Sitting of 4 July 1918

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Glasgow Corporation Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, without amendment.
Glasgow and South Western Railway Order Confirmation Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.

LOCAL EDUCATION AUTHORITIES (ENGLAND AND WALES) (GRANTS AND EXPENDITURE).
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 18th June; Sir James Yoxall]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 8.]
NAVAL AND MARINE PAY AND PENSIONS ACT, 1865.
Copies presented of Orders approving Memorials of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty praying sanction to (1) Proposals as to the appointment of certain officers in the Royal Marines; (2) Proposals as to the Pay of Royal Marine Gunnery Instructors [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1918.
Copies presented of two Orders in Council relating to voting by proxy by Sailors and Soldiers [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
EAST INDIA (CONSTITUTIONAL REFORMS).
Copy presented of Report on Indian Constitutional Reforms [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT, 1887 (PROCLAMATIONS, ETC.).
Copy presented of Special Proclamation declaring the Associations known as the Sinn Fein Organisation, Sinn Fein Clubs, the Irish Volunteers, the Cumann na M-Ban, and the Gaelic League to be dangerous [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
FERTILISERS AND FEEDING STUFFS ACT, 1906.
Copy presented of the Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs (Method of Analysis) Regulations (Scotland), 1918, dated 20th May, 1918, under the Act, and read in conjunction with Section 1 (11) of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act, 1911; to lie upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  WAR.

    SECRET TREATIES.
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State-for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that not less than six books of secret documents have been published in Russia by the Commissariat for Foreign Affairs and are procurable in Stockholm and in other neutral capitals; and whether he has procured copies of these books for the use of the Foreign Office?
    The MINISTER of BLOCKADE (Lord R. Cecil): Translations of the documents, as they appeared in the Russian paper "Pravda," are in the possession of the Foreign Office. I will inquire about the books.

    PALESTINE CAMPAIGN.
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether by a Memorandum, dated 6th March, 1917, and published in the Press of 19th January. 1918, Palestine is to be subjected to a special régime, to be determined by agreement between France, Great Britain, and Russia; and whether, as this agreement was made to secure the religious interests

    1819
    of the Entente Powers, which religious interests abide, even though dynasties and governments change, he will say what means are now being taken to make the objects and conditions of the Allies' campaign in Palestine clear and understood?
    Lord R. CECIL: I would refer the hon. Member to the Proclamation issued by the General Officer Commanding in Palestine on the occasion of the occupation of Jerusalem.
    Mr. KING: Can we have more information about the special religious interests referred to here? They are undefined and unintelligible to the general public. It must be known to the Foreign Office what they are.
    Lord R. CECIL: I think the hon. Gentleman will find those interests are dealt with in the Proclamation to which I have referred.

    OLD AGE PENSIONS (IRELAND).
    Mr. WINGasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will state what are the yearly percentages of the causes of disqualification of applicants for old age

    TABLE showing number of Appeals on claims for Old Age Pensions and (questions received and decided; number of decisions in favour of, and number of decisions adverse to, claimants or pensioners for each of the years ended 31st March, 1914–1917, inclusive.

    —

    1914.

    1915.

    1916.

    1917.

    Number of appeals received

    6,202

    5,299

    4,303

    4·904

    Number of appeals decided

    6,254

    5,447

    4,451

    4,333

    Number of appeals in favour of claimants or pensioners

    1,520

    1,165

    907

    711

    Number of decisions adverse to claimants or pensioners

    4,164

    3,841

    3,160

    3,245

    Total number of decisions

    5,684

    5,006

    4,067

    3,956

    Percentage of decisions in favour of claimants, etc.

    26·74

    23·28

    22·30

    17·97

    Percentage of decisions adverse to claimants, etc.

    73·26

    76·72

    77·70

    82·03

    NOTE.—The discrepancy between total number of decisions and total number or appeals decided is accounted for partly by appeals dismissed as late or otherwise not in order, and partly because, in the case of questions where, by the Local Government Board's decision, the rate of pension has not been altered, there is no record to show whether the questions were raised by the Pension Officer or the pensioner.

    ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
    Major NEWMANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he has received from the pensioners of the Royal Irish Constabulary a statement of their
    pensions for the years 1914 to 1917, under the following headings, i.e., age, means, poor relief, and other causes?
    The hon. Member had given notice of a question in similar terms to the Secretary for Scotland.
    Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): I will answer these two questions together. I am afraid I can give the hon. Member no further information beyond the figures which I gave him on the 27th June, which were for the United Kingdom as a whole. As the hon. Member was informed on that occasion, no separate figures are available for claims rejected; and separate figures are not available for the different parts of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. WINGasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will state what is the yearly number of appeals for the years 1914 to 1917, with the percentage of those for and against old age pensioners or applicants for old age pensions?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Arthur Samuels): With the hon. Gentleman's permission. I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement in answer to this question.
    The following is the statement referred to:—
    claims for increase of pension or war bonus, and the State purchase of the Constabulary Force Fund (Benefit Branch) on terms equitable both to the Government and the subscribers; if he is aware

    1821
    that some thousands of those pensioners are unemployed, and, together with their families, are living on pensions of less than 20s. per week; whether public boards in Ireland have made representations to the President of the Local Government Board and inspectors of lunatic asylums in regard to war bonus for their pensioned servants; if the constabulary authorities acted in a similar manner towards their ex-members; and if, under these circumstances, he will now look into the grievances of these men, who are deserving of the consideration of the Government for their loyalty on service and in retirement?
    Mr. SAMUELS: The answer to the first paragraph of the question is in the affirmative. There is no record of the number of constabulary pensioners at present unemployed, but there is every reason to believe that there are fewer unemployed now than before the commencement of the War, every effort being made to facilitate pensioners obtaining suitable employment. With regard to the last paragraph of the question, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the replies given to questions asked on the subject by the hon. Member for the College Green Division of Dublin and the hon. member for the Leix Division of Queen's County on the 29th October and 23rd November last.
    Major NEWMAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman and the Irish Office consider the claims of these men afresh now we have a change of government in Dublin?
    Mr. SAMUELS: I cannot give any undertaking about it. The matter was gone into very fully, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman will find by reference to these answers.

    UNTENANTED LAND, IRELAND (SALE).
    Major NEWMANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he has now been able to ascertain the reasons that led the Estates Commissioners, in view of their previous undertaking that men who were serving in the forces of the Crown or who had relatives so serving should have preference, to refuse in a recent distribution of lands at Killua, West Meath, the application of Regimental Quartermaster-Sergeant Bond, Leinster Regiment,
    1822
    who has to his credit nearly twenty-four years' continuous service, including four years' service in France; why was James Killick, of Clonmallon. West Meath, also refused land, although he has three sons at present serving; and will the Estates Commissioners now review their decision in these cases?
    Mr. SAMUELS: The classes of persons to whom parcels of untenanted land can be sold by the Estates Commissioners under the Land Purchase Acts are prescribed by those Acts. In the distribution of the lands referred to in the question the Commissioners found it possible to divide over 230 acres amongst persons coming within these classes who have served or are serving in the present War, or have members of their families so serving. The application of Regimental Quartermaster-Sergeant Bond and James Killick were considered, and in the exercise of their discretion the Commissioners did not include them amongst those who were provided with land. It is not the practice of the Commissioners to give the reasons which actuate them in the exercise of the discretion vested in them. The land has been distributed, and possession taken by or on behalf of the allottees, and the question of the distribution cannot be reopened.
    Major NEWMAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, as a fact, some of the land allotted on this Killua estate was not given to men who had not served themselves, and who had no dependants at all—in other words, they came first and the men serving came last?
    Mr. SAMUELS: I have no further particulars. The Commissioners cannot look further into the matter.
    Colonel McCALMONT: Are we to understand that there is to be any changes of policy or is this going on?
    Mr. SAMUELS: This is a case of land distributed some time ago.
    Colonel McCALMONT: Can the right hon. Gentleman give no assurance that that policy will be changed in future?
    Mr. SAMUELS: An assurance has been given that the interests of these men will be carefully attended to?

    ALIENS.

      ANTRIM COAST.
      Colonel McCALMONTasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland how many persons of enemy alien origin are still permitted to reside within 10 miles of the county Antrim coast, excluding the city of Belfast; whether the naval and military authorities responsible for this area have been informed of the presence of each of these persons; if so, whether they have expressed approval in each case; and whether he will state the grounds upon which it has been decided to take the risk of these people's loyalty to their adopted country in such an important war area?
      Mr. SAMUELS: I am informed there are six persons of enemy alien origin permitted to reside in the county Antrim within 10 miles of the coast. Two of them are British subjects by naturalisation, a third is married to a British subject, a fourth is married to an Italian, and the remaining two are old ladies over seventy years of age who were on a visit to their daughters when war broke out and were unable to return to Germany.
      The naval and military authorities have from time to time been notified by the police authorities of the presence of these aliens in this county.
      Of the six persons of alien origin referred to above, only two reside in a prohibited area, namely, a German lady aged seventy-four who is residing with her daughter at Whitehead, the daughter being married to a British subject. These persons have all been under observation since the outbreak of war, and the police believe them to be quite harmless.
      I may add that in all cases where there was the slightest suspicion against any alien enemy immediate action was taken, and the naval and military intelligence officers have been in constant touch with the police with reference to them.
      As to the last part of the hon. and gallant Member's question, I cannot go into any discussion of the grounds upon which the authorities may have acted in any particular case.
      Colonel McCALMONT: Are we to understand that no action is taken unless there is ground for suspicion against particular aliens; that in this matter the Government will only take action when
      1824
      they have a proved case of trading or communicating with the enemy; and that otherwise aliens are allowed to live where they like, whether it is in a danger area or not?
      Mr. SAMUELS: I have given all the information I have with regard to county Antrim to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman refers. Particular inquiry has been made with regard to it, and if he gives any particular instance inquiry will be made at once in regard to it.
      Colonel McCALMONT: Are we to understand that each individual case has been communicated to the local naval or military officer and that he has expressed himself as satisfied that these people should dwell there or not?
      Mr. SAMUELS: The answer is that the "naval and military authorities have from time to time been notified by the police authorities of the presence of these aliens." I also stated that
      "In all cases where there was the slightest suspicion against any alien enemy immediate action was taken and the naval and military and intelligence officers have been in constant touch with the police with reference to them."
      Mr. KING: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that this old lady of seventy-four is much more dangerous than many of the Sinn Feiners who have been interned on suspicion?
      Mr. SAMUELS: I do not agree with that view.
      Sir J. BUTCHER: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult the Home Office in this country as to the desirability of prohibiting all aliens from residing in any prohibited area?
      Mr. SAMUELS: I presume any Order the Home Office make would be applied in Ireland.

      INTERNMENT.
      Mr. SNOWDENasked the Home Secretary if he will give a reconsideration to the case of Ferdinand Louis Kehrhahn, who is interned in Brixton Prison, where he has spent two years and nine months; whether, in any case, something can be done to mitigate the hardship of his treatment under which he is compelled to spend seventeen hours of the twenty-four in his cell; and will he have special inquiries made into the effect this imprisonment is-having upon the prisoner's health?
      The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir George Cave): I am informed that, although two years and nine months have elapsed since Kehrhahn was first interned, he has been in Brixton Prison since April, 1917, only. He is allowed to be out of his cell in association with other interned persons for eight hours a day, and a special medical report which I have just obtained shows that his health has not been impaired, either mentally or physically, by his internment. I must adhere to my previous decision in this case.
      Colonel YATEasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the resolution passed by the Stepney Borough Council urging the authorities to take steps forthwith for the internment, repatriation, or employment on national duties of all enemy aliens over eighteen; and whether steps will be taken to carry out this resolution?
      Sir G. CAVE: Yes, Sir. I hope to have an early opportunity of making a statement on this subject.
      Mr. KING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Stepney Borough Council at the same time passed a resolution in favour of all aliens, whether neutral, friendly, or enemy, being made to join the Army or being deported, and will he consider these two inconsistent resolutions together?
      Sir G. CAVE: The whole subject will no doubt be brought up.
      Mr. KING: Will the right hon. Gentleman get from the Stepney Borough Council all the resolutions that it passed on one occasion upon this subject?
      Sir G. CAVE: I will leave it to the council to send me what resolutions it pleases.
      Sir HENRY DALZIELasked the number of enemy aliens in this country who are at present uninterned?
      Sir G. CAVE: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. Excluding those temporarily released from the camps on licence for employment on agricultural or other work of national importance, the number of male alien enemies who remain uninterned is approximately as follows: Germans, 6,000; Austrians, 5,500; Turks or Bulgarians, 1,100; total, about 12,600. Of these, over 4,000 are of friendly race, and only technically
      1826
      of enemy nationality—e.g., Czechs, Poles, and Alsatians—and over 3,000 are old men or invalids. Of the 6,000 Germans, over 3,500 are married to British wives, over 4,000 have British-born children, and 2,400 have sons serving in His Majesty's forces.
      Sir H. DALZIEL: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any indication of the number who are engaged on work of national importance—are they under supervision?
      Sir G. CAVE: Any alien enemy who is uninterned is required to perform work of national importance. A certain number have already been engaged on such work.
      Sir H. DALZIEL: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the exact number?
      Sir G. CAVE: No.
      Mr. G. LAMBERT: How many of these alien enemies are women?
      Sir G. CAVE: I should think very nearly the same number as the men; but I have not the exact figures now.
      Mr. R. McNEILL: Have the Government in treating Alsatians as belonging to a friendly race taken into account the possible plantation of Alsace by Germans in recent years, and the fact that Alsatian spies are the most fruitful agents of the German Army in France?
      Sir G. CAVE: That fact has not been forgotten. The only uninterned Alsatians are those who have been certified by the French authorities as being friendly to the Allies.
      General McCALMONT: Is it a fact that the Home Office have no control over alien enemies in Ireland; and do the figures given include Ireland?
      Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of that question.
      General McCALMONT: May I ask whether the figures include Ireland?
      Sir G. CAVE: Aliens in Ireland have been under the control of the Chief Secretary for Ireland.

      NATURALISED GERMANS.
      Mr. WATTasked the Home Secretary whether he will furnish a copy of the report of the chief constable of Westcliff-

      1827
      on-Sea sent to his Department dealing with the pro-German activities of E. A. Meyer, a recently naturalised German, on which he was ordered out of that seaport, and who at present is employed daily on the London Stock Exchange?
      Sir G. CAVE: No such report was sent to my Department. I have already informed the hon. Member that the order was made by the competent military authority.
      Mr. WATT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the pro-German activities of this gentleman are so pronounced that there is a daily risk of his being thrown out of the train by his fellow passengers? Is that the reason the police had to intervene?
      Sir G. CAVE: No; I am not aware of that.

