who is now sitting beside him, has received information

    785
    that Members who have already departed for their Recess are going to return in order to oppose it?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: My Noble Friend (Lord E. Talbot) has not received that information. I hope that that may not be the case, but, in any event, I think it would be right that the House should have an opportunity of indicating its opinion on this subject.
    Mr. GULLAND: When will the Bill be taken?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Probably on Tuesday next.
    Mr. GULLAND: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that the suggestion is that it will be rushed through all its stages on Tuesday?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It is really very difficult to say what will be the best course. I think it would not be unreasonable that the House should have some opportunity of indicating its opinion whether it will pass the Bill or not. What will happen subsequently will depend on that expression of opinion.
    Mr. KING: Will the right hon. Gentleman reassure us by saying that the Government Whips will not be put on, and that there will be a free vote of the House?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The hon. Gentleman will see that I desire to consult the wishes of the House. I have not considered that, but I think it might not be a bad plan to have it without the Government Whips on Second Reading, and, if it be carried, then to treat it as a Government Bill for the remaining stages. There might possibly be an opportunity of taking it on Monday.
    Mr. GULLAND: Monday?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: There might possibly be an opportunity.

    PEACE PROPOSALS.
    Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether General Smuts' speech at Glasgow on 17th May expressed and expresses the views only of General Smuts or of the War Cabinet; and, if it expresses the views of the Cabinet, whether action can now be taken, when the military outlook
    786
    of the Allies is rapidly improving, to explore the possibility of an early and honourable peace?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: As was evident from the speech itself, General Smuts expressed only his personal views. As regards the last part of the question, the Government will always be ready to consider proposals for a satisfactory peace.

    PRISONERS OF WAR (HAGUE AGREEMENT).
    Mr. ALBION RICHARDSONasked the Prime Minister whether the Government have yet come to a decision as to the ratification of the provisional agreement for the exchange of prisoners which was recently concluded at the Hague; and, if not, when they expect to do so?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am sorry that it is not yet possible to make a statement on this subject.
    Mr. RICHARDSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman hope it will be possible to do so before the House rises?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It does not depend on us, as my hon. Friend knows. It depends on the German Government.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the extreme hardship and great suffering of our prisoners, and will the Government take every possible step to send parcels and money, which are urgently required for both our officers and men?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is quite a different question from that on the Paper.

    NOTICES OF MOTION (EAST INDIA REVENUE ACCOUNTS).
    "That this House welcomes the Report on Indian constitutional reforms, and asks for further opportunities for discussion at the earliest possible moment."—[Mr. Ramsay Macdonald.]
    "That this House welcomes the Report on Indian constitutional reforms, and asks for further opportunities for discussion at the earliest possible moment."—[Mr. Arnold.]
    "To call attention to the services of India in the present War, and to move a Resolution."—[Mr. C. Roberts.]

    BILL PRESENTED.
    BURGHS GAS SUPPLY (SCOTLAND) (AMENDMENT) BILL,—"to extend the purposes for which the gas contingent guarantee rate under the Burghs Gas Supply (Scotland) Act, 1876, may be levied," presented by Mr. MUNRO; supported by Mr. Clyde and Mr. T. B. Morison; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 84.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I beg to move, "That Government business be not interrupted this day at Five or Half-past Five of the clock, and may be entered upon at any hour, although opposed."
  Mr. GULLAND: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what Orders he proposes to take to-day?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: We propose to take the Maternity and Child Welfare Bill, Lords Amendment—I think there is only one—and, if the House agree, we should also like to take the Second Reading of the Petroleum Production Bill.
  Mr. DUNDAS WHITE: May I express the hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not press for the Second Reading of the Petroleum Production Bill to-day? There are several of us who had no opportunity of considering it yesterday. We saw the Minister in charge about taking it, and we understood that it was not going to be taken to-day.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Certainly; if there be any such understanding, it will not be taken.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  SUPPLY.— [1ST AUGUST.]

    SUPPLEMENTARY VOTE OF CREDIT, 1918–19.
    Resolution reported,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £700,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, beyond the ordinary Grants of Parliament, towards defraying the Expenses which may be incurred during the year ending the 31st day of March, 1919, for General Navy and Army Services in so far as specific provision is not made there for by Parliament; for the conduct of Naval and Military Operations; for all measures which may be taken for the Security of the Country; for assisting the Food Supply, and promoting the Continuance of Trade, Industry, Business and Communications, whether by means of insurance or indemnity against risk, the
    794
    financing of the purchase and resale of foodstuffs and materials, or otherwise; for Relief of Distress; and generally for all Expenses, beyond those provided for in the Ordinary Grants of Parliament, arising out of the existence of a state of war."
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

    SUPPLEMENTARY VOTE OF CREDIT, 1918–19.

      NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
      Mr. HOGGE: The Vote of Credit carries with it the provision of money for the dependants of our sailors and soldiers, and we have had within the past few days a statement from the Leader of the House with regard to the proposed increases to the wives of our serving men and their dependants. The figures which are involved are £14,000,000 for the wives and dependants of our serving men, and £9,000,000, a special provision for the dependants of apprentices—in all, some £23,000,000. I want this morning to discuss the adequacy or inadequacy of the proposals of the Government. The first criticism that I would offer is that the increases are all prospective and none of them retrospective. The amounts that are to be paid are to come into operation on the first pay day in October, so that for some considerable time yet, in spite of the long agitation for increases, these poor people will require to wait. While it is hard in the cases of wives and children it is even more hard in the cases of the mothers of apprentices, because in their case there has been no scale provision made for allowances at any period of the War, and the only way in which these mothers can obtain allowances now is, as the House knows, by application through the local war pensions committee. The practice of our local war pensions committees is not uniform. While a mother might be able to get an allowance in Newcastle, the same mother would be unable to get the allowance in Bristol. Therefore, the delay in awarding the new increases until the first pay day in October obviously bears much more hardly upon the mothers of apprentices than it does upon the other dependants who have been on scale all the time.
      Let me proceed to examine in brief detail the proposals of the Government. The first point which I think commands the attention of the House is the fact that while the Leader of the House undertook

      795
      to consider increases for wives and dependants, the result of the deliberations of the Committee is that no increase of any kind is given to the wife. All the increases apply to children. I should like to know from the Leader of the House why it was that, having been charged by the House practically to look into this matter, he was unable to increase the wife's allowance. Later, I shall suggest the reason which I think has governed the action of the War Cabinet in these proposals, but the fact remains that although this question was remitted to the War Cabinet no allowance has been made for a wife. The House will remember that in 1914 the wives of our serving men were not in receipt of 12s. 6d., but of something round about 11s. 1d., and that in the four years' War there has, therefore, been an increase of less than 1s. 6d. per week to those wives. When we consider, as perhaps many Members of the House will consider in more detail, the question of the increased cost of living, it will be at once observed that no woman living in the circumstances in which the wives of our serving men now live can possibly maintain herself in physical efficiency on that 12s. 6d. I know, of course, that the reply is made by those who are opposed to an increase that it is a mistake to allow the wife of a serving man to draw an allowance and do no work, and that the amount awarded to the wife has at the back of it the suggestion that the woman should enter the industrial market and make a wage. I want to protest against that idea and against that theory. I consider that the Government, having conscripted the man to fight, has no right to conscript the woman for industrial service by awarding an allowance upon which she cannot maintain herself. It is meagre really in the case of the wife because she is, perhaps, the only unorganised unit in this country. I have often wondered what would have happened had the wives of our serving men been organised in the same way as our effective trade unionists. This figure I give subject to correction, but I think I am right that the railway union workers since the outbreak of the War have secured in war bonuses, owing to their organised strength, an increase in wages of 25s. per week. That is twice the amount that is now paid to the wife of a serving man. You have only to consider that fact to see how inadequate the provision is for the wives for whom we
      796
      are pleading to-day. I have said, and probably other Members will enforce the point, that no woman can live on that amount to-day. It becomes more unreasonable still when you consider that many of them have children to support.
      The provision that the Government are making for children is a two-fold one. In the first instance, it is proposed to add 2s. 6d. per week in the case of a woman with one child, and in any of the remarks which I am making I am taking basal figures. I am leaving out of account such things as London rental allowance, because, of course, all the extra allowances are made for an extra liability. That may prevent any misunderstanding during the rest of the Debate. The wife with one child is in receipt to-day of 19s. 6d. per week, and the proposal of the Government is from the first pay day in October to raise that by 2s. 6d., bringing it therefore up to 22s. Once you get beyond the wife with one child, then the proposal of the Government is one that I fail completely to understand. It is proposed in the cases of wives with more than one child to pay 4s. 6d. irrespective of the number of children. Obviously, it follows that the more children the wife of a serving sailor or soldier has the less she is going to obtain from the increase offered by the Government. The woman may have as many as five or six children. If the increase of 4s. 6d. has to be divided between those children, and if you compare that with the 2s. 6d. which is given in the case of the first child it stands to reason that the scheme is inadequate. I know, of course, that the reply will be at once given that greater hardship arises, according to some people, in the case of the woman who has only one child, and that the increase of 2s. 6d. in her case is to meet that hardship. If that were true, which I doubt, then it would be equally true, if not more true, that greater hardship would arise in the case of the childless wife. If you increase the allowance to the wife with one child and leave the allowance of the wife with no children as it is, obviously the hardship would be greater in that case.
      Let me illustrate that by one or two examples of the hardship that does exist. I have brought down with me one or two budgets. I do not intend to weary the House with any great detail, but simply to use them to emphasise the value of the point I am attempting to make. Here is

      797
      the weekly expenditure of a wife with one child from Rotherham, a fairly typical provincial town. We have to bear in mind that practically the large bulk of women affected are the women in our provincial towns. This woman spends the following amount each week, or at least would like to spend the following amount each week. I would like to draw the attention of the House quite closely to this one budget as a typical budget, and I will not give any others. She pays 6s. rent. Of course, that item may be met by a supplementary rent allowance from the local war pensions committee. It is doubtful whether it will all be met in that way, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. He knows the practice both of the Civil Liabilities Committee and of the local war pensions committee, and he will probably agree that the practice was in favour of the committee every time. This woman pays, in addition to 6s. rent, 2s. 6d. a week for coal, 1s. 9d. for milk, 7d. for sugar, 8d. for tea, 3d. for jam, 1s. 5½d. for butter, 1s. 4d. for flour, 9d. insurance, 3s. 5d. for bacon, 2s. for meat, 5d. for lard, 10½d. for lighting, 3s. for clothing and boots, 6d. for stamps and paper for use in writing to her husband who is serving abroad, 4½d. for soap, 1s. for sundries, such as salt, pepper, and things of that sort, 3d. for firewood, 5d. for rice, 1s. for eggs for her child, and 10d. for potatoes. I do not think that is an extravagant menu for the week. I will make it less extravagant in a sentence or two, but as it stands it is not extravagant. It comes to £1 9s. 4½d. To make it less extravagant, let us assume that the expenditure on bacon and meat, which are the largest items, making together 5s. 5d., is deducted. That leaves the woman with an expenditure of 23s. 5d. If we go still further and deduct the rent allowance completely, and assume that that is all paid by the local war pensions committee, it leaves the expenditure of that woman, on the basis I have given and without any meat at all, at 18s. a week.
      It is obvious that if we are attempting, as I presume we are all honestly trying to attempt, not only to prosecute the War vigorously, but, as far as we can, to maintain the standard of living at home, because my right hon. Friends will agree a great amount of the success of the future of this country depends upon the physical fitness of the children being maintained while their fathers are away
      798
      fighting; therefore anything that has a deleterious effect physically upon the wife and children would be put to the debit balance of the State. This budget could be amplified by practically every Member of the House. I presume there is not a Member listening to the Debate or who intends to take part in it who does not know from his own experience or from that of others that it is practically impossible to maintain this efficiency on the sum that is awarded. I say deliberately, after thinking the problem right through, that the provision made by the Government for children such as I have described is totally inadequate to meet the needs of the situation. I have dealt with the wife. The absence of any provision in that case is scandalous. It is an insult to the men who are fighting to learn that this House of Commons, which is voting £700,000,000 to carry on the War, which has given very much more than that to the Allies who are engaged in the War with us, cannot see its way to give something to the allies of the men in their own country. If any body of people has borne the heat and burden of this War more than any other persons it is the wives of the men who are fighting, who have had to do without the company of their husbands, who, while they have had to do that, have been torn with anxiety as to the safety of their husbands, and, in addition to that, have been set the extraordinarily difficult problem of trying to keep an honest roof above their heads. I use the word "honest" deliberately, because in the course of my correspondence, which is by no means small, both with the wives of the men who are serving and with the men themselves at the front, I have received a number of letters, which I do not care to make public, in which the evidence has been incontrovertible that, on account of the smallness of the allowance, these women have fallen from the path of virtue and have distressed not only their own husbands away at the front, but their own relatives. I remember one particular case, which is the most extraordinary letter of any I have ever received. It was from an officer in Egypt, in which he said that no fewer than fifteen men in one company had received information with regard to their wives, and tracing it to the fact that these women were put up against the impossible problem here at home in attempting to live.
      The third point with regard to the increases that are suggested is the much

      799
      vexed point of the allowance to the dependants of apprentices. I need not cover the ground again, because I have covered it and many others have covered it before. Briefly, the position at the moment is, that unless an apprentice was able—as a matter of fact very few of them are able to do it—to establish pre-war dependence, his mother was not entitled on any scale to any allowance, and the allowance, when it was obtainable, was only obtainable through the local war pensions committee. The Government apparently have considered that, and I want to draw the attention of the House very closely to the provision which they suggest will cover it. It is a long statement. It practically repeats many of the arguments that have been used in this House as to the need for the allowance, and it winds up by saying
      "It has, therefore, been decided that an exception should be made in the class of cases alluded to above—"
      That is the apprentice allowance—
      "and that when the soldier has attained twenty-one years of age, at which time he would have been able to make some contribution to the family income, some allowance should be paid to the parents.",
      Further down in the suggestion of the Government they agree that
      "A flat rate of 5s. per week should be given to the parents of all soldiers, sailors, and airmen over the age of twenty-one and under the age of twenty-three."
      Every boy I ever knew was out of his apprenticeship on or before he was twenty-one years of age, and the average youth of twenty-one would be in ordinary circumstances a journeyman worker, entitled to, and probably drawing, a substantial wage. If that boy had not been called to the Colours until he was twenty-one there would be no question at all about his allowance, because, earning a workman's wage, his dependants, whoever they were, father, mother, sisters, or any relatives, would obviously, on the basis of the wage that he was earning, be able, without any difficulty, to establish a separation allowance up to the maximum of 12s. 6d. a week, with any extra allotment he cared to make from his pay. So that to fix the datum line at twenty-one altogether leaves out of account that fact, and it is therefore a datum line which requires some explanation from the Government.
      800
      I have here two short letters which illustrate this point, and are the kind of letters which I dare say most Members receive. This woman says:
      "In reference to the attached announcement re a flat rate for apprentices' payment, could you do anything to bring before the War Cabinet the great injustice done to parents whose sons joined up at eighteen years, a few months before the completion of their indentures? Host apprenticeships expire upon reaching the age of nineteen. Surely that should be the accepted age, as the strain for parents undoubtedly during wartime has been very heavy, as in my case, by submitting particulars to the War Pensions Committee, is not a fair way of dealing with these affairs. My son joined up last November, eighteen years of age, and at the present time it will be two years, if at all, before he can benefit by this allowance."
      Observe that the Government, owing to national necessity, has actually put into the firing line boys of eighteen and a half to nineteen, where they may be killed and are frequently wounded, and therefore subsequently disabled. That is a fact which we should not lose grip of. The Government uses boys in that way and then say to the mothers who gave them up to the Army that they cannot draw any allowance from them until they are twenty-one, and that then all they can draw is a flat rate of 5s. The uses made by the nation of the boy and the abuses of the privileges of the mother stand out in such distinct contrast that no Government which values its own respect can really stand by this proposal. It must go. I can see no other way out of the difficulty. The other letter is practically in the same kind of terms. It comes from a mother who is waiting—
      "Once more I am troubling you, as I have waited patiently for a concession. What a disappointment it is for lads over twenty-one. My youngest boy was called up in March. His time was four years apprenticeship, up in October, 1918."
      So that although his apprenticeship is out and he would be earning a journeyman's wage, and therefore entitled to a maximum if it were possible to get it, other circumstances being equal, of 12s. 6d., they limit that by a flat rate. I believe honestly that the Government has come to this conclusion because it is afraid of the subsequent increases which would require to be made in the pension warrant if it touched the separation allowance of the wife of the serving soldier. A woman to-day gets 12s. 6d. separation allowance. I am again dealing with scale payments and I do not forget the variations in pensions, such as

      801
      alternative pensions and that kind of thing. As a widow she gets 13s. 9d. Ever since the scale was drawn up I have wondered what the serving men in the Army and the Navy think of their value, because obviously on that scale the value of a serving man at the Front to-day is 1s. 3d. a week. If his wife gets 12s. 6d. when he is alive and 13s. 9d. when he is dead, obviously on scale 1s. 3d. represents the difference in the value of the man dead and alive. It is rather curious, in pursuing these figures a little further, how the man's value diminishes if he has children. Because the wife and two children of a serving man get 24s. 6d. separation allowance, but if she were a widow with two children she would get 25s. 5d. pension on scale, which is a difference of 11d. So that whereas a man without any children is worth on scale 1s. 3d. a week, a man who has two children is only worth on scale 11d. a week. It rather suggests the anomaly of the 2s. 6d. separation allowance for the first child, and the 4s. 6d. for all others. Presumably the House is still dissatisfied not only with the separation allowance but with the pension. We must still keep in mind this fact, which I do not think has been elaborated nearly enough, that the whole basis of our pension scheme is our separation allowance, and it explains the flat rate of 5s. to the mothers of apprentices. If a boy is killed in the War the mother becomes a dependant parent. She is dealt with under Article 21 of the Royal Warrant under which she is entitled to a minimum pension of 3s. 6d. a week and a maximum of 15s., and the basis of what she gets from the Pension Minister is that portion of her separation allowance which is given by the Government, and which does not include the allotment of pay of the boy, so that in this provision, by which you give a flat rate of 5s., no contribution presumably coming from the boy in this case as it would be a separation allowance, none of these parents would be able to establish a greater pre-war dependence than 5s. Therefore, the parents when they become dependent parents, pensionable on account of the death of the boy, would only in either case be able to establish a pension of 5s. a week. I think that is an iniquitous proposal. The whole scheme of the Government is full of anomalies. Take their present proposals. The first child to-day on separation allowance gets 7s., and it is proposed to give another
      802
      2s. 6d., making it 9s. 6d., but the first child of a widow, when the father is killed, only gets 6s. 8d., as against the 9s. 6d. that is given to the child when its father is alive, and when possibly the man could increase the separation allowance by an allotment of his pay. The House will know that a soldier is entitled to allot up to 3s. 4d. of his pay as a serving soldier in allowance which his wife draws. Therefore, in pressing the Government for a further increase, as I hope the House will do, and in establishing the right to claim this further increase, I hope the House will not forget that the foundation stone of our pension system is made in the provision of separation allowances, and that if we obtain, as I think we ought to obtain, a higher rate of separation allowance for the wife and a better scheme for the mothers of dependent apprentices, we are not only securing the advantage of the wife of the serving man, but we are establishing a later claim, which I think this House will have to face as surely as we have met this afternoon, to increased pensions.
      There is a third point which does not quite touch the Financial Secretary to the War Office, but it deals with the pension side of the question. I want, on the earliest possible opportunity that is afforded in this House, to protest most strongly against the Ministry of Pensions setting up a Committee to administer voluntary funds to provide for the disabled man what the State ought to provide for him. I would like to call the attention of the House to the circumstances which have led to this appeal by the Ministry of Pensions for £3,000,000 of charitable money, which, in my view, is a disgrace to the Ministry, a disgrace to the Government, and a disgrace to this House. When we considered the Pension Warrant originally, the House will remember that the late Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. McKenna) made an attempt in this House to secure £1,000,000 from the Prince of Wales' Fund in order to finance the Statutory Committee. The House resented that very strongly, and compelled the late Government to withdraw from that proposal. The House will also remember that an attempt was made by the Government to make use of local funds throughout the country, and that we had an agitation, led principally by the mayors and lord mayors and corporations of great cities in

      803
      this country, against any local money being taken into consideration at all in providing for pensions.
      Mr. PENNEFATHER: Does the hon. Member suggest, in connection with the present voluntary fund, that it is an attempt on the part of the Government to get control of funds raised by the mayors and lord mayors?
      Mr. HOGGE: I was not suggesting that, but I was recalling to the House the history which has led up to the present proposal, and I was giving a second instance in which the House itself defeated a previous proposal to make use of voluntary funds.
      Mr. PENNEFATHER: Is the hon. Member not a little involved? I do not think he means that attempts to make use of voluntary funds have been defeated, but—
      Mr. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member had better wait until his turn comes later on.
      Mr. HOGGE: I am not often accused of being involved. I thought that, like the late Mr. Chamberlain, my words were so simple that any child could understand them. The House having by unanimous consent deplored any of these attempts, you have the Government now, through the Ministry of Pensions, attempting to provide funds for purposes which ought to be provided by the State. That is a very important point, and we must not lose sight of it. Is it sufficient for the Government to dispose of a disabled man and the dependants of a man who has been killed by a pension scheme pure and simple, or is it the duty of the State, having conscripted a man for service from industrial and business activity, to restore that man as far as possible to the position from which they took him? I maintain strongly that it is the bounden duty of the State to restore every disabled man as far as possible—we cannot do more than that, because he has to carry his disability with him—to the position from which we took him. I would incidentally remind the House that that is what we are doing with the money which is being lent to the State to carry on this War. None of the money that is being lent to the State to carry on the War is returned to anyone who lends it carrying a disability. On the contrary, it carries a high rate of interest
      804
      and the return of the capital. Just as the State deals in that way with money so the State must deal with discharged and disabled men. If a disabled soldier goes to the Ministry of Pensions and says, "It is true I am in receipt of a disability pension, but before the War I had a little shop, or I had a little business of some kind and I cannot restart that because I have no money." In that case it is the duty of the State, if and when it can, to start that man in that business. Not only is it the duty of the State but it is a wise thing for the State to do, because every man you resettle in the position from which you took him you are lessening the possible pool of unemployment after the War. If the House agrees that it is the duty of the State to do this, then it cannot be done from voluntary funds. The proposal of the Ministry of Pensions is that these men applying to this voluntary fund shall have an amount of £25, to be increased if the fund increases. The sum of £25 goes into £3,000,000 one hundred and twenty thousand times, so that if you give £25 to 120,000 disabled men you have exhausted your £3,000,000. We have discharged and pensioned over 400,000 men, to say nothing at all about women and dependants. If you lump them altogether there is nearly 1,250,000, and I say it is unfair to these people to attempt to deal with them in this way. The only authority that can deal with them properly is the State, and this House having said at the beginning of the War that discharged men should never be treated in any charitable way again is losing a considerable amount of dignity in allowing the Ministry of Pensions and the Government to set up a voluntary scheme out of which these men are to be assisted.
      We want these men to stand on their own feet and to come to the State and demand their rights and to receive justice from the State. It slackens a man's real moral fibre if he has to go to a local committee in a provincial town and ask them to put up a claim to the Government for a paltry £25 to set him up in a little business. There could be no graver national mistake than to attempt to set men up in small businesses. It simply means that they are going to lose the amount of their Grant in attempting to start that business, and that they are going to mortgage their little pension to keep their businesses alive, and that in a short time, owing to the competition, these

      805
      men are going to be thrown out again on to the streets for the State to look after them. Therefore, I want to make the strongest possible protest of which I am capable against the Government sanctioning a policy on behalf of the Minister of Pensions for the provision of funds for any such purpose. What we want to know to-day is why the Government have not increased the wives' allowance. I hope that my right hon. Friend will tell us whether the reason that it has not been increased is that it is the foundation-stone of the pension scheme. I would also like him to tell us the reason for this extraordinary distinction between the provision of 2s. 6d. for the first child and 4s. 6d. for all others, by which a woman gets less the more children she has. I would also like him to tell us the justification for postponing the distribution of a flat rate to the mothers of apprentices until they are twenty-one, when they will be on their own feet, and I would ask him, Will he repudiate on behalf of the Government and on behalf of the State that at any time this nation is going to deal with our discharged men in any charitable form? Considering the future of this country, the various parties into which the people who are now enlisted will fall, and the future domestic, social, and industrial and economic outlook, a great deal is going to depend on the spirit of the men discharged from the Army. If these men are disgruntled we may have in this country happenings of which the whole country may be ashamed. If, on the other hand, these men feel that the nation has done a fair and square deal, they would be satisfied to work in constitutional ways for the reforms that they and all of us desire, and it would be much better for all of us if they are put into that position and are able to look back and say: "We fought for our country, served our country, and saved our country, and now our country has saved us in our disability."
      1.0 P.M.
      Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: My hon. Friend, in the very admirable speech just delivered, has thrown his net very widely and with very small meshes, and in many ways the House might be quite content to leave the case where he has put it and listen to the reply of my right hon. Friend. But there are one or two things, perhaps, to be said, if for no other reason than the reinforcement of his position. I would like very briefly to associate myself with his protest against the voluntary fund, which is being got up by the Pensions
      806
      Minister. It is a disgrace to this House and a disgrace to the nation that men in the position of those who are supposed to be beneficiaries under it should have to be beholden to charity in order to get what every decent-minded citizen desires them to get. The men who will be chiefly affected by this are an especially deserving set of men. I oppose, and I hope the Minister of Pensions will take into account what my hon. Friend has said, the idea of putting disabled men on the shelf, as it were, by giving them a small business. A small business is a bottomless pit. You can put every sixpence of your savings into it and lose it all and in the end be worse off than at the beginning. But there is a certain number of men now serving with the Colours who, having started small businesses, made a success of them. They have done their best since the War began to keep them going. Military exigencies have called these men to the Colours. Their businesses are decaying. Some of them have been closed. I am told by a large number of them who write me that if they could only get some sort of assurance that when they return to civil life they can be put in a way to get back to their old customs they see a way to make a decent living. Those are the men who are to be helped.
      Those men would be very much worse off than ordinary workmen. There will be a demand for the labour of these men. It may be a very limited and intermittent demand, but there will be a demand. But those men, having lost their capital, as a great many of them have done, having lost their connection, as most of them have done, will require to get some help from the State, so that they may be in a position to start life at the point they left off when they had to go into the Army. If nothing is done for them our pauper population is going to be enormous. Moreover, they are a body of men with a great deal of self-respect. Their independence to a very considerable extent has made them leave their workshops and start small enterprises on their own account. Others have been physically weakened. They belong not to the first grade of physical efficiency of labour, and after serving in the Army their physical efficiency in a great many cases will be somewhat lower than when they first went in. Therefore, you have got a type of men with a great deal of self-respect. That is combined with a somewhat low grade of

      807
      physical and hustling efficiency. That type of man ought to receive special consideration from the State. His self-respect would not be appealed to by a £3,000,000 charitable fund, and his financial necessity would not be met from such a fund. I hope, therefore, that the House will adopt regarding this attempted charity the same attitude that it did on two occasions referred to by my hon. Friend. I will say nothing about the position of the apprentice's mother and the dependants. I think that my hon. Friend has said all that need be said about that, but there is still something to be said about the separation allowance.
      I start with the proposition which I think is reasonable, if, indeed, it is not too modest, that the separation allowance to-day should be equal in real value to the separation allowance of 1914. I do not think anybody will dispute that. As a matter of fact, I think there is substantial ground for a considerable increase, but I want to put the matter on a basis such as any reasonable man would care to lay down. Between 1914 and 1917 prices have increased by something like 107 per cent., but I am quite willing to make the official deduction from that. First of all, however, I should point out that lower grade foodstuffs and lower grade clothing-stuffs are substituted for the higher grade pre-war foodstuffs and pre-war clothing-stuffs, and the increased prices range somewhere about from 70 per cent. to 107 per cent. I think that the Government increase is too general, but I will adopt it, and will take the instance of a wife and two children who, in 1914, received 17s. 6d. separation allowance. Seventy per cent. on that makes 30s. for wife and child included; under this new scheme they get 29s. If you take the case of a wife and three children, the family have an allowance of 20s. to begin with, and 70 per cent. on that is 34s., but they only get 32s. 6d., so that they are short by 1s. 6d. If you take the case of a wife with four children, the payment was 22s., and 70 per cent. on that is 37s. 4d., and they now get 25s. 6d. If you take a wife and one child—just to take the matter right through—they receive 15s., and 70 per cent. on that is 25s. 6d.; they now get 22s. The simple fact of the matter is that anybody who knows what a woman with two children has to do in the way of meeting expenses will see that 29s. is not an adequate allowance under present conditions, which are
      808
      almost impossible. Clothing alone is very difficult to get now, the prices being so high, that a woman with 29s. and two children cannot buy anything at all.
      Let me take the scale on another footing. At the present moment a woman without any children gets 12s. 6d., and no change has been made in that allowance; but a wife with one child gets 7s. increase, and at the present moment under the existing scale you add 2s. 6d., and you get an increase of 9s. 6d. When the second child comes the increase at present is another 5s., and under the new scheme it is 7s. With the third child the increase is 3s. 6d., at the present time, and under the new scheme it is still only 3s. 6d. With each child added to the family the jumps in the income are simply and absolutely absurd, when considered in relation to the increased expenses of the family. The present drop between the second and the third is 1s. 6d.; the drop that is going to be created under the new scheme is 3s. 6d. The drop between the second and fourth, under the present scale, is 2s., and the drop under the proposed scheme between the second and fourth is 4s. I do not know what the explanation of that is, but I know that if you were to put these figures before a competent housekeeper and say, "I will give you so much for two children, and so much less for the third, and very much less for the fourth, and still much less for others," no competent house-keeper would take the responsibility of looking after a family of one, two, three, or four children under such a scale of allowances as that which is proposed under the new scheme. After all, we have to look at it from that point of view, otherwise we would not be doing our duty, and I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that his proposed scheme should be reconsidered, because it is not at all fair, especially under the conditions which now exist.
      I leave the case of childless women, which was so adequately dealt with by my hon. Friend. There is one other point that I wish to put before the right hon. Gentleman. Everybody admits now, and the Government itself has admitted, that for months and months the separation allowance must have been inadequate Nothing has happened within the last six or twelve months which would more justify the increase which the Government themselves have now granted. The conditions have been very much the same in

      809
      the last six months or twelve months, and recent inquiry has persuaded the Government to increase the allowance. Therefore, the logical conclusion is that the increased pay should date back, and I think the Government must be content to give it at once from the 1st January. I hope that the House will come to the conclusion that it is quite necessary to postpone this particular proposal until it has received further consideration, especially when everything is taken into account, the curious arrangement of the scale, the insufficiency of the amounts, and the ungenerous way in which the State is meeting its obligations to the dependants of the defenders of this country. I hope that the scale is not yet finally fixed, and I trust that this Debate will persuade the Government that it must endeavour to meet this matter a little more adequately than this scale at present does. I hope before we go home this afternoon I may receive a statement from the Government which will make this scheme a little more satisfactory to this House, and that we shall be able to get an adequate scheme established.
      Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: There is one point to which I wish to draw the attention of the Government, and that is the amount of separation allowances to soldiers' wives and families. It is extraordinary that a man who is living at home, and has been permitted to do so by the military authorities, should be mulct in 6s. 7d. per week as compared with the man who receives the ordinary separation allowance. I want to make myself perfectly clear. This is designated Family Allowance, Scheme 1. The man gets 11s. 8d. per week, the consolidated family allowance is 20s. 6d., and the London area allowance is 3s. 6d., giving a total of 35s. 8d. The Government cannot imagine for one moment that 35s. 8d. is a reasonable sum out of which a man has to live and provide for his wife and home, as well as pay his rent. We have only to look at the rates of wages that are now paid to ordinary artisans. We find they have tremendously increased. I am not going to discuss the question whether that increase is right or wrong, but the fact remains there has been an enormous increase, and when we inquire why it has been necessary to grant it, the Government reply has usually attributed it to the increased cost of living. When you come to the case of the man who has volunteered for service,
      810
      as a great many of these men did in the early days of the War, giving up the positions they occupied in order to fulfil their duty and privilege as a citizen, you must remember that the State on its part owes a duty to them, although I am afraid it has been a little late in recognising that duty. Let us compare the figures in the case of that man with the payments to the soldier who is receiving the ordinary separation allowance. What is called the family allowance is given to the man who lives at home, who has to travel to and from his work, and in many cases has to pay travelling expenses, and who incurs additional expenses for nourishment while away from home out of this magnificent sum of 35s. 8d. per week.
      The man who gets the ordinary separation allowance receives altogether 42s. 3d. a week. His pay, 11s. 8d., his ration allowance (including the increase of 4d. recently granted) 14s. 7d., his soldier's allowance 12s. 6d., and his London area allowance 3s. 6d.—a total of 42s. 3d. a week. I do not think anyone will say that 42s. 3d. represents too generous an allowance, but if the Government recognise that such a sum should be given to a man who has not the expense of travelling to and from his work, who is living in billets or barracks, and has to provide no food outside, surely it must be difficult to justify the payment of 6s. 7d. per week less to the other man. I do not for one moment want the right hon. Gentleman to think that the soldier living under a separation allowance is getting too much. I think the boot is on the other leg. He is getting too little, but how much more palpable must it be that the man with a family allowance is receiving a great deal less than he ought to do. Then, again, take the case of a soldier with one child. The discrepancy in that case is 7s. 7d. per week instead of 6s. 7d. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is in a position to give a reasonable reply on this question. I have discussed the matter with all classes of men, I have talked it over with Members of this House of all ways of thinking, and not one has been able to find any justification. The explanation seems to me this, that the matter has been more or less overlooked. It has been brought up here casually by way of question and answer, and although we always do get courteous replies from the right hon. Gentleman, I must say that in this matter there has been evasion on his part.