    PERMANENT UNDER-SECRETARY FOB IRELAND.
    Mr. KINGasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether Sir William Byrne, Permanent Under-Secretary, is being succeeded by Mr. James MacMahon; and, if so, whether any reason for this change can be stated?
    Mr. SAMUELS: Sir William Byrne who is the permanent chairman of the Board of Control in London, has been acting temporarily as Under-Secretary for Ireland. He has expressed a desire to resume duty in England, and has now tendered his resignation as Under-Secretary. His resignation has been accepted with regret. He is being succeeded by Mr. James MacMahon, who is considered to be the most suitable person for the position.
    Mr. KING: Is Mr. James MacMahon accepting the office as a permanency, or, like his predecessor, as a temporary engagement?
    Mr. SAMUELS: I cannot give any further information.
    Mr. KING: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the continued absence of the Chief Secretary himself from this House, where he is so much appreciated, is the cause?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is asking another question.

    ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS, IRELAND.
    Mr. LONSDALEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if the board of governors of the Royal Belfast Academical Institution have passed resolutions pressing upon the Government and the National Board of Education in Ireland the necessity for establishing a training college for elementary teachers in Belfast in connection with the Queen's University, and that this proposal is strongly supported in Ulster; and if he will recommend that Government assistance shall be afforded to this project?
    Mr. SAMUELS: The resolutions referred to have not been received. If the proposal is put forward it will receive full consideration.

    ARTIFICIAL LIMBS.
    Major CHAPPLEasked the Home Secretary whether a patent No. 1,177 9/17, applied for on 25th August, 1916, and completed on 27th September, 1917, for an artificial arm was granted to Siemens-Schuckertwerke, G. M. B. H., of Siemen-stadt, near Berlin; whether this limb can be made in this country without infringing the patent; and whether the restrictions placed on private persons in regard to trading with the enemy apply also to Government Departments?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Albert Stanley): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. No patent has been granted to the applicants in this case, but the benefit of the application was, by Order of the Board of Trade, vested in the Public Trustee, and a patent granted to him on the 24th January last. Any person desirous of manufacturing the invention may make application to the Board of Trade for that purpose. I am afraid I do not understand to what the last part of the question refers, but if the hon. and gallant Member will communicate with me I will endeavour to give him the information he desires.
    Major CHAPPLE: Does it become a valid patent in favour of the German patentee?
    Sir A. STANLEY: No, not necessarily.

    DEFENCE OF THE REALM REGULATION (LEAFLETS).
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Home Secretary if a leaflet headed "Reality," printed by G. B. Dibblee, Windsor House, Bream's Buildings, London, E.C.4, is being widely circulated; that this leaflet deals exclusively with the present War; that it bears no imprint indicating either the author or the publisher; whether this leaflet was submitted before publication to the Press Bureau, under Regulation 27c of the Defence of the Realm Act; and whether any proceedings have been instituted against those responsible for the publication of this leaflet in violation of the provisions of the Regulation mentioned?
    Sir G. CAVE: I am informed that "Reality" is a weekly periodical which was in existence before the 16th November, 1917, and Regulation 27c, therefore, does not apply to it.

    MILITARY SERVICE.

      CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
      Mr. SNOWDENasked the Home Secretary if an application has been received from six men employed by the Tudor Lewis Company, Llangadock, South Wales, for release to take up exceptional employment; and, seeing that all these men have had at least sixteen months' service under the Home Office scheme, will he see that they are put on the exceptional employment scheme at once?
      Sir G. CAVE: I would remind the hon. Member that length of service is not the only qualification for exceptional employment; the industry and conduct of the men concerned have also to be taken into consideration. Of the six men, referred to one has already been authorised to take up the employment proposed by him and another has been informed that he may submit a proposal to the committee. A third was informed in March last that consideration of his case was postponed for four months. The cases of the remaining three men will shortly be considered.
      Mr. SNOWDENasked the Home Secretary why Thomas Phillips, a conscientious objector, now in Northallerton Prison undergoing his second sentence of
      1830
      two years' imprisonment, has not been allowed to undertake work under the Home Office scheme which he is willing to do; and whether, in view of the mistake of keeping men in prison who are willing to do useful work, he will see that this man's release for some work of national utility is granted?
      Sir G. GAVE: The report of the Central Tribunal in this case was not such as to enable me to advise Phillips' release for the purpose of employment under the Committee on Employment of Conscientious Objectors. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
      Sir JOHN SPEARasked the Prime Minister if, in view of the pressing need of men for the Army, he will appoint a Committee or Committees to examine the claims of the conscientious objectors at Princetown and similar camps for exemption from military service; and will he arrange that continued exemption be granted only in the case of those men who can prove by their antecedents and associations prior to the War that their objection to military service is based on religious principle and not on expediency?
      Sir G. CAVE: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. All the men referred to in the question have already been before a committee of the Central Appeal Tribunal, who have reported that they should be treated as conscientious objectors to military service. I doubt whether a second investigation would produce results of any military value.

      FIRE BRIGADES.
      Mr. ROWLANDSasked the Home Secretary whether, as the result of his further conference with the Ministry of National Service on the subject of retaining existing members of the fire brigades in their present employment when they are Grade 2 men under the new Military Service Act, he can now state the decision arrived at; and, if not, whether he considers that the tribunals should defer calling such men to the Army by adjourning their appeals until a definite policy can be announced?
      Captain CARR-GOMMasked the Minister of National Service whether the information collected by the Home Office as to the importance of retaining the remaining men in the fire brigades of the country has been placed before him; and

      1831
      whether he has now agreed with the Home Office that Grade 2 men under the new Military Service Act are to be exempted from military service subject to proof being adduced that they are essential to the efficiency of their respective fire brigades?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of NATIONAL SERVICE (Mr. Beck): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to these questions. The Ministry of National Service is working in close co-operation with the Home Office as regards the recruitment of men in fire brigades. At the present time certain men wholly employed in public fire brigades, including all men of the new military ages, continue to receive the protection heretofore given by the list of certified occupations under the heading of public utility services. As regards volunteer fire brigades, it has been found necessary to examine each case on its merits, and no general arrangement has been arrived at; but, pending a decision, care will be taken to secure by administrative action that the necessary efficiency of these brigades shall not be impaired.
      Mr. RENDALL: Can the hon. Gentleman indicate that while these inquiries are being made these members of fire brigades, now reduced to very small numbers, will not be called up?
      Mr. BECK: I will represent that view.

      AGRICULTURAL WORKERS.
      Mr. WILLIAM YOUNGasked the Secretary for Scotland whether the pledges given by the Ministry of National Service to the effect that no more men will meanwhile be called up from the quotas in agricultural areas, and that call-up notices issued to bonâ-fide agricultural workers after 26th June will not be enforced, apply to Scotland as well as to England and Wales?
      The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): The undertakings which have been given in this matter are to apply equally to Scotland and to England and Wales. Any calling-up notices issued to agricultural workers in Scotland, if issued after the 26th of June, or if the envelope containing the notice bears the postmark of a date later than the 26th of June, are to be cancelled, and no more such notices are to be issued till after the harvest.
      Mr. WATT: If men have acted erroneously on the circular issued, and have already answered it, will they be called back?
      Mr. MUNRO: I should like notice of that question.

      WESTMINSTER LOCAL TRIBUNAL.
      Mr. WINGasked the President of the Local Government Board the percentage of appeals from the decisions of the Westminster Local Tribunal arrived at under the chairmanship of the Rev. Harcourt Hillersdon, and how that percentage compares with the average percentage of appeals from other local tribunals?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. S. Walsh): I find that, during the first five months of this year, the percentage of appeals from the Westminster Tribunal by or on behalf of the man was under three. The percentage of appeals from this tribunal does not appear to be exceptional.

      CASES OF EXTREME HARDSHIP.
      Sir J. BUTCHERasked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the remarks of the Chairman of the House of Commons Tribunal as to the powers of tribunals to exempt from military service the last surviving son of a widow of whom at least one son has been killed or has died by reason of service; and whether he will extend such powers so as to give tribunals power to exempt from military service the last surviving adult son of a widow or of a woman whose husband is a prisoner of war?
      Mr. WALSH: Tribunals are authorised to grant exemption on the ground of serious hardship to a man who comes under the recent Proclamation only if he is "the last surviving son of a widow, of whom at least one son has died as a result of wounds received in, or sickness contracted by, service with the armed forces during the present War." My right hon. Friend has no authority to extend the terms of the Proclamation.
      Sir J. BUTCHER: Would legislation be required to extend the powers in the manner indicated or could it be done in any other way?
      Mr. WALSH: I would not like to say offhand. It might not be that special legislation would be necessary, but I cannot answer definitely on that point.
      Sir J. BUTCHER: Will my hon. Friend consider the desirability of extending the powers immediately in the manner indicated?
      Mr. WALSH: Recent incidents have brought home to us the desirability of the whole matter being considered. The matter is under consideration, but I cannot make any definite promise.

      CONSCRIPTION (IRELAND).
      Sir J. HOPEasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the possibility that the equitable ratio of recruits may not be obtained from Ireland under the voluntary system, he will state what steps have been taken to provisionally prepare the machinery necessary before actual enrolment can begin under the Military Service (No. 2) Act, 1918; and whether the arrangements which have been made since the passing of the Act will reduce the delay which he then estimated would be necessary between a decision of the Government to apply the Military Service Act to Ireland and the first posting of recruits to units?
      The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): I can add nothing to the answer which was given to a similar question by my hon. Friend by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of National Service on Tuesday last, except to say, in answer to the last part of the question, that I can add nothing to previous statements in the House on this subject.
      Sir J. HOPE: Is the right hon Gentleman aware that the Minister of National Service invited me to ask the Leader of the House whether any arrangement had been made whereby the Military Service Act could be applied to Ireland in the event of the voluntary system failing?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I did notice that the Minister of National Service invited my hon. and gallant Friend to put a question to me, and I have given the only answer I can.
      Mr. KING: Before a decision is taken on the subject, will the Government study the splendid protest against Conscription which is published in this day's papers?

      EVASION OF MILITARY OBLIGATIONS.
      Sir H. DALZIELasked the Prime Minister what steps have been taken to bring back to this country the large number of Britishers of military age who have escaped to Ireland since the passing of the Military Service Act; and how many recruits have been secured as a result of the action that has been taken?
      Mr. BECK: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. This matter is engaging the constant attention of His Majesty's Government. The arrangements are practically complete, but no further statement can be made at present. I may add that action has been taken from time to time to make available for military service British subjects of military age who have gone to Ireland for the purpose of evading their military obligations. A considerable number of such persons have been brought back from Ireland and placed in the fighting forces, but exact figures are not available.
      Colonel Sir J. CRAIG: Will it be possible to bring a few Sinn Feiners back by mistake?
      General McCALMONT: Was not a definite undertaking given ten days ago that a Proclamation on this subject would be issued in a day or two? Is it going to be issued?
      Mr. BECK: I think it has been issued, and the Government is hopeful that satisfactory arrangements will be secured as regards these men. There have been great difficulties, as the hon. and gallant Member knows.
      General McCALMONT: Are we to understand that the Proclamation is the only action the Government are going to take?
      Mr. BECK: No.

      CIVIL SERVANTS (PROMOTION).
      Sir J. BUTCHERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he could give an assurance that Civil servants who have served in the Army and have been discharged, and have resumed their former posts, shall be given at least an equal chance of promotion with those who have not served; and that conscientious objectors who have refused to serve shall in no case be promoted over the heads of those who have served?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The selection of officers for promotion rests with the heads of the Department concerned in each case, and I feel sure that they will take into account the record of service rendered during the War in making their selection.
      Sir J. BUTCHER: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question?
      Mr. SPEAKER: There are a great number of questions. We must get on.
      Sir J. BUTCHER: The last part of the question has not been answered.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I thought I had answered it. I said they take into account the record of service. If there is no record of service it is not taken into account.

      BLACKBURN MEDICAL BOARD.
      Mr. SNOWDENasked the Minister of National Service if he is now in a position to report the result of his inquiry into the methods of the Blackburn Medical Examining Board, who are passing totally unfit men into the Army?
      Mr. BECK: Inquiries have been made into the methods of the Blackburn Medical Board, and no evidence can be found in support of the allegations made against it. Its examinations are conducted in accordance with the instructions issued by the Ministry of National Service. Only those men whom the board after thorough examination consider fit for Grade 2 are placed in Grade 2. I shall be glad to receive the names and addresses of the known consumptives who have been placed in Grade 1. The instructions of the Ministry of National Service preclude the acceptance of any man suffering from active pulmonary tuberculosis.

    PRESS CENSORSHIP (AMERICAN TROOPS).
    Mr. STEWARTasked the Home Secretary whether Liverpool newspapers are rigorously forbidden by the Censor to mention the arrival and movements of American troops, while newspapers published in other towns regularly record such arrival and movements; whether on 27th June last the "Daily Mail" newspaper published an article, written by the Attorney-General, on the organisation of
    1836
    receptions to American troops, and referring, inter alia, to their welcome at Liverpool and elsewhere; that after the publication of such article the editor of the "Liverpool Express" newspaper, who has repeatedly refrained from publishing matter in his possession concerning American troops, in obedience to the instructions of the Censor, forwarded a communication to the Press Bureau stating that he assumed he was at liberty to quote from this article in the "Daily Mail" newspaper, and that he was informed in reply that if he did so quote he must delete the words at Liverpool and elsewhere; and whether, in view of the freedom given to the "Daily Mail" newspaper by the Press Bureau, he can see his way to extend similar latitude to provincial papers of old standing and good repute?
    Sir G. CAVE: The statements in the question are not quite accurate On the publication of the article in the "Daily Mail" (which was not submitted to the Press Bureau), a representative of the Liverpool "Express" inquired whether it could be quoted in that paper. He was informed that as the article had been published it could be repeated, but it was added that a reference made in the article to the place at which troops landed ought not to have been published. No discrimination has been or will be made between one paper and another.

    BRITISH GUIANA.
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the lecture lately delivered at the Royal Society of Arts by Sir Walter Egerton on the subject of British Guiana; and what steps will be taken to carry into effect the nine different reforms advocated by that officer?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Hewins): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Generally speaking, the measures advocated by Sir Walter Egerton have received, and are receiving, a great deal of attention. Some of them are being carried out, but others are of such a nature that they cannot be dealt with during the War, and one involves political changes on which I am not prepared to express an opinion. As regards the scheme for a railway to the interior,

    1837
    upon which Sir Walter Egerton lays special stress, a practical step is already being taken by clearing a cattle track along a line which coincides with one of the proposed tracks.

    EAST AFRICA (GERMAN CURRENCY).
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, considering the importance of putting a stop to the retention of German currency in East Africa, he will at once take steps for the calling in of the German rupee, and the substitution in its place of the British rupee minted in India, or whatever other British currency may be most suitable for the purpose?
    Mr. HEWINS: I regret that I can add nothing to my replies to previous questions on this subject.
    Colonel YATE: Is the German currency to go on circulating for ever?
    Mr. HEWINS: I think my hon. and gallant Friend will find that the question is fully dealt with in my previous answer.

    OLD AGE PENSIONS.
    Mr. WINGasked the Secretary for Scotland what is the yearly number of appeals for the year 1914 to 1917, with the percentage of those for and against old age pensions or applicants for old age pensions?
    Mr. MUNRO: With my hon. Friend's permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement giving the desired information, which is somewhat detailed.
    The following is the statement referred to:
    In 1914, 2,009 appeals were received and 1,758 were decided by the end of the year. Percentage in favour of claimants, 59.4, against 40.6. In 1915, 1,687 appeals' were received, and 1,574 were decided by the end of the year. The 251 appeals outstanding at the end of 1914 were also decided, making a total of 1,825. Percentage in favour of claimants, 61.1, against 38.9. In 1916, 1,969 appeals were received, and 1,814 were decided by the end of the year. The 112 appeals outstanding at the end
    1838
    of 1915 were also decided, making a total of 1,926. Percentage in favour of claimants, 56.5, against 43.5. In 1917, 1,917 appeals were received, and 1,699 were decided by the end of the year. The 155 appeals outstanding at the end of 1916 were also decided, making a total of 1,854. Percentage in favour of claimants, 54.5, against 45.5.

    SMALL HOUSES (SUB-LETTING).
    Mr. J. MASONasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that there are numerous cases of profiteering among tenants of small houses who sub-let one or more rooms for more than the total rent paid for the house; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
    Mr. WALSH: I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford on Tuesday last.

    RAILWAY SEASON TICKETS.
    Captain RUPERT GUINNESSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that he has made an exception as regards season-ticket rates in the case of Romford, he can see his way to grant some relief in the case of Southend-on-Sea, a town in which there are over 10,000 persons affected by this tax and where the inhabitants have been subjected, during the last three years, to exceptional hardship owing to the War?
    Sir A. STANLEY: No special exception has been made in the case of Romford, which, like other places to which the distance is just over 12 miles but is counted for charging purposes as 12 miles only, is regarded as coming under the 10 per cent. increase in season-ticket rates, and not under the 20 per cent. increase. Southend-on-Sea is 36 miles distant from London, and I regret that I cannot make any special concession in the case of that town.

    ABERDARE AND CWMAMAN MOTOR-RAIL SERVICE.
    Mr. STAN TONasked the President of the Board of Trade if the Great Western Railway Company have stopped

    1839
    running their motor-rail service between Dore Junction, Aberdare, and Cwmaman; that this means inconvenience to the inhabitants, who number over 10,000; if the Miners' Federation and other bodies have begged the railway company to provide some relief and that the company have not yet done so; is he aware that public meetings are being held in protest; and will he endeavour to get the Great Western Railway Company to at least run some trains each day and grant reasonable facilities to this centre?
    Sir A. STANLEY: I am making inquiries into this matter, and will let the hon. Gentleman know the result.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
    Mr. JOWETTasked the Minister of Pensions if his attention has been called to the case of W. Ashton, aged twenty-one, of 29, Tomlinson Street, Bradford, a discharged soldier, No. 22624, Northumberland Fusiliers, who, after treatment in the Northumberland War Hospital for shell-shock, was discharged on 18th April last and recommended by the board there for two months' treatment in a civil home; if this disabled ex-soldier has now been at home fifteen weeks awaiting such treatment and that his friends have been informed that there are a large number of cases on the waiting list before him; if it has been suggested by the authorities that Ashton should obtain light work for a few hours daily and that his pension is to be reduced as from 5th July next from 27s 6d. to 19s. 3d., although within the last few weeks he had a fit in a shop; if the parents of this disabled soldier are working people who have lost one son killed in the War and have one son now serving and that the disabled soldier has himself served in Gallipoli and in France; and what action he intends to take to deal with the case.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Colonel Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen): As stated in the question, Ashton was discharged from the Army for shell-shock, and was recommended for treatment, but the medical board appears to have considered that his case was not of such urgency as to call for his admission in priority to men who
    1840
    were already on the waiting list of the home to which he had been referred. It has now been arranged that he shall be brought immediately to London, and admitted to the Home of Recovery at Golders' Green, where a bed is ready for him. The reduction of pension from 27s. 6d. to 19s. 3d. is the result of an assessment of 70 per cent. incapacity by the Military Medical Board, who examined Ashton in May last, but so long as he remains at Golders' Green he will draw an allowance equivalent to pension at the highest rate of disablement, with a deduction of only 7s. a week for maintenance.
    Mr. WATTasked the Minister of Pensions whether his attention has been called to the case of an officer suffering from shrapnel wounds who was in the Western General Hospital, Manchester, and who was, while there, gazetted out of the Army on account of ill-health, and thereafter asked to pay the hospital expenses incurred; is he aware that his Department refused to pay these expenses for the officer; and what action he proposes to take in this case?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I cannot trace the particular case referred to unless I am furnished with the officer's name and late regiment. I may, however, explain that retired officers are expected to pay the cost of their maintenance in an institution up to a limit of 4s. 6d. a day. From the facts stated it is probable that in this particular case the officer was receiving wound pension and retired pay out of which he was asked to pay 2s. 6d. a day for his maintenance. If this surmise is correct, it does not appear that inquiry or action is necessary.
    General McCALMONT: Is the House to understand that it is possible for an officer to be gazetted out of the Army while still in hospital suffering from wounds, and that in that event he is called upon to pay for his maintenance?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Yes; there are cases where officers have been gazetted out while they are in hospital. In that case they receive retired pay, and we make this charge for their maintenance—that is, board and lodging—while they are in hospital.
    General McCALMONT: Has that policy the approval of the Ministry of Pensions?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: It is not a matter over which we have any control. It is a matter entirely for the War Office.
    Mr. J. MASONasked the Pensions Minister whether he is aware that Harold Hollis, No. F6145, Royal Naval Air Service, air mechanic, ship "President II.," was discharged 4th August, 1917, for rheumatism and nerve trouble attributable, and received a gratuity of £10 and £l a week for twenty weeks, but has received no pension since; and whether this man is entitled to a pension?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Hollis was invalided in August, 1917, for sub-acute rheumatism, but the medical advisers of the Ministry did not regard the man's disability as due to service, and he was accordingly awarded a gratuity of £30 under Article 7 (2) of Order in Council, 30th March, 1917, payable £10 down and £l a week for twenty weeks. Hollis has appealed against the decision, and his case will come in due course before the Appeal Tribunal.
    Mr. C. DUNCANasked the Pensions Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the case of ex-Private V. W. Rawlings, No. 3993, who was discharged from the Army on 10th September, 1917, as being no longer physically fit for war service; whether he is aware that Raw-lings was offered, as compensation for the damage done to his health, a temporary pension of 14s. per week, of which only one instalment was sent, and a gratuity of £5; that Rawlings refused the gratuity on the ground that it was inadequate compensation; and was informed on 7th December, 1917, that his case had been referred by the Ministry of Pensions to the Pensions Appeal Tribunal; whether he is aware that on 6th March, 1918, the Pensions Appeal Tribunal unanimously decided that Rawlings's unfitness was attributable to or aggravated by military service; and that on 16th May, 1918, the Ministry of Pensions notified Rawlings that the circumstances of his case had been reviewed and that no award of pension or gratuity could be made; and whether, in view of the above facts, he will state what weight, if any, is attached to the decisions of the Pensions Appeal Tribunal?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Rawlings was a conscientious objector who was called up on 4th April, 1917, and posted
    1842
    to the Non-Combatant Corps. He did not respond to the call, and on the following day was fined by the magistrates and handed over to the military authorities. A week later he was placed under arrest for refusing to go on parade, and on 3rd May was tried by court-martial and sentenced to two years' hard labour. In July he was released and passed into Class W Reserve, to take up work of national importance, and while at that work he fell sick and was ultimately discharged from the Army on 19th September. It will be seen from these facts that Rawlings had no real military service to his credit. The decision of the Appeal Tribunal was presumably given on the technical ground that Rawlings, while in the hands of the military authorities, must be classed as a soldier, with all the consequences with regard to eligibility for pension which that description entails. It appeared to my right hon. Friend that it-would be an insult to the men who have fought to give pension for such service as this, and he accordingly directed that no award should be made. With regard to the last part of the question, while my right hon. Friend has accepted the decisions of the Appeal Tribunal in all but the most exceptional cases, he cannot delegate to them the duty which is laid upon him of being the ultimate interpreter of the Pensions Warrant.
    Colonel Sir F. HALLasked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that Private H. E. Doe, No. 17347, 1st Royal Berkshire Regiment, was killed on 17th June, 1916, while on active service, and that his wife has' never received the gratuity of £5 which, prior to 1st July, 1916, was paid to widows by the Patriotic Fund, and on and after that date by the Ministry of Pensions, although she ha3 made repeated applications for the same; and will he have the matter looked into at once, in order that the allowance may be paid without further delay?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Private Doe was killed in action on the 17th June, 1916, and the widow is therefore not eligible for a gratuity from the funds of the Ministry. I do not understand why Mrs. Doe failed to obtain a grant from the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation, and I am communicating with them in order that if any mistake has been made it may be rectified.
    Sir F. HALLasked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that ex-seaman

    1843
    H. Sida, whilst serving in His Majesty's ship "Belvoir," was taken ill with inflammation of the eyes, was then sent to hospital, and after several months' treatment went blind; that this man up to a few weeks ago received a pension through the local war pensions committee which has now been stopped; that the Admiralty have repudiated liability and Lave referred the matter to the Board of Trade; that the Board of Trade in their turn have stated that the Admiralty are liable, and that owing to the action of these two Government Departments this man has not received even his back pay, or any assistance beyond that referred to since his discharge, with the exception of his silver badge; and whether steps will at once be taken to secure an adequate pension being granted to this ex-sailor so as to avoid his being sent to the workhouse?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): I have been asked to answer this question. Sida served under us as a mercantile rating from 29th May, 1917, to 25th June, 1917—that is to say, a month—when he went sick and was sent to hospital. He was discharged medically unfit on 28th August, 1917. He was paid down to that date, and it is wholly incorrect to say that he has not received even his back pay. It appeared from the medical evidence that his disability was not due to his brief service with us, but, as he stated to us that he had, previous to serving with us, been serving on a steamship at the moment of her having been torpedoed, we referred the case to the Board of Trade. That Department replied that Sida has no claim to compensation, as his incapacity is not due to service on the vessel in question. However, his case is being further investigated from a, medical point of view.

    VOTERS' LISTS, BRADFORD.
    Sir W. PRIESTLEYasked the President of the Local Government Board whether the electors' lists for the Parliamentary borough of Bradford were published on the 29th June last; and, if not, whether any alteration of dates for the receipt of claims, etc., will be made so that the public may have the same time
    1844
    for inspection and correction of the lists as is provided by the Representation of the People Act, 1918, and the Order in Council made thereunder?
    Mr. WALSH: I understand that some of the electors' lists were not fully published on the 29th June as the whole of the copies were not received from the printers, but the registration officer informs me that the full lists in proof form were deposited for inspection in his office. My right hon. Friend is expecting a further report, when he will consider the suggestion in the last part of the question.

    ADMIRALTY WORKS, THROSK, STIRLINGSHIRE.
    Major CHAPPLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the disregard of expenditure, both in method and amount, on the works being carried out at Throsk, in Stirlingshire; whether the 6½ per cent. commission being paid on the cost tends to encourage this disregard; and whether he will devise some new method of payment of commission in works under his authority that will increase the payment in proportion to the economy effected, and not in proportion to the extravagance?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The work was urgent and the contract let on the prime cost plus percentage basis, the profit being fixed at 5 per cent., together with 1½ per cent. establishment charges for the contractors' London office expenses. It has been arranged that any increase in labour rates of wages authorised subsequent to the placing of the contract shall not entitle the contractors to an increased profit. The policy of the Admiralty is to avoid contracts on the net-cost basis wherever an alternative method is practicable; and, with regard to the last part of the question, it has now been arranged that in such contracts an endeavour should be made to arrive at an agreed estimated cost of the work on which the percentage profit is to be calculated, in order that any actual increase of cost above the estimate shall not bring additional profit to the contractors. The plan of increasing contractors' profits in proportion to the economy effected in carrying out the work is one to which we have given considerable attention, and, as a matter of fact, we have applied it in certain

    1845
    shipbuilding time and line contracts; but its administration is likely to be complicated.
    Major CHAPPLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what that system is?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: My hon. and gallant Friend means the system under which we endeavour to measure the profits by the economy effected?
    Major CHAPPLE: Yes.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I will explain it to my hon. and gallant Friend and give him full particulars.

    HOLZAPFELS, LIMITED.
    Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Admiralty is still doing business with Holzapfels, Limited; if so, whether any percentage of the resultant profits to that company! still goes to persons of enemy birth who left this country since the outbreak of war; if so, where these persons have resided and now reside; and if they can withdraw their share of the profits from this country?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: As regards the first part of my hon. Friend's question, I have recently been assured by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade that the enemy interests in this company have been practically eliminated. In the circumstances, the Admiralty propose to resume business transactions with the firm if and when occasion arises. As regard the other parts of the question, my hon. Friend should make inquiry of the Board of Trade.
    Mr. PENNEFATHER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I do not refer in my question to enemy interests, but to two specific shareholders in enemy firms naturalised in this country, who left the country at the outbreak of war, and who, I was informed by the Board of Trade across the flood of the House some time ago, hold 24 per cent of the shares in this company?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I will put the matter again to the Board of Trade, but it is only quite recently that the whole question of the resumption of transactions with the firm was gone into between us and the Board of Trade.
    Mr. PENNEFATHER: Is the House to understand that the Admiralty have had no business transactions with Holzapfels, Limited, between October, 1916, and the present day?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I am not aware of the dates, but I know that some papers came before me the other day having reference to a proposal to put them again on our list.