      811
      He has not been able to give a reasonable excuse for making this differentiation. I plead with the right hon. Gentleman, although it is late in the day, although this has gone on for a considerable period, that he should not now tell me that as it has gone on since the War started it must continue. That is not a reasonable reply. When we find things are wrong and bring them before the Government it is the duty of the Government either to show reasonable cause for not altering them or to apply a remedy. I do not want to waste the time of the House. No doubt many hon. Members wish to discuss this matter, but I must impress the importance of it on the right hon. Gentleman.
      I have another point to which I wish to draw his attention, and that is in regard to the London allowance, which is granted to those who are living or were originally living in the London area owing to the extra cost of rent and other things. The grant amounts to 3s. 6d. per week, and it is paid to the wives of men living in the London area. It was agreed that if these women moved out of the London area the grant ipso facto ceased to exist. If that is right, and I think it is quite right, I say, on the other hand, that if it is incumbent upon some of the women who have been living outside the county of London to move into London, owing perhaps, as is the case very often, to the fact that they have to perform work of national importance in London, surely it is necessary, as the Government have taken away the 3s. 6d. when they moved from London into the country, that the Government should give the grant of 3s. 6d. a week to these people. In reply to a question the other day on this very subject, the right hon. Gentleman said, to my surprise, that this was something that had gone on since the commencement of the War and that there was no reason to alter it. I do not really think the right hon. Gentleman means that, or that he intends to tell hon. Members that if they bring to the notice of the Government something that is wrong they are not going to rectify it simply because it has been in existence since the commencement of the War. The great majority of people did not anticipate that the War was going to continue for such a long period, and therefore many of these cases of injustice have been left in abeyance in the hope that we should have a termination of hostilities. Those hopes not having been realised, it is high time,
      812
      and past high time, that many of these things should and must be righted. I therefore venture to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to take up this matter, because it affects an enormous number of people, and to say that the Government, having considered it, are only too desirous to put right what they have found to be wrong.
      I desire to bring one more matter before the House, and that is with regard to men who unfortunately lost their lives previous to July, 1916. I am speaking now on behalf of the widows of these men. I have recently put down on the Question Paper a case that has been brought to my notice with regard to a poor woman who has applied time after time for the large sum of £5 from a magnanimous Government which has deemed it advisable to accept the responsibility as and from 16th July, 1916, and yet they said that the widows of those who had been killed previous to that date should receive the sum of £5, or in a great number of cases were granted £5 by the Patriotic Society. I do not think that that is right. If the Government thought it was reasonable that £5 should be paid to these widows, they have no right to say, because it was paid by this voluntary fund, that cases brought to the notice of the Government now shall not receive attention on the ground that they occurred previous to July, 1916, when the matter was administered from the Patriotic Fund. It does not seem right, and it is not right. If the sum was granted and was given in cases before July, 1916, out of the Patriotic Fund, surely the Government ought not to act in such an exceedingly niggardly manner and try to evade their responsibility by saying that the Government did not make these payments before a certain date and therefore cannot be held responsible now! I hold in my hand a most pitiable letter from one of these unfortunate widows, who asks if I can tell her on what grounds other widows have received the money when she is deprived of it. She says she has to strive very hard, and that every 6d. is of the utmost importance to her, and she has asked over and over again for this sum of £5 without getting it granted to her. She says she is told first to write here and then to write there. I have taken the matter up with the pensions committee, and I appreciate that as far as the Parliamentary Secretary is concerned he has done his best in the matter, but there is some line that is drawn which

      813
      rules out and makes of no account the sympathy of the Parliamentary Secretary. This poor woman says that she has other people living side by side with her whose husbands have been lost. "We have given our men to our King and our country,'" she says, "and much as we miss our husbands we feel that we have done our duty, but we do feel that the Government on its part ought not to try and evade responsibility by simply saying that from a certain date they have closed their books and that they are, therefore, not responsible." I venture to appeal to the Government not to have these hard and fast rules. It is not necessary. The House and the country do not want them. The country is prepared to provide the money that is necessary to carry on this War and to make provision for the widows and orphans of those who have unfortunately fallen, and the country would be the last to say that they agreed with the Government in adopting this niggardly policy, which the Government would be the first to deprecate if it were a question of a private employer. We have always tried and hoped to look upon the Government as a model employer, and I hope the matters which I have brought before the Government to-day will receive not only sympathetic consideration, but will receive the consideration of rectifying these wrongs and making the rectification retrospective in cases in which it is found to be necessary.
      Sir J. BUTCHER: The question in which we are engaged this afternoon is, perhaps, one of the most important of all domestic war questions. Unless adequate provision is made for the wives and children of our fighting men, we shall be faced with three distinct results which will be disastrous. One is the suffering of the wives and children themselves; the second is the deterioration of our population and the great national loss in that great asset, namely, the children—the men and women of the future; and, thirdly, undoubtedly there is, or will be, unless adequate provision is made, much anxiety, much discontent, both here and in the fighting forces abroad, with the possible result of a diminution in the moral of the nation and its determination to see this War through. I have had, I suppose, like every other Member of the House, a good many letters on this subject. I have also personally seen a good many of the women who are affected by the inadequacy of the provision made for them, and
      814
      the result of my experience has been, until at any rate the recent concessions—about the adequacy of which I shall say a word in a moment—that undoubtedly there have been many cases where the provision made for the support of the wife and children was inadequate, and where there was serious consequent suffering. I think the country is grateful to the Government for the very large concessions which have been made. They amount to the large sum of £23,000,000 a year, but the actual large figures must not deter us at any cost from doing what we consider right in this matter, and if a larger cost than £23,000,000 is necessary, all I can say is that it must be found somehow or other, and the resources of the country, I think, must be pledged to the utmost limit in order to make provision for what I consider to be almost the first charge on the resources of the nation.
      I should like to express my concurrence with what has been already said as to these concessions not coming into operation until 1st October of this year. I put aside the question, which possibly might be urged, that they should be made retrospective. Putting that out of the question, I can see no reason myself why they should not be brought into operation at once, and that is a matter on which I wish to urge the Government very strongly to reconsider their views. Before I come to the general question, I want for one moment to draw attention to a very interesting and very significant document which has recently come to my notice. It is the report of Dr. Sabnis, Tuberculosis Officer at York, to the Health Committee of the City Council as to the malnutrition amongst the children in the City of York and its consequent effect on the increase of tuberculosis in that city. It is a long document, elaborately worked out, but I do not propose to give to the Committee more than a summary of what he says. In effect, he says that his observations have satisfied him that there has been increasing malnutrition since the War amongst the children of the working-classes, and especially amongst the children of soldiers who are serving. That is a very serious matter, and that increasing malnutrition has been followed by an increase in tuberculosis amongst the children. I am afraid the conclusion is inevitable that that malnutrition, to some extent, at any rate, is caused by the insufficient allowances which have been

      815
      hitherto made to the wives and children. He gives five specific cases, which he has gone into, of a wife with one, two, three, four, and five children, showing in each case what the Government allowance is and showing what the net amount remaining for the food and clothing of the wife and children is, after deducting rent, insurance, coal, and gas. The average amount left for food and clothing of each person, after making those necessary deductions, is 4s. 7d. a week, or, in the case of a family of four, 18s. Under present conditions, would anyone say that it is possible to feed and clothe four people, three being children, on 18s. a week? I have had some figures looked up as to the Poor Law allowances for children, and I find in the case of boarders-out children the allowance for a child is 6s. 6d. per week, with £3 a year for clothing. In the case of standard homes under the Poor Law the allowance is from 8s. to 12s. until the child attains the age of sixteen. So that, comparing those figures with the amount given by Dr. Sabnis as payable for the children of soldiers, it would certainly seem as if, up to now, at any rate, the allowance to wives and children of soldiers have been insufficient.
      May I just say one or two words as to specific cases which have been dealt with, and, first of all, as to the childless wife? As I understand, a childless wife receives a scale allowance in all cases of 12s. 6d. She may receive an additional allowance of 4s. a week if she is unable to work. Then, I think I am right in saying—and upon this I should like my hon. Friend's confirmation—that a childless wife comes under the special grants, and can get towards rent, insurance, and other contractual obligations up to a maximum of 12s., and, indeed, in some cases 22s., the exact amount being dependent upon the existing income she possesses, as compared with the pre-enlistment income of her husband. If I am right in those figures, I think the position of the childless wife is fairly well secured, but this depends to a very large extent upon the action of these special grants committees, and if one were perfectly sure that in every case the special grants committee would exercise their functions fairly reasonably, I do not think myself, so far as I can see, there is much to complain of. I do not know whether my hon. Friend
      816
      can give me an assurance that if the special grants committees do not exercise their discretion in a reasonable manner, there is some mode of controlling them and compelling them to act fairly in a particular case. As regards the wife with two children, her position undoubtedly has been considerably improved under this new scheme, and when an allowance is made by the special grants committee in proper cases, I doubt if there is great ground for complaint on the part of the wife with two children. But in the case of the wife with, say, three, four, or more children, I confess, to my mind, the allowance under the scheme is somewhat arbitrary, and I doubt if it will work out quite satisfactorily. Perhaps my hon. Friend, who is going to speak later, will explain this, and, if it turns out that this new arrangement works inequitably as between the wife with two children and the wife with a larger number of children, that they will correct it and introduce improvements into their scheme.
      There is one other point which is of considerable importance, and that is the hardship which exists in many cases on the families of men who enlisted in the early days of the War, when wages were far lower than they are now, as compared with the allowances made to families of men who enlisted at a far later date. The men who enlisted in these early days deserve our sympathy and the expression of our gratitude in some concrete form to the greatest extent to which it can be given. They have borne the burden and heat of the day. They saved this country—and the world!—in the earlier days of the War, and if these men can be rewarded in any way possible by consideration for themselves and their families—these men who went out in those days and have borne the stress, strain, and hardship of battle for years—they are thoroughly entitled to such reward. How does this comparison work out? Under the special grant arrangement, the special allowance, as I understand it, is to be made to families who have to meet very special contractual obligations, such as rent, assurance premiums, and so on.
      There is a certain maximum. The sum they have to get out of these grants is not to exceed the difference between the present income of the household and the pre-enlistment income, so that if you go rigorously to the amount of the income when the man enlisted, the amount of the

      817
      special grant that may be given to the families of the men who enlisted earlier is far less than that to the families of the men who enlisted later, because wages have gone up very much in the interval. Take the case of railwaymen, who are a large and important class of the community. Their wages have gone up something like from 2s. to 5s. per week, if you take the special war bonus as part of their wages. The Government have already made a certain concession in regard to them. They have allowed the wages of the men who enlisted, say, in 1914 to be estimated on the basis of the wages that they would have been paid in January, 1916. That is not enough. I think this grant ought to be given on the basis of the wages that are now being paid. May I call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench to the views upon this matter which have been expressed by the York Local Pensions Committee? I need hardly say that these pensions committees are in a position to appreciate the working of this scheme, perhaps, as well as anyone in the country. York draws attention to this point, and says:
      "The families of men who are now being called up will be entitled to a very considerable grant under the new Regulations, whereas the families of the men who went straight from their regular employment to enlist are not able to have nearly so large a grant."
      They passed a resolution which I think they have forwarded to the Ministry of Pensions and some other Departments, in these words:
      "This Committee urge that the grant made under Part II. of the Regulations of the Special Grants Committee of the Ministry of Pensions should be based on the rates of wages current in June, 1918, and not merely on the pre-enlistment wages, or the wages of June, 1916."
      That seems to me in itself to be a most reasonable proposal, and also, I may add, a very urgent one. I hope the Government will give immediate attention to it. I feel that the matters we are discussing this afternoon—I am sorry to say in rather a thin House—are of the utmost national importance. They are important not merely to the people actually concerned, the wives and children of the fighting men, who are deeply and anxiously concerned with the welfare of those whom they have left at home, but they are important to the nation as a whole, in view of the determined and successful prosecution of the War.
      Mr. WING: I desire, in the few remarks I have to make, following the previous
      818
      speaker, to emphasise the feeling of the importance of the subject we are now considering. I am amongst those who are not unmindful of the action of the Government in the increased allowances that they have made. They seem to me, however, to be lacking in several particulars. First, there is the date of payment. This has been alluded to by succeeding speakers as October. If I understand aright the Regulations, it really is November, for it states that "it will not be possible for the Department to begin to pay before 1st November, and it will be several months after that date before the revision of Army allowances is completed." That seems to me to be getting very near to Christmas. A very large number of people who have had their hopes raised by the announcement of these increases will have their patience very severely tried, and I wish to join my hope with those which have been expressed, that there will be some reconsideration of this matter, and that in some way or other it will be hurried up, so that the payments may be made as early as possible. I should like to join with the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) in his expression of the very unsatisfactory state in which the case of the apprentices is met—namely, at a flat rate of 5s. per week. It is not enough. The age limit, too, is from twenty-one to twenty-three. The delay to my mind is unjust, because it places upon those who enlisted earlier a disadvantage which is not experienced by those who have been called up later. This is recognised by the various pensions committees that have to deal with these matters, because in every case in which there is an application of this kind it has to be made through these committees; and it seems to me a very ungenerous thing that you should call up the cream of our fighting forces, the young and vigorous, and that they should be treated in a way which is in no wise in harmony with their importance. The decision of the Government will leave thousands of parents chewing the cud of disappointment at the insufficiency of the amount granted, and at its conditions.
      In relation to this new Warrant, the childless wife is left without any consideration except before the pensions committee. As has already been intimated, the temper of the pensions committee varies. Some of them are apt to give a generous interpretation of the rules and

      819
      regulations, and others are apt to do the opposite. In many instances it is thought that the official representing the Department of the right hon. Gentleman opposite is deeply interested in not carrying out his duties in a sympathetic spirit, and he sees that the rules and regulations are very exactly administered. The childless wife presents a very difficult problem, because in some instances she has been newly married, and perhaps living with her parents, and in other cases she goes out and earns money, and these reasons are urged for non-attention to the childless wife. She may be an ailing woman requiring support, and the amount she is receiving may not be sufficient. I suggest that there should be an additional amount allowed by the Committee under certain conditions.
      A woman wants to maintain her pre-war respectability and she finds her means are not sufficient, and if she expresses any dissatisfaction the reply is, "Well, we are at war, and that accounts for the difference." I suggest that there should be some better means and some larger allowance granted to the childless wife than is granted at the present time. The soldier's wife is the only member of the State at the present time that is called upon not to accept more money than she received under pre-war conditions. If she appears before the committee the grant must not be over and above her pre-war income, allowing for the saving because the Government provide food and clothing for her husband. When the soldier's wife goes into a grocer's shop there is no differentiation between her and the wife of the munition worker and she is treated as any other woman, and the increased cost of living is the same to her as to the others. I think it is unjust that you should place upon her the embargo that, whatever other people may get and however high the price of living, that any income to her must not be above her pre-war income. That is unjust, and will not stand examination. The principle upon which these grants are made seems to me to be wrong.
      The other matter I wish to call attention to is the question of widows' only sons, which the Government still continue to take, although they said they would not do so, and I wish to urge that where they do this that the amounts granted should be very much more generous than they have been and than they
      820
      are at the present time. The difference is that the Government are insisting upon certain conditions, that is to say, the amount of money received at a certain time shall regulate the money for all time in relation to the soldiers. You have to bear in mind that the soldiers whose complaints are the greatest are those who were the most willing to fight, that is, they were volunteers, and the conscript is having a very much better consideration in the way of pay than the volunteer. I have here a letter from the clerk to the Houghton-le-Spring Rural District Council, a responsible body, and they say:
      "It has come to the notice of the Committee that several young men joined the Army before they were legally liable and their parents secured their release under Army Instructions to Class W Reserve. When the lads first joined the Army, small separation allowances and in some cases possibly none were allowed owing to the small wages earned by such lads prior to enlistment. After discharge to Class W they were enabled to earn larger wages, but when they were recalled to the Colours the separation allowances granted were those in existence previously based upon the earnings of such lads before first joining the force. The following case which came before my committee on Tuesday last explains more definitely what is meant. Andrew Bowey, 25158, D.L.I., enlisted in May, 1915, when a separation allowance of 5s. 6d. per week was established. He was subsequently transferred to Class W and was at home three months (30th October. 1916 to 8th February, 1917), during which time his certified earnings were 27s. 6d. per week. On the case coming before the pension officer for the second time, he valued the dependence again at 5s. 6d., ignoring the period of three months when the lad earned 27s. 6d. per week. My committee consider the present dependency should be based upon the "second" earnings, and they have recommended that it be fixed at 10s. per week, but they are afraid the War Office will not grant it."
      2.0 P.M.
      They asked me to bring this case before the House, and I think it is really one which should have the consideration of the War Office together with very many more of which it is merely representative. I urge myself an earlier payment of these increases promised, a reconsideration of the same paid to the parents of apprentices, a levelling up of allowances, that is making the same payments to volunteers as are now paid to conscripts, and a further payment to the childless wife, and a reconsideration of the whole matter in the interests of the nation and the winning of the war.
      Mr. ROWLANDS: This is a subject of the greatest magnitude so far as its effects are concerned, and it is more important than any of the subjects that have engrossed

      821
      our attention for some considerable time past. The question of the allowances granted to the dependants of our soldiers must have in the future a very far-reaching effect on the rising generation, and in regard to the sort of stamina we are to have in the population from time to time. There was a great deal of expectancy in the minds of the public when it was announced some time ago that it was the intention of the Government to reconsider the question of allowances, and I know that expectancy was very keen indeed when last week the Government Report was issued as to the conditions under which the Government were prepared to reconsider these allowances. While the sum involved is a very large one as things go, or as they used to go in pre-war times, we have got rather beyond that kind of thing now, and although the sum of £23,000,000 struck the imagination as being a large addition to our expenditure, yet when we come to analyse it I think we shall find that while we are glad to have this £23,000,000 for allowances that does not cover at all the requirements of existing necessitous cases, and they are so distributed that they leave some very wide and unfortunate gaps on account of the way in which they are allocated. I want simply to endorse, without going over the same arguments, all that has been said by the previous speakers with regard to the keenness of the interest taken in this question by Members of this House, and by the community at large. We realise every one of us that we owe a deep and abiding duty to these men who are at this time upholding our liberties on the battlefield and we are anxious that those who enlisted very early in the War may be treated in the most generous manner, because I believe that those men who came out in the early days of the War, in 1914 and the early part of 1915, before there was any Conscription, are the men to whom we owe the deepest debt of gratitude. They voluntarily came forward in our hour of need and responded to the call of the country, and we should show our gratitude to these men and their dependants for what they did at that time above all others.
      The allotment takes a very peculiar form in the new arrangement. I am not going to weary the House—I have had a heavy correspondence since the answer was given to me by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last night week—by giving
      822
      examples of budgets sent to me. One such budget was given to the House this morning by the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge), and I think we may take it as typical of hundreds of others which could be produced by Members in all parts of the House. I wish simply to say that the budgets we have had show the inadequacy of the allowances now made in comparison with the rise in prices. I endorse all that has been said about the childless wife. I think her case is one which requires serious investigation. I know—it has been repeated here this morning—all the arguments put forward with regard to her income, but I have had brought before me and have correspondence here at the present time of cases where a childless wife is outside the whole of the arguments that have been used, and even with the extra allowance, where she is incapable of earning money, she cannot possibly live, even with the extra allowances, under the existing conditions. I do not want to repeat the arguments with regard to the peculiar case of the 2s. 6d. for the first child, and 4s. 6d. no matter how many other children there may be, but I endorse all that has been said.
      There is, however, one class I particularly wish to appeal for, and to ask my right hon. Friend if he cannot with the other cases consider it seriously and alter it. This is the case of the apprentice. Where you are in a locality where there are a large number of lads that are apprenticed, where you know thoroughly well the great sacrifices made by the parents—and I happen to be so situated on account of the large engineering works in our locality—you know the great sacrifices made by the parents in apprenticing their boys. Many of us have begged them to do it, and encouraged them in doing it, because we know that the, skilled man, after he has served an apprenticeship, is of much better service to the country than the man who has gone into a blind-alley occupation, and, as the result of it, is able to contribute more to the household than the apprentice. Anyone who has been an apprentice must know, as I do, that the remuneration does not come up at all to the standard in any other occupation you may take, but what you are waiting for during the time you are learning your craft is for the last year or two when your remuneration goes up and there are other means of adding to it, and as you become more skilled you jump right into the standard rate of wages of the skilled men in

      823
      the particular industry to which you have devoted your time. I speak with practical experience, and can enter into the spirit of the fathers who have written to me. They have made this sacrifice. We are taking, owing to the necessities of the conditions of war, these lads or young men away from their occupation in the last period of their apprenticeship, or, as has been shown, just as they are passing away from their apprenticeship. The importance of the case has at last been acknowledged to be such as should be dealt with by the Government. There is something to be said for the, parents who have made this sacrifice having some allowance, and under the new scheme there is the allowance of the 5s. flat rate. That does not to my mind meet adequately the requirements of the case. I think you want to go more thoroughly into the conditions in which the parents or other relatives would have been when these individuals, for whom they have made the sacrifices, would have been able to contribute towards the household in which they lived. I know it is said in the Report that the cases are so numerous that it would be too much labour to carry on this investigation. I quite agree, but that is an argument why they should be reconsidered in a very generous spirit in regard to the flat rate. They are very numerous cases. They are so numerous that the Government has at last conceded something towards these dependants, and I ask them whether they think the rate of 5s. is anything like adequate to the needs of the case? I seriously ask for a reconsideration of that particular part.
      The other portions have been dealt with by other Members of the House, but I seriously ask for the reconsideration of the case of the apprentice, as I am thoroughly conversant with the circumstances and know the sacrifices made by the parents. Any sacrifices of money they might have made by not going into other occupations, they cannot show as in the case of the lads earning large sums in blind-alley occupations. They cannot show so large a contribution to the household, but they can show what would have been the contribution had they not made the sacrifice in turning out a number of thoroughly skilled men. The case is one of title strongest there is, and I do not want to labour it any more, and do not want to occupy the time of the House by going
      824
      over the various arguments of the various Members, but I endorse all they have said, and trust that we may got a reply from the right hon. Gentleman; that he will be able to encourage us with the statement that the Government will arrive at their conclusion in connection with the readjustment of their allowances; that they will really consider them after the criticism that has Been made—because the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer expected criticism to take place this week, and now it has been made by those who have investigated the whole of the case, and are able to speak on behalf of those who have communicated with the Government, that they will deal with it in a kindly and open-hearted manner, and give effect to that by a readjustment of the allowance.
      Mr. T. RICHARDSON: I hope the Government will not take the attendance here to-day as a reflex of the interest of the public outside in this very important question that is occupying the attention of the House. I think it would not be out of place to ask the House to remember that especially in the early days of the War not only the Government, but the country were pledged very completely to make the most generous possible provision not only for our soldiers and sailors, but also for their dependants. The Government, therefore, must not be surprised to find that up and down the country there is not only a feeling of disappointment, but also a very strong feeling of resentment. One or two speakers this afternoon have asked the Government and the House to keep in mind the fact that the volume of discontent and disapproval is very substantial and is making itself manifest from one end of the country to the other. I have risen more particularly to urge upon the Government to reconsider their decision concerning apprentices. Some of us during the last four years have had very much correspondence with Government Departments on this important subject. Yesterday a working collier and his wife, who have three sons who have joined His Majesty's Forces, were on these premises. One son had been a prisoner in Germany now for upwards of three years. I remember when I first came to this House receiving a letter from my old schoolmaster, asking me to go and have an interview with him. When I went he told me that his brightest boy in the school

      825
      was going to commence work in the mines, and he was very anxious that this bright boy, full of promise, should not do so, but he was the eldest of a family of eight children. I undertook to see the parents, and they agreed to allow the boy to continue at school. He succeeded in getting a scholarship under the county council, and since I have been a Member of this House he has passed the London Matriculation. For twelve months he worked as an uncertificated teacher to supplement the earnings of his father in order that he might go to college. He went to college, and was taken from there into the Army. The second boy has also gone into the same profession, and the father told me yesterday that although he has one son, now a prisoner of war in Germany, who has had twelve months at college and whose fees have been paid for the second term, a second son who is now in hospital, and a third who is in the fighting, line in France, the Government have declined absolutely to make any consideration for any of those boys.
      I submit that the Government did not meet the needs of these claims when they fixed the maximum at 5s. per week, and did not admit of a claim until the boys had reached twenty-one years of age. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the case I have quoted is only one of many that have come under my own personal observance, and I do earnestly plead with the Government to do elementary justice to citizens who were rendering a very great national service as the result of great sacrifices in trying to give their boys the opportunity not only of a thorough education, but of a professional career. I want to register my protest against the Government making this new scale, which is very imperfect and very incomplete prospective. It is not to operate until October. One hon. Gentleman has quoted from the circular, showing that the first payment is not to be made until November. The Government have been compelled by force of public opinion to recognise that the allowances are very inadequate, and it is not treating this House and public opinion outside fairly, and, indeed, it is adding injury to insult, having given that decision after long delay and overdue inquiry, to say that it is to be post-dated some two or three months hence. I earnestly hope that, as the result of this discussion, the Government, amongst
      826
      other concessions, will decide that it is not to be post-dated, and that they will apply it at the earliest possible moment, and that they will give more sympathetic and more favourable consideration to the claims of the apprentices. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that there are thousands of homes in this country of the type of which I have spoken, where working men and their wives have made tremendous sacrifices in order to give their boys a better education to put them into the teaching profession. I have given the case of a working collier who has two sons in that category, and who has not received a single cent from the Government. I am certain that if the Government would have regard to the feeling of the public on this question they would remedy that injustice which has been so obvious and transparent for such a long time.
      Mr. PENNEFATHER: The representative of the Government will agree that the Debate to-day has been extraordinarily useful in bringing out a large number of points which require careful consideration. I have sat through the whole of the Debate, and I do not think I have heard anything in the nature of an attempt to score off the Government or off any of the Departments. Every speech has contained some definite statement of grievance or of fact, with the request that those grievances or facts should be looked into, and I do hope that every official in the Government Departments concerned will be requested by their chiefs to read the OFFICIAL REPORT of this Debate in order that the various useful points which have been raised by so many Members should be thoroughly considered and, where practicable, dealt with. Several complaints have been made about the grading scale, and, personally, I agree that there are some very extraordinary anomalies. It is difficult to understand why the separation allowance for one motherless child should be increased by 3s. per week and, at the same time, the allowance for the second or third motherless child should only be increased by 1s. I have a number of points which are highly technical to raise, and it will be almost unfair to expect the right hon. Gentleman to answer them on the spur of the moment without having an opportunity of investigating such reasons as may exist for the decisions which have been arrived at.

      827
      It might, perhaps, meet the views of my right hon. Friend and, on the whole, be more useful if, instead of attempting at considerable length to explain all these points in a speech and so occupy the time of the House, I were to put these matters in questions for reply next Tuesday. That would give the right hon. Gentleman's advisers or the persons concerned in the Government Departments an opportunity of giving reasoned answers. Therefore, I propose to skip the greater part of the matter which I had included in my notes for a speech to-day and to adopt the course of including it in questions.
      An extremely important point was raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for York (Sir J. Butcher) in regard to the unfair position in which men are placed who volunteered in the early days of the War. The position is that under Regulation 7 (1) of the Special Grants Committee, local committees are empowered to make allowances to soldiers' wives to meet contract obligations, but they are instructed to base their assessments upon the rate of wages prevailing on 1st January, 1916. The great rise in the value of labour and in wages has taken place since 1st January, 1918; therefore the man who did not volunteer but who waited until the Military Service Acts imposed Conscription upon him has his wages assessed at the rate prevailing at the time he joined up, possibly in 1918, by which time wages had gone up considerably. I have a calculation in my hand, with which I will not weary the House, but the result of which shows that a man who volunteered in 1914 is at a disadvantage of 5s. a week compared with the man who was conscripted in 1918. That is very rough on the men who jumped in and volunteered in the early part of the War, and who really, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for York said, jumped in and saved the country. There is one other point where patriotism seems to have been penalised, that is in the case of boys whose patriotic impulses led them in the early days of the War—this happened in regard to large numbers—to overstate their age and thereby secure enlistment. A great many of those boys, when their real age was found out, were discharged and were subsequently re-enlisted under the Military Service Acts at the age of eighteen. Those boys, or rather their parents, are penalised for their patriotism, because in
      828
      their cases the allowances are only calculated on the basis of their wages prior to the original enlistment. I submit that at that time they were boys only getting a small wage, that they left the Army, and that on re-enlistment they were young men getting young men's wages; therefore the calculation of their allowances should be based on the rate of wages they were earning upon re-enlistment and not upon their wages at the time of their original enlistment.
      I am in substantial agreement with what all speakers have said to-day except in regard to one point, which I would not willingly have introduced into the Debate, but, as it has been introduced and as it to some extent touches me personally, I feel bound to refer to it. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) and the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. R. Macdonald) both saw fit to introduce into the Debate a denunciation of attempts which have been made to raise a voluntary fund to restart in life discharged soldiers and sailors who need some assistance. They both used the same phrase; they both said that that was a disgrace to the country, a disgrace to Members of this House, and a disgrace to the Government also. I need hardly say that it is no part of my duty to defend the Government or even to defend the Minister of Pensions, but, so far as I am concerned, as a humble Member of this House who has supported this movement, I should like to say that I hope when I die it may be put on my tombstone that the greatest disgrace which could be laid at my door is the disgrace that I was willing to do all I could to assist soldiers and sailors, wounded and discharged, who wanted to be restarted in life, but who had not available at the time of need any fund out of which such help could be given. I am willing to lie under that disgrace, if it be one. I am willing to do everything and anything I can to help discharged soldiers and sailors and their dependants. The Financial Secretary to the War Office will admit that I have been somewhat of a nuisance to him and other members of the Government for two or three years in urging the claims of the discharged men and of the soldiers and sailors, and of their dependants. Because I have been somewhat of a nuisance, I can speak with greater freedom. No one can point to my record in this House in connection with pensions or with the soldier and sailor and say, "This man is not a friend of the soldier and sailor." Therefore, speaking

      829
      as a tried and proved friend of the soldier and sailor, I say that I am perfectly willing to go forward with an attempt to meet an urgent need. I want to emphasise those words "an urgent need." Men were being discharged from the Army by thousands and they wanted some help to restart them in life.
      Whatever may happen in the future, whatever the State may do—I am not inimical to the State doing what some people think it ought to do; I advocate the State bearing its full burden of responsibility—in the meantime, what about the men who are coming out of the Army every day, and who have been coming out for months, who wanted a little help to re-start them in life? Were we to say to them, "No; there is nothing for you until such time as perhaps a new Act of Parliament has been passed authorising some payment." The need was urgent, and so far from feeling that it is a disgrace, I feel proud that I was one of those who stepped into the breach and said, "I will contribute; I will ask others to contribute; I will help in any way I can to make that fund a success and useful to the discharged soldiers and sailors." The hon. Member (Mr. Hogge) said the men did not want charity. That is a very dangerous thing to say in a House like this. Charity is a horrible phrase to apply to a fund voluntarily raised by people who feel that their indebtedness to the soldier and the sailor is so great that they want to do more than is at the moment possible under an Act of Parliament. If we begin to use the word "charity" in such a sense, what about the Red Cross? What about the Young Men's Christian Association? What about the Church Army, and the thousand and one funds to which we are asked to subscribe every day and to which we subscribe gladly? It is a very dangerous and a mean thing to say to the soldier or sailor, "If you take any funds which are raised voluntarily you are taking charity." I am not sure it is not a wicked thing to do, and I hope and believe that the discharged soldiers and sailors and the bulk of the people of this country will resent any such suggestion. It has been said that soldiers and sailors do not want this. If they do not want these grants to re-start them in life and to go into small businesses, why are they applying for them at the rate of 1,500 or 2,000 a week? Who is the best judge? Some of my hon. Friends arrogate to themselves the position
      830
      of being judges. I am more democratic than they are. I say, leave it to the judgment of the discharged soldier and sailor as to whether he wants these grants or not, and as to whether he wants to set up in a small business of his own or to continue a paid servant of some other man for the rest of his life.
      I think the hon. Member (Mr. Hogge) was rather vexed because I suggested, in an interruption, that he was rather involved in something that he said. Someone behind me said I was the only person in the House who thought that. I will not say the hon. Member was involved in his own mind, but he was rather prejudicing the case by introducing something which was totally irrelevant. His argument was that we in the House of Commons had already declared our objection to voluntary funds because we had protested against the use by the Government of certain voluntary funds which had been raised by the lord mayors of the country. I was one of those who protested at the time against that. We in Liverpool have raised a fund of something like £100,000—a local fund—what the hon. Member (Mr. Macdonald) would call a charitable fund. We wanted to keep that under our own control, and the then Chancellor of the Exchequer tried to get control of that money, more or less to commandeer it, and administer it as Government money. It was against that that we protested. But does anyone suggest that the present voluntary proposals include the commandeering of local funds against the will of the people who subscribe them? No one will claim that for a moment. If that is the case, if there is no suggestion of commandeering these local funds for the purpose of this voluntary fund administered by the Pensions Ministry, the hon. Member (Mr. Hogge) was involving in the question something which was totally irrelevant and endeavouring, I do not say intentionally, to prejudice the question by introducing this irrelevant matter. I will put down the questions for next Tuesday which will save the hon. Gentleman the trouble of replying on many technical and involved matters.
      Mr. SNOWDEN: I should like to associate myself with all the criticisms of the proposed new scale which have been made. I think the hon. Member (Mr. Pennefather) has taken too much to heart the criticism offered by the hon. Member (Mr.

      831
      Hogge), in regard to the proposed voluntary funds for the assistance of discharged soldiers. I am certain he would not object to an inadequate State allowance being supplemented from voluntary sources. The State at present makes no provision for the particular kind of assistance which is proposed to be given by these voluntary funds. No time ought to be lost before the State itself discharges its obligation to these discharged and disabled men. Every speech that has been delivered in the Debate, with the exception of that of the hon. Baronet (Sir J. Butcher), whose purpose in speaking appeared to be unreservedly to congratulate the Government on the improved scale they have set forth, has offered criticism upon the same lines and has urged the hon. Gentleman in four different directions, first of all, that no change has been made in the allowance given to the childless wife, the very peculiar grading of the allowances in regard to the number of children, the case of the apprentice lad, and the date at which the new scale is to come into operation. It would be quite impossible to add anything to the cogency and the force of the arguments which have been advanced under each of these four heads. The hon. Member (Mr. Hogge) presented a family budget. I return to the point for the purpose of putting before the House some information which, I think, has far greater weight and authority than that which has been advanced by the hon. Member and other speakers. I do not know if hon. Members are acquainted with the most interesting, valuable, and useful publication issued by the Food Controller's Department, the title of which is "Food and How to Save it." The purpose of this document, which I am afraid is not written in very popular language, is to show people how they can spend their money most economically upon food, and how they can most economically cook it and eat it. In reading the pamphlet I was reminded of a publication which I have sometimes seen issued by the Food Reform Society and the vegetarian societies telling people how to live and grow fat on 3d. a day. There are given in this official publication specimen means for families large and small. On page 44 of the pamphlet there is a sample weekly menu for a family of six persons, and at the very lowest the cost of supplying the minimum amount of food necessary for keeping body and soul together
      832
      is given as 7s. 2d. per head per week. The hon. Member for York quoted from a statement in a report issued by the medical officer of health for the City of York that there was only 4s. 7d. a week left for food on the basis of the present separation allowances. The Government themselves in their official publications are teaching people to be economical, but when they have attained to the highest degree of economy they cannot possibly feed six persons at less than 7s. 2d. per head per week, which means 43s. a week for food alone for a family of six persons. In one of the specimen menus given in this publication issued by the Food Controllers' Department the average cost is 14s. per head per week for food. The cost of another menu which is for a family of four persons is 11s. 8d. per head per week.
      How does the Government expect that a soldier's wife is going to secure the minimum amount of food which the Food Controller says is absolutely necessary for the maintenance of health, for the maintenance of herself and family, on the separation allowance, even on the improved scale? It cannot be done. According to this official document it will take the whole of the separation allowance to provide a family with food alone. In addition to that there are a hundred other household expenses; rent, clothing, etc. Everything with the exception of rent has increased considerably in cost during the last four years. I think the hon. Member for Leicester, when he was estimating the increase in the cost of living since the outbreak of the War, was much too modest. I find that milk is very strongly recommended in the dietaries of this official publication. A child must have at least 1½ pints of milk a day. That is 6d. a day, or 3s. 6d. a week, for milk alone. The publication says that a child over five must have at least one egg a day. Eggs are 5d. each to-day, and I was told by a poultry expert that they are likely to be 8d. before the end of this year. How far are these improved separation allowances going to go in order to provide this dietary which the Food Controller says is essential to the maintenance of mini mum efficiency? It cannot be done. There is no difference of opinion between Members of the House and the Government that the separation allowances ought to be sufficient to keep the family of the soldier in a fair state of physical efficiency. We are all agreed upon that. Therefore,

      833
      the simple question is, Will these allowances do it? These allowances, I have proved conclusively out of the mouth of the Government, are not sufficient to provide food alone, not taking into account the other necessaries of life.
      With regard to apprentices, which is a subject in which I have taken a considerable amount of interest, I would like to raise points mainly for the purpose of gaining information. I am not quite clear as to how this concession in regard to separation allowances for apprentices is going to affect pensions. I can gain very little information upon that point from the terms of the answer which was given in regard to the new scale. There have been, I suppose, thousands, may be tens of thousands, of these apprenticeship cases. If every other hon. Member has received as many of these cases as I have, there must be tens of thousands of them. No pension has been given. I had this morning a report from the Ministry of Pensions upon a case which I have had before them since the beginning of this year—that of an apprentice lad who was killed at the age of sixteen. The reply I got this morning is the usual one, that the circumstances of the family are such that no grant can be made, but that if it should be necessary for them at any time to be saved from the workhouse by some small grant, an application must be made for that purpose. I want to know from the members of the Government whether anything is to be done in these cases, whether these people are to have their cases considered now, and whether a pension is to be given, to them? I want to emphasise a very important point made by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh in regard to these apprentice lads who would have become journeymen at eighteen and half or nineteen years and whose parents are to derive no benefit until the time when they would have been twenty-one years of age. The thing seems to me to be utterly indefensible, and I am quite sure when the hon. Gentleman rises to reply he will not attempt to defend it on any ground of logic and of justice.
      In regard to the coming into operation of these allowances we are told that they are not to date until the 1st of October next, and they are not to be paid for a long time after the 1st of October next. A warning is given in the statement that it may be a very long time before all the cases have been dealt
      834
      with and the amount of the increased separation allowance has been determined. If it is a practicable thing to post-date the increased amount from the tune it is fixed, say next January or February, to the 1st October, it would be equally practicable to post-date it to the 1st July or the 1st January this year. These people have been suffering for the last two years from this great increase in the cost of living. I do not know how many of them have lived with prices at what they are now. I may read a letter from a woman in my Constituency who now, I suppose, will be an elector. It is a very short but most intelligent letter:
      "Will you please explain to me whether the increased allowance means that no matter how many children you have the increase is only the same as for two? Do not you think, Sir, that the mother of a big family is more deserving of better treatment than she is receiving, and why have we to wait until 1st October for the increase considering how rates, coal, and every necessity of life has advanced?"
      Remember that these women are going to vote at the next election. There are 26,000 of these new women voters on the new register in my Constituency. She continues:
      "I can assure you, Sir, there is deep resent-a half or nineteen years and whose parents ances, and we mothers of big families feel that we are not being fairly treated. Many of us are already weary trying to make ends meet."
      3.0 P.M.
      I feel that this increase for only two of the children is an insult. These women have been suffering for a long time because the cost of living became almost intolerable two years ago. It has continued to increase since. I repeat that I do not know how these women have made ends meet during that time. Why should they be put off now for three or four months longer? It cannot be justified. I am sorry that no member of the War Cabinet has considered this Debate sufficiently important to induce him to be present. There is no member of the Government for whom the House entertains a higher personal regard than for the Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Forster). But he is not in the War Cabinet, and could not, on his own responsibility this afternoon, commit the Government to a revision of this scale which we are now discussing. Only the War Cabinet can do that. The resentment in the country against the inadequacy of this scale is very great. I wish that the Government, when they had decided to deal with the matter, had been, I will not say generous, but merely just. I agree with what the hon. Member for