    MUNITIONS.

      SKINBURNESS HOTEL.
      Major CHAPPLEasked the Minister of Munitions what was the official value placed on the Skinburness Hotel for rating or taxation purposes; what was the rent paid for it by any tenant during the past five years; what was the net revenue earned by the hotel to tenant and landlord during the past three years and during the three years prior to the War, respectively; who were the valuers and negotiators on behalf of the Government and what commission was paid; what is the estimated revenue for the next three years; are munition workers near or have they ever frequented the hotel; and whether, if it can be shown that the property could have been bought by a private person for £5,000, there is any way by which the £1,700 overpaid can be restored to the State?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): The gross poor rate assessment of the Skinburness Hotel was £60 and the assessment for inhabited house duty was £60; the rent paid by the outgoing tenant was £300 per annum, which included the use of the owner's furniture. The Control Board was advised that it is a case in which the previous net revenue would be no guide to the value; and as to the future revenue, this must depend upon the organisation which the Board may adopt for managing the hotel in conjunction with their other property at Silloth. The valuer and negotiator for the Control Board was Mr. J. D. Wallis, senior partner at Dunlop, Wallis and Co., of Manchester. He is not paid by commission, and has acted for the Board in this district generally. The Skinburness Hotel is close to Silloth, and the district is easily reached from the Carlisle and Gretna districts, which are full of munition workers. With regard to the last paragraph,

      1847
      there is no ground for recovering payments made unless misrepresentation could be proved; but I am satisfied, not only that there has been no overpayment in this case, but that the Board have secured very full value for the money paid.
      Mr. WATT: Does the hon. Gentleman consider that there has been no overpayment if the Department has paid £1,700 more than the price for which any other buyer would have purchased?
      Mr. KELLAWAY: That is assuming the fact. There is no truth in the suggestion that any other buyer could have got the property on any lower terms.

      KNIGHT'S PATENT SHELL SLINGS.
      Brigadier-General CROFTasked the Minister of Munitions why contracts for Knight's patent shell slings were given to other firms than the inventor, at a higher price than that which the inventor was compelled to accept for smaller amounts and slower rates of delivery than he undertook to supply; whether the price paid to the competitors of Mr. Knight in producing patent slings in excess of that paid to the inventor was eight times as great as the royalty now asked by the inventor, which has been refused by the Ministry, so that since August, 1916, when the slings were adopted, no royalty or compensation has been paid to the inventor; whether he will undertake that Mr. Knight, the inventor, who claims to have increased the output of shells with slings by 60 per cent. and saved the Ministry at least £20,000, shall be paid for his invention a sum at least equal to the excess contract price paid to his competitors; and whether he will supply Mr. Knight with particulars of the number and price of slings made by other contractors to enable him to judge whether the offer of the Ministry is a fair basis of compensation?
      The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): The first contracts for shell slings, modified in accordance with Mr. Knight's patents, were placed in December, 1916. Mr. Knight's firm's tender was for 690,000, which was accepted for 400,000 at the tender price. One other tender for 100,000 was accepted at the same price, all other tenders then accepted being lower. Two month afterwards a further order was placed with Mr.
      1848
      Knight's firm without inviting tenders, and the price was negotiated at a reduction of ½d. per sling. In March, 1917, Mr. Knight's firm were again invited to tender and their tender was accepted both for quantity and price. There is, therefore, no ground for the suggestion that the firm has been compelled to accept lower prices than its competitors. As regards royalty, Mr. Knight was offered £1,000 in June, 1917, which was considered a fair percentage of the saving of £9,000 which it is estimated will result from the use of Mr. Knight's patent. This offer was made subject to reconsideration in the event of further orders being placed with firms other than Mr. Knight's firm. For some time past only comparatively trifling orders have been placed, as the use of the sling has now been almost entirely abandoned. Mr. Knight has refused this offer, and has appealed to the Treasury under Section 29 of the Patents and Designs Act, 1907, in whose hands the matter now rests.

      RUBBER TYRES.
      Mr. STANTONasked the Minister of Munitions if his attention has been called to the fact that the Associated Rubber Manufacturers, Limited, 172, Great Portland Street, W., has from time to time bought old tyres from the front, used the rubber and old canvas, and has in other cases been able to re-tread the old tyres, and that at least 200 men are engaged at the various depots cutting up these tyres, which means deliberate wastage; whether Mr. Thomas Warwick, the managing director of the firm, has called the attention of the Ministry of Munitions to this matter during the last twelve months; and if his Department will see that this method is altered at once.
      Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am aware that the Associated Rubber Manufacturers, Limited have bought old tyres returned from the front and re-treaded them for private use. At the time these were bought mutilated tyres realised as good prices as those not mutilated. The Ministry is prepared to consider the question of the sale of old tyres for re-treading if the price obtained justifies the expense of sorting.

    MERCANTILE MARINE (OFFICER PRISONERS).
    Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the-Pensions Minister whether he is aware that an officer of the mercantile marine

    1849
    whose ship has been commandeered by the Government is placed in a most disadvantageous position compared with naval officers—namely, that naval officers, when taken prisoners, are allowed to draw their full pay, but, in the case of an officer of the mercantile marine taken prisoner, the only consideration he obtains is that his wife is allowed £2 a week, and as, to keep her husband from starving in a German camp, she is obliged to send him parcels of food, very little is left to keep herself and children; and whether he proposes to reconsider the position of these officers?
    Sir A. STANLEY: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question, and I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given him on 4th June, which stated that allowances on a pension scale are paid to the dependants in this country of the officers of the mercantile marine who are interned in Germany, and that the expense of special treatment in officer camps in Germany is guaranteed. The pension scale is now under examination, and if it be found to need revision it will be altered, but I doubt whether it would be possible to adopt the suggestion that full wages should be paid during internment.
    Mr. WASON: In view of the fact that the Board is entitled to pay for the cost of special treatment of an interned prisoner in a German camp, will the right hon. Gentleman extend this provision to ordinary board, to keep the officer in question from starvation and not encroach on the pittance allowed his wife?
    Sir A. STANLEY: That aspect of the problem will be considered in determining whether the pension scale should be altered or not.

    MOST-FAVOURED-NATTON CLAUSE.
    Major NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether the undertaking that the Government will denounce all commercial conventions containing a clause regarding most-favoured nations has been or is immediately to be carried into effect; and, provided this is done, will he say what is the interval of time that must elapse before this country is freed of its present commercial conventions with the following countries: Switzerland, Spain, Holland, the Scandinavian kingdoms, the Argentine Republic, and other neutral Mid and South American countries?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I regret that I can add nothing to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Hexham on the 24th of June last.

    GOVERNMENT ESTABLISHMENTS (WHITLEY REPORT).

      WAR CABINET DECISION.
      Mr. ROWNTREEasked the Prime Minister whether the question of applying the principle embodied in the Whitley Report to Government Departments has now been considered by the Cabinet; and, if so, whether he can state the decision they have arrived at, especially in so far as it affects the work of the Post Office?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The War Cabinet has considered this question and has decided to adopt in principle the application of the recommendation of the Whitley Report, with any necessary adaptations to Governments establishments where the conditions are sufficiently analogous to those existing in outside industries. It has also been decided that an Interdepartmental Committee composed of representatives of the Departments concerned should be set up to consider what modifications are necessary The Committee will be presided over by the Minister of Labour.
      Mr. ROWNTREE: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see that in the early stages of bringing this change into operation in the Government Departments representatives of the workers are consulted, so that from an early date they can have confidence in the scheme?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The object of setting up this Committee is, if possible, to secure that confidence, and, on the other hand, to make sure that the same system applies to all the Government Departments.
      Mr. T. WILSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that no pressure is brought to bear on workmen to adopt any particular scheme?
      Mr. CHANCELLOR: Will the Committee contain representatives of the organisations of the workers in the Departments?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: No; this is naturally a Committee to consider it from the Government point of view and decide what modifications in the general rule are necessary.

    NATIONAL SHIPYARDS.
    Mr. HOLTasked the Prime Minister if he will consider whether, in view of the change of policy with regard to the national shipyards, the soldiers employed on constructing these yards would at present be more profitably employed on agricultural work?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The policy with regard to the construction of national shipyards is in no way affected by the decision to man the yards with civilian labour. The completion of the yards is a matter of great urgency, and the Government are satisfied that the soldiers engaged are most profitably employed in doing this work.
    Mr. HOLT: Is the Government satisfied that soldiers are more profitably engaged on this work than in getting in the harvest?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes; that is our view.
    Sir C. HENRY: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the; House an opportunity of discussing this question of national shipyards?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes; I think the sooner the opportunity the better, and I hope we may soon be able to put down the Vote.

    GERMAN WAR AIMS.
    Mr. DAVID MASONasked the Prime Minister what action His Majesty's Government intend to take in response to the speech and statement of German war, aims recently made by Herr von Kuhlmann in the Reichstag; and whether the Government will state wherein these aims may be compatible with the views of the Allies and wherein there may be some measure of agreement?
    Lord R. CECIL: I do not see that any action can usefully be taken with reference to a statement so vague and inconclusive as that referred to. Our war aims are well known, and we wait in vain for a clear and unambiguous declaration of those of our enemies.
    Mr. MASON: In view of that unsatisfactory reply, I beg to give notice that at the end of questions I shall ask leave to
    1852
    move the Adjournment of the House on a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the statement of German war aims.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Will the Noble Lord say where we can find that clear statement of Allied war aims?
    Lord R. CECIL: The hon. Member knows perfectly well, and I can give him no information that he does not already possess.

    EXCHANGE OF PRISONERS.
    Sir J. CRAIGasked the Prime Minister whether the return of the Home Secretary to this country indicates the conclusion of negotiations at The Hague; if so, whether he is in a position to make a statement on the subject of the new agreement; and, if not, whether all further negotiations will be suspended pending his return to The Hague?
    Sir H. DALZIELasked the Prime Minister whether he can give the House any information as to the progress of the negotiations at The Hague for the exchange of prisoners?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The negotiations at The Hague as to the exchange and treatment of prisoners of war are not concluded; but it was considered that, in view of the number of questions requiring the immediate attention of the Home Secretary, his return to this country was desirable. The negotiations will be continued by the other members of the Mission, and at the stage which they have now reached, when further instructions will, no doubt, be required from the Cabinet, it will be a great advantage to be able to consult with my right hon. Friend.
    Sir J. CRAIG: Could anything be important enough at present to bring the right hon. Gentleman back from carrying to a successful conclusion such an important and delicate matter as the exchange of prisoners?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am sure we recognise the importance of it and, as I have just said, we hope the presence of the Home Secretary here will be useful at the stage which negotiations have now-reached.
    Major WOOD: Will the Home Secretary be asked to return to The Hague when he has disposed of the difficult problems for which he returned to this country?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: That I think will be impossible. It will be too late. It is as certain as can be that the delegates there will require definite instructions from the Cabinet, and in giving these instructions it will be of immense advantage to have the advice of my right hon. Friend.
    Sir C. HENRY: Is it proposed to replace him by another delegate?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: No. At the stage which the negotiations have now reached, my right hon. Friend agrees with me that that is quite unnecessary.
    Sir J. CRAIG: Will the whole matter of repatriation and exchange be under the aegis of the right hon. Gentleman; will one Cabinet Minister be in charge of the whole thing or must hon. Members go to various Departments to find out?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am afraid I cannot give a definite answer to that question without notice.
    Sir J. CRAIG: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Members of this House have extreme difficulty in running to earth the actual Department which has to do with all the various branches connected with this matter?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better put that question down on the Paper.

    LONDON HOSPITAL (NURSES).
    Major CHAPPLEasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the existence of a system of farming out of nurses in the London Hospital under which nurses are taken from their training in the wards at the end of their second year, are paid 13s. per week, and sent out to nurse as trained nurses in private cases at £2 2s. per week, the hospital profiting by this means to the extent of over £6,000 per year before the War; and whether he intends to introduce legislation to protect nurses and patients from this system?
    Mr. WALSH: I have been asked by my right hon. Friend to reply to this question. The arrangements made by the London
    1854
    Hospital with their nurses are not a matter over which the Government have any control. There is no intention of introducing legislation on the subject.
    Sir C. HENRY: Has the hon. Gentleman satisfied himself with regard to the accuracy of the statements in the question?
    Captain CARR-GOMM: Is not the statement referred to in the question rather of a controversial character and the expression "farming out," though perhaps picturesque, very unfair to an institution which has done much good for a great number of years?
    Major CHAPPLE: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the London Hospital is the only great hospital which takes its nurses from their training in the wards at the end of the second year and admittedly pays them only 13s. a week while it draws £2 2s. a week profit?
    Mr. SPEAKER: This question should not have appeared on the Paper at all. No Government Department has any control over the affairs of the London Hospital.
    Major CHAPPLE: On a point of Order. Am I not entitled to ask whether in a case of this kind such an abuse should not be remedied by legislation? Am I not entitled to call attention to the fact that such farming out exists, and to ask the Prime Minister whether he will introduce legislation to prevent it?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Had my attention been called to its preamble, I should certainly have struck it out.

    CIVIL SERVICE ASSOCIATIONS.
    Mr. C. DUNCANasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the desirability of issuing instructions to the heads of all Government Departments that no conditions should be imposed restricting the liberty of Civil servants becoming members of duly constituted Civil Service associations?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not aware that the liberty of Civil servants in this matter has been unduly interfered with in any Department, and I do not think it would be practicable to issue any general instructions.

    FOOD SUPPLIES.

      CORN AND POTATO CROPS (ADVISORY COMMITTEES).
      Mr. HARRY HOPEasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the depletion of agricultural labour and the consequent risk that the corn and potato crops may not be fully and safely secured and that much of the recently ploughed-up grass lands may have to be abandoned, he will take steps to appoint two advisory committees, one for England and one for Scotland, composed of practical agriculturists and nominated by the responsible and representative agricultural organisations of each country, so that, by the close collaboration of farmers' representatives and the respective Boards of Agriculture, the available sources and forms of extra or substituted agricultural labour may be made use of in the best practical manner, and that greater confidence be given to farmers that the best possible tentative steps are being taken to meet the present emergency?
      Mr. PRATT (Lord of the Treasury): The President has already an advisory committee of practical agriculturists, and with their help and advice, and that of the county agricultural executive committees, he has no doubt that all possible arrangements can be made for the fullest utilisation of all forms of labour available. In these circumstances the appointment of another committee does not seem necessary.