      835
      East Edinburgh has said. If we can get no satisfactory assurance from the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon that this scheme will be reconsidered it shall not rest there, and we will continue the agitation, because we have not only a just cause and an urgent one, but a cause which will have the sympathy of everyone who has any idea not only of what I may call the economic sacrifices and privations of these people, but of their sufferings, due to their anxiety with regard to those who are near and dear and who are constantly exposed to the dangers and hardships of the War.
      The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): The criticism of the scheme for the increase of separation allowances proposed by the Government has circled round certain quite definite points, and the attention of this House has been called to these points with great cogency and clearness, and I am bound to say with great moderation, by all those who have addressed the Chair. Therefore, I propose to confine myself to the points that have been raised. I will refer first to the case of the dependants of the non-earning soldier, the case of the apprentice. It has been represented that the proposals of the Government are wholly inadequate and do not in any way meet the case. I admit at once that the problem with which we have to deal is one of great difficulty. We have to go into the realm of hypothesis, foregoing the clear atmosphere of fact. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the whole theory of dependants' allowances in the early days was based on the net contribution towards the family income made by the soldier before he enlisted. Obviously, in the case of the apprentice, the student, and the lad not in a position to earn wages owing to educational and other reasons, there was no possibility of contribution before he became a soldier. Therefore there was no possibility of giving any kind of dependant's allowance to his parents unless we abandon the basis of pre-enlistment contributions. That the Government have done. They have come to the conclusion that, in view of the great inequality of treatment given to the parents of the lad who volunteered early in the War and the parents of the lad who waited until he was fetched under the Military Service Act, we were no longer able to hold fast to the
      836
      theory of pre-enlistment contribution. Then we had to consider how best we might deal with the problem.
      There were two courses open to us—either to establish a system of discretionary grants, entrusting the administration of it to local pensions committees which would inquire into the circumstances of each case, basing the amount of allowance upon what the soldier might reasonably have been expected to be able to contribute had he remained in civil life, or establishing a flat-rate allowance at a suitable rate. There were very great objections—I think great objections were raised in this House—and very great practical difficulty in the establishment of allowances such as I at first described, discretionary allowances locally administered, and the Government came to the conclusion that the best way of dealing with this difficulty was to establish a flat-rate allowance of 5s. a week. The rate has been criticised as being too low. I forget whether it was the Member for East Edinburgh or the Member for Leicester who said that practically in every case when lads have attained the age of twenty-one years they would be in a position to earn sufficient to secure the dependants' allowance at the maximum rate for their parents, but that if we fix the rate at 5s. it certainly would not meet the just demands of the parents whose lads were among the earlier enlisted soldiers. I must remind my hon. Friend and the House that we are going beyond the sphere of apprentices only. We are not dealing in this case with apprentices only, we are dealing with students and with other categories of men, many of whom, when they have reached the age of twenty-one, may not have been in a position to earn to the fullest possible extent. We have this further to remember, that we are extending this allowance to the parents of those who actually did make some contribution in the early days of the War. We naturally had to do that. Obviously, it would have been impossible to face a situation in which we gave to the parent of a soldier who made no contribution to the family income more than we allowed in respect of the soldier who paid a contribution at a very low rate. Therefore, this not only covers the case where no contribution is made, but involves bring the dependant's allowance, now 5s. a week, up to their level.
      Mr. HOGGE: Why twenty-one?
      Mr. FORSTER: Because I take it that on the whole the conclusion we came to was that twenty-one was the age, taking all the categories, at which any man would be capable of earning wages. So much for the case of the apprentices. I come to the question of the wife. The hon. Member spoke of conscripting the husband, and then conscripting the wife by giving her an allowance at a rate which practically compels her to work. Does my hon. Friend really think that is true generally? Let us see. Remember that in the early days the varying separation allowance was established to maintain the home. Does not my hon. Friend realise that in a very large number of cases, where the soldier has married since the outbreak of the War, there is no home to maintain—that he has married a woman who was actually at work, and, to her honour be it said, has returned to work as soon as the soldier goes back to his military duty. There is a very wide difference between cases in that category and cases where the soldiers had established homes before the War, and others who, since the War, have left established homes. These are two totally different classes of cases. We all know there are immense numbers of wives of soldiers who of their own free will have gone back to work after marriage, and that is all to the good of the nation. Then again, there is the wife who has lived in her own home, the wife without children. Surely no one thinks that a strong, able-bodied woman, able to work, in times like these, ought not to work! I should like the House to see that she ought. There is, I believe, work for all of those who are strong and healthy and able to do it. The majority, thank God the majority of our women are sufficiently strong and sufficiently healthy to enable them to do work that is of real value. But there are instances where such is not the case. We all know the case of the delicate woman, the woman unable to work because of a variety of causes. If this system of scale allowance, to which my hon. Friend confines himself, stood alone, then I think there would be no doubt a case for doing something more. But the local pensions and special grants committee is empowered to deal with cases where the woman is not able to work for one reason or another.
      Mr. SNOWDEN: The committee never do it.
      Mr. FORSTER: Then we have got to see that they do do it. That may be an excellent reason for putting pressure upon the Government to see that these local pensions and special grants committees do perform their duties. But I submit it is not a reason for a wide and general extension in those instances where it is really not needed.
      Mr. C. DUNCAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman's Department find out the cases of those who have already had the 2s. 6d. per week, and then he will ascertain the remedy.
      Mr. FORSTER: I will see if I can get something like the figures my hon. Friend suggests.
      Mr. SNOWDEN: Before we leave that point, will the right hon. Gentleman explain how the Government can bring pressure to bear upon these local pensions and special grants committees?
      Mr. HOGGE: Do it in your own Department!
      Mr. FORSTER: I was not speaking for my Department, I was speaking for the Government, and I do not think it is past the wit of man to give such elasticity to the Regulations as to enable this thing to be done. I refuse to believe that there is any widespread refusal on the part of the local pensions and special grants committees. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] Really, my hon. Friends are not quite fair; they do not allow me to finish the sentence. What I was going to say was, I refuse to believe that there is any widespread desire on the part of the local pensions and grants committees to do other than go as far as they think the Regulations enable them to go. What has happened in some cases is that perhaps the local pensions and grants committees possibly took an unduly strict view of the powers with which they are clothed.
      Mr. WING: Will the right hon. Gentleman issue some Instruction to these committees to the effect that they are to carry out their duties according to the generous principle which he has stated?
      Mr. FORSTER: I think that is under the consideration of the Minister of Pensions, with whom the responsibility rests.
      Mr. HOGGE: I quite appreciate the sympathy of my right hon. Friend, and he is in the same difficulty as we are. He is

      839
      responsible for the separation allowance made to the wives. The administration of the extra allowance is under a separate Department. We would be quite content if my right hon. Friend had the whole control in his own Department.
      Mr. FORSTER: I am very much obliged for the kindly expressions of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh, but this is not a question of this person or that. It is a question of the intention of the Government in connection with this scheme of separation allowance, and I think we must judge of that alone. I come next to the question of the allowances for the children. We have been criticised because we have confined the increase in the amount of the children's allowances to the family of one or two, and hon. Members have commented on the fact that in the cases where the family exceeds three or more the allowance is no greater than in the case of the smaller family. When the question was discussed in this House before the appointment of the Committee practically the whole case made at that time was on behalf of women with one or two children. There seemed to be some sort of general agreement that the woman with three or four children was fairly well able to get along on the allowance. There was a very strong case made out by the hon. Member for Leicester on behalf of the woman with one or two children.
      Mr. MACDONALD: I hope my right hon. Friend will not misunderstand what I said on that occasion. I took the family of not more than two children as a type of family, but I did not mean to suggest that the grievance was only felt by the family of that size.
      Mr. FORSTER: I think the hardship was greater in the case of the woman with one or two children than in the case where the number of children was larger. One hon. Member has commented to-day on the gradation of the allowance and on the various steps in the scale, so much for the first child, so much for the second, and then a flat rate for all subsequent children. But did not my hon. Friend realise that although we speak of the children's allowance it is really a convenient form of describing the household income, and that in the provision for the first child and to a certain extent for the second, lies some provision for the mother. Therefore, you have to judge the children's allowance in conjunction to
      840
      the allowance made for the mother, you must judge the whole as the family income, and it is not fair to say that as the woman with one or two children gets 4s. 6d. while she who has three or four children only gets the same amount extra for herself, therefore the latter is harshly treated. I do not think that the criticisms which have been made against this proposal have been fully justified. The hon. Member for Leicester said that what we really ought to do is to see that the separation allowances of to-day bear their true relation to the separation allowances established in 1914, keeping in mind the increased cost of living incurred in the meantime. He took that increase since the beginning of the War at 70 per cent. He admitted that that was on the low side, but he said he was content to take it, and then he went on to point out that if we look at the increases that have been made in the separation allowances since September, 1914, we shall find that the increase is not 70 per cent., but something below. What my hon. Friend I think overlooked is the fact that the increase of 70 per cent. in the cost of living is since the beginning of the War, and if we take the separation allowances at the beginning of the War we shall find that the increase in the case of a woman with children is more than 70 per cent. and in some cases practically 100 per cent.
      Mr. PRINGLE: It was admitted that the allowance was inadequate.
      Mr. FORSTER: We have gone on increasing the separation allowances step by step, and the admission of inadequacy was made after the War had begun. But even if we take the increases from the 30th September, 1914, when the revised separation allowances came in, we find that the increase of the allowances is practically all but, if not quite, the 70 per cent. which represents the increase in the cost of living. Therefore I do not think there is any great substance in the point which my hon. Friend made. We have been told that the amount of the separation allowance recently has been so insufficient as to cause great hardship to a large number of families. If that were the case, if it were generally true, one would have supposed there would have been a considerable allotment by the soldier to his family in order to remedy any hardship from which they may have been suffering. I do not think anyone is going to accuse the British soldier, on the

      841
      average, of being harsh or cruel or mean towards those who are dependent on him. With one or two exceptions where the percentage is higher I have been very much surprised to find how very few soldiers have made allotments to their families since the compulsory allotment was taken over by the State. It only amounts to something like 4 per cent. of the number involved, and I think that goes a very long way to dispose of the assertions that in a large number of cases families are suffering hardship.
      Mr. HOGGE: You gave this concession to the soldiers for themselves, and now you suggest that they should use it for their wives and families.
      Mr. FORSTER: What I am suggesting is, if it were true that their families are suffering hardship, they would have done it. In presenting the soldier with the compulsory allotment and increasing his pay we trebled the amount he had in his pocket, and if it had been necessary he would have been able to make a contribution towards his family. The fact that he has done so to a very limited extent goes far, I think, to disprove the idea that this grievance is widespread. It does exist in some cases—in the case of Leicester, for instance, where I find that the number of men who have increased their allotments is something more nearly 20 per cent., and that confirms the point made by the hon. Member for Leicester that in that neighbourhood, at any rate, there is special need for something extra being given. It also confirms the statement of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) that there is a disparity of treatment at the bands of the various local pensions committees. There is one consideration I wish to bring to the notice of the House. It is all very well to say that the scale of allowances is insufficient, but I want the House to bear in mind that that scale as it stands must be judged in its relations to rural populations as well as urban. If you judge of it in relation to the amount that the soldier is able to earn in civil life in the rural districts, I think you will find that there is no case for making a general increase in the scale allowance. The wages of the agricultural labourer have recently been fixed, by wages boards and other means, for the various counties, and they range from 27s. a week up to 33s. and possibly 35s.
      Sir W. ESSEX: Less increases for rent.
      Mr. FORSTER: That is within limits.
      Mr. PRINGLE: That does not apply to Scotland.
      Mr. FORSTER: Let us look at the amount that the family get when the soldier is absent and when he is fed and clothed and housed and found altogether free of expense to himself. Let us take, for instance, the case of a man with three children who is able to earn 30s. a week in civil employment. When he goes as a soldier his wife and family get 32s. 6d. under the revised scale, so that when the man is taken for a soldier and the cost of his maintenance is taken off the family income, the family income automatically not only gets what is saved by his becoming a soldier, but an addition of half-a-crown a week as well. That is a result that I think we ought to keep in mind, because when the man reverts to civil life and goes back to earn civil wages, when he has to find and feed and clothe himself as well as maintain his family, he will find he will have to do it out of a very heavily reduced income, and I am not at all sure that it is desirable—and I think the House has got to face this particular aspect of the question in all sincerity—to encourage a standard of living during the War which is at too high a level. Hon. Members may say that that is all right for the rural population, but that still as regards the great bulk of the urban population the scale of separation allowances, even as the Government have revised it, is insufficient. I do not think it is, but, again, I point out to the Committee that if there are cases in which there are special circumstances that call for special treatment, it is part of the Government's scheme—it is not charity—with money provided from public funds, that the local pension committee should be able to deal with those cases. I would only like to say, in conclusion, that the whole question of dealing with these separation allowances has been one of great difficulty, and I can assure the Committee that the Government have approached it with feelings of sympathy as well as with the feeling that it is essential to preserve in view the just claims of the taxpayer. It is never easy to refuse assistance to those whose claims can be so strongly and so justly represented and urged upon us. It is specially difficult, when all the sympathy of one's heart goes out to those who

      843
      day after day are carrying a load of anxiety in respect to those whom they love. But these things cannot be settled in accordance with our feelings of sympathy only, and we have got to bear in mind that we are trustees for the nation's purse, as well as sympathisers with those who are carrying this heavy load. We have to justify the expenditure which we have to call upon the country to undertake. We have endeavoured to take a reasonable, a sympathetic, and a dispassionate view of the situation as a whole, and I believe that our proposals are fair and equitable.

      WAR LOSSES (GRANTS).
      Sir ARTHUR FELL: I would like to draw the attention of the House to another matter, namely, the position of those large towns on the East Coast of England which, owing to their geographical position, have been affected by this War in a different capacity from any of the other towns in the country. There is only one occasion since this great War began on which we have troubled the House with the position of these towns on the East Coast of England, and on that occasion we raised the point with the Local Government Board and asked them that some assistance might be given to these towns to enable them to keep up the services which are required to keep any town in a proper condition. I may say that the Local Government Board met them very fairly indeed, and that the Treasury carried out the recommendations of the Local Government Board, and there has been no complaint of any kind on that head since. Now they have another grievance, and that is a grievance against the War Office. They feel that they are not now being treated fairly and with the consideration which should be shown them, and they think it is in the power of the War Office to ameliorate their condition greatly by regulations which they can make, and that they can help in making the lot easier for those people in these towns who are grievously affected by the War.
      I need not explain to Members of this House the very sad effect of the War upon these towns. Many hon. Members who have by chance been in these towns have noticed the terrible effect that the War has had upon them. They have in many cases entirely lost their attractive power to visitors, and they have lost large numbers of the
      844
      tenants of their houses, so that a large number of houses are vacant, and they have also lost, for another reason connected with the War, their great fishing industries, which brought them prosperity in normal times. For instance, at one town, in the last year before the War, they had 1,000 fishing smacks, and last year they had 150 only, so that they had one-seventh of the fishing which they enjoyed before the War. The loss of that industry, combined with the loss of visitors, who do not come there now, has affected both the shopkeepers and all the tenants of houses, many houses now being empty. I may say that the patriotism of the inhabitants of these towns has also contributed to the present position because they enlisted in such numbers. Not only have they gone in immense numbers into the Army, but they have also been drawn upon to an immense extent for the Navy, and it is not only those who are in the Fleet, but the very large number of fishermen who have gone with their boats, many of them, to the Eastern Mediterranean and all over the seas, mine-sweeping and helping in various ways in the War. The houses of many of these men have been shut up, and their wives and daughters have gone to stay with relatives. They have been away for years. Their houses are empty, and have added to the large number of empty premises in these towns.
      Then the War Office has come down upon these towns, and has kept considerable bodies of troops in their neighbourhood. In the first winter of the War they did not send men into the towns with which I am more closely acquainted, but for those they did send into billets in the towns they paid 9d. per head per day as billeting allowance. That, I believe, was thought to be entirely satisfactory by the people, and there was not a word of complaint about it. In the second year the distress and the number of vacant houses increased, and the War Office, or the officers there who were carrying out the instructions of the War Office, took possession of many of these vacant houses for the billeting of troops, and that year they paid half of the rents which had been paid before the War. That half paid the rates and taxes, and left a small surplus for the owner of the house. They come from their camps into the towns in October, and they leave again for their camps in March. This last year when they came in they said, "We shall not pay any rents for

      845
      these vacant houses. We shall take possession of them, and the utmost we shall do will be to pay the rates and taxes." In addition to the rates and taxes in these towns, the owners have to pay the antiaircraft insurance, insurance against bombardment, which is an additional rate to that in any other towns in the country, and the ordinary fire insurance. So that when the military take possession of a vacant house and pay the rent and taxes, that does not pay the outgoings on that house, without taking into account in any shape the natural wear and tear which must result from putting large numbers of men into these houses. There is no recompense for this at all, and, at the present time, when they go out of these premises in March they tell the proprietor, "We shall want these premises again in October if the War is going on, and we shall take them on the same terms." The inhabitants of these towns do not consider those terms are fair in any shape. Their premises, it is true, were vacant at the time, but there is no reason why, because these premises are vacant, in these towns only in the whole country, the Government should be able to obtain barrack accommodation for nothing at the expense of the people who have put up houses for which they are getting no return. That is what it amounts to in effect. If there were not these houses, the military authorities would have to put up barracks or turn people out of their houses and take them at proper rents. But they have found these empty houses and taken them under what I call a very onerous and very unfair terms and conditions.
      There is another point with regard to the dilapidations of these houses, and it is a matter more serious than I could have believed if I had not seen the effect of the occupation of some of these houses by a number of troops for six months at a time. The matter was brought to a head last spring, when they left a certain town I need not name for their country quarters. They went through the streets to the station ringing bells which they had torn from these houses, and waving things about which they had taken from these houses. Altogether, I can only describe it as a sad and an unfortunate spectacle for the inhabitants to see. It naturally created great indignation, and I have received many letters on the subject. The mayors of the towns have been lately meeting, and consider that it is a subject which ought to be brought to the attention
      846
      of Parliament, to see if something cannot be done to obviate what I may call this scandal in the future. I have made particular inquiries with regard to some of these houses. I will not worry the House with regard to the smaller details. A man wrote:
      "I have been over another house this morning. All the bells were removed from this house. The bells were removed from the two adjoining ones. This morning I found, in addition to the removal of the bells, that shelves had been removed. Cupboards in the scullery were removed. The door in one of the rooms was broken off its hinges. The brickwork over a door had been torn out. In one room a bayonet had been driven through the ceiling."
      In another house—of this I have personal knowledge—they made a passage-way into the adjoining house by removing bricks from the party-walls, and they used this additional means of communication with their friends in the next house, vitiating, I have no doubt, the fire policy, and possibly other policies. I am not going to blame the soldiers for this. It is most unfortunate that there should be such a want of care and supervision, that they should strip the houses in this way, and openly parade the fact that they have done so. That is a matter for the War Office, and I strongly urge the War Office to take greater care of people's property when they have taken it without paying any rent. I will not go into the legal question with regard to that. I believe others will do so, and can do so more competently than I can. I bring it to the attention of the War Office that this goes on, and it is most unfortunate.
      The question then arises as to when the dilapidations to these houses will be repaired. The soldiers go out at the end of March and they say, "You had better leave dilapidations over until the end of the War, and then it will be settled altogether. Of course, it is no use doing up the place now, if we are going to take possession again in October, and possibly make it in a bad condition again." Can you imagine a town, with premises left in the condition I have described, not being thereby affected detrimentally? I believe that in roads where a number of these houses were left in this condition, people living there have had to leave, because they say they cannot live in a road where houses are in such a dilapidated condition. "It is," they say, "against our self-respect. We cannot inhabit such houses in consequence of the condition in which they have been left and without extensive

      847
      alterations being done." And they will not be repaired until the end of the War. I think those houses will be vacant next October, and the following time. What chance has the proprietor of such a house, damaged in the way I have described, to let it in the summer? I will not say what chance there is in these towns. I think they vary a great deal; but I do say the War Office method of arranging the dilapidations, which are only to be made at the end of the War, must necessarily entail these houses being vacant, whatever the demand for them by possible tenants. So that this is a case, I think, which must be remedied. It will damage a house and a neighbourhood now, and it may damage them irremediably if you allow repairs of this kind to be postponed for an indefinite period; the whole character of the neighbourhood and the town will be run down.
      I do not wish at any time to raise a point like this without suggesting some sort of remedy. I do not wish to lay the blame upon the War Office. I do not think that the matter, perhaps, can be remedied in a moment, nor do I wish to do anything that would prejudice the War, but I think it is in the interests of the soldiers themselves that there should be better discipline in these towns and the houses, and that they should take greater care of the property of which they have the user. I suggest that it is bad, in the interests of the men themselves, that they should be allowed to do this damage and not suffer for it in any way, or that such damage should be considered trivial, and that such bad habits as these should be, I will not say inculcated, but at any rate winked at by the War Office. I am sure the War Office can make better arrangements with regard to this billeting. I do not know which officer, if any, is responsible in this matter. I have inquired, but I have not yet arrived at the officer who is responsible in the regiment for these billeting arrangements. I do not know whether he is the major, or the senior captain, or even a junior captain. I cannot discover whose business it is to take any interest in the matter and to go round and see in what condition the property is; but I should have thought it was the business of the War Office, in the course of the arrangements, to see that there is some officer whose duty it was to look into this matter in the towns; for
      848
      sergeants, it may be, to go round every week and report upon the houses, as to whether or not any damage has been done.
      We have been told that if we bring particular cases of damaging property against any particular soldier in a regiment that he will be punished. Of course, that is absolutely impossible. We cannot do it. We would not wish to do it if we could. It is not the individual man we want to get at so much as to change the spirit which prevails—the lack of discipline and order amongst these soldiers. It is not the case of the actual individual who may happen to be the culprit in a particular case of pulling down the bells or stealing the knockers off the door. Still, I think some better arrangement can be made in regard to the billeting so as to see that, in particular, these vacant houses are properly taken care of, and not wilfully damaged in the way they are. In regard to the question of rents, which I also raised, and the inadequacy of the payment of the rates and taxes, the amount of damage done to the house must necessarily depend largely upon the number of people who are billeted there. If there are ten men billeted in a house, the rent should be larger than if there were five or six men. I think the old plan of paying 9d. per head per day, which was the original method for billeting, should be revived, or at any rate—for I do not say 9d. was not too much; I do not know what is a fair price; in certain towns it might be 6d.—but a fair price based upon the number of soldiers who are going to be put into that particular house should be the principle on which to measure the rent which the War Office pays for the premises. I wish to impress it upon the War Office that they are doing present damage, and possibly permanent damage, to the towns which stretch from the coast of Northumberland down to the South of Kent, and that after the War, when they have to meet these bills for dilapidations, which are running up against them, they will have a very heavy sum to liquidate and it will be difficult both to assess and to pay. They would be much better advised if they would treat this matter in the ordinary business way, pay as they go, and repair the damage which they do. I strongly urge this method upon the War Office.
      Conmmander NORMAN CRAIG: In approaching this question, which has already been opened by my hon. Friend,

      849
      I wish to proceed not upon cases of individual hardship; I wish to put forward the underlying principle. In the view I take of compulsory military occupation by the War Office during the course of this War,—I speak recognising the gravity of the charge I am making, but believing that the charge is well-founded and should be discussed in this House. In the view I take of the action of the Government in this matter, I think I shall be able to show that the Government has perverted public opinion and misled it as to the appropriate remedy lying in the hands of the subject vis-a-vis the Crown, and also that the Government has deliberately abused the obligations of judicial interposition between the Crown and the subject. These are serious charges; but I think the facts—and I am going to discuss them—warrant what I am saying. I am not going to enter into any legal niceties but I must make some allusion to legal history in this matter to justify my argument, and I am very glad the right hon. Gentleman who is responsible for the War Office will be able to meet me upon legal grounds as well as upon grounds affecting the Department of which he is in charge. Requisitioning in all our legal history is only permissible under two conditions, one by Royal prerogative and the other by statutory right. As regards requisitioning by Royal prerogative, legal history shows that in such cases the act was always confined to cases of emergency and measured both in time and extent by the occasion which made the act lawful. So far as the Royal prerogative is concerned. I think it is exceedingly doubtful whether it ever went so far as to involve taking the property and excluding the subject from that property. In every case in which the Royal prerogative has been exercised, it has always been accompanied by compensating rights to the subject in regard to the property. I do not think that the action taken by the Government in regard to property in the course of the War is sought to be justified on the ground of Royal prerogative, and therefore I pass that point by. But I make this proposition, that right through our common law you will find references to it even in Magna Charta, in Blackstone's Commentaries, in the Defence Act of 1842, and in the amending Acts to that Act, in the Military Lands Acts, all through you will find where the Crown has found it necessary for a national emergency to interfere with private rights compensation has always been
      850
      accorded fully and fairly. The charge I seek to make good is that the conduct of the Government in the taking of private property in the course of this War has departed from historical precedents completely in this respect. In the case of the Defence of the Realm Act of 1914 and Regulations there under which have been the source of action by the Government in requisitioning all property for military purposes during the course of this War, there is expressly reserved and recognised the continued powers of the Defence Act of 1842 and the Military Lands Acts, all of which were compensating Acts.
      4.0 P.M.
      What have the Government done in regard to the properties taken? They have misled public opinion in this War. They have used the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission, set up for a totally different purpose, not to determine legal rights, but to make in proper cases ex gratia payments, and they have diverted that for the purpose of creating in the public mind the idea that that is the appropriate judicial authority to decide between Crown and subject in the matter of taking property and compensation. That is the first and the most grievous use of this power to which I shall have to refer. The Royal Commission was set up not to determine, and it has no right to determine, rights between the Crown and the individual. It is not a statutory body. It is not mentioned in the Defence of the Realm Act or the Defence of the Realm Regulations. It gives no rights to the subject. It can determine no rights of the subject and its functions are purely advisory. Its duty is to advise the Crown what sum in cases not provided for should, in reason and fairness, be paid by the Crown ex gratia. That is the position of the Royal Commission. If rights exist as between the Crown and the subject, and were recognisable by law or by petition of right, the statutory commission has no locus standi at all and is not a determining body. Its procedure and its decisions cannot be revised or questioned by any Court, and it cannot even advise and it cannot act in any case unless there is no legal right to compensation. The first and the greatest abuse in the treatment of private property by the Government in this War is that everybody has been told by the War Office valuers, presumably acting under the authority of the War Office, that if they do not like the insignificant and in some

      851
      cases insulting sums offered by the War Office for military occupation, they can go to the Defence of the Realm Commission. The comment I make upon that is either the War Office is ignorant of the functions of the Commission or else the War Office has been deliberately misleading the country—I leave to them the choice. I am afraid that when I get a stage further the alternative of being misled as to the legal position will have to disappear in view of what has happened in the course of a case where the rights were going to be established. If that is so, if the inference to be drawn from the case I shall presently allude to is just, the War Office have never been ignorant of the rights of the individual, but they have been deliberately inviting the individual to take an inappropriate course when he gets an inadequate remedy, and have deliberately been obstructing as between subject and Crown, the subject in the receipt of that to which by all law and precedent he is entitled.
      If that be true, and I think I can make it good, it applies to a class of a community that the War Office is hitting hard. There are rich people who are getting richer by the War and the poor people have plenty of opportunities of making money while the War is on, but there is an intermediate class, not rich, and who in peace time were not poor, but had a little money put away, and they have no means of making more of it, and a lot of these people have small house property which has been requisitioned by the Government under the conditions to which I am making reference. That is particularly true of a very large number of people residing on the East Coast of England, and those people have been hit hard enough by the War. Their means of livelihood generally consist of visitors, and that has now been withdrawn. Their expense of living has gone up, and in a single town there are between 1,000 and 1,500 houses empty, and those who cannot go away and are left in that town have not merely to pay their own rates, but also the rates which would otherwise be borne by the houses that have now fallen empty. Those are the people with small houses which have been taken into military occupation, and those are the conditions, and I charge the Government that in a matter of requisitioning this property for military purposes they have treated these people with scant
      852
      fairness and scant justice. Those people were never bound to submit to military occupation and have their rights determined by the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission. They are encouraged to believe that that is so because there is no appeal from that Commission. There is no decision to be obtained elsewhere, and here I come to the point to which I made previous reference. I say that the public have been misled into believing that the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission was their proper remedy. I go further now. I say that apart from throwing dust in the eyes of the public, and instructing or permitting their valuers to give incorrect legal advice to people who have brought claims against the Government, I say that the Government have actively prevented the true legal position becoming declared by the ultimate Court of Appeal in this country—the House of Lords. It is well that the public should know this. For my part, I feel strongly about it. The trick that has been played would have been shunned by a private individual who was not too careful about his character. When it is played by a Government, I will not venture to describe what my opinion is of the action.
      A case was brought in relation to property taken for the Brighton Aerodrome. The people that took it were people in a position to obtain good legal opinion, and they got good legal opinion. They said, acting under advice, "We are not obliged to go to your Defence of the Realm Losses Commission which is a charitable show of an advisory character. We have legal rights under the Defence Act of 1842. We will proceed under that, and have an arbitration under the Lands Clauses Act," and they brought their action by Petition of Right. The fact that this was brought by Petition of Right is merely an incident, for the House will know it is a case between the subject and the Crown, and only by a Petition of Right can proceedings be instituted. Proceedings were brought. Up to that time a decision stood which had got as far as the Court of Appeal, which precluded the subject from having his compensation determined under the Defence Act and the corresponding Acts. The people concerned in the Brighton Aerodrome case challenged that decision. They did not believe it was right, and were prepared to go, and did go, to the House of Lords. Up to the Court of Appeal they were bound by the decision that already stood in our law records.

      853
      They went further. The case was argued to a point in the House of Lords, and then it became apparent to those who were advising the Crown and deceiving the country, and I say so deliberately, that an adverse decision was going to be given against the Crown, and it was going to be declared by the ultimate Court of Appeal, from which there was no appeal and by which all future conduct of the War Department would have to be regulated—it became apparent that the decision was going to be against the Crown. What happened? The Crown rather than allow the thing to proceed to a decision agreed by consent to pay compensation in regard to the land taken for the Brighton Aerodrome, that compensation to be settled under the Land Clauses Act as provided by the Defence Act, and the appeal was withdrawn. What is the effect of that? It is this. That those who have the responsibility of advising the Crown and yet have the duty of being just to the public, saw that if that case was decided against them, this ex gratia swindle of the Royal Commission would have to stop, the right of the subject would be declared, and that real compensation would have to be paid in respect to property taken for military occupation; and the effect of climbing down and withdrawing without a decision being granted, is to leave the decision in the Court of Appeal in the other case unimpeached so that every subject of the King has now—though the opinion of the House of Lords is known—for those who run may read—nobody can hope to get that right again established unless he has sufficient cause at stake and has sufficient money to take his case again to the House of Lords. It is well for the Department to be economical, but when we are talking about the purity of the motives for which we entered this War it is not unimportant that a great Government Department should observe the principles of common justice to the subjects of the Crown, and in engineering public opinion into the belief that the Royal Commission was the appropriate remedy—as either consciously or through ignorance the War Department did—and when you add to that observation that they were on the point of getting a decision from the ultimate Court of Appeal establishing the subject's right and then deliberately took action which prevented that opinion being declared by the judges of that Court, and made it impossible for any subject of His Majesty to
      854
      get a similar right established without going again to the House of Lords—the Department deserves the sternest and most righteous censure of every right-thinking man.
      I do not allude except to some extent to the way in which this matter has been dealt with by the Crown in practice. It is common knowledge that at the beginning there was a sort of inclination to be just, then an inclination to be less just, and finally an inclination to be absolutely unjust. It has not rested at inclination; it has been really indulged in. I will not weary the House with any particulars, but it is a subject upon which public opinion ought to be informed. The public have been kept in ignorance of their rights, and measures have been taken by those who advise the Government to prevent the public getting to know their rights. The sums paid have been scandalously inadequate, and the answer has always been, "Well, if you do not like it, go to the Defence of the Realm War Losses Committee." Those who say that say it with a knowledge that that tribunal has no power to determine rights, and that it is not subject to revision or correction by any authority in this country. I leave it as a matter of principle. I could give many cases of detail, but I prefer to leave it in its broad aspects. If the country learns that the whole basis upon which compensation has been paid is an unsound, an untrue, and an illegal basis, and that the subject has his rights and can obtain his rights, then good may issue from this Debate. In concluding my observations, may I say, out of courtesy to the House what I have already said to the Under-Secretary of State for War, that I regret that departmental duties call me away, and that I shall be guilty of the apparent discourtesy of running away when I would prefer to wait and listen to any criticisms which the right hon. Gentleman may have to offer on the observations that I have made. I will promise him that they shall receive my earnest consideration when I am able to read them.
      Sir E. BEAUCHAMP: I desire to make a few brief remarks in support of the plea put forward by the last two speakers in favour of a more just and equitable treatment being meted out to the owners of these vacant houses. I have never been able to understand why a distinction is drawn between houses which are occupied

      855
      and houses which are vacant. With regard to occupied houses, if they are requisitioned by the Government, although the tenant has to get out of them quickly, at any rate, he does receive the rent of the premises out of which he has been forced to go. But with regard to untenanted or vacant houses, so far as I understand, they can be requisitioned by the Government without any payment in the way of rent. My hon. and learned Friend (Commander N. Craig) has made me wonder whether I have rightly understood the law. Most laymen have viewed these cases very much in the same way that I have done. I have always thought that the Government were acting on the right principles of law, although their action was contrary to all the principles of equity. The harshness of the treatment is accentuated in the case of the places on the East Coast, where the vacancy of the premises is due, as it is entirely at the present time, to their geographical position and the war conditions under which we are now living. It seems to me that advantage is taken of the misfortunes of the individual in favour of what are considered to be the interests of the State.
      The places which have suffered more severely than the rest of the country during this War have been the places on the East Coast. In the earlier days of the War they alone were subjected to being bombed from the air, and they were bombed very frequently. Occasionally, they also had that bombing from the air supplemented by bombardment from the sea. A great many of the inhabitants of those places left their homes in order to secure the safety of their children and their families, while the visitors who used to come in shoals during the summer come no longer. The result is that very many houses are rendered vacant, and, while the owners of these houses are suffering from their geographical position, they are being treated very unjustly. Their houses which are rendered vacant through no fault of their own, are taken by the military without the payment of any rent. Naturally this aggravates very much the financial position. It is an extraordinary paradox that while, on the one hand, the War Office refuse to pay the individuals anything in the way of rent for the premises they occupy, the Treasury has come to the assistance of the local authorities in order to avoid their
      856
      being placed in an impossible position. I do not think the hardship ends at that point. The hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Sir A. Fell) has given us some instances of particular damage, but I think I can say with full confidence that although the unfortunate owners of the house is supposed to get compensation, perhaps not till the end of the War, for the damage which is being done, I do not think, from what I have seen of compensation which has been paid, he will get very full compensation, and I am certain he will have to wait for it a very considerable time. I hope the Under-Secretary for War will see whether instructions cannot be given to regimental officers that periodical and frequent visits should be made in order to see that no damage which was avoidable should be done.
      Another point I should like to urge is that greater consideration should, when occasion arises, be given to the owners of these properties. I had sent to me yesterday morning a case of the kind which I want to impress on the right hon. Gentleman. It is a copy of a letter to the War Office by the agent for a house which was requisitioned by the Government, I suppose some little time ago, as an officers' mess. It was very much against the owner's wish that the House should be taken, as he considers the premises were in too good a state of repair to warrant their being taken for that purpose while there was a large number of houses adjacent which could have been taken instead. The owner has had an opportunity of letting the house on a three years' tenancy, with the option of continuation at the end of the period, and he has applied to the War Department to quit. They refuse to do it. In his letter to the War Office he said he understood they refused to give up the house because if they gave it up now they would not be able to have it in the winter if so required. He thinks the treatment is very unfair. I do not know whether it is unfair or not, but I think that if the War Office would give more favourable consideration they would remove a good deal of feeling which is existing owing to the way in which the public are treated by the War Department. I agree with the plea which has been put forward by my two hon. Friends, and I want to urge upon my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that he should obtain Treasury sanction, if Treasury sanction be required, in order