      MEAT.
      Mr. BOWER MANasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food if he is aware that on the 17th of June 80 quarters of beef were allotted to the Royal Arsenal Co-operative Society, of which, upon examination by the meat inspector, 15 were declared to be unfit for human consumption, and that during the following week 24 out of 40 quarters of beef allotted to the same society were also condemned; if he can state how it was that meat in such a condition should have been released from storage; and whether any action has been or will be taken against those responsible?
      Mr. PARKER (Lord of the Treasury): I regret that the facts are substantially as stated in the question, though I may say that the total quantity of frozen beef allotted weekly to the Royal Arsenal Cooperative Society is between 400 and 450 quarters. In the first case referred to the
      1856
      meat was issued from cold storage at a time when, owing to great pressure and the difficulty of obtaining labour, it was not possible thoroughly to inspect all meat before issue. In the second case the meat was dispatched direct from a vessel, and had not undergone cold storage in this country. In both cases the meat condemned was immediately replaced by meat of sound quality. I would remind my right hon. Friend of the difficulty, in view of the present shortage of labour, of taking all the precautions which are usual under ordinary conditions, and I can assure him that every possible effort will be made to prevent these troubles from recurring.
      Mr. ALDEN: In all such cases will the meat be replaced?
      Mr. PARKER: I cannot promise in all cases, but in all cases possible it will.
      Captain WRIGHTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether his attention has been called to the fact that at the weekly markets held at Leominster on Fridays during the last four weeks hundreds of people attending those markets to obtain their weekly supplies have been unable to procure either fresh or frozen beef or mutton owing to the whole, or nearly the whole, of the fresh meat sold weekly in Leominster on Tuesdays having been sent to other areas and to the non-arrival at Leominster of frozen meat supplies till the Saturday; whether the Leominster district is one of the chief meat-producing districts; and whether, in view of the recent announcement that local requirements were to be satisfied from local supplies before surplus supplies were diverted elsewhere, he will say whether, if that policy cannot be fully carried out, he will lay down a rule that some fixed proportion, say, 75 per cent. of fresh meat and 25 per cent. of frozen, should, so far as possible, be provided for every district whether meat-producing or not?
      Mr. PARKER: The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. It is necessary to allot to industrial and non-producing areas a certain amount of home-killed meat, in order to obviate the unfairness of feeding one area entirely on home-killed and another entirely on frozen meat, and the recent dispatch of live stock from the Leominster district was carried out in pursuance of this policy. I am informed that the recent delays in the dispatch and delivery of frozen meat are

      1857
      largely due to the prevalence of influenza amongst transport workers. It is not possible to fix the proportion of home-killed and frozen meat to be distributed in any district, since this must be governed by the transport facilities available. I may add, however, that a full proportion of home-killed meat has been allotted to Leominster for the present week.
      Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is there any chance of home-killed meat being allotted to London?

      FISH.
      Mr. STANTONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that the total quantity of wet fish landed in England and Wales in April this year showed an increase on that for April last year of only 1,000 tons, or less than 10 per cent., and that the value rose by more than £602,000, an increase of more than 90 per cent.; and will he at once consider the nationalisation of the fish industry to protect the public from exploitation and divert the profits to the relief of national taxation?
      Mr. PARKER: The figures quoted are presumably taken from the monthly Report of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries. If that Report is studied in detail, it will be seen that there has been a considerable increase in the quantity of prime fish landed this year and a decrease in the landings of lower-priced qualities. These facts materially affect any comparison between the value of the fish landed in April, 1917 and 1918. The, prices quoted in the Return represent the amount received by the catchers of fish; and, in view of the considerable risks to which fishermen are now exposed, I am not prepared to say that these amounts are excessive. The measures of control already exercised by the Ministry of Food are sufficient, in my opinion, to protect the public from exploitation, and it must be remembered that prices must necessarily be fixed with due regard to times when landings are poor as well as to times when fish is plentiful.

      EARLY POTATOES.
      Mr. WATTasked why such prices as up to £80 and £100 per acre have been permitted by his Department to be paid to farmers for early potatoes in Scotland, in view of the facts that those potatoes cost little more to grow than late potatoes, for which only £6 per ton is permitted,
      1858
      making on the average £30 per acre, and that catch crops can be grown by early potato growers, which cannot be done in the other case; and whose advice was followed in naming such a figure?
      Mr. PARKER: The prices of early potatoes were settled in consultation and agreement with the three Departments of Agriculture with reference not to any particular district of Scotland, but to the general condition of the crops in the United Kingdom and the Channel Islands. The object was to prevent the lifting of immature main-crop potatoes and to protect the interests of the consumer. I may add that the cultivation of early potatoes, both in Scotland and elsewhere, cannot be regarded in the same light as the cultivation of main-crop potatoes, so that any comparison in price would be fallacious.

    HOSPITAL SHIPS.

      SINKING OF "LLANDOVERY CASTLE."
      Sir F. HALLasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the sinking of the hospital ship "Llandovery Castle" by a German submarine; whether there were only medical staff, crew, and officers of the steamer, and nursing sisters on board; whether, as stated by the officer commanding the submarine, the steamer was carrying ammunition; whether he is aware that the submarine steamed about in the wreckage without offering any assistance, apparently with the deliberate intention of destroying any boats that might be afloat; whether it fired about a dozen shells in the vicinity of the wreckage; and whether, after such treatment, any further immunity from attacks by our aircraft will be granted to this enemy in order that their religious processions may not be interfered with?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first, second, fourth, and fifth parts of the question is in the affirmative; the answer to the third part of the question is in the negative; and as regards the last part of the question, I can add nothing to the answer which I gave to my hon. Friend on the 3rd June last.
      Mr. WATT: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity of contradicting the alleged German report that this vessel was sunk by one of our own mines?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think this is a suitable opportunity. The report contradicts itself. The survivors wore in actual communication with the submarine commander.
      Captain CARR-GOMMasked the Prime Minister whether the War Cabinet will now give instructions whereby every hospital ship may in future be provided with the necessary escort?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The subject raised in this question is being considered by the Admiralty.

    ENEMY FIRMS (WINDING-UP).
    Sir H. DALZIELasked the Prime Minister whether he can state the number of enemy firms which have already been wound up, and also the number that are in process of being wound up?
    Sir A. STANLEY: The Prime Minister has asked me to answer this question. In 375 cases final accounts with applications for release have been received from controllers appointed to wind-up enemy businesses. In the majority of the remaining 146 cases in which orders have been made requiring the businesses to be wound up, the realisation of the assets has been practically completed, but the final accounts are delayed owing to the shortage of staff.

    ARMY BOOTS.
    Sir WALTER ESSEXasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the cost of Army boobs this year as compared with the cost last year represents a saving of 2s.; whether this sum is per pair or per boot; and whether such saving adds a still larger sum to the cost of civilian footwear?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): As a result of a long series of investigations into the costs of manufacture of Army boots in the autumn of 1917, contractors' prices, submitted through their local committees, were reduced, on the average, by 2s. per pair. Prices have been increased in the subsequent quarterly adjustments to the exact extent of the increases in the costs of materials, labour, etc. It cannot, therefore, be said that the present price is 2s. per pair less than that of last year, but the economy of 2s. secured in the autumn of 1917 has, nevertheless, been maintained. The saving had not the effect of increasing the price of civilian footwear.

    SINN FEIN PRISONERS.
    Mr. KING (by Private Notice)asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he has made inquiries concerning the treatment of prisoners in Belfast Prison who refused to do their work as they were not receiving the dietary which they claimed to be their due; whether, as a consequence of their treatment, any of the prisoners who refused to do their work are in hospital; and what dietary are they now receiving?
    Mr. SAMUELS: I am informed that last week a number of prisoners who were receiving special ameliorative treatment in Belfast Prison were guilty of a serious outbreak of misconduct, which involved damage of prison property to the estimated amount of over £58. These prisoners were not required to work, and there was no question of refusing to work. They were receiving special dietary approved of by the Lord Lieutenant, on the same scale as they had been receiving it for some months past. None of the prisoners concerned in the disturbance are in the prison hospital on account of any treatment they received. There are three prisoners in hospital, who were removed there owing to their suffering from influenza. They are receiving hospital diet. Some of those guilty of insubordination are on punishment diet, by order of the Visiting Committee. The rest of the prisoners referred to are receiving the special dietary referred to above.
    Mr. KING: Is it not the fact that this is the culmination of a long struggle to obtain what these men always claimed as their due as political prisoners—the special dietary accorded after the death of Thomas Ashe on the representations of the Lord Mayor of Dublin?
    Mr. SAMUELS: I have stated that these prisoners were on a special diet approved of by the Lord Lieutenant. That was the diet referred to. As to what has happened, if these prisoners indulge in intemperate outbursts, they must suffer the unpleasant effects.

    CHILLAN GOVERNMENT (AEROPLANES).
    Sir J. BUTCHER (by Private Notice)asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs under what circumstances a number of aeroplanes are being supplied from this country to the Chilian Government, and whether the action of His Majesty's

    1861
    Government in furnishing these machines to Chile is not calculated to arouse apprehension in other Latin-American Republics.
    Lord R. CECIL: The facts referred to in the first part of my hon. Friend's question may be easily stated. Our Admiralty were anxious to obtain a Chilian battle cruiser building in this country. The Chilian Government assented in the most courteous and obliging manner to the surrender of the vessel. But they pointed out that their action had the inevitable effect of disorganising their whole naval programme and effecting an important reduction in their naval strength. For this no payment based on the cost of the ship could afford full compensation, and they suggested that the gift by His Majesty's Government of a few aeroplanes, in addition to the money price, would be gratefully received. We were glad to meet their wishes. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree with me that the opinion hinted at in the last part of the question has not any solid foundation. In the first place, the effect of the whole transaction, consisting as it does of the gain by Chile of a few aeroplanes and the loss by Chile of a battle cruiser, can hardly cause alarm in any of Chile's neighbours. In the second place, I hope and believe that public opinion among the great republics of South America has reached a stage which will make it utterly repugnant to them to settle disputed questions by a resort to war.

    FLAX COMPANIES (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE).
    Mr. LEIF JONES (by Private Notice)asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, in view of his statement that the War Office, with the consent of the Treasury, are guaranteeing the bank against loss in connection with any advances they may make under the Flax Companies (Financial Assistance) Bill, it is intended to embody in the Bill the terms Of the guarantee, and whether, as this guarantee imposes upon the people a contingent liability, it is intended to pass a Financial Resolution in Committee of Ways and Means sanctioning this charge upon the people?
    Mr. FORSTER: No, Sir; the Bill in question refers only to the guarantee given by the companies and corporations. The liability undertaken by the Government
    1862
    will be covered by another Bill, which will be founded on a Resolution passed in Committee of Ways and Means.
    Mr. JONES: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the title of the Bill is misleading, because it is to enable companies and other bodies to give financial assistance to flax companies, and that there is nothing to show that financial responsibility for advances to the flax companies will rest upon the Exchequer?
    Mr. FORSTER: It is a self-contained part of the scheme. The scheme is divided into two parts—the part undertaken by the Government, and the part undertaken by the companies and corporations—and the contingent liability incurred by the Government will be dealt with in a separate Bill.
    Mr. JONES: May we rely upon it that this guarantee will not be made binding until this House passes a Bill for the purpose founded on a Resolution in Committee of Ways and Means?
    Mr. FORSTER: It will be founded on a Financial Resolution in Committee of Ways and Means.
    Mr. HOLT: Am I to understand from the right hon. Gentleman that the Vote of Credit will not be used for the Government guarantee?
    Mr. FORSTER: The actual moneys that are payable will probably come out of the Exchequer, but the authority of this House will be given to the transaction by means of a Bill founded on a financial resolution.

    GERMAN WAR AIMS.
    Mr. D. MASON: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the statement of German war aims by Herr von Kuhlmann.
    The pleasure of the House not having been signified, Mr. SPEAKER called upon those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and less than Forty Members having accordingly risen, the House proceeded to the Orders of the Day.

    PRIVATE BUSINESS.
    Morecambe Corporation Bill [Lords],
    Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
    Lancaster Corporation Bill,
    Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

    SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
    Sir DANIEL GODDARD reported from the Committee of Selection, That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee B: Colonel Jackson and Mr. James Mason; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. George Terrell and Mr. Robert Mason.
    Sir DANIEL GODDARD further reported from the Committee, That they had discharged the following Member from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills: Mr. Goldstone (in respect of the Education (Scotland) Bill); and had appointed in substitution: Captain Albert Smith.
    Reports to lie upon the Table.

    MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
    That they have agreed to—
    Finance Bill, without Amendment.
    Amendments to—
    West Bromwich Corporation Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House what is the business for next week?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: On Monday it will be necessary to move an Address to the King and Queen on the celebration of their Silver Wedding; to be followed by the Extension of Parliament Bill, Second Reading; Statutory Undertakings (Temporary Increase of Charges) Bill, Second Reading, and other Bills.
  Tuesday: Maternity Bill, Committee; Naturalisation Bill, Second Reading; Flax Companies (Financial Assistance) Bill; Workmen's Compensation (Silicosis) Bill, Committee, and other Bills.
  Wednesday: Discussion on Party Influence on Pensions; further stages of Extension of Parliament Bill; and other Bills.
  Thursday: Supply, Home Office Vote.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: On what Motion is the discussion of party influence in connection with pensions to take place?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I have looked into the question to see whether it is possible to take it on the Motion for the Adjournment.
  Brigadier-General McCALMONT: Can my right hon. Friend say, with regard to the question of aliens whether the subject of aliens in Ireland will be open to discussion under Thursday's Vote, which is put down, I understand, for discussion of the alien question?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The question of aliens in Ireland is an entirely different matter, and I am afraid cannot be included in the Vote.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: With regard to Thursday's discussion, will it be open on that Vote to deal with other matters having reference to aliens, namely, alien enemy concerns and similar topics dealt with by other Departments?
  Sir H. DALZIEL: Will my right hon. Friend consider the advisability of first having the Debate on party influence on pensions on a Motion for the Adjournment, and allow other questions to arise in connection with the Home Office Vote?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I feel the difficulty of the matter, and, technically, I do not think that on the Home Office Vote the questions to which the right hon. Gentleman refers could be considered. I will look into the matter.
  Mr. KING: Will Thursday be considered an allotted day for Supply?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: It would be a serious thing for the Government, I admit, that it should be otherwise, and that we should have to take the risk.
  Mr. R. McNEILL: In view of the fact that the right hon. Member for Dublin University (Sir E. Carson), who takes a great interest in the alien question, finds it impossible to be present on Thursday, can the Leader of the House fix an earlier or a later date for the discussion of the alien question?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I know that my right hon. Friend takes a great and a prominent interest in this question, but I would point out that it is necessary that we should make our arrangements for business in the best way we can. It would be impossible to take the discussion before Thursday, and I do not think the House would be willing to take it at a later date.

  SUPPLY.— [16TH ALLOTTED DAY.]

    CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1918–19.— [Progress.]
    Considered in Committee.
    [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

    BOARD OF AGRICULTURE, SCOTLAND.—

      Class II.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £55,159, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1919, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, including certain Grants in Aid."—[NOTE: £25,000 has been voted on account.]
      Mr. TENNANT: The occasion for the discussion of Scottish Estimates puts hope into the hearts of Scottish Members and wings to the feet of English Members. We may regard their absence with equanimity, and we may rejoice in our

      1885
      own splendid isolation. As one of the isolated Members, I would like to discuss for a few minutes some matters in relation to affairs in my own country, and particularly with regard to the question of forestry. There has been issued within the last few months an interesting Report by a Sub-committee of the Reconstruction Committee of which my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne (Mr. F. Acland) was Chairman, and from that Report we learn that if there was one thing, in connection with our unpreparedness for the War, in which we were more unprepared than in anything else, it was in regard to the provision of timber for our own needs and those of our Allies. The Report makes, in my judgment, the most significant statement that less than 8 per cent. of the pre-war consumption of timber was home grown. I may point out further that not only had we too little land under forests, but that land was so indifferently cultivated that the result was only a third of what it should have been.
      4.0 P.M.
      From this I think the Committee will agree that the condition of forestry at the present time is very unsatisfactory. The imports of timber of all kinds during the year 1915–16 were of the value of £74,000,000 sterling, or £37,000,000 in excess of their pre-war value. They employed 7,000,000 tons of shipping, equivalent approximately to 14,000,000 tons dead-weight. If the Committee take these facts into consideration, they must admit that afforestry cannot remain in the position in which it stands to-day. The Committee recommend that 1,750,000 acres of land should be afforested, of which only 200,000 should be done at once. My mind goes back to previous recommendations of previous Committees and Commissions, as this is a question which I have followed with interest for some years. It may be in the mind of some hon. Members that a Departmental Committee reported in 1911, asking for a demonstration area which was to be only 4,000 acres in extent. That was generally agreed upon; the difficulty was as to the site. Thus, seven years ago it is clear, we wanted to get a demonstration area. An Advisory Committee was appointed by the Secretary for Scotland, and it recommended the purchase of an area in Aberdeen. Some difficulty arose, and another area was suggested, but that too was not deemed to be suitable. The object in view was that the State should acquire the land in perpetuity. The net
      1886
      result has been that not more than 100 acres have been planted in Scotland, and I think that must be admitted to be singularly unsatisfactory. It may be asked what would be the cost of the proposal made by the Committee over which my right hon. Friend the Member for Cam-borne presided. Really, I am amazed at the moderation of the-proposal. It was that 1,750,000 acres of land should be afforested out of 3,000,000 or 5,000,000 acres available, and the cost was put at £3,425,000 for the first ten years. Remember that is less than one-half of the amount we spend each day on the War which is now going on. I cannot help thinking it is not a large sum to ask for in respect of an admitted great national necessity. The whole cost would be £15,000,000 in forty years, by which time it is expected the scheme would prove self-supporting. May I remind the Committee that this figure represents less than one-half of the direct loss of £37,000,000 due to the fact we had to import timber in the year 1915–16? I pass now from cost to methods and the recommendations which the Committee make. They suggest a central authority, and paragraph No. 8 of their Report says:
      "The first essential is a forest authority equipped with funds and powers to survey, purchase, lease, and plant land and generally to administer the areas acquired, with compulsory powers to be exercised when needed after due inquiry and the award of fair compensation. The care of forestry, now divided amongst several Departments, should be centralised in this body."
      It may be asked why the Committee should ask to set up a new authority when we already have a Board of Agriculture for England, besides the Woods and Forests Department, and also a Board of Agriculture for Scotland specially designed, if I may say so, in the original scheme of my Noble Friend Lord Pentland to undertake the administration of afforestry. It is, it is true, a Department which is not devoted to forestry alone, but it is a Department which has for one of its duties the administration of forestry questions. I ask why did the Committee make these recommendations? I think one can supply the answer, but at any rate an answer is supplied in the interesting memorandum of Lord Lovat at the end of the Report, which sets out the reasons why he recommends so strongly the creation of a new Department That is taken exception to by the representative of the Treasury (Mr. Bromley) in the memorandum

      1887
      which immediately precedes it. My answer, however, to the question is this: I am dead against a new Department, as we have too many already, but I think there is a great deal to be said for centralising the whole of the authorities into one body, instead of having one for Ireland, one for Scotland, and two for England. You could have centralisation with consequent co-ordination by that means, and you might then get some good results. At present you only have deplorable results from the existing authority. I do not want to go into old stories; I prefer to avoid recrimination; but what I want, if possible, to do is, in the classic language of the trenches, to "get a move on." I want to "go over the top." I do not want to go underneath, to sap and mine the Board of Agriculture against the Development Commission. We have had too much of that in the past. What is the present position? Will my right hon. Friend tell me what is going to be done with this Report of the Forestry Sub-committee over which my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne presided? On the 1st of this month my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Wilts (Captain Sir C. Bathurst) asked the following question of the Prime Minister:
      "Whether he has received from the forestry societies and other bodies resolutions advocating the immediate appointment of a forest authority in order to make the necessary preparation for after-war planting; and when a decision is likely to be announced on this matter?"
      Dr. Addison, the Minister of Reconstruction, replied:
      "The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; in regard to the second part of the question, the whole matter is now receiving the consideration of the War Cabinet, and it is hoped that a decision may be reached at an early date."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st July, 1918, col. 1413.
      That answer means, of course, that this matter has been referred to the power station at Downing Street. Contact has been made; it sometimes evolves sparks, I understand. I can only hope that the result may be the generation of a current which will produce a little more light than heat. We have had enough of heat in the past. May I add this, the Government would do well to learn a lesson from the experience of the last four years. If they read this Report they will see we have literally been handicapped in the prosecution of the War by
      1888
      difficulties regarding the production of timber, and if they bear in mind the depletion of our home timber supplies, which is so rapidly going on—for no replanting is taking place—that is impossible in these days—and the exhaustion of foreign source of supply, they must realise how desirable it is to increase the productiveness of our own country. There is another important aspect of the question, and that is the provision of increased employment which would thereby be made. Remembering all these things, we must feel that this question is both urgent and clamant.
      I pass next to the more purely agricultural aspects of the Vote under consideration. I propose to deal briefly with four points—finance, the Defence of the Realm Regulations, harvests, and the provision of land for discharged sailors and soldiers. With regard to the accounts, I wish to call the attention of the Committee to those which are headed "Agriculture (Scotland) Account." There we have a heap of figures not in tabular form, which I can best describe in the words of the poet Wordsworth:
      "Confused, commingled,
      Each lost in each,
      In fleecy folds, voluminous, enwrapped."
      We do not desire anything so voluminous or enwrapped. I do ask that in future we may have something a little more simple and, at the same time, more tabulated I come now to the Defence of the Realm Regulations. It is pleasing to read what is printed on page 44 of the Report, with regard to the grazing of deer forests. We are told that, from the replies received to a circular issued, it was apparent that landowners, as a rule, were willing to allow their forests to be grazed by cattle; and, again, in reply to another appeal, that the landowners generally showed themselves anxious to assist the Board in their efforts to restock grazing land. I am glad to read that tribute to the landowners of Scotland generally. With regard to the Orders issued under the Defence of the Realm Act by my right hon. Friend, I only wish to refer to Regulation 2R, which authorises the occupier of grazing land and two persons to whom he may grant written permission to enter any woodland, moor or heath adjoining his holding in order to kill rabbits. I want a definition of the words "adjoining his holding." I have in my mind a case of a wood, 2, 3, or 4 miles in length, with farms below

      1889
      it. There may be six, eight, ten, or more farms contiguous, all sheltered by this wood, and having a moor on the other side. The occupier of a farm is permitted to authorise any two persons to enter this wood, moor or heath "adjoining his holding." Can he go along the whole wood for 2, 3, or 4 miles? Can the occupiers of all the farms bordering on that wood go out in a big shooting party and kill anything they like in that wood? What is meant by "adjoining"? I think it is necessary there should be some definition of the term. I should like to draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the point and to ask him whether some limitation is desirable—as I suggest it is? It is unnecessary to let them roam over the whole wood, which has no relation to the man's own particular holding, and I also suggest that a definition of the word "adjoining" is necessary. Then I come to Grouse Order No. 2. I do not object to authorising the killing of grouse between 6th and 12th August, if it is necessary, but I think it is unnecessary to extend the time from 10th December, the original statutory date after which we were not allowed to kill grouse, until 20th January, which is a very long time. It might be necessary if there were any grouse in Scotland, but, in the last two years, there has been an extraordinary diminution in the number of grouse, and it is very desirable that we should be able to cultivate the grouse as food for the people. I hope my right hon. Friend, when he comes to see what kind of grouse season it will be, will reconsider that Order. I do not know whether it applies to 1918 or 1917.
      The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): It applies only to 1917.
      Mr. TENNANT: Then I hope he will consider whether there is a sufficient number of grouse to warrant this extension of the period of time for killing them. I come now to the question of the harvest. We had a debate in this House on July 1st, in which my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Agriculture made a very important statement, in the course of which he was exceedingly frank, both with the House and with the country, and he made many admissions. It is well known that the acreage under crop has enormously increased, and a great deal has been made of that fact, and the farmers have really
      1890
      made great sacrifices in order to produce more corn. It cannot pay them, as the Minister for Agriculture admitted, and the first year of ploughing up grazing land never can be a financial success. The Minister said that farmers have done so
      "no doubt, on the pledge and the guarantee that they have the labour left to them. If they say that they are betrayed, I am bound to say that they have that amount of justification, that we did guarantee them the labour."
      Everything which is said about the ploughing up of the land in England and the guarantee of labour is equally applicable to Scotland. Exactly the same thing was done in Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Agriculture went on to say:
      "I cannot be expected to say with absolute confidence that we have provided the right number of men in order to save the harvest. I cannot say that."
      I want to ask my right hon. Friend if he can say that he is able to provide the right number of men to safeguard the harvest which is just about to ripen. The President of the Board of Agriculture added:
      "You cannot expect that I should say that I am absolutely confident that we shall get the harvest in, but I do not think that we shall lose much of it;"
      and he went on to say that
      "the number of Grade A men among the whole number of men between the ages of nineteen and thirty-one was surprisingly small….and the result was that the choice was so limited that….it fell on the key-men of the industry."
      I have several letters from my own Constituents of a most heartrending kind. I am sure many of my hon. Friends in Scottish constituencies know this case as well as I do, and have an equal number in their letter bags of protests from farmers, who are really in a most deplorable condition, and do not know what to do. They write to one, and what can one do? We go to our right hon. Friends and ask them to intervene, and they reply that it is owing to the necessities of the case. But why did they not foresee that? I do complain of the great want of foresight. The Minister for Agriculture spoke throughout his speech on the 1st July of 30,000 men. That was the quota that he had to get. I want to know what is the quota for Scotland? Is it included in that, or is it over and above that figure of 30,000?
      Mr. MUNRO: The quota of Scotland is 5,500. That is to say, that as 30,000 is the total of male agricultural workers in England, so 5,500 is to the total male agricultural workers in Scotland.
      Mr. TENNANT: That means, then, that it is not 30,000 for the whole Army, but 35,500. I am obliged to my right hon. Friend for that information. My right hon. Friend may say that times have very much changed since 1916, but when I was at the Scottish Office we were able to bring some pressure to bear on the War Office, and we got a good many soldiers to help in the harvest. I forget how many thousands, but it was quite a large number, and I should like to know whether the War Office are going to give him any assistance now. They are taking these key-men for the Army, and I should like to know whether it is possible for them to give assistance by way of men who are at home in a wounded condition, we will say, or a condition in which they are not able to go back, and form part of the Army at the front, whether any soldiers of that description can be left to agriculture, or what kind of action my right hon. Friend contemplates in order to save the absolutely essential harvest which is just becoming ripe? I am sorry that we should find ourselves in this position, because, as I say, it does show an extraordinary want of foresight on the part of the Government. I do not blame my right hon. Friend, because he probably had as much to do with it as I had, which is nothing; but I do blame the Government as a whole, and particularly those who are in authority at the head of the Government. They ought to have been able to foresee that if they asked Parliament——
      The CHAIRMAN: We cannot have an attack on the Government as a whole on this Vote, which is strictly relevant to the duties of the right hon. Gentleman as Minister of Agriculture.
      Mr. TENNANT: I quite recognise that, and I perhaps ought to blame my right hon. Friend as a member of the Government and get him to bring pressure on the Cabinet. My right hon. Friend will admit, I know, that the farmers did proceed to break up the land on the understanding that they would have the labour, that the farmers have made great financial sacrifices in breaking up the land, and that if they had not broken up the
      1892
      land we should have had more meat and milk. But it was in order to get cereals as well that the land was broken up, and if you do not reap your harvest you will not get your meat or your milk or your bread either, so that it is really a condition of things when the last state of that man is worse than the first. I should like to ask what provision my right hon. Friend is able to announce that he is making in order to meet this very grave situation. Finally, I would draw the attention of the Committee to the question of land for discharged sailors and soldiers. I observe on pages 10 and 11 of the Report that two new estates have been purchased, the Shinness Farm and the Dounreay estate, besides Borgie Farm, for which I was responsible through the generosity of the Duke of Sutherland, and I shall be very glad if my right hon. Friend could report a little more progress than we are able to ascertain from the Report, which only goes up to the end of December last. Can he say what has been going on at Borgie Farm, or at either of these two estates, one of which, I believe, they have only just got possession of? At the bottom of page 11 I see it says that a certain amount of local labour was secured—about fifty men from a Labour Battalion—and that considerable progress has been made with the work. That may mean anything or nothing, and I should like to know what it does mean, and if my right hon. Friend would condescend to particulars we should be interested. I also understand that three sites have been obtained under the Small Holdings (Colonies) Act. One, I believe, is in Ayrshire, one in the kingdom of Fife, and one somewhere else.
      Mr. MUNRO: One in Ross-shire, one in Dumfriesshire, and one in Fife.
      Mr. TENNANT: That is very good progress, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend on having that to report. But if anyone reads the Report carefully, both in regard to the Dounreay estate or Borgie Farm, he will see these words:
      "The Board will manage the farm until the men are available,"
      and then again—
      "The Board are retaining the farm in their own hands until such time as a sufficient number of discharged soldiers and sailors are available."
      What kind of applications does the right hon. Gentleman get for settlement on the land? Are there many, are they suitable,