      857
      that he may pay fair and reasonable rents for premises which are occupied by the military. I am of opinion that if you take a person's property and make use of it, the least you can do is to pay something in the shape of maintenance. Another point is in regard to damage to property, and the third point is that due consideration should in all cases be shown to the interests of the owners.
      Colonel WEIGALL: I think a case has been made out showing that hardship is inflicted upon a certain section of the community through no fault of their own. Hitherto the House has understood that the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission is the only ultimate tribunal of appeal to which the subjects can go in these matters. In this particular case of an unoccupied house which, owing to the exigencies of the War, has not been income-producing if it is occupied by the War Department, they should be looked upon as an ordinary commercial tenant. I know there is enormous difficulty, and obviously if houses which are non-income-producing are to be paid full commercial rent, there will be other demands from those who have been equally hard hit. But I think these East Coast towns are a comparatively small section of the community, and they have suffered to an undue degree. I would ask whether or not the Government could not extend the principle which they have admitted in regard to these communities as communities. They have already received Grants-in-Aid to the amount of £130,000 in relief of their local obligations which they are unable to discharge. Could we not carry it one stage further and in specific cases allow relief for actual injury. I know it enormously extends the principle which has been adopted in the past, but I respectfully urge that the circumstances warrant it. As to the administrative difficulty, I think a great deal of the perverted public opinion which we have heard referred to might have been avoided if a little more commercial common sense and a little of the rudiments of humane elements had been exercised in arranging these things. I know perfectly well that the land branch of the War Office has exercised both commercial common sense and the milk of human kindness. I know that an entire reorganisation was made of the officers who had the duty of commandeering these houses and endeavouring to enter into the necessary arrangements with owners. Everything that
      858
      could be done in that direction I am sure was done, but, owing to the paucity of personnel that had the necessary skill, I am afraid that these negotiations were carried out very slowly, that there was considerable delay, and that arrangements that might have been made in an amicable manner never were made.
      As to the actual administrative difficulty, my hon. Friend below complains that he could not find out who were the officers who wore really responsible for this dereliction of duty in allowing this unnecessary delay, but there is a complete chain of officers, from the assistant quartermaster-general downwards. In every division there is a deputy assistant quartermaster-general, in every battalion there is a colonel, and so on down through the whole of these officers, and all these officers in their several spheres are responsible. But it might be well if it were brought home to the company commander at the end of the chain that they would be held personally liable. Many of these houses, owing to the conditions, are hardly occupied in the winter season, and it is difficult to let them in the summer if they are in a dilapidated condition, and in the case of these houses certainly something might have been done. I know that it is a great financial burden on the War Department, and, as a member of the Committee on National Expenditure, it is the last thing that I ought to advocate; but the circumstances are so extremely hard that I do feel that it is worth the consideration of the War Department whether, where there is reasonable chance of a house becoming reduced in condition, something might not be done. In all these places, after all, so far as the leading inhabitants are concerned, they have carried on in the most extraordinary way in great difficulties. I cannot help saying that the display of national character which one has seen in some of these East Coast towns where there were almost constant air raids and bombardment in the early stages of the War, was beyond all praise. I know of a Red Cross hospital in one of these towns where the War Office begged and implored the staff to leave, they absolutely refused to do so. The conditions were such, however, that the matter was finally settled. I want to put a question. It is agreed that a case has been made out in regard to this, and I wish to ask whether the Government are prepared not

      859
      only to compensate the community, but also to specifically compensate individuals, I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should set up a Committee under the Defence of the Realm (Losses) Commission to inquire into the whole subject, with a view to seeing whether some recommendation cannot be made, the result of which would be the payment of compensation in the manner I have indicated. I think that may be found to be a practical solution, of what is I admit an extremely difficult and painful state of affairs.
      The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): I think that everyone who has listened to this Debate this afternoon will have a very great deal of sympathy for the position of those people living in the towns on the East Coast of England which have been specially referred to. I was glad to hear my hon. and gallant Friend who has just spoken pay a well-deserved and just compliment to the inhabitants of those towns on the courage, endurance, and patience they have manifested during the stress of these difficult and anxious times, and I am sure that tribute is endorsed by every Member of this House. The general trend of the Debate has been to cast blame for this hardship upon the War Department. I am sorry that it should be so, because it is quite unreasonable, the hardship being due to much deeper and more far-reaching causes, and it is to these that any difficulties and hardship which have arisen should be ascribed rather than to any particular Department. I think we all recognise that much of the hardship which has been suffered is due to the deeper and more far-reaching cause of the War itself. I was astonished to hear the hon. and learned Gentleman who represents the Isle of Thanet (Commander Norman Craig) deliver such a vigorous attack on the Department which I represent, and also upon the Government. It is true that the War Office is the Department which in the main deals with this matter, but the Department of which the hon. and gallant Gentleman is a member has had charge of the same sort of work, and in my judgment it ill-became a member of that Department to cast the whole blame on the Department which I represent. Hardship such as that experienced on the East Coast was bound to be felt over the whole country. Certain conditions, among
      860
      them the geographical situation of the East Coast, accounted for some of the hardship experienced there, but, if you look to other parts of the country, you have the case of the one-man business, where the owner of the business has to suffer not only in person but commercially, and I think that is a matter that ought to be remembered when one discusses a question of this sort.
      The hon. and learned Gentleman who represents the Isle of Thanet in his legal disquisition tried to make it perfectly plain that not only was the action of the Government Departments concerned—not merely the War Office—unjust and unwarrantable, but also illegal. The House will be perfectly well aware that no Government Department ever takes action in a case of this sort without first of all having consulted the highest legal authority, and the action which the Department has taken is the result of advice received from the only authority which the Government have at their disposal. It is not for me at this time to question that legal authority. It has been questioned by the hon. and learned Gentleman, but I am content to abide by the advice of those distinguished, learned Gentlemen, the Law Officers of the Crown. I understand that the point which the hon. Member put to the House will be decided in the near future in the highest Court of the land. With regard to the specific case—the aerodrome case which he mentioned—in my judgment we were perfectly right in taking it in the way we did. The hon. and learned Gentleman did not go on to tell the House that the claim of the proprietors of the aerodrome amounted to a sum of something like £290,000, and that they actually received as the result of arbitration only £35,000. I will now deal with the specific questions raised by my hon. Friends who sit behind me. I think, if I remember aright, they had two specific points. The first was that the owners of houses in the towns on the East Coast were very badly treated because they were compelled to hand over their houses either for no rent at all or for a miserably low rent, and the second point was that if a house was handed over when returned it was invariably damaged, and the Government were never prepared to pay for dilapidations.
      Sir A. FELL: I did not go quite so far as that. There have been cases I know where compensation has been paid.
      Mr. MACPHERSON: Let me deal with the case of the houses taken over. Where we have taken them over we have had power to do so under the Defence of the Realm Regulations. When we take the houses over it is true we take them not at the rent which the owner would receive in normal times under pre-war conditions, but the basis upon which we pay compensation is the basis upon which the Defence of the Realm Losses Commissioners, appointed by this House, work. Take the case of a house at Felixtowe which has been mentioned. The rent in ordinary times may be £500, but the Defence of the Realm Losses Commissioners say that the proper compensation is £100, and the reason for that is that under the general war conditions, which have been emphasised to such an extent in the speech just delivered, rents have been lowered very greatly, and the Losses Commissioners have come to the conclusion that the proper basis of payment is the rental value as it now stands.
      Sir A. FELL: But £100 in the case of a house of the rental value of £500 would not pay the rates and taxes, so that there would really be no rent at all.
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I have explained, as far as I can, the basis on which we act. The House must remember that there are two sets of houses in these towns. The statement made by my hon. Friend and corroborated by the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Sir E. Beauchamp) is that towns on the East Coast of England have been practically emptied, and that therefore you have two sets of houses in these towns. You have got the houses which are occupied by the War Department and various other Government Departments, and you have got the houses which are unoccupied. You have, therefore, got two sets of grievances to consider. You have got the grievance of the man who is paid a lower rent than he is accustomed to, and you have got the grievance of the man who has got no rent at all, and who has an unoccupied house upon his hands because of war conditions. It seems to me that if the Government were to pay for an occupied house the same rent as in pre-war days the man who has got no rent at all, because of the same conditions, for his empty house would have a far greater grievance than the man who is getting rent for his house. It was stated time and time again that we are taking over these houses without paying any rent at all. I
      862
      do not know what justification there is for that statement, and in fact I am quite certain that there is no justification for it. We have authority to take them over on the understanding that the owner can go to the Defence of the Realm (Losses) Commission in order to get a proper compensation for our occupation. Indeed case after case has come from the East Coast to the Defence of the Realm (Losses) Commission, and each case has been decided upon its merits. It is true that we do not enter into a contract with the owner of the house, but we do what we are told, by the proper legal authority, whom we always consult, we should do. We were told that we could occupy any house under the Defence of the Realm Regulations, and that it was not necessary for us to pay any particular rent. But the House of Commons made it perfectly plain that that might be very intolerable, and consequently it brought into existence the Defence of the Realm (Losses) Commission, to which anybody so aggrieved might go and state his or her case, and might get proper and reasonable compensation.
      Sir E. BEAUCHAMP: I have mentioned a letter from an agent of a house, and that letter has, I think, received no contradiction. In it he says that he only received a few shillings a week—just enough to cover the rates. There is no question of rent there at all.
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I have never admitted that the Government was paying rent in the ordinary acceptance of the term. I have said that rent in the shape of compensation will be given if the proper application is made to the Defence of the Realm (Losses) Commission. As a matter of fact, in every part of the East Coast we have got War Department valuers, and I was very glad to hear the commendation of them which came from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Horncastle (Colonel Weigall). I, personally, know how assiduously those men attempt to meet all cases, and I know case after case which has been amicably settled by them and the owners of houses, and which have never had to come before the Defence of the Realm (Losses) Commission at all. And the same thing applies to dilapidations. I was quite astonished to hear that so much wilful damage was effected by the troops in the East Coast towns. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Horncastle made it very evident that, so far as the

      863
      Army is concerned, very proper and very effective steps are taken to guard against dilapidations caused by wilful damage. We ourselves have issued, not only in 1916, but on several occasions since then strict instructions with regard to wilful damage.
      Sir A. FELL: Are they enforced?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: Certainly. The instruction issued in 1916 was:
      "In view of the amount of wilful damage to hired buildings and billets whilst in occupation of troops which cannot be brought home to individuals owing to the length of time allowed to elapse before inquiries are instituted, officers commanding units are reminded that it is an essential part of their duty to exercise a strict control over the troops in billets or quarters, and by frequent, and, if possible, daily, inspections by themselves or by their subordinate officers, to prevent wanton or negligent damage. When such damage has taken place they will be held responsible for immediately taking all steps necessary to bring the damage home to the individuals concerned, who may be required by them to pay for such damage. Failure on the part of commanding officers to take reasonable action on these lines amounts to negligence, and consequently renders them pecuniarily liable for the damage."
      I do not think I need read the other instructions which have been issued, but it is quite clear that we have taken every possible step to prevent wilful damage, and, with regard to other damage which is not wilful but should be regarded as ordinary dilapidations, I was quite astonished to hear the statement that we made no payment of any sort or kind for these dilapidations. As a matter of fact, my knowledge is that we do, in exactly the same way as we negotiate payment so far as occupation is concerned, and I can read instruction after instruction to our War Department valuers, telling them to assess damage as quickly as possible, and to make payment for such damage as quickly as possible. Not only is that an instruction, but the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission have made it perfectly plain that they are quite willing that our War Department valuers should advance a reasonable amount for dilapidations pending settlement by the Commission.
      One case was mentioned, namely, that of the seasonal house, by which I mean the house of the man who depends entirely upon the fact that his house might be occupied during certain months of the year, mainly, I am told, July, August, and September. It was suggested that in
      864
      case after case we occupied houses of that nature during the winter, and then in the spring we left them, and did not give any opportunity to the owner of the house, if a tenant for the seasonal months were forthcoming, to occupy the premises for the seasonal months. My information on that point is exactly contrary to what has just been stated. I could again produce an instruction quite recently to our War Department valuers making it perfectly plain that they should be on the spot at once to assess all the dilapidations and all the damage, and if the occupier assured them that any tenant for these seasonal months were forthcoming the house would be tendered to him in good condition and repair. I think I have met all the points which have been raised. I would like to say, before I have finished, one word with regard to the practical suggestion which was made by the hon. and gallant Member for Horncastle. It will be seen from the very fact that the Treasury and the Local Government Board came forward and gave Grants to these towns of the East Coast that the Government does not regard the hardship existing there as being due to any specific Government Department. They regard it, and have always regarded it, as being a hardship arising out of the conditions of War. I will make a point of bringing the suggestion of my hon. and gallant Friend to the notice of the Treasury, whose representative now is on the Treasury Bench. In my judgment there is a good deal to be said for the suggestion made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I hope that something may come of it. But it is well to point out that if further claims were admitted by the Government as a whole, so far as the East Coast of England is concerned, there is no knowing where similar claims might not come from in the future. I hope, therefore, that my hon. and gallant Friend will be content if I merely tell him that I shall do my best to bring his specific suggestion to the notice of the authorities concerned.

      TRADING PROFITS.
      Sir WALTER ESSEX: The matter I have to bring before the House is of a totally different character from those which have occupied the House during this afternoon sitting. I want to raise the question of undisclosed trading profits. It is, I believe, a constitutional axiom that this House alone has a right to impose upon the people the burden of

      865
      taxation. I take that as my first premise. I venture to put another one before the House. It is this, that to-day the Government is asking that the House should give it a War Credit, and we find ourselves compelled to ask those who want this money—for we desire to know—what they have done with the amounts which by this time must run into many, many millions, about which they have said nothing, and the burden of which upon the persons who have contributed them has been a very real and a very heavy one? I lead up to my subject by reminding the House of the very large number of articles of which the Government, for proper reasons—reasons which I do not canvass or disagree from—have felt it their duty to commandeer the total supplies. Such, for instance, as wheat, wool, leather, iron, steel, and I am told that presently timber is going to be added, and perhaps a number of other things. These, by the urgent needs of the fighting forces of the Crown, both afloat and ashore, at home and abroad, are being drawn in enormous quantities, and in order to meet these vital times the Government have arranged to make themselves perfectly secure, and the whole of the supplies have been taken over, have been commandeered, to use a common expression. I do not propose to-day to go into the Government's dealings with all these things. It must be understood when I refer to only one that it carries with it an illustration of the main point of my argument. At the same time I am by no means unconscious of the fact that by the Government's dealings in some of the articles, say, wheat, wool and leather, there are differences in the method as there may be differences in the disposition of the undisclosed profits to which I refer.
      5.0 P.M.
      Let me deal, first of all, with leather. I express regret to the House for returning to this subject as soon again after having mentioned it in the House. When I did so before, I had the advantage of having on the Government Bench the right hon. Gentleman who faces me now and his colleague, the greatly respected Financial Secretary to the War Office. My experience when I raised this question and made some cogent inquiries was that I was met by a blank look of astonishment on the faces of the two right hon. Gentlemen to whom I have referred. They rose from their seats and left the House, and had it not been a
      866
      point concerning matters of real and national gravity, I am sure that would have been a source of amusement to those who saw it. I believe I am to be favoured to-day with a statement of the results of the efficient inquiries of the right hon. Gentleman who faces me (Mr. Baldwin), and we all know how closely he goes into the various details of his Department, and I hope more light will be thrown upon this question than I have been able by the most industrious questions and inquiries so far to elicit.
      The subject is leather. The Government commandeers the whole supply, and it is obvious that they have a right to do so because a large demand is made upon them. The demand for leather is vitally important, and the Government takes possession of an enormous quantity of this material, always largely in excess of their requirements. They take from it what they find is necessary for their immediate call, and then they have a large balance immediately remaining. This they market, but they do so under peculiar circumstances. They put it on the market at a price greater than that at which they bought it, and whether the leather passes into the hands of the currier or the leather merchant, or directly into the hands of the boot-makers, it starts on its journey with a largely added increment to the first civilian representative into whose hands it passes. I am told in one particular case that no less a profit was placed as a minimum upon the leather intended for the use of officers' leggings and boots than 70 per cent. I am bound to say if that is the idea of His Majesty's Government as to what business men are entitled to charge, they have very rosy ideas which will have to be disillusioned sooner or later.
      This profit has to be paid by the man who buys the article. There is not only the original cost to the Government, but there is also the profit of 70 per cent. in the case I quoted, and every successive hand through which the article passes before it reaches the consumer will demand, and rightly demand, a further profit. So that by a method of arithmetical progression the cost to the consumer may very easily be doubled by the time he gets the article, and we find, as the outcome of this procedure, that we get a species of tariff reform under a veil under which the public, as a whole, all

      867
      being users of footwear and leather articles, are being, as it were, flogged in the dark, feeling the whip, writhing under its blows, but yet not able to see the hand that wields it. The profit, whether it is 70 per cent. or more or less, goes back to the Department that made the sales. I have to ask, What is done with that profit? I have not seen any figure which shows that this profit is disclosed or that the House has any knowledge of its magnitude. In view of the enormous undertakings of the Government, who have become by far the greatest trading company in the whole world, it must run into large numbers of millions. But it comes back into the Department, and I have evidence given to me that this profit is paid over into the Government Department—in the case of leather into the War Office Contracts Department. What happens to it then neither my informant nor certainly I myself have any knowledge. The War Office has no right to levy a tax in that way on the civilian—no constitutional right whatever! The Treasury has no right to do it; only this House has a right to make these charges, and I do not believe that that position can be contested.
      I am not saying here, nor would I for a moment say, that the Government is doing an improper thing by taking over a far larger amount of raw material than it can immediately use. It ought not in any circumstances to run any risk of shortage, and it must therefore, have balances to sell; but the business point is that it should sell those balances, and hand over, in toto, all the profit made to the Treasury, and then demand a return from the Treasury of the costs it has incurred in connection only with those margins, and not with the amount dealt with for the purposes of Army or Navy supply. A further reason is this. I have not the smallest confidence in the War Office at any time with regard to its business methods, and to-day, in a matter of this kind I should have, if possible, even less. That may seem an ungenerous thing to say, but the House will bear with me if I point out how, in this time of national emergency, we have brought to the assistance of all the Government Departments all sorts of business men from every walk in life, and I admit they are doing their best. On these technical matters, however, you want experience, and you want men whose life has been spent in dealing with these things.
      868
      You have here a Department which has taken over gigantic commercial undertakings, and which has the slenderest technical knowledge of them, almost wholly confined to the experience picked up as they have gone on. They are dealing with these countless millions of property, and this is a sum that is wholly undisclosed. I have good reason for believing that they take a certain proportion for working expenses, and if they hand any amount over to the Treasury at all the public knows nothing about it. I have called the attention of the House to this because I feel that when they are asking for money, as they are doing today, we have a right to expect that they will inspire the confidence of the House that they are dealing with these great public funds in a thrifty, economical, and sound business manner. Surely none of these methods can be employed here if anything like what I say really takes place in regard to their dealings in all these various articles, the total supply of which they commandeer. I feel that the Treasury ought to defend itself against this or, if there be no defence, that it ought to give a full and clear explanation. The sums involved are enormous. The methods adopted are forced upon us to a large extent by the pressure of the present crisis in our national affairs, but there should be a careful husbanding of the rights and privileges of this House in matters of taxation and of personal burden upon the taxpayer; and, further, there should be a most open declaration of all dealings in matters of business. These great Departments, in many details, are the laughing stock of the business community, who know the right way and see the wrong way obstinately and persistently taken. I ask to-day for a declaration of these profits and for some explanation of the position as it really is. I would rather be proved hopelessly wrong than right. I would rather it be shown that I have discovered a mare's nest here than that there should be the slightest shadow of truth in what I have said; but I fear that my complaint is too well founded. At this time, when money is being spent broadcast, you need to make people feel that it is well spent, and I urge this claim upon the right hon. Gentleman, trusting that he will be able to give us some clear light upon it.
      Mr. D. MASON: I am sure that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will give the speech of the hon. Member that

      869
      consideration which it deserves. The case which he presented is certainly one which deserves the closest investigation. It is most interesting and one of the greatest importance. I would like to offer a few observations on the Vote that we are about to pass, and more particularly with regard to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said yesterday. He spoke of our great achievement in lending something like £1,000,000,000 to our Allies. He said that we had lent to Russia £568,000,000, to France £402,000,000, to Italy £313,000,000, and to the smaller Allied countries £119,000,000. He went on to speak of what we have done more particularly with regard to Italy. He said that we had stabilised the Italian Exchange by creating credits from time to time, which had enabled us to supply Italy with a considerable amount of goods. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Monmouthshire (Mr. McKenna) pointed out that while that was a very remarkable achievement there was another side of the picture, namely, what we ourselves owe to the United States of America. It follows, of course, that if you wish to maintain the exchange, more particularly of these countries where we have established these credits, that you will have to continue these credits. This difficulty of the exchange in Italy is not likely to decrease in the future, but rather to increase, and what I have to say to-day has reference more particularly to what was said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to the future fiscal policy of this country. He has specifically said that the Government is now committed to the schema of Preference. I wish to show the connection between the question of exchanges and that policy. In order to correct the exchanges with Italy, France, and Russia, we have lent them considerable sums of money, in the same way as the United States have maintained the exchange with this country by the continuous credits they have given to us. If that continues, it follows that we shall be in a very embarrassed position if the War were brought to a speedy conclusion this year. Therefore it is of value to consider the matter, because we ought to look ahead and take measures in preparation for peace. We shall have to rectify these exchanges somehow or other. There are only two important ways of doing that. We stabilise the exchange with Italy to-day by giving Italy ever and ever increasing credits. We do not anticipate
      870
      —it is a fair assumption—being asked to do that after peace and for ever. Therefore, in what way can Italy rectify that exchange? She must either send us gold or goods. The same applies to our other debtors, such as France and Russia.
      If the Government should attempt to put into force, as they have indicated it is their intention to do, a policy of Preference and interfere with our present fiscal policy—I am not going to argue the merits or demerits of Preference—I would respectfully suggest to those Tariff Reformers, of whom there are some in the Government and in the country, that apart altogether from their views on Tariff Reform they should pause before endeavouring to put us in a very critical state when we resume peaceful and normal conditions. In the nature of things, if those countries to whom we have lent a thousand millions altogether are to repay us some of those debts, and if we are going to rectify these exchanges, those countries must either send us gold or goods. I do not think Russia is in a position to send us gold or that Italy is. Therefore, we ought to do nothing now which, when normal conditions return, will interfere with the free flow of trade. Whatever may be the merits of the fiscal policy of which the Government, and more particularly the Chancellor of the Exchequer is enamoured, if they were to introduce it clumsily or prematurely—any alteration in our fiscal policy must necessarily create a certain disturbance of trade—when War comes to an end, it would be a most unfortunate thing to do, and would lead to embarrassment and possibly to serious panic and disorder. Therefore, I should like to emphasise the fact that our continuous credits have brought us to this pass. I am not concerned to discuss whether it was wise to do it. I have often protested against this more or less artificial method of stabilising the exchange. We now have an excess of imports this year which may run into £1,000,000,000, as compared with exports, and the difficulty of rectifying it is accentuated by the continuous process to which I have referred. I wish particularly to draw attention to that point as one which might possibly receive some consideration from the Treasury, quite irrespective of their views on the fiscal question.
      Another point to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer drew particular attention was with reference to our loan

      871
      policy. He drew attention to the great success of the War Bonds policy, and showed that in 1917 the total amount of the War Loan amounted to some £948,000,000. He gave some details with regard to War Savings Certificates and pointed out that War Bonds, of which he is particularly enamoured, came to £917,000,000. He has always rather taken credit to himself as a strong advocate of that form of borrowing, and with some pride he was able to give these figures and, as he thought, congratulate himself and the country upon the great success of that policy. The borrower has to have some regard to the character of the security which he offers, because, if he does not offer a security that is popular the Loan will not be a success. War Bonds have a duration till 1922, 1924, and 1927, whereas the long-term loans have a duration till 1929 and 1947. The State has to consider not altogether what is likely to be popular with the investor, but what is likely to be a sound investment from the Treasury point of view. If the War should happen to come to a close you will be faced with a great demand for capital, and these enormous short-term obligations will very likely be presented for repayment. Therefore, if you have endeavoured during this period, when the class of investments is more or less limited, to fund your operations into a long-term loan, you give the country more time to recuperate and to return to health than if you have a large amount of short-term investments which may be presented to the Treasury and which may cause embarrassment when you have, as you are bound to have after such a war, a great scarcity of capital and a great difficulty in funding these operations. I therefore suggest to the Treasury, what they are no doubt bearing in mind, that the mere success of their short-term loan operations should not incline them to forget that while with a greater effort—because it would require a greater effort to get out a long-term loan—it is of enormous advantage to the Treasury and the country if you can fund a great deal of this short-term indebtedness and place it, as it were, behind you so as to give you a longer period for recuperation.
      We have had during these two days most valuable Debates on the necessity for economy, and references have been made to the Select Committee's Report on expenditure, but the greatest economy of
      872
      all would be if there were some prospect, as we believe there is, of bringing the War to a speedy close. The hon. Member who has just sat down has referred to the question of leather and the operations connected with leather. In the Committee's Report there was some reference to a company which made enormous profits. We have had Debates in this House in regard to excess payments made by the Ministry of Munitions. All these things appeal to everyone who has the interests of efficiency and economy at heart, but in the nature of things we are apt to have them in such a great war as this. Therefore, the greatest economy of all would be if we might hope that we were within some reasonable distance of the War being brought to a conclusion.
      We had a statement the other day from Lord Lansdowne which merits consideration by all of us. Many of us may not agree with the Noble Lord in everything he says, but at any rate he is regarded throughout Europe as one of the greatest masters of diplomacy and statecraft, and he suggests that this country and the Allies should explore every honourable avenue of peace. He does not suggest in any sense of the word giving way on what is fundamental or vital, and I think when we consider the very grave financial position which we are in, when we have regard to the great waste of human life, we must desire an end of the War. When we read descriptions of men brought from the other side of the Atlantic knifing and bayoneting, although I am no Quaker, and I recognise that you cannot have war without bloodshed, yet I think the world is beginning to realise what an enormous tribute of human life has been paid in this War; and when we know that the flower of our youth has come forward, and are still prepared to come forward and do their part, we who have some responsibility should support any statesman or any Government who will do something to shorten this terrible War. Next Sunday, as you have informed us, Mr. Speaker, in St. Margaret's and in many other churches throughout this land, we shall ask the blessing of Almighty God upon what we believe to be our just cause. I hope and pray that we may mingle with our observances there and in other churches a deep and earnest prayer for a speedy and honourable peace.
      Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): If my hon. Friend (Sir W. Essex) saw any fleeting expression of surprise on my ingenuous countenance the other evening it was not surprising that he had introduced this subject, but surprise how he had managed to introduce it on the particular Bill under discussion, and what I said was, "How did the hon. Member succeed in bringing the matter under discussion?" I propose to deal very briefly with the points raised, and I hope to be able to say something that will bring satisfaction to him. My only regret is that, on a subject like this, in which there is an enormous mass of detail, he has picked out for special comment one article—leather—which is dealt in by the War Office and on which, if I had known he was going to choose that particular article, I might have been able to get more details, and I might have taken up the challenge on that particular point. But in the remarks which I am going to make I propose to speak generally on this question of the trading and on the point which the hon. Member raised about what he called the undisclosed profit. I myself, as much as the hon. Member or any Member of this House, would be only too pleased if it were possible to publish in detail statistics connected with every form of trading that the Government does. But there is an obvious reason why this has not hitherto been possible, although after the War it will, of course, be possible to lay bare a great deal that has to be concealed at present. The reason why in the Estimates given by my right hon. Friend in introducing the Vote of Credit so many things are lumped together as miscellaneous, is that we dare not run the risk of letting our figures appear in such a shape that our enemies may be able to glean information as to the expense we are put to and as to various details of our expenditure on such necessary things as ships and food and various articles which are used for common and general consumption in this country.
      If such details were available it might have been possible for them at various times during the campaign to have got very much more definite information as to the progress and value of the submarine campaign than they would have got in any other way. I am sure that my hon. Friend and the House realise to the full how successive Governments have been driven to control the purchase of raw material and the manufacture of
      874
      certain articles one after the other as the War has progressed. And I am sure, equally, that it must be apparent to them how rapidly the demand has increased at various stages of the campaign, so that sometimes at short notice large amounts of material have been procured from all parts of the world. In the case of many of these articles it is impossible, as my hon. Friend admits, to have too much of the raw material for this reason. We have to remember that this country has been up to the present very largely the reservoir for the whole of the Allies, and from time to time, from the beginning of the War, enormous demands have been made on this country as the one European country, at any rate, that can help to make up supplies for other countries for various things of prime common necessity, such as woollen clothing and boots, quite apart from munitions. I think that what I have said is self-evident. What I am going to say now, I think, will be self-evident if hon. Members will give it a moment's thought. My hon. Friend complained that no profits were handed over to the Exchequer. He would like to see the profits handed over, I suppose, as they are made or at specific times. I think, perhaps, I may make what I have to say more clear if I use ordinary plain commercial language on what is an ordinary plain commercial subject. If it were really a trading transaction like trading transactions in ordinary businesses, there would be balance-sheets periodically, every six months or twelve months, and the profits would be divided among the shareholders and the cash would be paid out.
      But the position of the Government is entirely different. In the first place, speaking generally, over the whole period, as to the raw materials with which the Government deal, the intention of the Government is to make no more profit than will cover the expenditure. Therefore, speaking generally and broadly, the question of profit does not arise; but more than that, the business which is being carried on is a continuous business, and stocks are constantly being replaced. Some of the stocks which come along are seasonal stocks, only coming at certain times, so that at certain periods there are larger quantities of them in this country than at other periods. But, in all cases, the business is a continuous business, a business in progress, and which must be continuous until

      875
      the time of liquidation comes, which is the time when the War ends and the necessity ceases for the Government to control these materials. Then the liquidation, to use a commercial term, will take place. The business will be wound up, and we shall then see, at the close, whether on the continuous trading there has been a profit or not; and if there has been a profit, then, of course, it is an asset, and will be returned as such to the Exchequer. After all, even if it were possible in these multitudinous transactions to ascertain with accuracy, as we go along, what was being made, and we found that we were making a profit, and paid it into the Exchequer, it would only mean paying in a credit one day and having to draw out the money again the next to finance purchases as we go along. If there are profits being made, those profits are being kept in the business and are being used for the purchase of further raw materials, and to that extent they are available for being used without drawing on the Vote of Credit. That is the theory of the State's trading in raw materials, and I hope I have succeeded in making that plain to the House. One word more with regard to a subject as to which I have apologised to the hon. Member opposite for not being able to deal with it—one item of the many items into which I have not gone into the detail I would have liked. If the hon. Member cares to discuss the matter with me I shall be only too happy to give him such detailed information as I can, and I hope and believe he will find that the figures he stated are considerably wide of the mark. I hope the House will feel that I have dealt adequately with this subject, and will now allow the Report stage to be taken.
      Sir W. ESSEX: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether there have been paid into the Treasury any profits at all on any of these trading operations?
      Mr. BALDWIN: I cannot give a definite answer to that, but I should doubt it very much.
      Mr. KING: There was one statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday, which was so important that I am surprised it has not received adequate attention—in fact, there has been no mention of it at all—in this discussion. The right hon. Gentleman told us the amounts
      876
      which had been advanced to foreign Governments, and we can congratulate him on being now able to tell us what assistance we have given to our Allies. We have reason to congratulate ourselves on this statement, first, because we have been consistently refused information up to the present, and second, because the amounts are less than we anticipated. We were told that Russia had been advanced £568,000,000, and the information was conveyed to us in a rather curious form. The words used were that the debt was "from the Russian Government or the Russian people." I can quite imagine there is good ground for thinking that the old Russian Government, if it existed still, or if it were to be re-established, would acknowledge that debt. But to tell us that it is due from the Russian people is very remarkable, and on the earliest possible occasion I want to say that from such information as I get the Russian people is a very different thing from the old Russian Government. I rather regret, therefore, the peculiar form of words used. I hope very much that the time may come when the Russian nation—I will not speak of the Russian Government or the Russian people—may recognise that their liberty has been won through great tribulation and many vicissitudes with the assistance of the Allies. I trust also that this debt, enormous as it is, may be left aside without any suggestion that it is owing to us from the Russian people—that it may be left aside until better days. We may all hope to see the time when the Russian people will have nothing but the friendliest feelings towards us, and will in some substantial way be able to make amends for the huge expenditure and great sacrifices we have made on their behalf. But if that day is to come, and if it is to come soon, we ought to make our position with regard to the Russian people clear.
      For my part I think two great mistakes are being made now by our Government and possibly by the Allies. The first is that they do not recognise that Russia is absolutely exhausted and that that exhaustion dates at least a year and a half back. The exhaustion of Russia, materially, financially and militarily, was complete before the Revolution, and the great mistake of our Government was that even when Mr. Kerensky in the early days of the Revolution, told them that Russia was absolutely worn out, they did not face that fact. You cannot go on extracting

      877
      help from a dying man, you cannot extract it from him in a bitter and prolonged struggle like this, and to imagine that you can do so is simply folly. The second fact that the Government will not face is this, that after a year of revolution Russia has attained a certain stability in one respect, in that it has adopted, I believe more or less permanently, a new form of democratic organisation. That organisation is based on what is called the Soviet. It is not parliamentary, and it is not constitutional in the sense that we are constitutional in having parliamentary institutions as the foundation and fibre of our national existence. All the other democracies of the world are based on parliamentary institutions, but Russia has established a democracy based on the Soviet. The Soviet principle is something quite new. It is in effect this, that each small locality establishes a standing committee which is renewed every three months, the members of which standing committee may have their authority withdrawn by the vote of the people at any date and for any reason, and these local Soviets are united through a machinery rising to the highest authorities in the land. They are based, not on elections in the ordinary sense, but on the principle of the permanent mandate of the people authorising its representatives. [An HON. MEMBER: "To shoot the upper classes!"] They certainly do not shoot the upper classes. Many of the upper classes are now finding their place in the Soviet Government.
      Only on the 8th of last month a new constitution was adopted by the Russian nation. The fact of this adopting of a constitution has been previously kept out of every Allied newspaper. It is known in the neutral countries, but it is not known here, that on the 8th July a new constitution, based upon the Soviet principle, was established throughout the whole of Russia, and that in this adoption of a constitution were concerned not only the Bolsheviks, but the other Socialists, and especially the Social Revolutionists, the very party to whom we attribute—and some of their members are able to take that to themselves, I daresay, the assassination of Mirbach and Eichhorn, and a definite attempt to take up arms at the moment against Germany. Therefore, though the Bolsheviks may fall, and though we may have a different Government coming into power, yet I believe that the Soviet form of Government is
      878
      better established to-day than any other Government has been since the War, because it has much more prospect of lasting even than the Czarist regime. I regret that the Government and the Allies refuse us the knowledge of these facts. You cannot face the position in the East of Europe, on which so much depends, without knowing and facing the facts there. This, the Government, as I understand, has refused to do. I am, of course, quite willing to admit that we are opening a new campaign on the Murman coast, and, personally, I have no objection whatever to military measures being taken against the Germans dominating the Murman coast and the whole of the province of Archangel, and making it a base for submarines. I certainly think it is a most desirable and an obviously reasonable object to take measures—even military measures—to prevent that. But we have now developed a campaign there, and we are not allowed even to be told which of the Allies are taking part. We are not allowed to be told who the general is in command—and this is a very important matter—because if a Russian is in command we ought at least to know to what party he belongs.
      There has been an unfortunate statement put about—I hope it is not true—that General Gourko, the leader of the Monarchist party—a very small party, it is true—is in command of that expedition. If so, we ought to be told, and, of course, the fact will be known in Russia long before it is known here. But if that is the case, this expedition can only appeal to the great mass of the Russian people as an attempt to set up the monarchy again. I ask again and again for some moderate information which will reassure us, and, even more important, reassure the Russian people. You are not going to succeed in this Murman expedition if you are going to have the whole of the Russian people against you, and you run the risk of having the whole of the Russian people against you if you allow statements to be made which are most detrimental to the Allies, and most suspicious to ninety-nine out of every hundred Russian subjects, if you do not take the trouble to deny it. I believe you can deny it, but I certainly think some statement ought to be made upon the position. It could be easily made without giving away any military secrets. It could be easily made in such a form as to reassure hundreds, thousands, and millions of the Russian people who are

      879
      anxiously waiting on events, and I cannot let this occasion pass without voicing my protest, which I am sure will be shared by many in this land and by millions in Russia, against a policy of secrecy and suspicion. This matter, at any rate in my mind, is so overwhelmingly important that I should not be doing my duty if I did not call the attention of the House to it.
      Question put, and agreed to.

    WAYS AND MEANS.— [1st August.]
    Resolution reported,
    "That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1919, the sum of £750,587,359 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."
    Resolution agreed to.
    Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution, by the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Bonar Law, and Mr. Baldwin.
    CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 3) BILL,—"to apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending on the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and nineteen," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 85.]

    MATERNITY AND CHILD-WELFARE BILL.
    Lords Amendment considered, and agreed to.

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
    Mr. GULLAND: May I ask the Noble Lord whether there is any alteration in the arrangements for Tuesday, and when the Lotteries Bill will be taken?
    Lord E. TALBOT (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): Yes, Sir, in order to give more time to the Indian Budget, we think it would be convenient for the House to sit at twelve o'clock on Tuesday, and the Government have, therefore, decided to ask the House to sit at twelve. It is hoped that the discussion on the Indian Budget will close towards seven o'clock, so that other business may be taken. As to the Lotteries Bill, it has not yet come up from another place. As my right hon. Friend announced this afternoon, it is the intention of the Government to give it a Second Reading on that day if it does come up.
    Mr. KING: Will the House sit at twelve o'clock on Thursday?
    Lord E. TALBOT: It is hoped by the arrangement of a noon sitting on Tuesday that the business done will enable us to ensure taking the Adjournment on Thursday.

    EMERGENCY LEGISLATION.
    Lord E. TALBOT: I beg to move, "That the Select Committee on Emergency Legislation have power to Report their observations from time to time."
    Mr. KING: I hope this Committee is not going to be allowed to sit in the Recess?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: The Committee have not the power to make interim Reports, and it will be convenient that we shall have that power. That is the point.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
    Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3.
    Adjourned at Three minutes before Six o'clock.

WAR.
  SPIRIT PRICES (AMENDED ORDER).
  SPIRIT PRICES (AMENDED ORDER).
  MINISTRY OF FOOD (OFFICIALS).
  MINISTRY OF FOOD (OFFICIALS).
  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
  COAL SUPPLIES, IRELAND.
  COAL SUPPLIES, IRELAND.
  MILITARY SERVICE.
    ADVISORY COMMITTEES (RETAIL TRADERS).
    ADVISORY COMMITTEES (RETAIL TRADERS).
  WAR AGRICULTURAL VOLUNTEERS.
  WAR AGRICULTURAL VOLUNTEERS.
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT).
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT).
  ALIENS (REGISTRATION).
  ALIENS (REGISTRATION).
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 5) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 6) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): The Amendments proposed by the Committee made.

BRITISH NATIONALITY AND STATUS OF ALIENS BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Sandhurst).
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Substitution of provisions for Section 7 of the principal Act.
1. The following sections shall be substituted for section seven of the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act, 1914 (hereinafter referred to as "the principal Act"), which relates to the revocation of certificates of naturalization:—
Revocation of certificates of naturalization.
"7.—(1) Where it appears to the Secretary of State that a certificate of naturalization granted by him has been obtained by false representations or fraud, or by concealment of material circumstances, the Secretary of State may by order, revoke the certificate, and may, if he thinks fit, before so doing refer the case for such inquiry as is hereinafter specified.
"(2) Where a certificate of naturalization has been granted during the present war to a person who at, or at any time before, the grant of the certificate was the subject of a country which at the date of the grant was at war with His Majesty, the Secretary of State shall refer for such inquiry as is hereinafter specified the question whether it is desirable that the certificate should be revoked, and if such question shall be answered in the affirmative shall revoke the certificate, but this provision shall not apply to a person who at birth was a British subject.
"(3) Without prejudice to the foregoing provisions the Secretary of State may by order revoke
372
a certificate of naturalization granted by him in any case in which he is satisfied that the person to whom the certificate was granted either—

"(a) has shown himself by act or speech to be disaffected or disloyal to His Majesty; or

"(b) has during any war in which His Majesty is engaged unlawfully traded or communicated with the enemy or with the subject of an enemy state, or been engaged in or knowingly associated with any business carried on in such manner as to assist the enemy in such war; or

"(c) has within five years of the date of the grant of the certificate been sentenced by any court in His Majesty's dominions to imprisonment for a term of not less than twelve months or to a term of penal servitude; or

"(d) was not of good character at the date of the grant of the certificate; or

"(e) has since the date of the grant of the certificate been for a period of not less than seven years ordinarily resident out of His Majesty's dominions otherwise than as a representative of a British subject, firm, or company carrying on business, or an institution established, in His Majesty's dominions, or in the service of the Crown, and has not maintained substantial connection with His Majesty's dominions; or

"(f) remains a subject of a state at war with His Majesty that does not regard naturalization within the British Empire as extinguishing his original national status;

and that (in any case) the continuance of the certificate is not conducive to the public good, but the Secretary of State may, if he thinks fit, before making such order refer the case for such inquiry as is hereinafter specified, and in any case to which subsection (1) or paragraph (a), (b), (d), or (f) of this subsection applies, the Secretary of State shall, by notice given to or sent to the last-known address of the holder of the certificate, give him an opportunity of claiming that the case be referred for such inquiry, and if the holder so claims in accordance with the notice the Secretary of State shall refer the case for inquiry accordingly.
"(4) An inquiry under this section shall be held by a committee constituted for the purpose by the Secretary of State, presided over by a person (appointed by the Secretary of State with the approval of the Lord Chancellor) who holds or has held high judicial office, and shall be conducted in such manner as the Secretary of State may direct:
"Provided that any such inquiry may. if the Secretary of State thinks fit, instead of being held as aforesaid be held by the High Court, and the practice and procedure on any inquiry so held shall be regulated by rules of court.
"A committee appointed under this section shall have all such powers, rights, and privileges as are vested in the High Court or in any judge

373
thereof on the occasion of any action, in respect of the following matters:—

"(a) the enforcing the attendance of witnesses and examining them on oath, affirmation, or otherwise, and the issue of a commission or a request to examine witnesses abroad; and

"(b) the compelling the production of documents; and

"(c) the punishing persons guilty of contempt;

and a summons signed by one or more members of the committee may be substituted for and shall be equivalent to any formal process capable of being issued in any action for enforcing the attendance of witnesses and compelling the production of documents.
"(5) Where a person to whom a certificate of naturalization has been granted in some other part of His Majesty's dominions is resident in the United Kingdom, the certificate may he revoked in accordance with this section by the Secretary of State, with the concurrence of the Government of that part of His Majesty's dominions in which the certificate was granted.
"(6) Where the Secretary of State revokes a certificate of naturalization, the revocation shall have effect from such date as the Secretary of State may direct, and the Secretary of State may order the certificate to be given up and cancelled, and any person refusing or neglecting to give up his certificate shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds
Effect of revocation of certificates.
"7A.— (1)Where a certificate of naturalization is revoked the Secretary of State may by order direct that the wife and minor children (or any of them) of the person whose certificate is revoked shall cease to be British subjects, and any such person shall thereupon become an alien; but except where the Secretary of State directs as aforesaid, the nationality of the wife and minor children of the person whose certificate is revoked shall not be affected by the revocation, and they shall remain British subjects:
"Provided that it shall be lawful for the wife of any such person within six months after the date of the order of revocation to make a declaration of alienage, and thereupon she and any minor children of her husband and herself shall cease to be British subjects and shall become aliens:
"Provided also that the Secretary of State shall not make any such order as aforesaid in the case of a wife who is a natural-born British subject unless he is satisfied that if she had hold a certificate of naturalization in her own right the certificate could properly have been revoked under this Act, and the provisions of this Act as to referring cases for inquiry shall apply to the making of any such order as they apply to the revocation of a certificate.
"(2) The provisions of this section shall, as respects persons affected thereby, have effect in substitution for any other provisions of this Act as to the effect upon the wife and children of any person where the person ceases to be a British subject and such other provisions shall accordingly not apply in any such case.
"Where a certificate of naturalization is revoked the former holder thereof shall be regarded as an alien and as a subject of the state to which he belonged at the time the certificate was granted."
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE moved, in subsection (1), to delete "may" ["the Secretary of State may by order"], and to substitute "shall." The noble Lord said: The object of the Amendment that I propose to ask your Lordships to agree to is to make it compulsory on the Home Secretary, if a naturalisation certificate has been obtained by false representations, or fraud, or by the concealment of material circumstances, to cancel that certificate. In other words, under those conditions the Home Secretary shall have no option but to cancel the naturalisation certificate.
May I remind the House of what is sometimes forgotten—namely, what a, naturalisation certificate is? It is a solemn pledge and contract between the State and the Sovereign of the State and the individual concerned. It gives a great many privileges to the alien who comes here and wishes to become a British subject. What are those privileges? They are very great indeed. They are to receive titles and decorations, and also, and it is not the least of those honorary decorations, he may be made a Member of His Majesty's Privy Council, a body to which it is a great honour to any individual to belong and which is more limited in numbers than any other rank or order in the British Isles. He also becomes eligible to be a Member of the House of Commons, and he is able to become a member of the various great municipal bodies or county councils of this country and to hold high office in those bodies, such as chairman, or mayor of the municipality. He also becomes qualified to sit upon the Bench and administer justice in this country, and last, but not least, he is able to vote for the return of Members of Parliament and also at local elections. In fact he is given all the rights of citizenship just as if he had been born a native of this country.
It seems to me, therefore, there are very great obligations upon that man that he must keep and keep entirely, and that not only by word of mouth must he swear allegiance to the Sovereign and to the State of which he has become a citizen, but he must not engage in anything which involves disloyalty either to the State or to the Sovereign himself. Of course I

375
quite admit that I am not one of those who think that there should be a wholesale cancellation of certificates of naturalisation. All I am asking the House to do is to insist that in all cases of fraud or misrepresentation, or concealment of material circumstances, the Secretary of State should have no option but to cancel the certificate. I cannot understand why in this Bill there is so much put entirely into the hands the Secretary of State for the time being in regard to this matter. Also I do not like what appears later on in the clause, but which the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill is going to strike out—no doubt he will tell us why—and which provides that "the Secretary of State shall refer for such inquiry as is hereinafter specified the question whether it is desirable that the certificate should be revoked." If anything my Amendment is made stronger by what it is proposed to strike out, though the noble Viscount may put in other words to that effect, although I confess I am not very anxious for those powers to be given to an advisory body. I would much rather see the duty laid upon the Secretary of State, either by himself or through his officials and expert advisers, to decide whether a certificate had been obtained by fraud or misrepresentation, rather than, what is proposed in this Bill, that there should be this Advisory Committee, consisting probably of Members of the House of Commons and members of this House as well.
I am one of those who are rather anxious as to the tendency of the Government to put off on to advisory and other committees the responsibility which they ought to have themselves, and for this reason, that if you have the Secretary of State, a responsible Minister of the Crown, taking action himself, he is responsible for the action which he takes. On the other hand, if you allow him to appoint a committee, as was done the other day, presided over by a learned Judge, and when they decide that they will sit in camera and the general public know nothing of the reasons for the decision arrived at, then the public have no idea of the facts. The Secretary of State himself comes forward in Parliament and says, "You must not blame me; I have had nothing to do with it. It is quite true that the general public do not know the reasons for the committee's decision because the committee was sitting in camera and I cannot divulge the reasons, but I am advised that the certificate ought not to be
376
cancelled." I venture to think it is undesirable that a Minister of the Crown should be able to shelter himself behind a committee responsible to nobody at all, and that is what seems to be going on now. The desire of the Government when in difficulties is always to shift the responsibility on to somebody else.
It may be said by the noble Viscount in charge of this Bill, "Why not trust the Home Secretary?" I am sure we should be quite ready to trust the present Home Secretary in these matters to a very large extent. But there is not only the present Home Secretary to be considered; there are future Home Secretaries who may deal with this subject; and we have had experience already of what has happened under other Home Secretaries. What did Mr. McKenna say when he was Home Secretary in the Liberal Government? Speaking in the House of Commons on May 17, 1915, he admitted that powerful influences had been brought to bear to obtain certificates, and he took credit to himself for having resisted those influences to some extent.
This shows that great and influential pressure was put upon the Home Secretary to give certificates, and that he had been unable to resist it entirely. During the first five months of the war ninety-seven Germans and thirty Austrians—127 in all—received certificates of naturalisation. Since then sixty-three more Germans or Austrians have been naturalised. It is only fair to the present Home Secretary to state that he himself has said in another place that he has not naturalised, and will not naturalise, any German during the war. That is all very well. But it has been done in the past and it may be done in the future. I am perfectly certain that the feeling of the country at the present moment is that you cannot be too strict about the matter and that the power of the Home Secretary to use his own discretion in the matter ought to be taken away from him. It should be put in an Act of Parliament that the Home Secretary "shall" do this certain act, if it is shown that there has been misrepresentation, or fraud, or concealment of material circumstances. I cannot quite understand why the Government should object in these circumstances to make imperative on the Home Secretary, whether he liked it or not, to cancel a certificate of naturalisation.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 12, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").—(Lord Strachie.)
LORD BERESFORD: I desire to support my noble friend in his Amendment. Those of your Lordships Who are not of a legal turn of mind have great difficulties with this Bill, because it is really a Bill which is an amendment to an Act, and both are mixed up in such an extraordinary manner that it is difficult to know quite how to put down an Amendment. In this case I think your Lordships will see that there is every reason why the word "shall" should be put into the Bill.
The Home Secretary himself, in another place, said—
"It is needless to say 'shall' in this particular case. It is quite plain that if he finds fraud after inquiry he will take action. I think that the usual form is quite proper to this case. I have used the word 'shall' in a later Amendment of my own because I want to say that the Secretary of State shall refer to all existing certificates."
Well, I want the word "shall" put in here instead of "may." We must remember what has happened. There have been many Home Secretaries in the past, and there will be again. The Home Secretary who brought forward the 1914 Bill used the word "may" almost entirely throughout the Bill, with the result that he naturalised a very large number of aliens after the war, and he himself, and only himself, really administered the Act. I think it is far better to have a Committee, as has been suggested, to which any cases of this sort should be sent and that the word "shall" should be used with regard to the Home Secretary's action when the Committee has found.
I find that the present Home Secretary speaking of the words in the Bill, says that the words are the exact words used in the existing Statute of 1914, where the word "may" appears. He then said, "I am prepared to meet members when I believe they are right, but I cannot meet them when I believe they are wrong." He gave in on the one case and put in the word "shall." I cannot see why, if he is right in that particular, those who wish the word "shall" inserted in this particular are wrong. I hope your Lordships will come to the conclusion that, in the circumstances, the fact of the Home Secretary of the day using the word "may," or adapting what "may" means on many occasions, was
378
very prejudicial to the interests of the country. I saw that one lawyer said that "may" does mean "shall." I do not know how you could run a fleet or an army if "may" meant "shall." There is a very great deal of danger of leaving one man to decide whether he "may" do this or "shall" do this. I therefore support the Amendment.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: As my noble and gallant friend has pointed out, this is the old story of "may" and "shall," which was debated in the House of Commons, with the result that there was a Division on the subject, and, I believe, 150 odd votes were cast against 27. The action of the Home Secretary is dependent upon his being satisfied that it appears that a certain state of things exists. That being so, it is clear that the revocation of a certificate is really at the discretion of the Secretary of State. The language is in accordance with precedent, and it is within reason that the clause should be as expressed. I submit that it is almost inconceivable that the Secretary of State should be satisfied that a certificate has been obtained by fraud and that he should not then revoke the certificate. The only point of inserting "shall" instead of "may" would be to enable legal compulsion to be applied if the power was not exercised. I hardly think that such a suggestion can carry weight in a case which depends on the judgment of a responsible Minister on a matter of fact. I hope your Lordships will support me in rejecting the Amendment.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I only wish to say that the legal maxim, which has been quoted by my noble and gallant friend behind me, must, I think, depend a good deal on the context in which the words occur. I should, as a general proposition, absolutely deny that that is the law, but, of course, the context may make a great difference in the meaning. For my own part, I cannot understand why, if the condition is satisfied that fraud has been used, or anything that would disentitle a person to naturalisation, at should be left to the Home Secretary or to any Secretary to determine. The fact is assumed to be proved, and, if the fact is proved, is there any reason why a person should be made a British citizen?
LORD WITTENHAM: The Act of 1914, which became law on August 8 of that year, was introduced in your Lordships' House as a British Nationality Bill in February, 1914. It went forward to another place and became law a few days after the war broke out. When it was introduced in your Lordships' House the circumstances were absolutely and entirely different from the circumstances of to-day. In the opinion of many, who thought themselves qualified to judge, it did seem as if we were about to enter on the millenium. You have to regard that statute from the millenium point of view. It was not a war measure at all; it was a consolidating statute. It purported to gather together all the laws that had been passed before into one statute, and it was brought in really to meet the desires of our Colonies. I will emphasise that by reminding your Lordships that the measure was introduced into this House by Lord Emmott. It was argued here entirely from that point of view, and, if I may say so, the only noble Lord who saw that there may be great things involved in it was the noble and learned Lord who has just spoken. He said, "This is a most momentous statute," or some words to that effect. It went to the House of Commons; I was in that Chamber at the time; and it really received very little argument there at all. It was treated as a consolidating statute, and on August 8 it became law.
The Home Secretary only the other day in the House of Commons, on the Second Reading of the Bill, gave us one argument for keeping "may" instead of "shall" in this particular position. He said that "may" was in the statute of 1914 and, therefore, if you put in "shall" now, it would stand out rather in contradistinction to the enabling word which was used all through the statute of 1914. But we are wiser now; at least I hope so. We all know that some of the Departments of the State have been too weak, and one of those Departments is, I venture to say so, the Home Office. Before the war, when we did not know where we were, it would have been perfectly safe to give to the Home Secretary all the permissive and enabling powers that the word "may" (strewed all over the statute) gave him. It is not safe now. The Home Office—I am not attacking the Home Secretary for the time being—is weak. I dare not leave this word "may" with the Home Office.
380
It is by their fruits you shall know them, and the Home Office has been weak all through the war.
Again, the next Amendment is that of the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill, and it is to take out all the words from "line 13 and", right down to the end of subsection (2) and place them at the end of the Bill. That Amendment does emphasise, I think, our argument. It might have been argued if these words had remained in that the word ought to be "may," because in subsection (2) you say he may refer it to a Committee. If "may" becomes "shall" in that reference to a Committee the two words might not harmonise together. The Home Secretary would be in a difficulty if you said "shall by order revoke" and under subsection (2) give him power to refer it to a Committee. There might be some difficulty there. Now that you are, I hope, going to clear away those words, then the subsection stops at the word "certificate," and it will read thus—
"Where it appears to the Secretary of State that a certificate of naturalisation granted by him has been obtained by false representations or fraud, or by concealment of material circumstances, the Secretary of State may by Order revoke the certificate."
Therefore he may be able to revoke it or not as he pleases, without any reference to any Committee. If your Lordships are willing, as I hope you will be, to substitute "shall" for "may," then there will be no Committee, and the Secretary of State, where fraud or concealment of material circumstances has been found, will have no option. He will have to revoke the certificate. I think the lessons of the war teach us that he ought to be compelled to do it in those circumstances, and that you ought not to allow him any option.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD FINLAY): I desire to say a few words on this subject. I entirely concur with what was said by the noble and learned Earl who spoke just now, when he pointed out that the meaning of "may" has been "shall"; it depends entirely on the collocation of the words. If the circumstances are such as to show that power is conferred, in certain circumstances where there is a duty to exercise, then, having that power from the duty which is imposed upon him to discharge the function, you infer that he is bound to use the power.

381
My noble and learned friend went on to say that it would be very odd if, where power had been established, it were left to the Secretary of State to say whether the man's name should or should not be taken off the list of naturalised persons. I entirely agree with that; but my noble and learned friend will see that the words of the subsection are:—
"Where it appears to the Secretary of State that a certificate of naturalisation granted by him has been obtained by false representations or fraud, or by concealment of material circumstances, the Secretary of State may by order revoke the certificate."
You delegate to the Home Secretary the duty of inquiring and making up his mind as to whether or not there has been fraud. Would it not be a most extraordinary thing to say that you are going to undertake the duty of proving that the Home Secretary was satisfied there had been fraud, and yet refused to remove the name? It is impossible. Where you leave it to the Home Secretary to determine whether or not fraud has been established, you cannot say he "shall" do it, because in order to bring the word "shall" into operation you would have to prove that it did appear to the Home Secretary that the certificate had been obtained by fraud; and that he was not exercising the power. That is impossible; you cannot enter into his mind, and where you leave to the Home Secretary the task of deciding whether there has been fraud or not it would be very odd if you used the word "shall."
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Far be it from me to intervene in a purely legal discussion, but your Lordships should notice that a late Lord Chancellor says "may" ought to be turned into "shall," and the present Lord Chancellor says that "may" ought to remain "may."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Will the noble Marquess forgive me I said that I should entirely agree with my noble and learned friend if the clause ran—"if the certificate has been obtained by fraud the Secretary of State may remove the name." Then it ought to be "shall." But if—as the clause runs—"it appears to the Home Secretary that the certificate has been obtained by fraud "the words must necessarily be "may."
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think that the only thing to do when two
382
eminent lawyers differ diametrically is to use one's common sense, and to me it seems quite clear that if the Home Secretary is satisfied that certain circumstances of a fraudulent character have arisen then he ought to and must remove the man. Let us therefore say "shall." That is the plain English, and is what we mean.
Let me say that this is not truly a legal argument. In saying this I hope that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will not think that I am in the least disrespectful to the great profession of which he is the head. Public opinion is very much exercised on this matter, and has a right to be much exercised. The public, after all, are suffering very greatly under the war in every way, and they are determined that in these respects justice shall be done—not more than justice, but not less than justice shall be done. They do not understand the legal subtleties between "may" and "shall." What they want us to do is to say in unmistakable terms that where a man has obtained a certificate of naturalisation fraudently his naturalisation should come to an end.
Your Lordships, if I may say so very respectfully, ought to vindicate the view which the public take. I confess that I am a little tired of these discussions between "may" and "shall." We spent a great deal of time upon them on another occasion at an earlier period of the session. Whereas we had been told by certain legal luminaries that "may" always meant "shall," when it came to the point it was found that "may" was not "shall" at all. I venture to think that we had better be guided by common sense, and say in clear terms that when a man has obtained a certificate of naturalisation fraudulently it shall come to an end.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I should like to ask a question, for I do not quite understand where we are. There is a very positive Amendment next on the Paper. The noble Lord in charge of of the Bill is going to remove the whole of the rest of that subsection. If these words at the end were to remain I think that the ease for the word "may" that we are now discussing is overwhelming, because you cannot put "shall" to a thing and "may if he thinks fit before doing so refer the case to an inquiry." If the whole of the rest of this subsection and the following subsection is going out

383
the case for changing this word "may" to "shall" is irresistible.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: Perhaps I may explain that I propose to take these words out and put them in again at a later stage in the Bill for a reason which I will explain when I make the Motion.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: The noble and learned Lord who spoke in favour of the Bill as it stands tried to differentiate between the case of a certain fact and something which only appeared to be a fact. He said that if it was established that a man had obtained his certificate by fraud, then of course it ought to be "shall"; but in this case he stated it was not that, but was only a case of where "it appears to the Home Secretary he got the certificate by fraud." But the Home Secretary
Resolved in the negative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST VISCOUNT SANDHURST moved to delete all words from "certificate," where it secondly occurs in subsection (1), down to the end of subsection (2). The noble Lord said: This is the Amendment to which Lord Balfour of Burleigh called attention. It is really a drafting Amendment. Lines 13 and 14 are left out be-
is to decide it. He is judge and jury, and settles the whole thing. That being so, I venture to say that it is not a matter as to what appears to the Home Secretary. If it appears to the Home Secretary that he did not get it by fraud the Home Secretary will let the man retain his certificate of naturalisation, but where it appears to the Home Secretary that the man did get it by fraud he will not let him retain it. We ought to take the common sense view and put in "shall." Why, if it is admitted by the Home Secretary that a man has got his certificate by fraud, should we want the word "may"? When the word "may" is left in, under these circumstances, it makes people very suspicious.
On Question, whether the word "may" shall stand part of the clause?—Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 29 Not-Contents, 36.

CONTENTS.

Finlay, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Farquhar, V. (L. Steward.)

Hylton, L.

Curzon of Kedleston, E. (L. President.)

Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

Kenyon, L.

Parmoor, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.) (L. Privy Seal.)

Milner, V.

Phillimoro, L.

Peel, V.

Pontypridd, L.

Shandon, L.

Crewe, M.

Annesley, L.

Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]

Chesterfield, E.

Clinton, L.

Southwark, L.

Howe, E.

Colebrooke, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L. (L. Sheffield.)

Lytton, E.

Elphinstone, L.

Russell, E.

Emmott, L.

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Strafford, E.

Gainford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Somerset, D.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Lamington, L.

Lee of Fareham, L.

Lansdowne, M.

St. Davids, V.

Leigh, L.

Lincolnshire, M.

Ranksborough, L.

Salisbury, M.

Annaly, L.

Ribblesdale, L.

Atkinson, L.

Sanderson, L.

Brassey, E.

Avebury, L.

Strachie, L. [Teller.]

Eldon, E,

Balfour, L.

Sudeley, L.

Grey, E.

Beresford of Metemmeh, L. [Teller.]

Sumner, L.

Halsbury, E.

Sydenham, L.

Jersey, E.

Blythswood, L.

Tenterden, L.

Verulam, E.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

Harris, L.

Wittenham, L.

Chaplin, V.

Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)

Hood, V.

cause they come in more properly on page 2, line 30, subsection (2) is left out in order to reinsert the same subsection in a more convenient place—namely, at the beginning of Clause 3, page 5. The reason for this is that the subsection is not one that ought to be read into the existing Section 7 of the Act of 1914, as it would be if it were left where it is at present. It is a provision arising out of the war, and ought not to be read into the permanent Code.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 13, leave out from ("certificate") to the end of subsection (2).—(Viscount Sandhurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE moved, in subsection (3), to delete "may" ["the Secretary of State may"], and to substitute "shall." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is exactly on the same lines as the earlier Amendment which your Lordships were good enough to accept. I think really in this case it is, if anything, a little stronger. The clause begins "Without prejudice to the foregoing provisions the Secretary may by order revoke a certificate." I suggest that your Lordships should put in, as you did before, that the Secretary of State "shall" revoke the certificate on the ground that he is satisfied that the person to whom the certificate had been granted had done various objectionable acts.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: I do not want to interrupt, but may I say that after the last Division we will not oppose this proposal.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 26, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").—(Lord Strachie.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST VISCOUNT SANDHURST moved to omit from subsection (3) (b) the word "knowingly," and after "business" to insert "which is to his knowledge." The noble Viscount said: This is really a drafting Amendment. It is intended to make it clear that a man must know that the business with which he has been associated was carried on so as to assist the enemy. That was the meaning of the Amendment inserted in the House of Commons, but the words as they stand in the Bill may not precisely have that effect.
Amendment moved—
page 2, line 8, leave out ("knowingly") and after ("business") insert ("which is to his knowledge").—(Viscount Sandhurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD WITTENHAN LORD WITTENHAN moved to delete from subsection (3) (c) the words "within five years of the date of the grant of the certificate." The noble Lord said: Certain grounds are set out under subheads (a) to (e) why a certificate should
386
be revoked. One of them is that which I now ask your Lordships to consider. Why should we limit ourselves under subsection (c) to the fact that within five years of the date of the grant of the certificate a man has been sentenced. Supposing he had been five years and one day from the grant of the certificate—you can multiply the argument ad infinitum. If a man had been sentenced five years and one day from the grant of the certificate he does not come within subsection (c). I need not labour that part of the argument, because it seems to me difficult to answer. I can put it in another way, that where a person seeks a certificate of naturalisation surely he must be a man of a clean past. You do not want to manufacture citizens, either individually or in the gross, from other countries, who at some time or other—I do not care how remote the time—have been within the grip of the law. They must have clean hands and must be able to show a clean record. If these words are left in, that need not be so. The argument does not need to be laboured, and I therefore ask your Lordships to be good enough to remove these words.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 11, leave out ("within five years of the date of the grant of the certificate").—(Lord Wittenham.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think that my noble friend is under a misconception as to the scope of these words in the Bill. Of course, if a man had been convicted before he was granted naturalisation it would go to show that he was not of good character at the time that he got it. That is dealt with by the provision that if the Secretary of State is satisfied that he was not of good character at the time he got the certificate then it may be withdrawn, the circumstances mentioned in the Bill being fulfilled. This is levelled not at what happened before he got his certificate of naturalisation, but at what happens afterwards.
A man may be convicted after he has been naturalised, and it was thought by the framers of the Bill that if these convictions happened within, say, five years of his getting naturalisation that might be regarded as showing that in all probability he was not of good character at the time he got the naturalisation. But removing the words "within five years" would leave him open to the consequences

387
of conviction under this clause however many years had elapsed between the naturalisation and the conviction. Of course, the whole object of restricting it in this way was, by bringing it near enough to the date of the naturalisation, to see that the provision operated in a case where there was a presumption that the man really had not been of good character shortly before he got the naturalisation.
I submit to my noble friend that the whole scope of this clause relates to the future, and that the reason I have given is a good one for imposing some limit; otherwise, if this Amendment were adopted, a man who had been here for fifty years and had then committed some crime would have the consequences attaching to him. I do not say that this is a matter of capital importance, but I submit that it is much better for the Bill to remain as drawn.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: It seems to me that the whole thing is the point of view. I do not think that the Government realise the fact that there are a great many people in this country who do not like Germans. That is the real position. If we have a German who has been made into an Englishman by the Home Office, we should like him to be a very carefully picked and sorted out German of a peculiarly select character. We are not very keen about him even then; but we want him to be of the very cream of Germans. The Lord Chancellor says that if he has committed a crime five years after he has been naturalised we ought to keep him. I would point out to the Government that on the face of it this is a denaturalisation Bill; it is a Bill to get rid of people; and why not get rid of a bad character under the Bill if you can do so? The Lord Chancellor then said that we might get rid of a man under the Bill who had been here for fifty years. Why not? The other day we had that gross case of an ex-Lord Mayor who had been naturalised for forty-five years. Does the House want to keep him?
LORD SHEFFIELD: This does not turn him out.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: No; but I am going to move an Amendment shortly which will turn him out. If you leave out these words, and if you afterwards
388
put in a fine as well as imprisonment, you will get rid of him. I think it will be a good thing to get rid of him. I see nothing monstrous about it. I think it is natural that in a denaturalisation Bill, when you have a "bad hat" amongst the Germans, you should shut him out.
LORD SHEFFIELD: The noble Viscount speaks as if all the aliens dealt with by this Bill are Germans. He has Germans on the brain, but Americans and other people are also concerned.
LORD PARMOOR: The noble Viscount seems to think that this Bill should be based entirely on a view of animosity to Germans. I do not want to say anything about that one way or the other; but the clauses in his Bill are as much applicable to Americans, or to Frenchmen, or to Italians; and surely it is worth while considering that we should not upset all our naturalisation laws and ideas because at the present moment there is a very strong feeling against one nationality. If your Lordships really approach the Bill from that point of view, I think you may do gross injustice to friendly aliens who are living in this country under friendly conditions, and against whom no charge of any kind is made by anybody. I hope, therefore, that this Amendment will not be adopted.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: I should like to point out to the noble and learned Lord that a man could not come under this Bill unless a charge were made against him. A charge must have been made against the man or he would not have been sentenced to penal servitude.
LORD BERESFORD: I should like to tell the noble and learned Lord that what is irritating the country is that, in a large number of cases, the Germans have not naturalised themselves into Englishmen at all, but into Danes, or Swiss, or Spaniards. Those are the people who are taking over the shops of the older men who have been called up.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I confess that I think this subsection stands upon a different footing from the one we discussed previously. If a man shows himself to be disloyal to the country of his adoption, there should be no question whatever about it, he should be struck out

389
and got rid of instantly. Similarly in the first clause, if a man has acquired his naturalisation by fraudulent misrepresentation that does not admit of discussion—out he goes instantly.
But this is rather different. I do not say that notice ought not to be taken of it, but it is upon a somewhat different footing. This is a question of the character of the man; it has nothing to do with his loyalty or disloyalty to England; for, I am sorry to say, there are a good many Englishmen who have been sent to prison with hard labour, and so forth. I think I must agree with the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, that there ought to be a limit of some sort. It may be said that the term of five years is not a good term, but until somebody can suggest a better I think it holds the field. That is, however, a matter of detail. I do not think you can say that after an American, for instance, has been here for fifty years, and is then convicted of crime, it follows as a matter of course that he should be denaturalised. For these reasons I am afraid that I cannot support the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD WITTENHAM LORD WITTENHAM moved to delete from subsection (3) (c) the words "for a term of not less than twelve months." The noble Lord said: I do not know whether your Lordships think this Amendment stands on the same footing as the last. After all, there are terms of imprisonment of less than twelve months which may involve a somewhat serious breach of or dereliction from the law of the land. It may not be necessary to press this to a Division, but I should like the noble Viscount to explain to me his view why these words should be left in.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 13 and 14, leave out ("for a term of not less than twelve months").—(Lord Wittenham.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My noble friend (Lord Sandhurst) has asked me to say a word about this Amendment. The reason for having these words in is to mark that it is a crime of a somewhat serious nature. If these words were removed, imprisonment for even a day would have the effect. I am sure that is not intended. I was glad to hear the noble
390
Lord say that he was not going to press the matter to a Division, and I hope he will withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS moved, after "servitude" in subsection (3) (c), to insert "or to a fine of not less than £100." The noble Viscount said: I venture to ask your Lordships to add these words at the end.
Amendment moved—
page 2, line 15, after ("servitude") insert ("or to a fine of not less than one hundred pounds").—(Viscount St. Davids.)
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: I accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS moved, after paragraph (d), in subsection (3), to insert "(e) Was at the commencement of the present war engaged in a business carried on wholly or mainly in association with subjects of a country which during the present war is or shall be at war with His Majesty, or for the benefit of, or under the control of subjects of such country; or."
The noble Viscount said: The words which I am moving to insert were moved, in the House of Commons, and I thought, in reading the discussion, that the argument in favour of them was strong, though the decision in the House of Commons was against them. I am informed that there have been a number of cases in which businesses have been run by naturalised persons, everybody knowing that they were for the benefit of alien enemies. Some individual has been put up here to get naturalised, to call himself an Englishman, to have English "sympathies," and to run a business under English guise when as a matter of fact it is a German business in essence, as regards its profits going to Germans and to Germany. I venture to think that in such a case a man ought not to be naturalised. If a man is naturalised merely for the purpose of helping an enemy business he is not a man we want to have in this country. This Amendment was moved in the House of Commons by Sir John Butcher, and I thought at any rate I ought to bring it forward and take the opinion of your Lordships upon it.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, after line 17, insert:
"(e) Was at the commencement of the present war engaged in a business carried on wholly or mainly in association with subjects of a country which during the present war is or shall be at war with His Majesty, or for the benefit of or under the control of subjects of such country, or".—(Viscount St. Davids.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I hope my noble friend will not press this Amendment, and for this reason. The act to which the Amendment refers as having been done by the person in question is one which, at the time at which it occurred, was absolutely innocent. What he says is, if the person "was at the commencement of the present war engaged in a business carried on wholly or mainly in association with subjects of a country which during the present war is or shall be at war with his Majesty or for the benefit of or under the control of subjects of such country." It gives a retrospective effect to what has happened since. Any man might have a German clerk in whom he has very great confidence. We have had a good many of them in the past; I hope we shall not have so many in the future. But before the war broke out no one thought there was anything wrong in having a German clerk, and if he was a man of marked ability and in the opinion of his employer thoroughly to be trusted he might take him into partnership and the clerk might play a very important part in the business. Under these circumstances, the act being absolutely innocent at the time and having only assumed since a different complexion owing to what has happened, I submit it would be very dangerous in dealing with a subject like naturalisation to make a retrospective enactment of that kind, having the effect of rendering the man liable to be denaturalised in this country. I most respectfully submit to my noble friend that this is not a matter on which the House should be asked to insert words which, as he has told us, were objected to in the House of Commons. He mentioned the name of an hon. and learned friend of mine by whom he said the Amendment was moved. I think if I had the opportunity of talking to Sir John Butcher, whose name he mentioned, on that subject I could convince him that the Amendment was not desirable; and the House of Commons
392
expressed its opinion to that effect. I submit that they were perfectly right, and I think it would be a mistake to put these words in.
LORD SHEFFIELD: This Amendment is really worse than the Lord Chancellor had described. Not only has it a retrospective effect, but it has a prospective effect. We shall have this position: that if one carried on a business with a country which is now a neutral and hereafter went to war, a man who at the beginning of the war had been working in partnership would find himself coming under the guillotine of this proposal. It reminds me of some lines in Voltaire's "La Pucelle," of what was said by St. Denis in the argument between St. Denis and St. George on which side Providence should be in the event of war between England and France. St. Denis said—
Punissez-les par quelque mauvais tour
De tout le mal qu'ils doivent faire un jour.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD BERESFORD LORD BERESFORD moved, in subsection (3) (e), to omit all words from "His Majesty's Dominions," where those words first occur, down to the end of paragraph (e). The noble Lord said: The reason why I would like to see this done is that it is following what has occurred in Australia. If these lines are left out it will certainly kill all such businesses as Merton and others that have still been going on in our country or our Empire. The Australians and the United States have stopped their business, and there is no share or guild in those places belonging to Germans. This proposal of mine would be in our interest and against the Germans, and I therefore beg to move the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 20, leave out from ("dominions") to ("or") in line 25."—(Lord Beresford.)
LORD LAMINGTON: Would the noble Lord refer also to farmers or only to company business? There is an extremely large number of German farmers in Australia and they cannot be interned.
LORD BERESFORD: I never said a word about farmers. I am dealing with banks and businesses and manufacturers. In the case of every such concern that has Germans in them in Australia, the Australians did not confiscate their property