      1893
      and does he anticipate a great increase in the number of applications? Are we generally to be led to believe that when you get demobilisation, not in thousands, but by hundreds of thousands and by millions, you will get an enormous number of applications from these splendid fellows, having spent the last three or four years in the most exciting of all occupations, constantly exposed to the greatest dangers, constantly interrupted in anything they are doing by shells bursting all round them, mixing with men every day and all day and all night—that these splendid fellows are going to settle in the lonely strath, miles from anybody, with no one to talk to, with very little to do even in large parts of the year? The operations of husbandry are very difficult to pursue in the winter when there are feet of snow on the ground, and I want to know whether it is likely that you are going to have a very large number of persons making applications for this extraordinarily lonely life after all the excitement through which they have just passed. I have some doubts about it myself. I would end with this, that if there should appear to be any widespread demand for land for cultivation by either discharged sailors or soldiers, after demobilisation, I should like the Government and the country to be able to say that while it was not much that we were able to do during their great trial, now that that trial is over we will remember the debt which we owe to them, and let us be able to say "We will discharge it generously."
      Colonel STIRLING: I wish to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the proceedings of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland at Inverailort. In July, 1917, after some correspondence with the proprietrix, the Board of Agriculture took possession of a portion of the deer forest at Inverailort, and let it to a tenant, who is bound to stock the ground with breeding ewes. A great many people may think this is an excellent thing to do in the interests of food production. I would only ask them, before they deliver their final judgment on this point, to consider the facts. The winter of 1916–17 was one of the most unfavourable for sheep on hill farms. The lambing season of 1917 was perhaps the most distastrous one in the memory of living sheep farmers. By May, 1917, it was quite clear that there would be a very short crop of hill lambs in the country.
      1894
      It was seen by this time that lambs would be scarce and dear, and it was known that they were backward in condition. You could hardly find a worse time for stocking new ground with sheep. Certainly the sheep population of the country did not justify the stocking of new ground, and that doubtfully healthy ground under sheep. Ewes also were very dear. I need hardly mention that, because no sheep-farmer who knows his business would think of putting old ewes on unfenced ground. Now, the ground at Inverailort taken by the Board is fenced only upon one side, and at the present time it is quite impossible to do the fencing. Supposing the Board's tenant did the best possible thing under the circumstances, he would buy ewe hoggs in August, 1917; but if he did that, what would he be doing for the food supply of the country? Nothing in 1917; nothing in 1918. Next year, in the spring of 1919, he will get some lambs from his gimmers, or the survivors of them, and some of the wether lambs will go to the butcher in 1920. Is this going to be a very important contribution to our food supply in time of war? I sincerely hope not.
      There is another point as to the food aspect of this question. Inverailort formerly was under sheep. It had the reputation of being very unhealthy for sheep, and, indeed, this is the cause which led to it being put under deer. If the Board of Agriculture had not interfered, the ground taken by them would have produced a certain amount of venison. They owner had made arrangements for having a considerable number of hinds killed and for their cold storage, giving a supply of meat at a very moderate price. I do not think it is unfair to expect the Board of Agriculture to answer one or two questions with regard to the land which was taken. What classes of sheep and what numbers of each class have they put on the ground? What was the total number of sheep wintered on the ground in 1917–18, and what were the losses by death? I will read very briefly an extract from the circular of the Board of Agriculture under which this action is apparently taken. The circular, which was dated 14th February, 1917, says:
      "The Board are empowered under the Regulation (that is, I think, Defence of the Realm 2) to enter upon and take possession of any land Which, in their opinion, is not being so cultivated or grazed as to increase as far as practicable,

      1895
      the food supply of the country…. The Board will normally exercise these powers only upon a recommendation by an executive committee. As this is a power that would only be exercised in special cases, the executive committee should not submit a recommendation to the Board until they have offered every assistance and encouragement to the occupier or owner, and taken all possible steps to come to an agreement with him. Before making proposals to the Board, they should satisfy themselves that the scheme will result in an early and considerable increase in the food supplies."
      I think that these provisions are very moderate, and show an intention to proceed in a wise way; but I think we are entitled to ask if the Board have carried out their own instructions. Did the Board, as a matter of fact, receive any recommendation from the Executive Committee? If not, did they carry out the instructions in their own circular, and offer every assistance and encouragement, and take all possible steps to come to an agreement with her? Did they satisfy themselves that the scheme would result is a real and considerable increase in the food supply? I think we are entitled to explicit answers upon these questions.
      There is another aspect of this question which bears very much on the first, part of what was said by my right hon. Friend opposite. No one, I think, could possibly wish to defend the occupation of large areas of land as deer forests, unless it cannot be shown that that land can be made useful in some other way. Now there is a purpose to which some of this land could be put. Some deer forests of Scotland contain a certain amount of land below the 1,500 ft. contour line capable of being afforested with a reasonable prospect of growing a crop of timber. This area is not very large compared with the total area of the deer forests. It is not very easy, in the absence of a survey, to give, an estimate, but I think a near estimate for our purpose may be arrived at in this way: Taking the whole extent of deer forests of Scotland at, say, 3,000,000 acres, I think about 10 per cent. could probably be afforested. It is a great mistake to suppose that all the land under the 1,500 ft. contour is capable of being planted. There are large stretches of deep peat bogs, wind-swept islands, and promontories, and tracts of Bare rock which could never be made to produce a crop of timber. But I think this 10 per cent. can be taken as a possible contribution. Now the Board's policy of giving
      1896
      leases for sheep-farming in deer forests must infringe considerably upon the area of land immediately available for afforestation. It is quite certain that these leases must include a considerable proportion of land below 1,500 ft.; otherwise it would not be possible to use these places for wintering sheep stock, and therefore it may be assumed that a considerable portion of these 300,000 acres may have been already leased. Last year the total amount so disposed of was stated to be 50,000 acres in deer forests, and I believe that this has since been added to.
      I think it can be admitted that after the War a policy of afforestation will have to be followed, and the question of obtaining suitable land will arise at once. There are only two sources from which land for considerable afforestation can be obtained in Scotland. Those two sources are deer forest and sheep farms. Undoubtedly the former will be the line of least resistance. The price of sheep, as a rule, is likely to be maintained for some time. Sheep farmers' will, I think, be very reluctant to give up any considerable acreage for planting. I do not myself believe that will be a permanently insuperable obstacle. There are ways of improving wintering grounds by cutting bracken and by other processes which may enable the land to carry more sheep, but all this is a matter of time. In deer forests you would have your land immediately available. I know it may be said, "Oh, but these leases are purely a war measure." The lease granted at Inverailort is from 2nd July, 1917, till the end of the War and two years after, or from the same date for a period of three years, whichever of the two may be the shorter. Evidently the Board's draftsman must be something of an optimist. At any rate, the effective provision of that is now up to 2nd July, 1920. As I have shown, it will not be until 1919 that the Board's tenant gets any return at all. Is it reasonable to expect that he will not wish for an extension of his lease just at the time he is beginning to get some return from his capital outlay? I think he will. A kind of moral claim will have been established by the action of the Board in 1917. I know that the question of employment is considered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland as being one of the most important points, and I know he realises that much more employment can be given by land for afforestation than can be

      1897
      given by land for a sheep farm or deer forest. I would just ask this question: Seeing the importance of this, is it wise to mortgage the opportunity for the future by taking up areas of deer forest land which might be immediately available for afforestation? I hope that none of the criticisms I have made will be considered to be unfair. I should wish particularly to guard myself from the suspicion of making any imputations against my right hon. Friend. We all know the depth and reality of his interest in these problems, and we only wish he, perhaps, had more leisure to attend to them.
      Mr. HARRY HOPE: I desire to deal with measures adopted by the Board of Agriculture in the matter of food production during the past year. I think the Board is to be commended, because of the comprehensive and thorough manner in which it has acted to sustain the large increase of acreage which we have secured. Besides that, we are bound to recognise the very general and loyal response which has been given by the agriculturists of Scotland to the appeal of the Board. Altogether, I understand, there have been 55,000 acres more under cereals and potatoes in 1917 than in 1916, and the Report tells us that only in twenty-one cases was compulsion adopted. That is a proof that the agriculturists of Scotland are ready to back up all the efforts which the Board are putting forward. Then, in this last year, for the harvest of 1918, they tell us they have secured about 300,000 more acres under cereals and green crop than in 1917. Although there is no expression of thanks recorded in this Report, yet I do think that these county agricultural committees—
      Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present; House counted, and, forty Members being found present—
      Mr. HOPE: The fact that so many Englishmen are absent on an occasion of this sort is practical proof that they consider that Scotsmen are quite able to take charge of Scottish affairs. The Scottish Board, I was saying, have been able to arrange for 300,000 acres more under cereals and potatoes to what was cultivated in 1917. In the Report there is no expression of thanks to the county agricultural committees, who have worked for this great
      1898
      object; yet I am perfectly sure that the chairmen and the members of those county agricultural committees are entitled to a very warm expression of thanks for all the work they have done. In this Report, which I hold in my hand, there is, of course, a great mass of detailed information given as to what the Board have done to obtain these results. On page 34 they tell us that they have bought 162 tractors. I should like to ask the Secretary if the Board in this matter bore in mind the experience of the steam ploughs? The tractors which were loaned out to the Parliamentary Agricultural Committees in September of last year were all taken back. The Committee, I think, ought to know whether there has been any large financial loss over the transaction. What is the total amount of money which has been spent on these 162 tractors? We should like to know also whether the charge to the farmers was a fair and reasonable price on the acreage which they ploughed, and what, if any, is the net balance against the country?
      Besides carrying on this extensive work the Department have, of course, concentrated their energy upon enabling farmers to get a sufficient and good supply of fertilisers. I understand that in Scotland we have two works which are only producing crystallised sulphate of ammonia. The difference between crystallised sulphate of ammonia and the other ammonia is that the crystallised ammonia is very much more soluble than is ordinary sulphate of ammonia. It is desirable to have sulphate of ammonia in its most soluble form. Now, however, with it being all taken over for war purposes, I hope the Department will secure the whole make of this crystallised sulphate of ammonia that Scottish requirements need. The Irish Board of Agriculture, I understand, conducts its operation in a very able and thorough manner, and Scottish Members should, I think, be alive to it. The Irish Board of Agriculture, a short time ago, were endeavouring to secure all they could of this valuable fertiliser. I hope we will see this fertiliser made in Scotland, and sufficient got for our own requirements. In regard to superphosphates, are they being secured in sufficient quantities? We are told that the A form of potash is about to be made. We all know that for many years we used to get our sulphate of potash from Germany. At that time agricultural scientists told us it was absolutely

      1899
      essential that potash should be utilised as a mixture for fertilising. We have done without potash for the first three years of the War, and now this Report tells us the Board are offering to give to farmers a supply of what is called blast-furnace flue dust as a potash fertiliser. I indeed hope that an investigation—not only an analysis, which can easily be obtained, but an investigation—will be undertaken as to whether this will in a practical way meet the requirements of the farmer.
      On page 39 we are told that the necessary steps have been taken to secure a sufficient quantity of petrol for agricultural purposes. In addition to petrol I think the Board ought also to extend their supervision over the oil for other engines for essential work, and I hope that the Minister for Agriculture will so extend his care. I also would call his attention to the desirability of watching the supply of coal—that it should be ear-marked for essential operations. I will not keep the Committee longer, but will just refer briefly to one or two other points. On page 47 we are told that arrangements have been made for transport, and I would note how essential it is that proper steps should be taken to see that farmers get the necessary transport. Last year there were very great difficulties indeed, notwithstanding that the railway wagons were pooled. I do not know whether it is possible for the Government to take over all the privately-owned wagons. If that could be done it would enormously increase the number of wagons which can be got for agricultural purposes. In connection with transport there is one very important matter—the necessity of railway sacks. Last season all over Scotland there was great difficulty on the part of the farmers in getting railway sacks. I hope proper precautions are being taken under this head. Of course, our Northern agriculturists are to-day doing a great deal of work in co-operation with the Ministry of Food. On pages 47 and 48 of this Report we are told what the activities have been. I have had very many complaints brought to my notice of the fact that the Board have not consulted what one may call the responsible and agricultural people of Scotland before they consented to the prices which the Ministry of Food put before them.
      5.0 P.M.
      For instance, the question of the production of forage is a matter of great importance
      1900
      throughout Scotland. There is a Forage Committee in Edinburgh, and although it is what you may call a judicial committee, and reported last year in favour of a certain price for hay and forage, what did the War Office do? In an autocratic manner they came down and disregarded all the facts and figures placed before them by this impartial tribunal, and paid no heed to their recommendations. The War Office set all their proposals on one side, and fixed their own price. I understand that the Board of Agriculture did not consult in this matter any of the responsible organisations in Scotland; they did not consult either the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture or the National Farmers' Union. I do think in these critical times it is well that our Board of Agriculture should hear the farmers' views first before prices are fixed. The Board ought to take every possible and reasonable step to ascertain the views of the producers through their authorised representatives. Only the other day I had several communications relating to strawberries, all complaining that the price had been fixed with the knowledge and consent of the Board of Agriculture at a ruinous figure. I think in regard to this question, the Board of Agriculture might have consulted the organised and representative bodies connected with the production.
      In all farm operations labour is an essential part. On page 50 of this Report we are told that the Board has been consulted as to what number of men could be taken away from the land, and it has been agreed that 5,500 men may be taken from the land at this time. We know that many of these men are key-men to the industry. They have been taken, and my right hon. Friend opposite has very rightly raised this question in an authoritative manner. These key-men have been taken, and we are far more unable to replace those men from casual sources than we used to be in ordinary pre-war times when Scottish agriculture got a great amount of excellent labour from Ireland. The young Irishmen who came to Scotland were excellent workers, and they could very soon do the essential work on farms and take the place of the key-men. That source of casual labour is not now available, and therefore it is all the more necessary that these men should not be taken. Of course, we are bound to recognise that the military situation must be