393
but paid them a market price for the shares and told them to clear out. I want that to be done here.
LORD PARMOOR: According to the noble Lord's Amendment, it would have this effect. You denaturalise a man because he has been abroad for a certain time in the service of the Crown. I merely take that as one of the illustrations—
LORD BERESFORD: No.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: You are striking out those words?
LORD PARMOOR: We are not dealing here with the question of whether a business is a lawful business or matters of that kind, but if you establish this proposal the effect would be that some one who has been abroad on public service in the service of the Crown, has to be denaturalised because he has been doing patriotic duties abroad.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: The words may be too wide and I would not like to press the Amendment myself, but I would like to point out that "service of the Crown" is rather a misleading thing as regards naturalised citizens. We have an enormous number of consuls who are foreigners living abroad. They really have nothing to do with Great Britain at all except that they have been naturalised. They were British citizens but many of them could not speak English, and these have been our consuls abroad. There is something in it, after all. The noble and gallant Lord opposite said it is rather ridiculous that when a man like this has come here, been naturalised, and then gone away and had nothing to do with the country except the fact that he has been a consul, he should not be denaturalised. I therefore think there is something to be said for the noble Lord's Amendment.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: I think the reply has been given to my noble and gallant friend by the noble Lord opposite, and I hope he will not think it necessary to press this to a Division, because, as has been said, it would enable any certificate to be taken away when the owner of it had been absent from the Dominions of the Crown for seven years. I commented upon this when I moved the Second Reading. I will not repeat what I said
394
then. But obviously the mere fact that a man has been absent from the Dominions for a long period should not of itself constitute a ground for revocation of the certificate. Numerous instances could be cited in which a man, though physically outside the Empire, maintains the closest connection with it. I gave examples when moving the Second Reading, and the question with which my noble and gallant friend proposes to deal would, I can only repeat, include a number of commissioned officers and others who are stationed abroad or a foreign consul resident in a foreign country; and those are sufficient reasons for asking my noble and gallant friend not to press his Amendment
On Question, Amendment negatived.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST VISCOUNT SANDHURST moved to omit from subsection (3) (f) all words after "remains," and to substitute other words. The noble Viscount said: It is thought that this will make the meaning of the clause clearer and simpler.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 26, leave out from ("remains") to the end of line 28 and insert ("according to the law of a State at war wit h His Majesty a subject of that State").—(Viscount Sandhurst.)
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: Lord Stuart of Wortley desires to move an Amendment to omit the words "at war with His Majesty." As they also appear in the Amendment moved by the noble Viscount, I think the more convenient course will be to leave the words out now, and it will then be open for Lord Stuart of Wortley to move, if necessary, an Amendment to the Amendment.
LORD SHEFFIELD: We know, of course, that it used to be the general principle that a man could not put off his nationality. That has been modified by treaties, but I believe some countries such as Russia prohibit their subjects from repudiating liability to the country in which they were born. We have stipulated that if people sever themselves entirely from their home countries they may become British subjects. If you are going to say that because a man's home country still claims a hold upon him he is to lose his British nationality, what will happen? We know what has happened in the case of Germans in the United States who hate their old country. We must

395
also remember that there are a large number of refugees coming to this country and anxious to shake the dust of their old country off their feet. There ought to be some power enabling such men to repudiate altogether their former allegiance.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: I should be glad if the Lord Chancellor would tell us exactly what the effect of this Amendment will be. As subsection (f) stands, the Home Secretary is obliged to cancel the naturalisation of a man who "remains a subject of a State at war with His Majesty that does not regard naturalisation within the British Empire as extinguishing his original national status." I asked the noble and learned Lord the other day what was the effect of the Delbrück Law, because that makes all the difference to this Amendment. If the effect of the Delbruck Law is retrospective and you pass the clause as it stood, you will get rid of every German who has ever been naturalised who did not get the leave of Germany to cancel his German nationality. That, I believe, is the effect of subsection (f). I believe that, whatever might be the effect on the subjects of other nations, it would get rid of every German. I asked the noble and learned Lord whether the Delbruck Law modified that and was retrospective, and I was not told whether it was or whether it was not. I have an Amendment that I was going to move to this clause which would have the effect of cancelling everything the Delbruck Clause did and get rid of every Germany anyhow. I do not know what the Amendment of the Government does. I am not sure the Amendment of the Government does not do it anyhow. If the Delbrück Law is not retrospective, and you pass this subsection as it stands, I apprehend you will get rid of every German, but I want to know what the effect of the Delbrück Law is, because if it has a retrospective effect I want to move an Amendment to get rid of the Delbrück Law.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Viscount asked me the other day whether the Delbrük Law, Clause 25, was retrospective. I said my impression was that it was not, but that before giving a positive answer I would like to look at it. I have now looked at it, and I think this clause is not retrospective.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: When was it passed?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It came into force on January 1, 1914, and it was passed on July 22, 1913, and here is the particular clause. I am reading from the translation which the Home Office has—
"A German who is neither domiciled nor permanently resident in Germany——"
I am not sure that the language of the translation is very happy. I think "domicilied" there means "having his residence, his house, or his dwelling place there," and the words "nor permanently resident in Germany" refer to the case of a man who has not got a house of his own, a country seat or town house, where he resides, but makes his stay in the country and has continued for a long time in the country although without any seat, as it might be called, there—
"A German who is neither domiciled nor permanently resident in Germany loses nationality on the acquisition of a foreign nationality if the latter is acquired on his application or on the application of the husband (in the case of a married woman) or legal guardian (in the case of a ward). A married woman or ward, however, only loses nationalty if the conditions are fulfilled under which a discharge could be applied for in accordance with Sections 18, 19.
"A person does not lose his nationality if, before acquiring a foreign nationality, he has applied for, and received, the written permission of the competent authorities of his home State to retain his nationality. Before the grant of such permission, the German consul is to be consulted.
"With the assent of the Federal Council, the Imperial Chancellor may order that persons who wish to acquire nationality in a particular foreign State may be refused the permission mentioned in paragraph 2."
It is a little involved. I think the effect of it is simply this, that it is provided that if a German has not got a permanent home—that is how I render "domiciled"—nor has resided for a long time, nor is permanently resident in Germany, if he becomes naturalised in a foreign country and acquires a foreign nationality he loses his nationality. Then provision is made that he is not to lose his nationality if, before acquiring a foreign nationality, he gets the written permission he has applied for, of the competent authorities of his home State to acquire such nationality. Before that the German consul is to be consulted. I read that as applying only to naturalisation after that law came into effect, because it makes pro-

397
vision for the circumstances under which he may retain his nationality although he has acquired a foreign nationality. It relates, I think, to the future. Accordingly I do not think there is any retrospective effect of the Delbrüek law as regards this clause.
Passing to the question which my noble friend asks me as to the effect of the Amendment which the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill is moving, it is this. Your Lordships will see that one of the causes which give rise to the right of denaturalisation is if the person who had been naturalized—
"(f) remains a subject of a State at war with His Majesty that does not regard naturalisation within the British Empire as extinguishing his original national statue."
The proposal of the noble Viscount is made to simplify that clause very much. If you have got a man who remains, according to the law of a foreign State, in spite of his having acquired British nationality, still in the allegiance of that foreign State at war with His Majesty, you have a clear case, for thinking that, prima facie at all events, his naturalisation here may be recalled. You do not need further inquiry. You need not go into any elaborate investigation as to the details of the law. The mere fact that, according to the law of that foreign country, he remains subject to the allegiance of that foreign country which is at war with this country is enough to show that we are probably better without him. We do not want people who have taken the oath of allegiance here but are subject to the allegiance of a foreign State actually at war with His Majesty.
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My noble friend proposes to leave out from the word "remains" to the end of line 29, so that the paragraph will run thus—
"remains according to the law of a State at war with His Majesty a subject of that State."
You want these words "according to the law of a State at war with his Majesty" for this reason. It might be argued that "remains the subject of a foreign State" meant according to the law of England. That is not what is meant at all. If, according to the law of his own country, his own country has still a hold upon his allegiance; we say, "You are not the man
398
for us; we want undivided allegiance." For that reason my noble friend proposes to put in the words "according to the law of a State at war with his Majesty." If you get that you will drop the two lines which follow, which I think a little perplex some people.
As far as I am concerned, I want nothing more than the fact that the State which claims his allegiance is at war with his Majesty. Why do we want the lines that follow?—"that does not regard naturalisation within the British Empire as extinguishing his original national status." Of course, it does not regard naturalisation as extinguishing his original status for the reason that it claims that he still remains a subject of that State, although he is naturalised in Great Britain. The words of the second and third lines are unnecessary, and really perplex the inquirer.
This Amendment has, of course, a bearing upon the Amendment which is down in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Stuart of Wortley. He proposes to leave out the words "at war with his Majesty" so as to make the paragraph run thus—
"remains the subject of a State that does not regard naturalisation within the British Empire as extinguishing his original national status."
The effect of this would be that, however friendly a State was, if, on investigating its law, you found it did not regard naturalisation in Great Britain as extinguishing the allegiance which the person naturalised here owed-to his native country, that is to be a ground for revocation.
Take the nations of Europe. Russia has been mentioned by the noble Earl opposite. Russia retains, in its full integrity, that principle which used to characterise our law—that no one can strip himself of his native country. He cannot get rid of his allegiance, and the effect of this would be that no Russian could be naturalised here so long as the law of Russia remains in that respect as I understand it is and has been for long, because the law of Russia would say that Russia still has a hold upon him in respect of his allegiance. The law of Turkey is the same. Turkish law does not recognise the right of any man to strip himself of his allegiance to the Sultan. Take the application of that to the Armenians. Technically, the Armenians are subject to

399
Turkey. Never was there a Power that had deserved worse of a portion of its subjects than Turkey of the Armenians. I am sure my noble and learned friend would not desire that it should be the cause of revoking the certificates of an Armenian that the law of the country to which he was subject retained its hold upon him and held that he was still a Turkish subject.
Then, I am told, the law of the Argentine is very much the same. At all events, there is good ground for supposing it is so. With regard to France and Italy there is some doubt because, in terms, the Code seems to say that naturalisation in any country puts an end to allegiance to the Government of France or Italy; but then there is this, that the obligation to military services remains. Therefore, in the case of these two countries, you have got in one most important particular the fact that the country of origin still retains its hold in regard to military service upon the man naturalised here.
I am told that the laws of Holland and Sweden are the same. I do not profess to be an expert in those laws. The information I am giving is the result of inquiries that have been made by Home Office officials, and I submit to your Lordships that it would be a great pity to enter into a sort of crusade against the subjects of perfectly friendly States merely on the ground of what we may consider the imperfections in their law. We ought, so far as we reasonably can, to encourage naturalisation by friendly aliens of a good type, but it is another thing altogether when you come to the case of a man who, after being naturalised here, still is a subject of a State at war with His Majesty. I say that that is a reason for getting rid of that man. You never know which of the two States will secure his allegiance.
LORD SHEFFIELD: The noble and learned Lord has not quite answered my question. I gather from him now that he contends that any person who has been naturalised here, no matter how long ago, if he came from a country which does not waive its claim upon his allegiance, although he has himself repudiated it, is to be denaturalised here.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: What I said in that respect was criticising the effect of the Amendment which stands in the name of Lord Stuart of Wortley. I was
400
not putting that forward as my contention. I said that would he the effect if the Amendment was adopted.
LORD SHEFFIELD: But we have words which say: "remains subject of a State at war with His Majesty that does not regard naturalisation within the British Empire as extinguishing his original national status." I rather understood the noble and learned Lord to say that in that case any person, no matter how completely he had identified himself with this country, and that merely against his will and his wishes there was this outstanding claim on his allegiance by his former country, would be deprived of his British citizenship, which he might have enjoyed for thirty years.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is quite justifiable because you have here a man who is, and still is, a subject of a State at war with His Majesty.
LORD SHEFFIELD: But take the case of a man who has expressed a desire to become a British subject. Take the case of the Poles, whom we have rather neglected while the Russians were our friends, and turned the cold shoulder on their claims. It has been the hereditary tradition that a Pole was a person to whom we extended our arms. Of course Russia is neither at war with us or against us now, but we do not know how soon the Bolshevists might be at war with us. He would be a very bold man who would say whether they will be friends, foes or allies. Take the case of Kossuth. If be had become naturalised you would, now that Austria is at war with us (and because Austria might claim a lien upon him which he had repudiated) compulsorily deprive him of his British citizenship. I can quite understand the Government saying that in cases where there may be really divided allegiance we should inquire into it. Take the case of Mr. Panizzi, who came from Italy to this country as a young man; who made his mark and ultimately became Head Librarian of the British Museum. No man could more thoroughly have identified himself with this country than Mr. Panizzi, but if Italy had been at war with us we should have turned him out because, although he had been an Englishmen for forty years, there was still the outstanding claim of his own country. I say this is unreasonable legislation, and if you would

401
give the Home Office power to look in particular cases it would be reasonable.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Home Secretary can look into the whole case. Although the House thought it right "shall" should be substituted for "may," you still have this security, that he has to do it if he is satisfied not only of the facts, but also that it is conducive to the public good the name should be removed. If you take the case of an Armenian, of course the Home Secretary would say that it is not conducive to the public good, merely because Turkey says she has a hold on the man that his name should be removed.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY LORD STUART OF WORTLEY moved an Amendment to the Amendment, to leave out the words "at war with His Majesty." The noble Lord said: I think it rather hard that your Lordships should have heard the case for the defendant before I have been able to state the case for the prosecution. Your Lordships must remember that when I put this Amendment down the House had not adopted the word "shall" instead of "may" in the earlier part of the clause, but it still remains the fact that even after the Home Secretary, in the discharge of the new and inflexible obligation that has been laid upon him, initiates these proceedings, it is still open to him to say in any particular case that he is not satisfied the continuance of the laws of naturalisation to any particular individual are not conducive to the public good. Therefore, as I read it, in the cases to which my Amendment would apply the whole proceedings will remain optional. With that consideration I suggest falls to the ground the main part of the objection of the Lord Chancellor to my Amendment upon the case of neutrals.
I freely confess that I put this Amendment down with the intention that it should apply, in proper cases, to individual neutrals. I ventured to say on the Second Reading that this was an uncivilised form of law which enabled one State to adopt the practice of planting its citizens abroad in foreign States, to enjoy all the benefits of citizenship, and at the same time be able to serve, by means, worthy or unworthy, the State from which they were pretending to have divested their citizenship. I also said that to that uncivilised law Germany had for may long years past been making a most unneigh-
402
bourly use, if indeed one might not use a much less charitable expression. You cannot say that in no future case, and in the case of no State, will that practice ever be resorted to again. I quite agree that with our friends in Holland and Russia it is unlikely, but the essence of the thing is that the practice, if resorted to at all, is resorted to before war begins, and when the State in question is at peace with us. The essence of the practice, and almost the first condition of its success, is this planting of people abroad, the laying of the foundation for espionage, the capture of commercial and other positions, in the interests of the success of the war which is intended to follow.
I submit to your Lordships that in such a case it ought to be open to the Home Secretary to be able to say that the continuance of British citizenship is not conducive to the public good. It may be this is what you call a crusading Amendment and aims at creating pressure which will induce those States to amend their laws so as to come into conformity with ours. We took the lead in this matter in 1870 when we made it quite clear that we were not going to stand in the way of our citizens accepting citizenship in any foreign State abroad, and it is on our Statute Book that any man who does accept such foreign citizenship should lose entirely, and for all purposes, the British citizenship be had thus abandoned.
Amendment moved to the Amendment—
Leave out ("at war with His Majesty").—(Lord Stuart of Wortley.)
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I find myself in sympathy to a considerable extent with what my noble and learned friend Lord Stuart of Wortley has said, and partly for a reason which I am afraid will not commend itself to some of my noble friends opposite. I have always taken the view that in this matter we ought to proceed by looking into the cases individually, and not by treating people in classes. The tendency has been, at any rate in some quarters, to treat people as beyond the pale if they belong to a certain race or class, without any reference to their individual qualities or even to their services to this country. I have never been able to take that view, and I have always felt that there is some danger that the public mind may have been led to excess to concentrate on the national risk proceeding from people

403
of German descent and German blood, to the exclusion of the risks, in some ways not less serious, which may proceed from people belonging to nominally friendly races.
I quite agree with my noble and learned friend that there must be a great number of cases in which the position of neutral aliens, and even in some cases friendly aliens—I do not hesitate to say so—ought to receive a closer examination than possibly they have received up to the present. I feel very little confidence in any class of persons—I will even say my own countrymen—if there is a prima facie case of unfriendliness to the interests of this country. I would say if there were such a case, even in your Lordships' House or in the other House, or in His Majesty's Government, or any other body of persons, that it ought to be inquired into, and, if necessary, dealt with. It is always possible that some individual may be a traitor.
But the real difficulties which I see in the acceptance of my noble friend's Amendment is the enormous number of cases which would fall to the Home Secretary to be examined if this were passed. The effect would be that every Russian naturalised in this country would be denaturalised except for some reason shown to the contrary. The presumption would be, being a citizen of a country whose allegiance he has not parted from by becoming naturalised here, that unless it is shown that his retention as a citizen here was in the public interest, he would have to go. That surely would throw a tremendous burden on the Home Office, and would involve, I should have thought, an inquiry into a great number of cases—harmless cases. I should like to strengthen the hands of the Home Secretary in every possible way, but I confess, subject to anything that may be said, that I very much doubt whether my noble friend's Amendment is quite the way to do it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I only desire to say one word in reference to what my noble and learned friend has said. I entirely agree with what the noble Marquess opposite has pointed out. The question really is in these cases what, taking a large view of the subject, is for the interests of this country. We must order our own affairs properly; at the
404
same time it is fair to remark that it is not the fault of the particular subject if the law of his country is such that it still has a hold upon his allegiance. He has not done anything wrong in the matter. It may be his misfortune, but it is not his fault. The question is, what is the right thing to do under such circumstances? If his country is at war with this country the matter is clear beyond the possibility of doubt. It is a very strong reason why he should not remain a naturalised subject of this country if he still holds allegiance to a hostile sovereign.
But when you come to the subjects of friendly countries—countries that are well disposed towards us, and whose subjects come here with every desire to promote the prosperity of this country and to lead peaceable and orderly lives under the Government of the King—it is another matter altogether. Do you not then stir up a multitude of controversies calculated to cause friction? And with what beneficial result? There is no reason for thinking that these people will do harm here. If they were the subjects of a country at war with His Majesty, of course it would be otherwise, but they are the subjects of a friendly State. What advantage can we gain by undertaking this tremendous and laborious task, a task the performance of which is certain to cause a great deal of friction with countries that are perfectly friendly. Looking at the matter as a whole, I submit to your Lordships that the right course is that embodied in the Amendment which my noble friend in charge of the Bill has laid before us.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is difficult to press the Government upon this matter beyond where they wish to go, but I confess that my sympathies are with my noble friend, Lord Stuart, in his wish to get rid of this double nationality. It seems to me, in spite of the arguments which were addressed to us with immense force by the Lord Chancellor just now, impossible to reconcile to our approval a state of things under which a particular individual owes allegiance to two different States at the same time. It is true that at the present moment we are at war only with the Central Powers and their Allies, but we cannot say that the Powers which are now neutral may not at some future time become hostile, and one would think that when we are dealing with a naturalisation law we might take a broad view of thing;

405
and try and settle This particular controversy. The Lord Chancellor has himself shown that this clause is not mandatory because of the words which come at the beginning of the next succeeding paragraph. The Home Secretary has not only to be satisfied that this double nationality exists, but he has also to be satisfied that the continuance of the certificate is not conducive to the public good. Therefore it is not mandatory.
I complain that in the drafting of this Bill the Government have mixed up possibilities which should involve mandatory action with possibilities which should involve discretionary action. For example paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection ought really to be transferred to Section I which is a mandatory section; that is to say there ought to be no doubt whatever that if a man is by act or by speech disaffected to His Majesty he ought to lose his British nationality. And the same thing with paragraph (b). Perhaps at a future stage that might be done, and (a) and (b) might be transferred to Section 1 which is mandatory. Then we should have in Section 2 nothing but discretionary matters, including imprisonment, bad character, and, amongst others, the question of double nationality. If it was made quite clear that this was a discretionary section it would be an improvement, and I should think that the Government might go so far as to say that in all cases of double nationality a man should be liable to lose his British nationality. But it is not urgent to deal with countries that are not at war with His Majesty. The rest of the Bill is urgent. Therefore, speaking for myself, I should not press the Government to go beyond where they wish to go, but as it is a discretionary section they might go as far as my noble friend asks them.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am obliged to the noble Marquess for the way in which he has put it. I was only going to point out that the clause as it stands will apply to any power now friendly that afterwards goes to war with this country.
LORD PARMOOR: I should agree with a great deal of what was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stuart of Wortley, if we had been dealing with questions of naturalisation, but we are not dealing with them in this clause. What we are dealing with is revocation of naturalisation. Think what it is that he proposes. I
406
quite agree with what was said by the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, in regard to Italy and France. The effect of the noble Lord's Amendment would be to denaturalise under the words "conducive to the public good," but apart from that this would be compulsorily to denaturalise every Italian or Frenchman now naturalised in this country. It is the same as regards Americans if the American law, about which there is great complication, does not extinguish the original national status. That is surely a very extreme form of compulsion against our Allies or neutrals at the present moment. As the noble Marquess has pointed out, it is certainly not a matter of immediate necessity. If the condition of naturalisation arises I should agree with a great deal of what he said about the double nationality, but I think that revocation is a very different thing. I certainly hope that the Government will not assent to the Amendment.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: Of course, I do not want to worry a distressed Pole nor to embarrass an Armenian refugee. I never intended anything of the kind, nor would my Amendment have had that effect when I put it down. I quite recognise what the Lord Chancellor has pointed out that the substitution of the word "shall" makes it necessary on the Home Secretary to rake up every individual case, though that may mean thousands of people in the East End of London. But I was obliged to operate in the way that I did in putting down this Amendment, and after the discussion perhaps your Lordships will allow me to withdraw it.
Amendment to the Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "and that (in any case) the continuance of the certificate is not," and to insert "and unless he is satisfied that (in any case) the continuance of the certificate is."
The noble Viscount said: This Amendment, I venture to submit, is a very important one. At the present moment in this clause you have decided that the Home Secretary shall denaturalise certain classes of people—disloyal people, people who have traded with the enemy, men of bad character, and also people who have

407
got double nationality. In a state of war with His Majesty the case of people of double nationality is open to inquiry. In every case there is to be an inquiry. I fully agree with the inquiry. I do not want to denaturalise everybody, and I have never said I did. I was misunderstood the other day in this. From the beginning of the war I have always thought that, when a man has been naturalised here and has shown his loyalty by having sons who volunteered at the beginning of the war and perhaps died for the country, that man ought to be recognised as a good citizen. But I do think this country ought to have the benefit of the doubt.
How does the clause stand? In all these cases we have been debating there is to be an inquiry, and then the Home Secretary shall denaturalise the man if he is satisfied that the continuance of his certificate is not conducive to the public good. That is putting on the Home Office a tremendous burden of inquiry as to facts which in many cases nobody will have except the man himself. I put this case to you. The noble Lord opposite talked about Armenians. It is said it would be a hard thing to denaturalise Armenians under this Bill. I quite agree with that view, but what will happen is this. It will be proved that a certain man is a subject—there must be tens of thousands of them—of a State which does not recognise naturalisation, and therefore the man is a subject of two States. In those cases where would the onus of proof lie? I say the onus of proof ought to lie on the man, who should come and say, "I have good grounds by which I can show that I am a loyal citizen." If a man is an Armenian and not a Turk he can come and prove that he is an Armenian, for he will have the facts. The Home Office in most cases will not have the facts. They can tell whether a man originally came from Turkey, but it is he who ought to prove whether he is an Armenian or a Turk.
Take the case of an Alsatian. None of us under this clause would wish to denaturalise an Alsatian, but we ought not to allow a lot of Germans to remain citizens because they say they are Alsatians. We ought to put the boot on the other leg. According to my Amendment the clause would read "unless he is satisfied that (in any case) the continuance of the certificate is conducive to the public good." I think it is a very important Amendment. It
408
gives the country the benefit of the doubt. It lets any person who has been of service to this country, like a naturalised person who has had sons fighting for us, conic forward and prove his case, and he can get the benefit of the exception, but wherever there is any doubt the country gets the benefit of it. I hope therefore that the Government will see their way to accept the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 29, after ("and") insert ("unless he is satisfied") and leave out ("not").—(Viscount St. Davids.)
LORD PHILLIMORE: An unfortunate German governess, well known and trusted in a family, or possibly some woman pensioned after long service, is brought up before the Home Secretary. Under these conditions how is the Home Secretary to say it is conductive to the public good that she should retain her certificate, except that it is honour and fair play and absence of cruelty. If it is left as it is now he will say that it is not conducive to the public good that the certificate shall be taken away, but it is proposing an absurd difficulty to him if he has to say that it is conducive to the public good that the certificate should be continued. I am sure the noble Viscount cannot have thought what the effect of his proposal would be.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Your Lordships will observe what the effect of the Amendment is. As it stands at present, one condition of revoking the certificate is that the Secretary of State should be satisfied that in any case the continuance of the certificate is not conducive to the public good. Then it may be revoked if he is satisfied of that in addition to the other points. The words proposed by the noble Viscount (Lord St. Davids) are these: "Unless lie is satisfied that (in any case) the continuance of the certificate is conducive to the public good." That exactly reverses the burden of proof. Surely where the proposal is to take away what has been granted to a man, the condition ought to be established before it is taken away. This Amendment requires that it shall be taken away unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that the continuance of the certificate is conducive to the public good. I submit that that is not right and not in accordance with our ordinary way of looking at such subjects. And the gravity of the Amend-

409
ment is very much increased by the substitution in the earlier part of the section of the word "shall" for the word "may."
If your Lordships will look you will notice that as the clause now stands, "the Secreatry of State shall" if any one of the heads (a) to (f) be established, and that in any case the continuance of the certificate is not conducive to the public good. Before that the noble Lord proposes to say unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that the continuance of the certificate is conducive to the public good—that is to say, you throw upon the person who had this grant the power of showing that the certificate is conducive to the public good. I submit that when you couple this Amendment with the introduction of the mandatory word "shall" at the beginning of the clause, it is not in accordance with English practice to adopt it.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: The next three Amendments, which stand in my name upon the paper, are purely drafting. The object of the first Amendment is merely to split up this long clause into two sub-clauses.
Amendments moved—
Page 2, line 30, leave out ("but the") and insert ("(3) The")
Page 2, line 31, leave out ("such order") and insert ("an order under this section")
Page 2, line 33, leave out ("this subsection") arid insert subsection (2) of this section".—(Viscount Sandhurst.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST VISCOUNT SANDHURST moved to omit the words "the Secretary of State may order the certificate to" and to insert "the certificate shall." The noble Viscount said: I want to add in front of the word "the" in the words I propose to insert, the word "thereupon." May I ask the attention of my noble and gallant friend Lord Beresford to this Amendment, because, by adding these words, the Amendment standing in the name of the noble and gallant Admiral, which is the next on the Paper, will be met. It seems simpler to provide generally that the certificate shall in all cases be surrendered than to throw the obligation on the Secretary of State to make the order.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, lines 32 and 33, leave out ("the Secretary of State may order the certificate to")
410
and insert ("thereupon the certificate shall").—(Viscount Sandhurst.)
LORD BERESFORD: May I ask my noble friend whether that will really meet my Amendment?
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: I think I may say that it meets my noble and gallant friend entirely.
LORD BERESFORD: It throws the obligation on the individual and not on the Court?
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: Yes, that is so.
LORD BERESFORD: That is what I wanted.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: The next Amendment is purely drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, lines 12 and 13, leave out ("is a natural-born") and insert ("was at birth a").—(Viscount Sandhurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
After Clause 1:
LORD TENTERDEN LORD TENTERDEN proposed to insert as a new clause, "A person of enemy nationality shall not start a new business or factory or obtain control of such a business or factory or of any raw materials, without obtaining a licence from the Board of Trade, and the Board may, if they think fit, at any time, revoke any such licence." The noble Lord said: I desire to insert this new clause particularly in view of the clever speech made by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack on the occasion of the Second Reading. The Lord Chancellor than not only dealt with the Bill as it stands at present and with reference to present conditions, but he looked—as one might have expected him to look—far ahead into the future when conditions will be different from what they were when the war commenced. The noble and learned Lord referred to what I consider a most essential point—namely, the enemy propaganda during peace time, when they obtained possession of businesses in this country, such as insurance businesses, banking institutions, and so forth, which

411
were well known by all who know anything about conditions in the City to be centres of—
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: If the noble Lord will allow me, may I point out to him that he will find that his Amendment will more properly come in on the Trading with the Enemy (Amendment) Bill?
LORD TENTERDEN: I have that Bill here, and I can assure your Lordships that, if what the noble Viscount says is accurate, I will at once withdraw my Amendment; but I shall put down an Amendment to this other Bill when it is before your Lordships' House.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2:
Minor amendments of the principal Act.
2. The following amendments shall be made in the principal Act:—
(1) In paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section one (which defines natural-born British subjects) after the words "had been granted" there shall be inserted the words "or had become a British subject by reason of any annexation of territory, or was at the time of that person's birth in the service of the Crown"; and at the end of that section the following subsection shall be inserted:—
"(4) The certificate of a Secretary of State that a person was at any date in the service of the Crown shall, for the purposes of this section, be conclusive."
(2) At the end of section two (which relates to the grant of certificates of naturalisation) the following subsection shall be inserted:—
"(6) For the purposes of this section a period spent in the service of the Crown may, if the Secretary of State thinks fit, be treated as equivalent to a period of residence in the United Kingdom."
(3) In subsection (1) of section eight (which relates to the grant of certificates of naturalisation in British possessions) after the words "United Kingdom" there shall be inserted the words "and of a High Court or superior court of the possession for the High Court, and with the omission of any reference to the approval of the "Lord Chancellor," and after the words "any certificate proposed to be granted" there shall be inserted the words "and any proposal to revoke any certificate."
(4) In section ton (which relates to the national status of married women) at the end of the section there shall be added the words "and provided that where an alien is a subject of an enemy state it shall be lawful for his wife if she was at birth a British subject to make a declaration that she desires to resume British nationality, and thereupon the Secretary of State, if he is
412
satisfied that it is advisable that she be permitted to do so, may grant her a certificate of naturalisation.
(5) In subsection (1) of section twenty-seven (which contains definitions) at the end of the definition of "British subject" after the words "has been granted" there shall be inserted the words "or a person who has become a subject of His Majesty by reason of any annexation of territory," and for subsection (2) of that section the following subsection shall be substituted:—
"(2) Where in pursuance of this Act the name of a child is included in a certificate of naturalisation granted to his parent, or where, in pursuance of any Act repealed by this Act, any child has been deemed to be a naturalised British subject by reason of residence with his parent, such child shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to be a person to whom a certificate of naturalisation has been granted."
VISCOUNT SANDHURST VISCOUNT SANDHURST moved to insert a new subsection. The noble Viscount said: These are drafting Amendmentsin the Act of 1914. The first Amendment is necessary because section 5 (2) might be interpreted to naturalise a minor only when he does not comply with the conditions. The Amendment gives effect to the intentions of the subsection. The second Amendment is consequential on an Amendment inserted in the Bill in the House of Commons—namely, lines 16 to 25 on page 5, which gives further power to a naturalised person under disability. For instance, to a married woman under certain circumstances which I explained on the Second Reading.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, after line 7, insert as a new subsection: (3) In subsection (2) of section five "whether or not" shall be substituted for "although" and "not" shall be omitted, and in subsection (3) of section five "Act" shall be substituted for "section."—(Viscount Sandhurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF JERSEY THE EARL OF JERSEY moved to insert a new subsection enacting that in section three, at the end of subsection (1) of the Act of 1914, there should be added the words: "Provided that no person who at, or at any time before, the grant of a certificate of naturalisation was the subject of a country which during the present war is or shall be at war with His Majesty, shall be entitled to be registered as a parliamentary elector for any constituency for a period of ten years after the grant of a certificate of naturalisation."
The noble Earl said: In moving the Amendments standing in my name, I

413
may, perhaps, be permitted to remind your Lordships that I moved a similar Amendment to the Franchise Bill when that measure was before your Lordships' House. On that occasion it was suggested by His Majesty's Government that it would be more suitable to move this Amendment when the Naturalisation Bill was before the House; therefore I have taken the first opportunity of carrying out that suggestion. I hope that the professions of sympathy with the objects of the Amendment which were then made on behalf of His Majesty's Government by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill, may be proved to be real by their acceptance of this Amendment.
Only two substantial objections were then put forward to the Amendment. The first was that it was undesirable to deal with the class of persons described as "hybrid"—that is the expression used by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill; and he defined a "hybrid" as a person who was and yet was not a British subject. Considerable emphasis was laid on the absurdity of creating such an individual, but I would suggest that His Majesty's Government appear to have changed their minds on the subject in a remarkably short space of time, because within less than a week a measure was introduced by the Government, the Non-ferrous Metal Industry Bill, where it was rightly laid down that a person of enemy alien birth was to be treated differently from a person of true British origin. Therefore, since it is now necessary for a person of alien enemy origin to obtain a special licence before engaging in certain industries the "hybrid" who was so much ridiculed on the former occasion has been officially created. If it is right that for ordinary purposes of every day trading a distinction should be drawn, it is not unreasonable to suggest that a special period of probation should he provided for before these persons are fit to legislate for the people of this country.
The only other objection put forward was that the Amendment as then suggested would affect others than those who are now alien enemies. This Amendment which I now venture to submit, your Lordships will observe, deals only with persons of alien enemy origin, and therefore it is quite unnecessary for me to refer to the possible objection to a more drastic Amendment. I venture to claim that in
414
moving this Amendment I am in effect not only acting on the suggestions made by His Majesty's Government on a former occasion, but I am also endeavouring to give effect to the policy of distinction which they themselves have initated.
As to the general question I need say only a few words. It seems to me an insult to the people of this country that any persons of alien enemy origin should be permitted to take any part in malting laws for the people of this country. These persons are not here for the welfare of this country; they are here entirely for their own convenience. You may naturalise them and very easily call them British citizens, but you cannot imbue them either with British sympathies or with British instincts. They are allowed to live here by our courtesy and by our hospitality, and I would say very often by our folly, but they have not and they cannot possibly have any right to take part in legislating for the destinies of this country. I do not propose to say anything more except this. Personally I should have liked to move a very much more drastic Amendment and should have liked to exclude them altogether from making our laws, but it is in the hope that I may be able to persuade His Majesty's Government and your Lordships at any rate to establish the principle that a person of alien enemy origin is not to be treated as on the same plane as a person of true British birth, that I venture to move the Amendment in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, after line 7, insert as a new subsection:
"(3)In section three at the end of subsection (1) there shall be added the words:
"Provided that no person who at, or at any time before, the grant of a certificate of naturalisation was the subject of a country which during the present war is or shall be at war with His Majesty, shall be entitled to be registered as a parliamentary elector for any constituency for a period of ten years after the grant of a certificate of naturalisation."—(The Earl of Jersey.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sensible of the considerations which have been so clearly and temperately stated by the noble Earl who has moved this Amendment. At the same time I hope that your Lordships will not accept it. In the first place, if it were accepted it should not come into this part of the Bill. This is an Amendment of the Act of 1914, and it should go into the portion of the Bill

415
which deals with substantive amendments and alterations of that law. But that is a matter which might be cured by altering the position of the clause. So I pass at once to the considerations which I submit render it undesirable that this Amendment should be accepted. Of course, I take it that the noble Earl means it to apply only to constituencies in the United Kingdom. As it stands, it might be read as applying to the whole Empire. I am not certain that that is not what is intended. We could not in accordance with usage legislate for the Dominions, and I take it that the noble Earl would desire to confine it to the United Kingdom. But then you are landed in a difficulty.
This subject has formed the matter I am told of conferences of the Dominions, and in two of them a strong opinion, I am informed, was expressed against any distinctive rights of a naturalised subject in this manner. After all, the right of voting is substantially what a man gets by being naturalised. We have been so prodigal of privileges to aliens that naturalisation gives him very little except the right of voting and the power of occupying certain offices if he is a man of such distinction as to be able to aspire to them. Under those circumstances is it desirable that we should have in the United Kingdom legislation on this point which is at variance with the legislation that some of our Dominions, at all events, desire? I do not for a moment take up the position that we are bound in all matters to follow the Dominions. We ought in a good many things to know our own business. But I think every one recognises that the Act of 1914 contained an attempt, and a most laudable attempt, as far as possible to establish one Code for the whole Empire, and it would be a great pity, unless there were very substantial reasons for it, to introduce into this Bill a matter on which we should find a discrepancy between this country and certain of our great Dominions. I submit these matters for the consideration of the noble Earl. Of course, if it applied to the whole Empire the observation I am making would not arise.
But I think every one recognises insuperable difficulties in passing this for the whole Empire—no one would think of it. Is it desirable to break in on the prin-
416
ciple which as far as possible we have followed that the law as to nationality and naturalisation should be the same? Is there sufficient reason for it? It would deprive a certain number of people of the right they have had. Of course, one sees that they are not exactly the electors one particularly desires; I feel the force of that; no one feels it more strongly than I do myself, but, after all, we must look at this from the practical point of view. There are so many more drops in the ocean. It would be a very insignificant part of the electorate that would be swayed by the foreign vote. In some constituencies it might come to something, but taking the country all over—I should not like to attempt to give a fraction, but it must be something very minute. All I suggest to the House is that it is not worth it—non tantum. There is not sufficient compensating advantage to lead us, with the disadvantages to which I have ventured to allude, to give way to a very natural feeling of irritation and vexation that there are persons enjoying the hospitality of this country who in many cases may cherish sentiments much more friendly to their original home than to the country where they have found a second home. Natural man is very much tempted, I think, to attempt legislation of this kind; but, looking at the thing from the practical point of view and from the view which prevails in certain of our Dominions, I suggest that there is no sufficient advantage to be gained by disfranchising these people. And there is something a little illogical in granting a man naturalisation and yet depriving him of the chief feature in naturalisation, because if he is not fit to vote he ought not to be naturalised at all.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I listened with some degree of pain to the noble and learned Lord's observations, because I always thought it was a very great mistake that the objection which was once raised by the law as it then stood, and which was I think very useful and proper in its place, should have been removed. For some reason we appeared to go to sleep and to think there would be no war in the future, and in a sort of spirit of amiability that prevailed at one particular time the alteration of the law was made. I think it was a very great mistake, and the only difficulty I have here is that there was one observation of

417
the Lord Chancellor which I think deserves consideration—namely, the question of introducing this matter into the particular Bill that we are now upon. Otherwise I certainly should, if the Question arose, and I shall now if my noble friend persists in his Amendment, vote with him, for I think it was a great mistake that any naturalised persons should take part in our legislation at all. Therefore if this Amendment is persisted in I shall support it.
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE: With regard to what the noble and learned Lord said about the opinion of the Dominions, all the colonial experience that I have leads me entirely to believe that while the great. Dominions would stand no interference with them they do not wish, and as far as I know have never wished, to have any Dominion interference as to who should or who should not be on the voters' roll in this country.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: The noble and learned Lord speaking for the Government objected to this Amendment because the lack of consistency—that was almost his sole argument—the lack of consistency between the franchise here and the franchise in two of our Colonies. The franchises never have been the same in the Colonies and here. Some of them have at the present moment given votes to women. We do no give them to women although we are going to give them at the next Election. There are some Colonies which do not give votes to women. At the next Election our franchise will he different from that of those colonies. What practical difference can it make, if you say that certain naturalised aliens shill not vote for ten years in this country, if they have the right to vote in two of our colonies. They cannot vote here and also in the Colonies. There is a residential qualification after all, and what the noble anti learned Lord has said is no serious objection to the very substantial argument which the noble Earl opposite has used. After all we are the Mother country. I would support the noble Earl if he said twenty years instead of ten. I do not: think that a man after ten years is going to know much about what is to the advantage of this country and what is to its disadvantage, and I call it a very moderate Amendment indeed a nil I hope that it will be adopted.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I hope the Government will see that this Amendment is really necessary. I ask them just to think for themselves what the condition of public opinion will be if at the first General Election after the Peace the electors of this country see a man of German origin come in and claim to vote for a member for the House of Commons of this country—for the Assembly which is going to appoint the Government of the country—just after the country with which that man of German origin has the deepest symathy has done its best to cut the throat of this country. Public opinion will be horrified, and we are bound to consider the feeling of the country. It is quite clear that it is a matter which the people would naturally resent. They would say "This German Nation has done its best to destroy us and is responsible for unnamed atrocities. Are we positively to allow people born and bred and reared in Germany, merely because of this artificial matter of naturalisation, to come in and vote for our Supreme Government?" I think there is a probability that the man would be mobbed and torn to pieces at the poll, and I am sure that the Government should make some concession here.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I do not think the scope of this Amendment is quite so wide as the noble Marquess appears to suppose, because any German naturalised before 1908 would be able to walk into a polling-booth at the next election.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is more moderate than I said, perhaps.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I question myself whether a rule of this kind is really worth making. There has been far too much naturalisation in the past—of that I am quite convinced. Naturalisation has been far too easy, and it has been taken advantage of by people who have no real claim to become British citizens; but I confess that if my noble friend goes to a Division I shall support the Government in this matter, because I do not think this particular thing is worth doing.
LORD WITTENHAM: Before we go to a. division, I should like to say that I think the case is stronger than Lord Salisbury put it. There may be an election this autumn. From what we hear it is very likely. Are yon really going to have

419
Germans, Austrians, Bulgarians, and possibly Turks, naturalised here, walking into the polling-booths and voting one way or the other on the domestic and imperial legislation of this country? The noble Marquess said there might be riots and trouble. I venture to say that if the election takes place while we are at war there must be rioting and trouble. The argument of the Lord Chancellor, after all, that this Amendment deals only with a drop in the ocean, leaves me cold, because we are concerned with a question of principle. It does not matter whether it is only a little one, or something large and material—whether the numbers affected are small or large. The question is whether it is right or wrong. Whether it is seemly or unseemly that men of these four enemy nations should be allowed to walk into the polling-booth, and help to control the policy of this country.
EARL RUSSELL: I rather doubt whether the noble Lord who has just spoken has read the Amendment. He said it would be a shocking thing to see Germans, Austrians, Turks, and Bulgarians walking into the polling-booths at the next election, but if this Amendment is carried that will not be prevented. Any such persons naturalised before 1908, as has already been pointed out, will be able to do so. The noble Lord then went on to say it was a matter of principle. Well, I don't know what the principle is. If the principle is that an alien enemy is never to vote at all, you would have to make the Amendment rather wider, and disfranchise him for life. The noble Marquess on the Front Bench said he was not at all sure there would not be riots, and that the public would be unable to understand anything of this sort happening. It is difficult to say what the public will do when inflamed by hot-heads or scalp-hunters.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am not a hothead.
EARL RUSSELL: I was referring rather to the Press which has incited people in this respect. It seems to me it is rather a contemptuous thing to let these enemy aliens vote. It is rather a way of saying, "Upon my soul, it doesn't matter to us whether a few thousands of you vote or
420
not. We are able to afford it, and we are able to stand it." That, I think, was to some extent the argument of the "drop in the ocean" which the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, used.
What do you wish to do with a person when you have naturalised him? This only applies to people who have been naturalised. Do you wish to make a person who is naturalised a good and devoted citizen of your country, interested in the fate of your country, and binding up his fortunes with your country, or not? If so, I should have thought that one of the best methods was to give him a vote which would give him some reason to be interested in the country's politics and some reason to consider how he will exercise the vote. You are putting a man in the position which does not make him, I should think, particularly anxious to feel his solidarity with the country of his naturalisation, if, for ten years, he is oppressed with the stigma of not being able to take any part in the fate of the country of which he is a subject, and to whose taxes and laws he is subjected. I hope the Government will stand firm and not accept the Amendment, which, I cannot but think, is without merit.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: I hope the House will support the Government in this matter. I do not agree with my noble friend the noble Marquess who was formerly Governor of New South Wales. I believe there is very considerable feeling on this point on behalf of those who represent the Dominions, and it is everything in this matter to carry the Dominions with us. As has been pointed out already by the noble Earl opposite, this refers to the future and those who have already been naturalised for ten years will vote, whether or no. If naturalisation is to go on at all, the one thing that I believe causes people to wish to be naturalised is that they can exercise the franchise and the responsibilities which pertain to that privilege. I sincerely trust the House will help us to get the Amendment.
LORD BERESFORD: I should like to ask the noble Lord one question. What becomes of those naturalised aliens who are at present interned and those whom

421
we are certain to intern under this Bill? When peace is declared I suppose they will be let loose and they will be qualified to vote. The people will be very angry over that. My noble friend on the left says they do not care a damn. I do not agree with him. I do not know if he goes about among them as much as I do. I can assure him that the working guilds I am with are very angry over the question. They are more angry because they do not understand it. There has been so much secrecy, and secrecy breeds suspicion, and suspicion breeds exaggeration. I should like to stop exaggeration. I want these things brought out in public. We have a large number of naturalised aliens who have broken their contract with us and have been interned. We have not broken our contract with them. They worked their way into every industrial and commercial pursuit, and most of the financial pursuits as well.
VISCOUNT MILNER: You are taking power to denaturalise them.
LORD BERESFORD: This is à propos of the Amendment before the House. I want to know if the people who are interned, and those who are going to be interned, will, at the end of the war, have power to vote.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: It is possible that a number of these people who are interned may be denaturalised, and then they would not he in a position to have the vote.
LORD BERESFORD: A great number may not be denaturalised.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: And no enemies would be naturalised for five years afterwards.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: What may happen is that some of the people who are interned may not be denaturalised. The clauses are not very mandatory, and presently you may have a fine procession of naturalised aliens asking for a day off and walking out of the internment camps to vote on the question of peace or war.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: True, but I am afraid the Amendment will not necessarily save him from that, because some of them might have been naturalised before 1908.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: We have never started the theory that the Amendment should not be stronger. That is an argument in favour of the view that the Amendment is not strong enough. If you adopt the Amendment I should be prepared to move later that we put in "twenty years" instead of "ten years." Do not complain that this is not strong enough, because we can easily alter that.
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE: May I ask the noble Lord one question? Can he assure the House that he has been informed on good authority that the Dominions have expressed any wish to interfere with our domestic legislation?
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: I did not say anything of the sort. As a matter of fact, I was really reiterating what had been much better said by the noble and learned Lord behind me.
On Question, whether the proposed subsection shall stand part of the clause?—
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 28; Not-Contents, 47.
LORD WITTENHAM: In moving the insertion of the new subsection standing in my name on the Paper, I feel that I am approaching a very substantial and material subject. I am sure you will believe that, in putting down the new subsection, I have done it from no personal consideration whatever, but merely because, rightly or wrongly, I conceive it to be my duty to do so. I am in this difficulty, that the matter is to a certain and material extent a question of law, and as I am in the presence of many great legal luminaries I am at a sad disadvantage. Although my duty lay in the land of the law many long years ago, I fear now that what I did know has become rusty, and I may not be able to state the case as a lawyer would. But, I think I can state it as a layman in a way which your Lordships will be able fully to understand.
What I desire to do in the Amendment is to upset the decision in the case of King v. Speyer in 1916. In that case the naturalisation laws, up to that date, were brought under review as affecting the Privy Council and Privy Councillors. The Act of Settlement was gone into, the Statute of 1844, the Naturalisation Act of 1870, and also the Act of 1914. In order that we may understand the point may I read a clause out of the Act of Settlement. Section 3 of that Act says:—
"No person born out of the kingdoms of England, Scotland, or Ireland, or the Dominions thereto belonging, although he be naturalised or made a denizon, except such as are born of British parents, shall be capable to be of the Privy Council."
That lasted until 1844, and longer, because the Act of 1844, although it trod upon the
424
toes of the Act of Settlement, did not repeal this section. When we come to the Naturalisation Act of 1870 a section of that. Act did repeal the section I have just read of the Act of Settlement. It is curious that. 1870 was the year of the great struggle between France and Germany, and the flood of pro-Germanism which was setting in this country made itself felt, I expect, in that Statute, because we said in effect, "Let' em all come." Up to that time, for a century and inure, we had been content to repose upon the rock of Section 3 of the Act of Settlement. In the Act of 1870 we came to a different conclusion, and the floodtide continued right through the years until now.
The case of the King v. Speyer decided that, although the Naturalisation Act of 1870 was revoked by the Statute of 1914, it did not revive the Act of Settlement, and thus Sir Edgar Speyer, who was a member of the Privy Council in spite of the Act of 1914, remained. By this new subsection I ask your Lordships to override the decision in King v. Speyer, but not to set up entirely again Section 3 of the Act of Settlement of 1700, which is very wide and applies to all naturalised subjects. If your Lordships will look at my Amendment, you will see that I only say that—
"no naturalised alien who has been at any time the subject of a country which during the present war is or shall be at war with His Majesty, shall be capable to be or remain a member of the Privy Council, or a member of either House of Parliament…"
Put into concrete shape, it means that no German or Hungarian or Austrian or Bulgarian or any naturalised enemy alien shall be capable to be or to remain a member of His Majesty's Privy Council or of either House of Parliament.

425
This has been a difficult Amendment for me to move, because personal considerations come so largely into human affairs. I have been told that by moving this Amendment I am giving pain ill quarters where I should be exceedingly sorry to do anything of the kind. It is not because this Amendment affects certain individuals that I move it. It is because I venture to say broadly that no naturalised enemy alien ought to be a member of the Privy Council or of either House of Parliament. I was moved by what the noble Marquess Lord Crewe said, mid I think that he must have been pointing at this Amendment when he said "it is hard when you are dealing with classes to exclude individuals." That is why it is so painful to me. Individuals do come into our minds, but we have to say that in spite of those individuals, and however much we may hurt them, we have to think of principle. In this Amendment I am aiming at a class, and I am doing it on principle. Exceptions, my Lords, make bad laws. I do not think that because we favour a man here de a man there that we ought to allow that in any way to affect our judgment. The question is, Is it right or is it wrong?
I do not want to give pain. Is not the world full of pain? Look into the eyes of the women, the mothers of the sons of the Empire who are fighting and dying. Are not their eyes full of pain? Of course they are. Aye, but their eyes are full of something else. Their eyes are full of determination, and a sense of duty. Although tears may be in their eyes, they are determined to go through to the end whatever they may suffer. Are we going to be meeker, milder, gentler, tenderer in dealing with a matter of this kind because individuals in whom we are interested are concerned? Surely my Lords you will do nothing of the kind. It may make it more difficult, hut it should he done.
There is another observation that it seems to me comes with very full force on the merits of this question. It would he had if a naturalised enemy alien was on our Privy Council who had been able to shed his enemy nationality. How does the ease stand if we find on our Privy Council naturalised enemy aliens who have not been able to shed their foreign naturalisation and who are still Germans? I do not blame them. I ventured to say that a week ago. I hope
426
that I did not get out of sympathy with any of your Lordships by the speech that I made then because I said it was not their fault but was the fault of the laws of the two countries, England and Germany. Germany said, "Once a German, always a German." The German comes over here and gets naturalised and means to be, I assume, a good honest British citizen, and carries that out so far that he is made a member of His Majesty's Privy Council. Then comes in the fatal evil that lie still remains a member of the country that he left. We all have two Privy Councillors in our minds, and we must have them in our minds when I am speaking. Am I wrong in saying that they have a double nationality? Ought they to be on the Privy Council? Under which King Bezonian? How are you to divide them up? They want to be in allegiance to His Majesty but all the time there is another country to whom they are bound by allegiance. I was struck by the remark that the noble and learned Lord Chancellor made on another Amendment. He said "a State that claims his allegiance which is at war with His Majesty." You have in the cases of Sir Ernest Cassel and Sir Edgar Speyer men whose allegiance is claimed by Germany and they remain Members of the Privy Council. Your Lordships are just as good a judge as I am—much better indeed—of what ought to be done or what ought not to be done.
May I take the other head of my proposition. Men who fall under this taint, as I call it, ought not be members of either House of Parliament. Let me deal with the House of Commons. Your Lordships will not have forgotten the case of a man named Trebitch Lincoln. He was a naturalised German. We all remember his being elected to a seat in the House of Commons, I think for Darlington. The Radical Whips blessed him and sent him down there. I heard his maiden speech in the House of Commons. With a very strong flavour of Germanism in his accent, he made a big speech, if I remember right on Free Trade—Free Trade for this country of course, not for Germany. Where is he now? I hope that he is safe under lock and key. I think he got a term of penal servitude. That is the sort of man who, under our laws, actually finds a seat in the House of Commons. Are we going to allow that to continue? Surely the time has come to clean out the stables. It may be a labour of Hercules. Hercules

427
found it one of the most difficult of his labours to clean out the Augean stables. Ought we not to make a beginning first of all with the counsellors of the Sovereign, and secondly with the Houses of Legislature, if cases such there be. Of course we know that we ought to make a beginning. A noble Lord said to me the other day in business language, "Well, it is very difficult to job back." I know it is difficult. We have got ourselves into the wrong position, and it is difficult to recover, but we ought to make a beginning.
Your Lordships may say, "It. is hard to make this retrospective," and you may ask, "Are we not interfering with rights that have been given, and with positions that have been confirmed?" This war has seen almost every right within the human category interfered with. That cannot be an argument. Hardly any rights remain. Salus populi suprema lex. It is a question of whether it is right or whether it is wrong. And however painful it may he to make this proposal retrospective and bring in within the net of this clause a man who for aught I know—I have no reason to think otherwise—may have done excellent service to this country it ought to he done, and therefore I Venture to ask your Lordships to do it.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 7, at end insert as a. new subsection:
"(3) At the end of subsection (1) of section three (which relates to the effect of certificates of naturalisation) insert ('provided that no naturalised alien who has been at any time the subject of a country which during the present war is or shall be at war with His Majesty, shall be capable to be or remain a member of the Privy Council or a member of either House of Parliament after the thirty-first day of August, in the year nineteen hundred and eighteen'), and at the beginning of subsection (2) of section three insert ('so far as is not inconsistent with this Act')".—(Lord Wittenham.)
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: I desire at once to give a reply on this question. I am the first to admit- that my noble friend is not actuated by any personal feelings in connection with the Amendment which he thought it right to put on the Paper. I am very sorry that his sense of duty differs from mine. I desire to offer the most emphatic opposition to this Amendment. My noble friend remarked that he did not approach this question from any personal point of view. I am quite sure of that. But at the same time I venture to suggest that it is impossible to separate the personal view from this particular Amend-
428
ment. The Amendment concerns three persons, or rather two persons, because the question of one, Sir Edgar Speyer, is as I believe was stated by the Leader of the House of Commons, under consideration. There are only two other persons whom it concerns. One is a member of your Lordships' House—Admiral the Marquess of Milford Haven, and the other, who was also mentioned by my noble friend, is Sir Ernest Cassel. The Marquess of Milford Haven was honoured by the Sovereign by being sworn of the Privy Council after a long, honourable, and distinguished career in the British Navy.
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: He was naturalised under the law of 1844, and again naturalised under the law of 1870 because, had that second course not been taken, I understand that naturalisation would not have extended to his children. He had been for uearly fifty years in the service of the Navy. He had held the highest posts, and, as even the "man-in-the-street" knew, we were under great obligations to him at the beginning of the war.
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: He has two sons serving in his Majesty's Navy to-day with distinction. Members of that family have fallen; and when my noble friend says the women of this country weep, we know it well and we sympathise, but that family has wept too. And we are asked by my noble friend, first, that the insult of being withdrawn from the Privy Council should be levelled against this distinguished Admiral, who is such an ornament of your Lordships' House, and in the second place that the patent of a position in your Lordships' House should be torn up. So much for this distinguished public officer.
The noble Lord mentioned another name the name of Sir Ernest Cassel. He has not had the opportunity of serving in the public Service which has been granted to the noble Marquess to whom I have referred, but for over thirty years Sir Ernest Cassel has been one of the most benevolent subjects of the King in every walk of life. There has been no good object that has not had his support. His kith and kin also have been in the trenches, and each and every one of them who has not been in the trenches—I mean the

429
female members of the family—has been engaged in war work of various descriptions. Many public men have availed themselves of the great ability which he possesses. I submit that these two men, the Marquess of Milford Haven and Sir Ernest Cassel, should not be subjected to what I call the insult proposed by this intendment. Indeed, I will go further awl say that it would be against the ideas of British justice and the tradition of the House of Lords. And the frequent attacks that are made upon these men—I am not speaking of your Lordships' House—are little short of persecution. To such a policy as that suggested in the Amendment I cannot and will not subscribe.
THE EARL OF VERULAM: I regret exceedingly that I feel it my duty to rise on this occasion to oppose my noble relative in the course which he has seen fit to take. I should not have expected that he would have done this because, as he knows perfectly well, I and my family are most intimately connected with ties of relationship with the distinguished family whose name he has just mentioned. One of that family has fought for us in the trenches. Sir Ernest Cassel was able to say that at the beginning of the war every member of his family of military age was taking his part in the active service of the Crown. One member of that family was in the touches for six months within, I think, 86 yards of the Germans, and took part in many engagements. If I read this Amendment correctly that member would never be able to resume his place in the House of Commons of which he was a. bright ornament. I really hardly have patience to go through these things. The only thing I will say to complete that part of the story is et tu Brute.
With regard to the question of the House of Commons I may make one practical observation which ought at once to dispel the accusation that because a man is an alien he is unfit to be placed in a position of a Member of Parliament. Surely the noble Lord does not wish to fetter the freedom of the electors. They ought to know whom they wish to choose. If they wish to choose a man who, as I know has been the whole of his life since the age of two a resident in this country, surely they have a right to do so.
Only one more point and I have done. It has been said in Holy Writ, "Where your treasure is there will your heart be
430
also." I think I am not giving away confidences when I say that of my own personal knowledge Sir Ernest Cassel estimates the value of his wealth in Germany at the modest figure of five sovereigns. It is well known of course that he has money elsewhere.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: Before this Amendment is voted upon, I should like to say this. I have expressed my opinion in this House on more than one occasion that persons of alien enemy origin should not be of the Privy Council. I still think so. But we are at a disadvantage in a Bill of this kind when dealing with hard cases. There are hard cases everywhere, and we all admit that they have to be provided for. Until just now I had no idea one does not always think how a thing works—that this Amendment would affect the Marquess of Milford Haven. I should be prepared to vote for the Amendment, but I should like the noble Lord—who I do not think knew that it affected the noble Marquess—to put at the end of his Amendment, "nothing in the clause shall be taken as dealing with the Marquess of Milford Haven."
Several NOBLE LORDS: No, no.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: You can only deal with hard cases by making exceptions. These things ought to be dealt with because there is suspicion outside. That suspicion ought to be met; for as long as people know that we have naturalised Germans on the Privy Council suspicion will always exist. With the one exception that I have mentioned, I still think that this Amendment ought to he embodied in the law of the land.
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE rose to speak—
Several NOBLE LORDS: Divide! divide!
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE: Am I not to be allowed to say a word?
Several NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE: I heard the speech which fell from Lord Sandhurst with a certain amount of astonishment. I never thought for one moment that any member of the Royal Family would be brought into this dis-

431
cussion. It seems to me—and I am speaking with great respect—that these two circumstances are absolutely and entirely different. The Marquess of Milford Haven stood in your Lordships' House and solemnly swore before Almighty God and before your Lordships to be faithful to His Majesty the King. He renounced all his titles, all his honours, and—I am speaking under correction—I believe all his property; he also renounced the Kaiser and all his works. [Laughter]. I honestly do not think that this is a laughing matter. These are terrible and critical times, and the people must not be afraid to speak. As I have said, I did not consider that in any way a member of the Royal Family would have come under this Bill. If I had had any such idea I hope your Lordships will believe me when I say that nothing on earth would have induced to put down the Amendment which is standing in my name on the Paper.
But there is a serious matter before the country. It is impossible to deny that there is here a strong feeling against alien enemies. We on this side of the blouse have in no way been attempting or trying to put difficulties in the way of His Majesty's Government. On the contrary, we have tried to act in the same way as the noble Earl, Lord Jersey, who set us such a good example in that temperate and statesmanlike speech which he made a short while ago. All our objects, all our efforts, and all our endeavours have been, not to thwart, not to trouble, not to harass, and not to annoy His Majesty's Government, but to do all we possibly could to strengthen them, and to bring them to see what is the real feeling of the country.
And I think we have succeeded to a certain extent, because on the Second Reading of the Bill the Front Bench was an absolute desert. My noble friend Lord Sandhurst, like an hereditary Casabianca, sat by himself on that Bench deserted by all his colleagues while the storm raged round him; not one word being said in favour of the Bill. The Lord Chancellor at last came to the rescue, and a Second Reading was given to the Bill merely on the grounds so well explained by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Halsbury. Everybody knows that mischievous rumours are abroad. How mischievous the rumours and suspicions are, or how widely they are spread,
432
few people realise. The people are under this impression that there is one law for the rich and another law for the poor. There is no doubt about that. We have seen what happened lately in the case of Sir Joseph Jonas who was fined £2,000 for what was called a "misdemeanour," but a misdemeanour by which possibly some English people may have lost their lives. And yet in the same newspaper we read that a servant girl was sent to prison for giving cigarettes to German prisoners.
What we ask is that we shall all he treated alike. If that is done the discontent and the suspicion, which are very great—perhaps unfounded; I do not know; but no doubt they exist—will disappear at once. We have an object-lesson before us in what happened with regard to the Food Controller's Department. The queues and the difficulty of getting food almost caused a riot in some places. People had the idea that some obtained plenty of food while others had to go short. But Lord Rhondda put the "gorging Georgies" and the "guzzling Jimmies" of the Ritz and other like places on the same footing as the costermongers of Whitechapel, and the whole trouble ceased.
With regard to these aliens whom we suggest should no longer belong to the Privy Council, leaving out the Royal Family—as I believe we ought to leave it out—this applies to only two men; one is Sir Edgar Speyer, and the other is Sir Ernest Cassel. Sir Edgar Speyer has fortunately taken himself off to the United States of America, where I hope he will remain. He resigned his Privy Councillorship—some noble Lord said he threw it in the face of the Sovereign. Though we recognise the patriotism which caused him to resign his Privy Councillorship, and, I believe, his baronetcy, yet we cannot too strongly condemn the brutal and insolent German manner in which he did it.
Really when you come to think of it, the matter only concerns one single man. It is a terrible thing even to be supposed to attack an individual, but there practically is no attack made on any individual. One noble Lord, during the debate, said that Sir Ernest Cassel had behaved—I forget the exact words, but in a magnificent or splendid manner since the war. There is no doubt that, in the language of the

433
Foreign Office, Sir Ernest Cassel has behaved in a very correct manner; there is no doubt of that. There is no accusation brought against him, there is no charge shown against him, there is no venom shown against him. Nothing of the sort. The whole question before the House is: Is a great principle, which ought never to have been interfered with, to be wiped out absolutely in order to make an exception for one single man, no matter how worthy, how honourable, and how upright that man might be?
Then I have to ask, What, after all, are the special services? We all know what Sir Ernest Cassel has done, but we have a right to ask some one to tell the House what special services and benefactions to the State this gentleman has done which would justify the abandonment for ever of a great principle which the bulk of the nation wish to see restored, and which I believe firmly they are determined to carry out. I have to thank the House very gratefully and very respectfully for having borne with me in saying these few words. It is a terrible task to have to undertake—it is a dreadful thing to have to say a word against anybody; but I felt it to be my public duty to say these few words, and I hope the House will accept them in the spirit in which they have been given.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON): In the position which I happen to occupy I hope I may be permitted, and I think may be expected by your Lordships, to say one or two words on this question before you proceed to a decision. The noble Marquess who has just spoken said that there should be no question of discrimination between class and rank. No such question is raised by this Amendment; indeed, the only person who attempted to introduce any such discrimination was the noble Marquess himself, who told us that he would be willing to exclude from the application of this Amendment the name of the Marquess of Milford Haven on the ground that he was a member of the Royal family. It is not upon that ground that we would place the ease of the Marquess of Milford Haven, and I am sure it is not on that ground that he would claim any exemption from the application of this Amendment, should it be carried by your Lordships' House.
Upon the subject of that noble Marquess, I need not add one word to what was said
434
by my noble friend Lord Sandhurst. The career of Lord Milford Haven has been one of the utmost honour and distinction. During the half century in which he has been both a British naturalised subject and a member of the Royal Navy of this country he has rendered what it is not an exaggeration to describe as incomparable services to the land of his adoption. At the beginning of the war—I think it was a year or two before the beginning of the war—he was invested with an office not only of the highest importance and distinction (that of First Sea Lord of the Admiralty), but one involving access to all the most confidential secrets which it is possible for a man to know; and are we now, that noble Lord having resigned that office almost from an excess of sensitiveness in the early stages of the war, having subsequently received the honour of a Peerage at the hands of his Sovereign, and stood at that Table to take his place on the Benches of this House—are we now, either on the one hand to take a step which would east a stain of disgrace upon his career, or on the other hand, by the exemption which my noble friend Lord St. Davids has suggested, to apply a discrimination in his case of which he would be just as much ashamed?
It is all very well to indulge in general reflections, but we have to deal with a case of this sort in its personal application. Its personal application, as the noble Lord told us, is limited to three individuals. We learn that the case of Sir Edgar Speyer is under examination by the Home Office, and I believe a decision on that matter is likely to be announced at no distant date. The case of the noble Marquess, Lord Milford Haven, I have briefly dealt with; and my noble friend Lord Lincolnshire, driven to the last case of Sir Ernest Cassel, asks somebody—I do not know if the challenge was directed to me—to state what are the services that this member of the Privy Council has rendered to the State. May I say, in passing, recalling the stress that my noble friend laid upon the oath taken by Lord Milford Haven when he stood at this Table, that a Privy Councillor also takes an oath of binding duty and allegiance to his Sovereign, and from all I know of Sir Ernest Cassel he would be just as faithful to the extreme interpretation of that oath as would any member of your Lordships' House.

435
What have been the services of Sir Ernest Cassel? I do not refer to his long residence in this country. I do not even refer to the terms of intimate friendship which I have always understood existed between him and an earlier and greatly revered Sovereign, but I allude to facts and circumstances within the knowledge of many of us in your. Lordships' House, and to the services which Sir Ernest Cassel has been enabled to render upon important matters of extreme urgency, involving State issues of capital importance, to successive Ministries of this country. I say that that gentleman has been in the confidence of successive Prime Ministers and has been honoured by successive Governments; and if any one here says that this is referring to confidential matters of which the public knows little, or to his relations with individuals of which the public knows nothing, then I point to his service in Egypt. The regeneration of Egypt during the last fifteen or twenty years has been largely the work of Sir Ernest Cassel—in any case, has been largely contributed to by his generosity and his public spirit. There are few aspects of public life in which Sir Ernest Cassel has not played a large, magnanimous, generous, and patriotic part, and for your Lordships to take any action now which would single this gentleman out for the slur that would arise from the acceptance of this Amendment, would be an action which, upon whomsoever it might inflict pain—I allude to what was said by my noble friend—would inflict nothing but discredit upon your Lordships' House.
LORD BERESFORD: I would like to ask the noble Lord to withdraw this Amendment, for, as a brother officer of Prince Louis, I would like to pay a testimony that there is not a greater gentleman or a finer officer, or a man who has done better service for the State. I do not think that either of my noble friends who have spoken knew when they put down this Amendment that it would include Prince Louis. I quite agree with what they say about Privy Councillors, and I hope we shall be able to have a Bill shortly, even if private members bring it in, which will prevent Privy Councillors being made again who are of enemy origin. Still in this case we cannot have it both ways. If noble Lords go to a division they cannot subtract Prince Louis from what I must call censure, and therefore I strongly
436
recommend that this Amendment should be withdrawn, so that no slur should be thrown upon a very distinguished officer who is regarded with great affection in the Navy, who is very good all round, and who, when he found at the beginning of the war that there was a very strong feeling held, rightly or wrongly, against a German-born officer being the First Sea Lord, at once sent in his resignation—an act which was appreciated by the whole Service and ought to have been appreciated by the country. He could not do more than that, and I again ask that in the circumstances of the case the Amendment should be withdrawn.
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE: If this Amendment is to be pressed to a Division, it would not be honourable on my part if I did not say one word. I have had the privilege of knowing Sir Ernest Cassel longer than any Member of this House, and. my father had the honour of presenting him to the late King Edward. It seems to me that if we are going in this country to admit a man to the highest offices, to ask for his support, to enlist his resources in the service of the country, and to ask his advice, we have no right to withdraw, by any public resolution, our confidence in him, until he has been proved unworthy.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I have no desire to make any speech. I merely wish to express my absolute agreement with every word that fell from the noble Earl who leads the House. I desire to add this, that if my noble friend opposite—I have no knowledge of the course which he intends to take—merely withdraws his Amendment on the very admirable grounds put forward by Lord Beresford, that it is not desired to throw any slight upon the noble Marquess, Lord Milford Haven, this I think will not entirely satisfy the case. It must be understood, supposing he is willing to withdraw the Amendment, that it is withdrawn on the merits of the entire question. If my noble friend is not willing to take that course, I should certainly be prepared to move that the Amendment be negatived.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: I should not rise except that it so happens that I have had the privilege, for many years, of being an intimate friend of Sir Ernest Cassel, and after the speeches which have been made

437
by the Leader of the House and by the Leader of the Opposition in this House, and by another personal friend of Sir Ernest Cassel, who has known him even longer than I have, I sincerely hope that for his own sake and credit, the noble Lord who moved the Amendment will take the advice given to him.
LORD WITTENHAM: I am not sure that it is a question of my own credit, but because of the advice I have received I at once, as a new member, desire to withdraw my Amendment.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: Is it the pleasure of the House that the Amendment be withdrawn?
NOBLE LORDS: No, no—negatived.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: The next Amendments standing in my name are merely drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 5, line 19, leave out ("an enemy State") and insert ("a State at war with His Majesty")
Page 5, line 22, leave out ("advisable") and insert ("desirable").—(Viscount Sandhurst.)
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3:
Provisions as to naturalisation certificates.
3. No certificate of naturalisation shall, for a period of five years after the termination of the present war, be granted to any subject of a country which at the time of the passing of this Act was at war with His majesty, but this provision shall not apply to a person who—

(a) has served in His Majesty's forces or in the forces of any of His Majesty's Allies; or

(b) is a member of a race or community known to be opposed to the enemy governments; or

(c) was at birth a British subject.

VISCOUNT SANDHURST: The effect of the Amendment standing in my name is to insert the subsection which I postponed from an earlier stage of the Bill. There are two Amendments in it, to which I wish to draw your Lordships' attention. The first is the addition of the words "United Kingdom." They are added because the matters in question are those which concern only the United Kingdom, and do not come into the legislation in reference to the
438
Dominions. The second matter has reference to the words in lines 5 and 6, "as is provided for in the case of revocation of certificates." It is a drafting Amendment merely due to the change of place which the sub-clause takes in the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 37, at beginning insert:
"(1) Where a certificate of naturalisation has been granted in the United Kingdom during the present war to a person who at, or at any time before, the grant of the certificate was the subject of a country which at the date of the grant was at war with His Majesty, the Secretary of State shall refer for such inquiry, as is provided for in the case of revocation of certificates, the question whether it is desirable that the certificate should be revoked, and if such question shall be answered in the affirmative shall revoke the certificate, but this provision shall not apply to a person who at birth was a British subject.
"(2)".—(Viscount Sandhurst.)
LORD BERESFORD LORD BERESFORD, who proposed to amend the proposed new subsection (1), said: My object is one which I think perfectly fair both to this country and to the naturalised aliens. I wanted all the papers revoked, so as to put the net right round, and then those who could prove their bona fides and who wished to be re-naturalised could then be re-naturalised. If we do not do that an enormous number of people will escape the net. It is the fairest way of doing it that everything should be above board, and I deplore the suggestion that the Committee should be in private. I think it should be in public, and I think the names should be put before both Houses of Parliament. There is no doubt it would be much better for these aliens if the whole case was in public, and if the reasons which they gave why they should be re-naturalised were made public I do not think I need dwell on the question. I believe this would be the best way of doing it, because there is no question that there are influences at work in this country, called by all sorts of names, which are directly opposed to British interests and in favour of the interests of Germany. I do not want to break any contract, or to do anything dishonourable, or to make scraps of paper of agreements, but the fact does remain that there are any number of these naturalised Germans who are now interned. I want to get hold of the whole lot, to take away and revoke all their papers, and to make them prove their case before they

439
are re-naturalised. There is no doubt that in a large number of cases those who wish to be re-naturalised will get their papers back, but we shall be in a position to weed out all those who in my opinion are traitors. I beg to move the words standing in my name.
Amendment to the Amendment moved—
Line 2, leave out ("during the present war").—(Lord Beresford.)
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: I hope that the noble and gallant Lord will not press his Amendment. One reason is that given by the noble Marquess opposite in an earlier stage, when he mentioned the enormous number of cases which would have to be gone into by the Home Office, which would make it almost imposible for a single tribunal to deal with them. And I think my noble and gallant friend will recognise that, although I know and appreciate his view, there would be great hardship to a class of persons against whom no individual attack could be made on the various grounds of misconduct which are set out in the earlier parts of the Bill. It must be remembered that these men have been subjected to the military rules of this country, and many of them have voluntarily undertaken military service.
LORD BERESFORD: I should like to point out that the argument of my noble friend is in my favour and against himself. He says we cannot do this because there is such an enormous number. That makes the danger doubly acute. If one tribunal cannot do it, have two, or three, or four. If I could get any support I should like to go to a Division on this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment to the Amendment negatived.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: Is there not an Amendment of mine to the proposed new subsection to leave out, "during the present war"?
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Your Lordships have just decided that the words "during the present war" are to remain in the proposed new subsection.
LORD BERESFORD: I wish to leave out of the proposed subsection the words "at the date of the grant was," in order
440
to insert "at the time of the passing of this or any amending Act is." That means to say that the cases of individuals will come under the provisions of this or any amending Act and not be governed by the date of the grant of the certificate. It would include a large number of people. Will the noble Lord either agree to it or give me a reason for not doing so?
Amendment moved—
Line 4, leave out ("at the date of the grant was") and insert ("at the time of the passing of this or any amending Act is").—(Lord Beresford.)
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: I do not see how I could agree to my noble and gallant friend's Amendment, because it is mainly consequential upon an Amendment which has been negatived.
LORD BERESFORD: It would bring in the Turks and the Bulgarians with whom we were not at war when hostilities first broke out. That is my object.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: But the proper date to take action for the purpose of the clause would be the date of the grant of the certificate.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: I think the noble Lord is in error. The Amendment would affect probably a very small number of cases—namely, of Turks or Bulgarians, who have been naturalised since the beginning of the war, but before their respective countries came into the war. They may be a small number, but it is difficult to see what reason there is for excluding them at all.
On Question, Amendment to the Amendment negatived.
LORD WITTENHAM LORD WITTENHAM moved to leave out "for a. period of" and insert "until." The noble Lord said: I think there is a want of precision in the language used in the Bill, and that is the reason I make this Motion. Clause 3 says—
"No certificate of naturalisation shall, for a period of five years after the termination of the present war—"
I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor whether that

441
would cover the period from now on to the end of the war. The words that I propose make it quite clear. The effect of the Amendment would be that the clause would read—
"No certificate of naturalisation shall, until five years after the termination of the present war, be granted to any subject…"
The words "period of" leave the matter uncertain.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 37, leave out ("for a period of"): and insert ("until").—(Lord Writtenham.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think there may be something in the point the noble Lord has stated. We will consider it before Report, and see if there is anything in it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY THE EARL OF HALSBURY moved to substitute "fifteen years" for "five years." The noble Earl said: I am happy to say that this Amendment is by no means one of any length, or one which lends itself to any eloquence of any sort or kind. It is to turn the figure "5" into "15." I think the reasons which have induced His Majesty's Government to introduce such a provision at all are events which have taken place during the progress of the war and the opportunities of mischief given to those who have ill-feeling towards this country. I have the strongest reason for think a great deal more than five years is necessary to get rid of some of the effects of what has been done while the war has been going on, and, more particularly, before the war began. There has been a gigantic system of corruption and espionage both before the war and while the war has been going on. I myself must, admit that, in a certain sense, I have to stand in a white sheet, for I did not believe it. But undoubtedly there has been such a system carried on by persons engaged, apparently, in honest transactions.
I will take one particular class—waiters in hotels. During the period that I speak of, preceding the war, undoubtedly a great number of German waiters might be found in all parts of Great Britain, and one must have been struck with their extraordinary number. But we now know how that system has been going on. Each waiter when he went received instruction that he was to find out the roads from the central parts of the island to the coast, that if
442
he gave good reports of the number of persons to whom application might be made for information, and gave good and intelligent reports, not only of the roads but of the particular places which were fitted for exercise, lie would receive reward. A good many of them have received rewards for good and intelligent reports. That has been going on not only during the war but for a long period before the war, and I confess it appears to me that the five years in the Bill is much too short a period to allow of the corruption that has been going on to have faded away.
It is a matter, I think, of first importance that, in order that we should resume anything like amenities between ourselves and Germany when we make peace, if we do, the effect of this gigantic system of espionage should be put an end to, and that at least a period much longer than five years—the exact number of years must be a matter for consideration—should be taken in order to allow what has been done to be erased, and that you should not have this system at the command of Germany when peace is resumed. For that reason I move the Amendment. As I say it is not capable of much eloquence but it is of practical value. I am encouraged by the fact that it is admitted some such period is necessary, but I consider five years much too short, and I therefore move that the five years should be fifteen years.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 37, Leave out ("five") and insert ("fifteen").—(The Earl of Halsbury.)
LORD BERESFORD: I should like to support my noble friend in what he has said. The Government say it is right that no enemy alien should be admitted to British citizenship for five years after the war. On what principle is the five years based? If it was twenty-five years it would really represent a principle, because it would represent a generation, and I would rather have twenty-five years than fifteen years. I do not think fifteen years is the least bit too long. We must consider all the crimes against humanity that have been perpetrated in this generation, and it is impossible to know why five years has been chosen. All these crimes have been committed in this generation. The five years will not exclude the majority of the criminals who have committed these atrocious bar-

443
barities. They will be able to come back again, and that is what I object to. Supposing the war ends this year, these barbarians will, in five years, again qualify for naturalisation. I say not only in fairness and justice to our people, but in the process of punishment we should not admit these people back again for fifteen years, and I strongly support the Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I listened with great pleasure to what my noble and learned friend said on the subject of the plague of German waiters. It is a plague from which many of its have suffered, but it is a pity so heroic a remedy was necessary. I trust one effect of the present war will be to abate that plague once and for ever. With regard to the particular Amendment it has been said there is no principle in five years. There is no principle in any particular figure, unless you get up to a generation, as the noble and gallant Lord suggested. But that is rather a long look out. I am not quite sure twenty-five years is quite a generation, but it is very near it. At the same time you must take some figure, and I submit that fifteen years, and ten years even, is too long. Five years is taken for this reason. It is a good reasonable period and, if circumstances render it desirable, at the end of five years it can be prolonged. We cannot foresee what exactly will be the state of things. Of course it would gratify our feelings very much to say never. Some, perhaps, would welcome an absolute embargo to all eternity, as long as this country lasts, upon the admission of those who have behaved as the people of Germany have behaved with regard to this country. But I do not think that is business. Five years is a reasonable time, and, if the circumstances call for it, it can be renewed. There is no principle in ten years, or fifteen years, and I do not think any one would venture to propose twenty-five years, in which there is just the gleam of a principle.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: I hope the Amendment will be accepted by your Lordships. The Lord Chancellor says that if you put in five years, and the circumstances demand it, you can alter it to fifteen years. I suggest that if you put in fifteen years, and the circumstances demand it, you can shorten it to five years. You can do the one just as easily as the other. I do not think it is a serious argument, and I hope
444
the House will accept the Amendment of the noble and learned Earl.
LORD RIBBLESDALE: I hope the House will not accept the Amendment. I remember in Lord Granville's letters, when he was a young man, he wrote saying, "The Greeks were almost ferociously loyal." I forget to whom they were loyal, but I think that we have become almost crazy about the whole of this alien question, and that we are in some danger of becoming ferociously insular. I quite think the way we welcomed aliens of every sort, the way England has been looked upon as a land of Goshen, has landed us into the difficulties we are experiencing now. I am not concerned to say whether it is a good thing or a bad thing, but it is the case, and we have been looked upon in European countries as rather ridiculous. We are reaping what we have sown, but we shall appear more ridiculous still if we fly with such tremendous violence as some people recommend not in this House but in Hyde Park and in some sections of the Press, into the other direction. I therefore hope very much that the House will have nothing to do with the proposed Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think that five years is a very brief period. I do not wish to speak in any very strong terms, but surely, when we reflect upon the very elaborate system under which the German espionage system was worked before the war, it does seem almost absurd that the whole thing should be allowed to be begun over again five years from the termination of the war. None of us believed it at the time—I certainly did not—but we now know that there was every conceivable kind of arrangement made by which all parts of the country were penetrated by German spies. I am told that the Germans in very humble walks of life were given prizes by the German Government for the reports which they could make of any little topographical information in the neighbourhood of the places where they lived. That happened all over the country. Surely we should shrink from the idea that five years after the end of the war all these people should come again and be once more let into our hospitable shores. I know quite well that what the noble and learned Lord Chancellor says is perfectly true, that these periods of years are always arbitrary, but I must say that five years is a very short period It will

445
be gone almost in a moment, and certainly before the strong feeling which has been aroused will have evaporated. I should think that even if the Government cannot accept fifteen years they ought to agree to a longer period than five years. If my noble friend goes to a Division I shall be compelled to vote with him.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I am inclined to agree that the actual number of years named is not in itself a matter of very great importance. It is quite clear that the whole matter must rest in the hands of Parliament, and if Parliament chooses either to lengthen or to shorten the period it will do so whenever it desires. As to the particular point which was made by my noble and learned friend and also by the noble Marquess who has just sat down regarding espionage, I have no doubt that there was attempted to be instituted a quite elaborate system for obtaining knowledge about this country by Germany, and that it was probably carried out on a larger scale and with greater success than the similar attempts which have been made by all countries. But were many of these people who have been alluded to naturalised? I should have thought that very few were naturalised. I should not think that—although the argument has a certain force—the line taken on this Amendment would greatly affect that particular question one way or the other. So far as I am concerned, I do not care whether the period is five years or ten. That is a matter for His Majesty's Government.
LORD BERESFORD: I beg your Lordships' pardon for intruding, but I wish to emphasise what Lord Salisbury said by relating something which is within my own cognisance. There was a staff ride in Norfolk for English officers to gain knowledge of that county. They went to a certain farm and asked for information as to the brook, the trees, the cattle, &c., and the farmer said that he was not going to give information as he had been bothered out of his life by people riding round and asking these questions. The officers inquired and found that there had been two other staff rides within six weeks. They asked the farmer what sort of people they were who had been to question him, and he said that they did not speak very good English. The officers eventually found out that there had been two German staff rides in Norfolk. It sounds very absurd, but
446
it is true. I will give your Lordships a case within my own experience. I myself took a fleet into Lerwick. It was the biggest, fleet that ever went into Lerwick—
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: I do not want to interrupt the noble Lord, but with a view to shortening the proceedings I am in a position to offer a compromise of ten years.
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 37, leave out ("five") and insert ("ten").—(Viscount Sandhurst.)
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: The following Amendments in my name are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 5, line 38, after ("granted") insert ("in the United Kingdom").
Page 6, line 4, after ("Allies") insert ("or of any country acting in naval or military co-operation with His Majesty").—(Viscount Sandhurst.)
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
LORD TENTERDEN: The object of my proposed new clause is to prevent this Bill applying to Armenians. I refer not to the Armenians who actually are our Allies, but to the Armenians who are technically under Turkish nationality but whose sympathies are entirely with us, and always have been. The Armenians who are left are fighting very hard at present on our Eastern front, and holding up the enemy there. Many Armenians have joined the various legions in the British, American and French armies. They are fighting for the Allies, and is it fair that they should have to suffer as if they were our enemies? They have no land of their own to return to, and it is not right that they should be treated as enemy aliens. Under the Aliens Restriction Act, 1915, an Order in Council was made affording to these Armenians extraordinary treatment as to hospitality under the British Government. The Order which is dated January 7, 1915, reads as follow—
"Now, therefore, His Majesty is pleased by and with the advice of his Privy Council, to order, and it is hereby ordered, as follows:
"25B. A registration officer may, subject to the general or special instructions of the Secretary of

447
State, grant to a Turkish subject resident in Ms registration district, who is shown to his satisfaction to be by race a Greek, Armenian, or Syrian, or a member of any other community well known as opposed to the Turkish regime, and to be a Christian, a certificate of exemption from all or any of the provisions of this part of this Order, except such as apply to alien friends.
"Any such certificate shall be operative throughout the United Kingdom, but may be revoked by the registration officer who granted it, or by the registration officer of any district in which the holder is for the time being resident.
"2. This Order may be cited as the Aliens Restriction (Armenians, &c.) Order, 1915."
I hope the Government will afford the same generous hospitality to these unfortunate Armenians who have had to take refuge on the shores of Great Britain as they have hitherto done. They have no country to turn to, and they have fought and are fighting still—what is left of them, those who have not been exterminated—on the side of the Allies, and I feel certain that His Majesty's Government will consider seriously the question of still affording them that generous treatment.
Amendment moved—
Insert as a new clause:
Exemption of Armenians.
"Nothing in this Act shall apply to Armenians."—(Lord Tenterden.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not know whether your Lordships happen to have observed that by a printers' blunder on the first day on which this Amendment was set down it read, "Nothing in this Act shall apply to Americans." That printer's blunder has now been corrected. In reply to the noble Lord who moved this Amendment I may say that we have always an attitude of sympathy towards Armenians, but there may be exceptional cases in which an Armenian who has been naturalised shows himself disloyal and if he is guilty of some of the acts mentioned in a preceding clause there is no reason why he should not be liable to have the certificate taken away. But it is rather too sweeping to say that nothing in the Act shall apply to Armenians. Then there is a. further difficulty. I am not at all certain that it is quite easy to say whether a man is an Armenian or not. This is not a question of a person living in a particular district or country, it is the race. Difficult questions might arise. Under all these circumstances I submit to the noble Lord that it would be better not to press the Amendment.
LORD TENTERDEN: If this is too sweeping a clause, may I ask the noble Lord whether the Armenians will still enjoy the same privileges as they did under the Order in Council of 1915. Under that Order in Council it is possible for the Registration Officer to know whether they are Armenians, and also to know whether they are what they represent themselves, to be. If so, they should still be allowed to enjoy the privileges which they have enjoyed in the past. If that were done I should be glad to withdraw the Amendment.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: I can assure the noble Lord that under this Bill they will be under no disabilities.
LORD TENTERDEN: Will they enjoy the same privileges as in 1915?
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: Yes.
LORD TENTERDEN: I am assured by the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill that the Armenians will enjoy the same privileges as they enjoyed under the Order in Council in 1915. I beg to thank the Government for the generosity they have extended to this race in the past, and I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Remaining clause agreed to.

STATUTORY UNDERTAKINGS (TEMPORARY INCREASE OF CHARGES) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Somerleylon.)
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL Of DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Modifications of statutory provisions affecting charges.
1.— (1)Where it appears to the appropriate Government Department that the financial position of any undertaking to which this Act applies has been adversely affected by circumstances arising out of the present war, the Department may, if they think fit, by order provide for the modification of any statutory provisions regulating the charges to be made by the undertakers, and of any statutory provisions consequential on or supplemental to any such provisions as aforesaid, for such period during the continuance of this Act, in such manner, and subject to such conditions, as appear to the Department to be just and reasonable:
Proveded that—

(a) where the undertakers are a local authority no modification shall be authorised which will increase the statutory maximum charge by more than fifty per cent., or which is more than sufficient so far as can be estimated to enable the undertaking to be carried on without loss; and

(b) in any other case no modification shall be authorised which is more than sufficient to enable with due care and management a dividend on the ordinary stock or shares of the under taking to be paid at three-quarters of the standard or maximum rate of dividend, if any, proscribed for the undertaking, or at three-quarters of the pre-war rate of dividend, whichever is lower.

(2) An application to a Department for the purposes of this Act shall be accompanied by such information, certified in such manner, as the Department may require with respect to the financial position of the undertaking in question; and before making an order the appropriate Government Department shall require the undertakers to give public notice of the application for an order under this Act, and as to the manner in which, and time within which, representations may be made; and to give a similar notice in writing to the council of each county, borough, or urban or rural district, within which any part of the undertaking, or limits of supply of the undertaking, is situate; and the Department shall consider any representations which may be duly made.
(3) The undertakings to which this Act applies are tramway undertakings, including light railways constructed wholly or mainly on public roads, and undertakings for the supply of gas, water, hydraulic power, and electricity, and in calculating the maximum charge which may be uthorised under this Act in respect of such tramway undertakings fractions of a halfpenny shall be counted as a halfpenny.
(4) For the purposes of this Act—

The expression "statutory provisions" includes the provisions of any order having the force of an Act:

The expression "appropriate Government Department" means, in relation to gas and water undertakings carried on by local authorities, the Local Government Board, and in relation to other undertakings the Board of Trade;

The expression "local authority" includes any commissioners, trustees, or other public body of persons carrying on, otherwise than for purposes of private profit, any undertaking to which this Act applies;

The expression "pre-war rate of dividend" means the average rate of dividend for the three financial years immediately preceding the war.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE THE MARQUESS OF CREWE moved, in subsection (1) (b), to leave out "three-quarters" and to insert "half." The noble Marquess said: I will not detain your Lordships at any length over this Amendment, although it is one of very great importance meaning a question of hundreds of thousands of pounds which fall mainly upon the shoulders of very poor people, and, therefore, one on which I am bound to take the judgment of your Lordships' House.
I need not explain at length that the case chiefly concerns—and, indeed, it is the only part of the case with which I am concerned—the statutory gas companies in London. These companies are in the main in London and the neighbourhood. They are also in the main on the sliding scale plan—a most valuable arrangement whereby the higher the dividend the lower the price, and the higher the price the lower the dividend; consequently it is to the interests both of the shareholders in the company and of the consumers of the gas that the working of the companies should he most economical. That system has worked admirably for a number of years, but, like so many others, it has been interfered with by the course of the war, and it has been necessary to come to some extent to the rescue of the companies.
A Committee of the House of Commons sat and inquired most carefully into all the circumstances, and they recommended that some provision should be made for
452
the temporary modification of the statutory requirements. Their conclusion was that where a company operates under the sliding scale, and where its dividend had been reduced to one-half of the standard or maximum rate, or half of the average dividend of the last three years, the sliding scale or the maximum price should cease to operate, and the company should be able to charge such price for gas as the Board of Trade considered sufficient to provide such cost of manufacture and distribution as would enable one-half of the dividend to be secured to the shareholders
This went to the House of Commons, and there His Majesty's Government, for some reason or another, did not think fit to support the conclusions of the Committee, although those conclusions were stated to be unanimous. They left it an open question; with the result that, instead of one-half the dividend being permitted to be earned, the companies might receive not less than two-thirds of their dividends.
There is one point which must never be forgotten in dealing with this position of the gas companies—namely, that a considerable part of their income is earned from the sale of the by-products, or, as they are termed, residuals. They are of great value, particularly at the present time. They include benzol, toluol, creosote oil—which is of the first importance for naval use; and last, but by no means least, sulphate of ammonia. The prices of all these by-products have been arbitrarily fixed at a figure far below what they would make if they were sold in the open market. It was necessary to do this because in the absence of imports, the price of sulphate of ammonia—to take the last item first—would no doubt have risen to a figure which would have been exceedingly hard upon the agricultural community; and the coal tar products were required for national uses, largely for the manufacture of high explosives and of dyes; therefore the price had to be fixed. But the loss thereby occasioned ought in the opinion of many people, and of many people who are as a rule by no means hostile to the interests of limited companies trading for profit, to be borne not only by the consumers of gas but by the country as a whole. Just as in the case where it has been found necessary to fix the price of bread at an arbitrary figure, far below its real market value, the whole country has come to the rescue of those who grow the corn from which the

453
bread is made, and the farmer is subsidised at the expense of the taxpayer, I think that the gas producer ought to be similarly subsidised if it is thought to be unfair to let his dividend fall below a stated figure—whatever figure may be considered fair.
But then it is stated that His Majesty's Government, having left this an open question in the House of Commons—not having put their Whips on to support their own Committee—think the conclusion of the House of Commons ought to be maintained here. I believe I can give one or two reasons why that is not a very sound argument. This Bill, beside including these great London gas companies, covers a vast number of other statutory undertakings—electric lighting, water, and tramways—all over England, and of all sorts and sizes. To have lumped all these together is, of course, a great convenience, as was pointed out by the noble Earl, the Lord Chairman, on the last occasion. It is far more convenient to treat the different undertakings as though they were in parimateria, whereas they are in fact absolutely different in all their relations. But when the hardships of one set of people are involved the process is somewhat disastrous.
I can easily give two instances from what occurred in this House. My noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh had on the Paper an Amendment relating to a comparatively small company in Scotland. I also received a communication from that company—the Stirling Gas Company—who stated that their earnings would be somewhat interfered with if the figure of two-thirds were not allowed to be maintained. On the Second Reading a noble Lord whom I do not now see in his place, Lord Plymouth, mentioned the hard case of a water company somewhere in South Wales, and all those who are interested in any of these special cases naturally come to the support of those who desire to see the figure of two-thirds maintained, due to the fact that all these cases were treated as though they were parallel concerns.
But it is very hard on the consumers of London, who are now to be mulcted to the tune of £300,000 a year by this Bill, that this injury should be conflicted on them by the votes of people who naturally have not looked into the matter and have no
454
knowledge or conception of the rights and wrongs of this particular case as between the Gas Companies and the consumers of gas in London. The London gas-payers are already paying more than £4,000,000 a year for an inferior article to that which they were buying before the war. The gas which is supplied is less valuable, both in its heating and lighting qualities than the gas that was supplied before the war. It cannot now be properly enriched, and the result is that the working man who depends for his light and his heating on a gas jet finds it assuming both the appearance and the calorific qualities of a will o' the wisp. I can assure your Lordships that there is a great deal of strong feeling in London upon this matter; it is by no means only confined to London, because the strong view which the London County Council have taken has been explicitly enforced by the representatives of other public bodies in the country. I am compelled, therefore, although I am sorry to do so at this hour, to press this Amendment on the attention of your Lordships' House.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 2, leave out ("three-quarters") and insert ("half").—(The Marquess of Crewe.)
LORD FARINGDON: I have been requested by one of the largest gas companies—the Gas, Light and Coke Company—to say a few words on behalf of the gas companies generally. The position as mentioned by the noble Marquess just now is quite correct as far as the sliding scale is concerned, and the effect of the higher prices that have to be paid for coal upon the cost of the commodities to the public. The pre-war price was 2s. 6d. per thousand feet; the present price is, I believe, 4s. 4d.The reason for that is patent to every one. It is the higher cost of everything—it is not only coal but oil labour, and materials of all classes and description which have caused very much higher figures. The result is that the working of the Gas Light and Coke Company and other companies has reduced their dividends from upwards of 4 per cent. before the war down to £2 18 s. 8d., which was the last dividend paid, and to a current rate of £2 2s. 8d. per cent.
The Select Committee which enquired

455
into this question was very sympathetic. They said that some provision should be made for the temporary limitation of statutory requirements with regard to prices and dividends in the case of the gas undertakings, and they then said, after, I dare say, very fully considering the question, "We will give them half of the statutory dividend." At the time when that Committee came to fix the figure at one half, the price of coal was 60 per cent. above the pre-war price. When the Bill came before the House of Commons the price of coal had risen to 100 per cent. above pre-war price, and, therefore, after the most careful consideration during long debates, the figure of 75 per cent. instead of 50 per cent. was inserted and although divisions were taken—the House was left, as the noble Marquess mentioned, to vote as it pleased, no kind of Government Whips being put on—the 75 per cent. was carried by very large majorities. I believe it was contested at every stage, and these divisions in every case showed very substantial majorities.
I do not know that I need say very much more, but I should like to mention these figures. The companies before the war brought nearly all their coal to London by water at a cost of 3s. per ton. The water rate is now 18 s. a ton, and the increase in the price of coal at the pit's mouth has raised the cost of coal to the company from 12 s. to 40 s. per ton. The companies would not be in a very bad position notwithstanding these very high prices but for the fact that the prices of the by-products and residuals are controlled. If they could sell their benzol, toluol, and other by-products at their full market value, I do not believe this Bill would have been before the House, because it is very likely that they would have been paying their pre-war dividends. But the Controller has fixed the prices of the commodities that they produce, which are essential at the present time and which it has been recognised the gas companies have done their utmost to produce in the largest quantities. Probably the prices which they have got for these by-products are such that, as I say, the dividends will be reduced to £2 2s. 8d. per cent. There may be a certain school in the country who would not be averse to seeing the great gas companies in a rather tight position with the view of their possibly being acquired. One cannot ignore that
456
that is a possibility, but it would I think be very unfair that advantage should be taken of circumstances which are so abnormal as those current at the present time, first, of all to depreciate a security, and then possibly purchase it at a very low price.
There is no doubt about this: that if the noble Marquess's Amendment should be carried, it would have a most disastrous effect upon the ability of the companies to raise fresh capital. There is not such a thing as a closed capital account with any undertaking that has any life in it. The gas companies are constantly issuing their capital, and ever since 1876 all gas companies capital has not been issued to shareholders or any privileged body but it has to be offered by public auction; the highest price that is tendered is accepted, and any premium that the company receives is carried to the benefit of the whole undertaking, being placed to the credit of their capital account. In the past the companies, I think, have deserved very well of the community. They have reduced their price over and over again. It is true that at the same time there has been a moderate increase in their own dividends.
I sympathise with the remark that has fallen from the noble Marquess that the effect of fixing this 75 per cent. will possibly be a little addition to the gas bills of the consumer. It is estimated, however, that this burden in the case of the small consumer will not exceed the sum of ls. 3d. per annum, and therefore in these times, when we are providing by higher wages for almost every kind of commodity that the poor have to buy, if the gas companies should by any chance get in consequence of this arrangement of the gas companies' dividend the large sum of ls. 3d. we know that the consumer has ample money in his pocket for any such little outgoing. If you should by any chance damage the gas companies it would have very disastrous effects not only upon the concerns to-day or to-morrow but possibly for all time to come, for we know that the investor always looks back over a long period to see what dividend has been paid. If you reduce the dividend very largely the result will be that the companies will suffer in the future, and through the companies the public also. I hope sincerely that the noble Marquess will not press his Amendment.
LORD SOMERLEYTON: In replying to the noble Marquess who has moved this Amendment I will be as brief as I can, and only put a few facts before the House. The noble Marquess is no doubt specially interested to-night in the two principal London gas companies—Gas Light & Coke Company and the South Metropolitan Gas Company. Of these, the London Gas Light & Coke Company paid £4 17 s., 4 per cent in 1913, and pay £2 18 s. 8d. now; the South Metropolitan Company paid £5 9s. 4d. in 1913 and pay £4 now. Under the Bill, with a standard dividend of 4 per cent., they will be entitled to pay up to 3 per cent, if they can satisfy the Board of Trade that they need and have a good case for relief.
The circumstances in which the limit of relief now in the Bill was fixed are these. The Select Committee on Gas Undertakings recommended that some temporary modification of statutory requirements was called for with the view of maintaining in the public interest the stability of gas undertakings, but that the price allowed should not be more than sufficient to enable companies to pay half their standard or maximum rate of dividend, or half their pre-war dividend, whichever was the lower, after making due allowance for proper revenue charges.
The Government introduced a Bill giving effect to this recommendation, but the companies urged that 2 per cent. was not sufficient return to maintain their stability, and enable any new capital that might be required to be raised, except at a big discount. I will not go into the question of new capital, as Lord Faringdon has already dealt with it. The companies also pointed out that they had rendered great national services in providing toluol, benzol, and other by-products for munitions, and sulphate of ammonia for agriculture, at comparatively moderate prices fixed by the Government. They asked for their standard or pre-war dividends. An amendment was then moved by Mr. Tennant splitting the difference—i.e., putting the limit at three-quarters. The President of the Board of Trade left this for the House to decide, and neither supported, nor opposed, nor voted on, the Amendment. I will only remind your Lordships that there were two divisions in Committee on this question. In one case there were 153 in favour and 22 against, and in the
458
second case this Amendment was carried in Committee by 118 to 42 and was endorsed in a division on the Third Reading by 141 votes to 97.
In the course of the Second Reading of the Bill in your Lordships' House the Marquess of Crewe and Lord Buckmaster stated that pressure had been brought to bear upon members of Parliament by the companies interested, but no doubt some pressure was also exerted on the other side, and it has to be remembered that consumers can influence more votes than shareholders because they are more numerous. If the Amendment is carried it is unlikely that the other House will accept it after the large majorities which they have given for the limit in the Bill, and it is to be hoped that the noble Marquess will not press it to a division. With regard to residuals, my information is that the amount is not large enough to affect the price of coal to any extent worth mentioning. Therefore I venture to trust that a Division will not be taken on this Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: May I say, on one point which the noble Lord mentioned, that my information is that the value of residuals—I take it from the evidence of the Select Committee—is 5½d. on every 1,000 feet of gas, and I cannot see how he can regard that as a negligible amount. Perhaps I might say with regard to pressure—what is known as "lobbying"—that there has always been a certain distinction drawn between people who go about putting what may be a quite legitimate pressure on Members of Parliament in order to put money in their own pockets, and representations on behalf of those who have sent them to hold office by Members who have nothing personally to gain.
LORD SOMERLEYTON: Perhaps I might point out, in reply to the noble Marquess, that these are statutory companies, and that if a larger price is paid for these residuals the amount will go into the funds of the company, and will not be squandered.
On Question, whether "three-quarters" shall stand part of the clause?—
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 32; Not-contents, 3.

CONTENTS.

Somerset, D.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Leigh, L.

Leith of Fyvie, L.

Lincolnshire, M.

St. Davids, V.

Penrhyn, L.

Salisbury, M.

Rotherham, L.

Allington, L.

Strachie, L.

Grey, E. [Teller.]

Avebury, L.

Stuart of Wortley, L.

Halsbury, E.

Beresford of Metemmeh, L.

Sumner, L.

Jersey, E. [Teller.]

Blythswood, L.

Sydenham, L.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Tenterden, L.

Churchill, V.

Cottesloe, L.

Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

Hood, V.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Wittenham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Canterbury, L. Abp.

Chaplin, V.

Inchcape, L.

Finlay, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Cross, V.

Islington, L.

Curzon of Kedleston, E. (L. President.)

Milner, V.

Kenyon, L.

Peel, V.

Lamington, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.) (L. Privy Seal.)

Newton, L.

Annesley, L.

Parmoor, L.

Crewe, M.

Balfour, L.

Phillimoro, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Cawley, L.

Pontypridd, L.

Brassey, E.

Clinton, L.

Queenborough, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Colebrooke, L.

Ranksborough, L.

Eldon, E.

Denman, L.

Ribblesdale, L.

Lytton, E.

Elphinstone, L.

Sanderson, L.

Russell, E.

Emmott, L.

Shandon, L.

Stanhope, E.

Faringdon, L.

Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]

Verulam, E.

Gainford, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L. (L. Sheffield.)

Gorell, L.

Farquhar, V. (L. Steward.)

Hylton, L.

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

CONTENTS.

Finlay, L (L. Chancellor.

Chaplin, V.

Elphinstone, L.

Curzon of Kedleston, E. (L. President.)

Churchill, V.

Faringdon, L.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Hylton, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.) (L. Privy Seal.)

Islington, L.

Peel, V.

Kenyon, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Newton, L.

Annesley, L.

Queenborough, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Balfour, L.

Ranksborough, L.

Lucan, E.

Beresford of Metemmeh, L.

Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]

Lytton, E.

Cawley, L.

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Stanhope, E.

Clinton, L.

Stuart of Wortley, L

Farquhar, V. (L. Steward.)

Colebrooke, L.

Sydenham, L.

Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

NOT-CONTENTS.

Crewe, M. [Teller.]

Strachie, L. [Teller.]

Parmoor, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE THE MARQUESS OF CREWE moved, in subsection (2), after the word "situate," to insert "and in the case of a tramway undertaking also to the council of any area in which through running arrangements are in operation." The noble Marquess said: This is also an Amendment which affects London. There are certain tramways which run out of the county of London into some of the neighbouring boroughs, which it is desired to bring under the Bill. As the noble Lord will see, the effect is not a very wide one, but it would be a great convenience to the London County Council, where this notice is given, that they should receive the information as well as the local authority of such a district as East or West Ham. The point is not a large one, and I confess I cannot see any reason why the noble Lord should object to allow the council of the county to receive similar notice. There are some other cases in the North of England which are exactly parallel, where tramways run through more than one authority, and it would he a great convenience to them to receive a similar notice.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 16, after ("situate") insert ("and in the case of a tramway undertaking also to the council of any area in which through running arrangements are in operation").—(The Marquess of Crewe.)
LORD SOMERLEYTON: I am sorry I had not an opportunity of conferring with the noble Marquess before he moved this Amendment, because I think I should have been able to show him that it hardly seems to be necessary. Under the pro-
460
visions of the Bill as it stands, public notice of any application for an Order has to be given, and it would be open to any local authority concerned then to make such representations as they might think fit To put the local authorities of districts in which through running arrangements are in operation in what might appear to be a position in which their representations might be entitled to special weight, might, in some cases, alarm the tramway undertaking concerned, and lead them to withdraw the through running arrangements in order to avoid the possible consequences of any such provision. I therefore venture to suggest to the noble Marquess, with due deference, that this Amendment is unnecessary. Due notice will be given, and it will be widely known. I suggest that it is hardly worth pressing the point at this period of the session.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Of course, if the noble Lord and his Department are not able to accept this Amendment, it really is useless to press it. It would have been found a great convenience, in the case of London undoubtedly, not to have to depend merely on the advertisement, but to receive a notice which, I think, might have been given without much trouble. In the circumstances I will withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to; and Bill reported without amendment.

TRADE BOARDS BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order).
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: There is an Amendment on this Clause. It is merely a drafting Amendment, to make it quite clear that certain proposals can be made, and it is provided that a period of three months shall continue to be the period of notice instead of the two months which was put into the Bill the other day. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Clause 3, page 4, line 20, at end insert as a new subsection:
"(7) Where notice of a proposal to fix, cancel or vary a minimum rate has been duly given by

449
a Trade Board before the date of the commencement of this Act and the Board have not before that date proceeded to fix, cancel, or vary the rate, the notice shall hare effect as though this Act had been in force on the date on which the notice was given and the notice had been duly given there under, except that objections may be lodged with the Board for a period of three months from the date of the notice.—(Viscount Sandhurst.)
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: There is an Amendment on this clause to meet a point raised in the House of Commons—namely, in regard to the deductions made under an Act of Parliament. It is extremely doubtful whether they will ever be put into use. At the same time it will set the minds of these people at rest with regard to statutory providence funds; they are at present a little exercised about it.
Amendment moved—
Clause 5, page 6, line 32, after ("enactments") insert ("or deductions authorised by any Act to be made from wages in respect of contributions to any superannuation or other provident fund").—(Viscount Sandhurst.)
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedules agreed to.

ASYLUMS OFFICERS SUPERANNUATION BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order).
[The EARL of DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: I have an Amendment to move on this clause, the object being that after their arduous work these asylum officers should receive some return.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 2, line 11, at end insert "and if lie has been in the service of an asylum as a first-class officer or servant for not loss than ten years, and has so removed before the date of this Act or within five years after that date, he shall become qualified for receiving a superannuation allowance at the age of 55 years instead of at the age of 60 years".—(Viscount Sandhurst.)
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.

NAVAL PRIZE BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
GOVERNMENT WAR OBLIGATIONS BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

PUBLIC HEALTH (BORROWING POWERS) (IRELAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): My Lords, this is a small and non-contentious Bill. It permits certain local authorities in Ireland to extend their powers of borrowing, and it is necessary, I am informed, that the powers should be conferred in order to ensure the provision of public services during the coming months. I beg to move.
Moved. That the Bill be now read 2a.—The (Earl of Crawford.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

LOTTERIES (WAR CHARITIES) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I beg to move, "That Standing Order No. XXXIX be considered in order to its being dispensed with." I wish to offer one word of apology for taking this rather unusual course. I know that this Bill is regarded with misgivings by some members of the House—misgivings which I do not share, but quite understand—but those objections have reference to the principle of the Bill, and not to its details. I allowed a reasonable interval between the Second Reading of the Bill and the Committee stage, but no Amendments have been given notice of, and I therefore venture to ask your Lordships to pass the Bill through its remaining stages this evening, in order that no time may be lost in sending it to another place.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXXIX be considered in order to its being dispensed with.—(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Bill read 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, in accordance with a promise which I gave to my noble friend Lord Inchcape to provide an oppertunity, if possible, for an important Motion which he desires to make on Monday, I have arranged to take his Motion as the first Order of the day, on the understanding which he gave me, that the debate which he proposes to initiate shall not occupy more than an hour. We will therefore take his Motion at 3.30 on Monday, and at 4.30 proceed with the Report stage of the Education Bill.
[From Minute of August 1.]

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 6) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.
MAIDENHEAD GAS BILL.
Reported, without amendment.

ROTHESAY TRAMWAYS (AMENDMENT) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) deemed to have been read 2a (The Lord Stanmore), and reported from the Committee.
House adjourned at twenty five minutes before nine o'clock until Monday next at half-past three o'clock.