      1901
      considered first. I am not complaining of this, but I think after those men are taken it will be absolutely essential that our Board of Agriculture should enter into very close consultation and have what you might call friendly consultation with the farmers' representative organisations, so that all the other forms and sources of casual labour, and all substituted labour whatever it may be, whether discharged soldiers or women, or any other source, should be, as it were, controlled in a way which is in conformity with the views of the organised agricultural union. Let us have an end put to these things being done without consultation with the farmers' representatives. If the Board will only take the farmers and their organisation a little more into their confidence they will find that the farmers will rally to the national cause and do everything they can in a way worthy of them and of our country.
      Sir HENRY COWAN: I want to call attention to the comb-out of agricultural workers in Scotland. It is that the total number to be taken from agriculture has been fixed at 5,500, and it is obvious that this is a perfectly fair proportion as compared with the number to be taken in England. It does seem to me, however, that in taking this number no regard has been paid to any geographical distribution in Scotland, and there seems to be no system under which a given quota is to be provided by a particular county or agricultural district. The result in practice is that certain counties are being depleted of agricultural labour while other counties are said to be favoured. I am certain from information furnished to me by my Constituents that there has been too large a number of agricultural workers combed out from farms and small holdings in the part of the county which I represent. It would not be in order for me to criticise the operations of the Ministry of National Service, because they are not under the control of the Secretary for Scotland. However, the Board of Agriculture for Scotland is under the control of the right hon. Gentleman, and I understand that the Minister for National Service does not withdraw labour from agriculture if the Scottish Board of Agriculture certifies in favour of the exemption of particular workers, and it seems to me that these certificates have been granted by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland in a most arbitrary and un
      1902
      reasonable manner. There are many cases in my Constituency in which men who would be taken under the clean cut have been returned to their farms in consequence of the action of the Board of Agriculture, but, on the other hand, there are cases which seem quite as deserving where the men have been refused any assistance by the Scottish Board of Agriculture. I know many cases of men of twenty-seven, twenty-eight and twenty-nine, who have been taken while younger men have been left.
      In this matter I find many anomalies and contradictions, and there seems to be no consistency in it whatever. Not only as between different districts and counties is the administration apparently unfair, but often it is unfair as between different parishes in the same district. You will find families who have given two, three, and four sons to the Army, and some in which two or three sons have given then-lives, and yet the remaining son in that family has been remorselessly taken. This might be necessary if men could not be got in any other way, but when you find on an adjoining farm three or four sons of military age who have apparently not even been asked to join the Army, and who have been exempted without making out any strong case to justify it, it seems to me that there is something gravely wrong. I asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of National Service last week if his attention had been called to these anomalies in the administration of the Act in Scotland, and he replied that his attention had not been drawn to them. I think it is only right that I should take this opportunity of calling the attention of the Secretary for Scotland to these circumstances, and ask him at any rate to use his influence with the Board of Agriculture to see that the combing out of these men is conducted on lines which are fair as between districts and between families and individuals.
      I desire to refer to the question of afforestation and to the Report of the Forestry Sub-committee. I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman the, Member for Berwickshire (Mr. Tennant) said in regard to the pressing necessity for this question being dealt with. There can be no doubt as to that. I do not propose to add anything to what he has so well said on that subject, but I wish to say a word with regard to the machinery which the Sub-committee on afforestation

      1903
      desire to set up. This Committee consisted of thirteen gentlemen, of whom only three were Scotsmen, and I do not think that is a fair proportion considering that Scotland is much more seriously interested in this question of afforestation and forestry questions than England. I do not think I am wrong in saying that the proportion of land in Scotland suitable for sylviculture is quite three to one as compared with England, and yet you find a Committee set up dealing with the whole question of afforestation, and out of thirteen members only three represent Scotland, and out of those three two represent the landlord interest.
      Mr. TENNANT: Yes; the very best type.
      Sir H. COWAN: Yes, I agree; but the proportion is not quite fair. I should be sorry to suggest that either of those two gentlemen representing the landlord interest should not be members of the Committee, but I would like to see a few additional members representing Scotland and representing a different class of interest. The Committee recommends that a central authority should be set up to control forestry matters and afforestation throughout the United Kingdom. It proposes, therefore, to entirely separate and divorce forestry from agriculture. Representing, as I do, an agricultural constituency, I have formed a strong opinion that that divorce is not a proper one, that the connection between forestry and agriculture is so close that it is quite natural and proper that the Department which controls agriculture should also control forestry matters. Especially is that so when you take into account the number of small holdings which exist, and the effort that is made constantly to increase the number. The attention of the House has already been called by the previous speaker to the connection between small holdings and forestry from the point of view of employment. The cultivation of a small holding does not imply continuous employment and sufficient employment all the year round, and some subsidiary employment is almost necessary. That subsidiary employment could be considerably increased in many districts, and certainly in my own Constituency, by the close association of agriculture and forestry. It may be suggested that no considerable danger exists of the recommendations of this body
      1904
      being put into practice, but I do not think we can treat them so lightly, although I would like to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that Mr. Bromley, a representative of the Treasury, in a Minority Report says:
      "I am not convinced of the necessity for creating an entirely new central department to control afforestation in the United Kingdom. Theoretically this might be the proper solution if forestry operations were now being started by the State ab initio. But there is already a forestry branch of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, while the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, which was constituted as recently as February, 1912, was specially charged with the promotion of forestry in Scotland as one of its most important duties. The Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland has also acquired experience in forestry operations. While there are, of course, some obvious advantages in the policy of concentration recommended in the body of the Report, such advantages do not appear to me sufficient to justify a reversal of the policy of decentralisation which at present obtains in regard to afforestation as a part of afforestation policy generally."
      I do not know whether it is suggested as a justification for this proposed change that the arrangement made in the Act of 1913 has failed. I do not think that that is a reasonable contention, if it is the contention of those who support this policy. For it must be remembered that the time which has elapsed since this arrangement was made and this authority was set up has been four years of war, during which all conditions have been abnormal and increasingly abnormal. I submit there has been no sufficient time to test the value of the machinery set up in 1913, and no adequate staff attached to the Department nor money available for its purposes. The Development Commissioners have, I think, provided all the money they could reasonably provide for this purpose. I have in my hand an answer to a question which appears on the Paper of the House to-day, and in the course of that answer I find the following:
      "Since the reorganisation of their Forestry Department in October last, the Board have applied for and supported Grants from the Development Fund for forestry purposes amounting to £16,430, in addition to annual Grants of £80 for seventy years and £1,500 for five years. The Development Commissioners have recommended, or agreed to recommend, all these applications with the exception of a proposed Grant of £2,500 capital expenditure with a maintenance of £1,500 for five years for a school of practical forestry, in regard to which the Development Commissioners postponed consideration until the Government proposals for forestry administration had matured."

      1905
      I quote that as satisfying me, at any rate, that since the reorganisation which the Secretary of Scotland carried through in October last the Development Commissioners and the Board have together adopted as enterprising a policy as was possible in the circumstances, and I submit that before the proposal of this Subcommittee should be seriously considered or entertained an opportunity should be given for the return of normal conditions in the period of peace and reconstruction. I protest against the separation of agriculture and forestry. It is inimical, in my view, to the interests of both and certainly inimical to the interests of an agricultural constituency like my own in Aberdeenshire, where there are large areas suitable for afforestation. As a Scottish Member, I protest against the setting-up of a special Committee in London to control afforestation in Scotland. On a former occasion the Secretary for Scotland poured ridicule on the suggestion, saying this Committee in London would be 400 miles away from the nearest Scottish tree. It is absurd. You have no analagous case. Of course you have the Scottish Education Authority in London, but all the Scottish Members are agreed that it ought not to be there.
      Mr. HOGGE: It ought to be at the bottom of the sea.
      Sir H. COWAN: I cannot go so far as that, but I think it ought to be in the capital of the country whose education it attempts to administer. I think we should do very badly to follow such an example. The Education Department has a sort of sub-authority in Edinburgh. I think Scottish afforestation should be managed by the Scottish Board of Agriculture in Edingurgh, and that by following the recommendations of this Sub-committee we should take a very retrograde step. We want decentralisation, not centralisation; Scottish affairs managed in Scotland and not from London. I hope the Scottish Members will support me in this view, and if it should be considered necessary to have one central authority, that authority should, be located in the country in which forestry is a most important matter and not in a country where it is a relatively unimportant matter. If there is to be one Board, I submit that Board should be in Edinburgh and not in London.
      Mr. HOGGE: We have come round again in the course of our Parliamentary
      1906
      Session to the day on which we discuss Scottish Estimates, and we have on the Order Paper eleven separate Votes which presumably we have to get through inside seven hours. That means some forty minutes for each separate Vote, and we have already spent very much more than the forty minutes which are available for this Vote, which has not yet been sufficiently discussed, and upon which especially those Scottish Members who are not here are very desirous of delivering themselves. The speech we have just listened to has drawn attention to the fact that in agriculture in Scotland the comb-out has been very badly done. I am glad my hon. Friend drew the attention of what remains of the Committee to that fact, because in the Lobby of the House of Commons to-day there is a very large deputation of Scotsmen who are complaining of an exactly similar method. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland has seen them or not, but as a matter of fact the whole of the saw-milling industry is very likely to be considerably upset as a result of the action proposed by the National Service Department in the Windsor Hotel, Victoria Street, London, one of those places distant 400 miles from the nearest Scottish tree. And what we feel here who are compelled to remain in the House to discuss other and British affairs in which we are less interested than in our own is that the Secretary for Scotland does not pay nearly enough attention to the interference with Scotland of this or that extra Department which is in or around London.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Murray Macdonald): The hon. Member must pay more attention to the Vote now before the Committee. He has carried the discussion far beyond it.
      Mr. HOGGE: I quite agree, but you allowed my hon. Friend to refer to the comb out of agriculture, and I was referring to the comb out in sylviculture, and pointing out what was being done through the non-interference of the Secretary for Scotland with those outside authorities which are interfering with Scotland. But there is enough interest in the Report to keep strictly in order, and no one has put the point. I hope the Secretary for Scotland will take note of it, even if you rule him out of order in replying. The business of the Scottish Board of Agriculture comes up year after

      1907
      year and gets a certain amount of criticism. One leaves the House satisfied of having done a certain amount of duty in drawing attention to the derelictions of the Board of Agriculture and hoping there will be a change before the next Estimates come along, but nothing happens, and I think it is time to put an end to this continual annual review of Scottish Departments that just do pretty much as they like and have no relevance at all to Scottish opinions as expressed in this House. There are one or two points of detail I want to refer to before I take some of the bigger questions in the Vote. I notice in the Board of Agriculture Vote on page 106 that we have in the list of salaries, wages and allowances, types again of the kind of thing that we have continually to raise objection to in the House of Commons. I notice, for instance, there are messengers employed by the Board of Agriculture, three of whom are described in the notes at the bottom of the page as messengers who receive military pensions of 2s. 3d., 1s. 0½d., and 8½d. a day respectively. You will notice, if you look at the figures given, that these men are allowed 24s. a week, so that this munificent Government of ours is paying these men 24s. a week, and, presumably, they are glad to get it, which is a less wage than you pay a girl typist in any Government Department, and, indeed, a less wage probably than you pay girls who are not typists, and you pay them these wages because, forsooth, they are in receipt of military pensions. If there is one thing we are going to make perfectly certain of this year it is this: that the Government are not going to be allowed to pay a man less than a living wage because he is in receipt of a military pension. My right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland ought to make it his business to look into every one of the Departments under his care and ascertain how many of the people in his employment are in receipt of wages, which, as I have said, are not living wages (because 24s. a week will not keep anybody to-day in food, let alone any other necessaries), because they happen to have this pension. I hope that my right hon. Friend will make a point of going through these Estimates, and thus save us from raising the question with regard to particular individuals upon estimate after estimate. There are eight
      1908
      people altogether in the Board of Agriculture who axe in this position, and when he replies I hope that he will take some notice of the matter.
      The addition of a man's pension to his wage brings up the reference in the Report of the Board of Agriculture to discharged and disabled men in Scotland and the question what the Board of Agriculture are doing for them. I have tried to piece this story together from the Sixth Report, but it is not a continuous story, being scattered throughout the volume, and it is very difficult to ascertain what is being done, and how far the schemes proposed have been advanced. When the right hon. Gentleman who opened the Debate (Mr. Tennant) was Secretary for Scotland, he entered into an iniquitous bargain with the Duke of Sutherland for an estate in the north of Scotland, called the Borgie Estate, which the present Prime Minister described as the lean, scraggy end of the huge joint of the Duke of Sutherland's estate. It was that particular estate that he and his Government took over from the Duke of Sutherland for this purpose. We protested very strongly at the time against that bargain. If I remember rightly, the Government were to spend some £20,000 in two years upon the estate, which is in so inaccessible a part of Scotland that in order to reach it you require to build a new railway, or otherwise you have to walk, for the purpose of bringing it into use for discharged soldiers. Presumably, the idea was to get them as far away as possible from the War. There is nothing said in the Report about what has been done, or whether there are any soldiers upon the estate now. I very much doubt whether you will ever get any discharged men upon the estate who can make any profitable use of the opportunity that is afforded them. As a matter of fact, the Borgie farm has been depreciating in value every year for the last 100 years. I believe its last valuation in the valuation rolls of Scotland showed a drop of over £305. The farm itself has been tenantless for long enough. The last tenant gave it up some fourteen or fifteen years ago, because he could make nothing of it. That was the estate which was heralded by the Press and the Government as a generous gift to the State by the Duke of Sutherland. Is there a single discharged man upon it, and, if so, how large a part of the farm is he working,

      1909
      and what is he doing? Has the State spent any of the £20,000 they promised to spend on this particular, farm in mating it habitable for any discharged soldier? There are other experiments of the same kind in Scotland about which I hope the Secretary for Scotland will tell us something. The hon. Member who spoke last (Sir H. Cowan) referred to the connection between agriculture and afforestry. The Board of Agriculture were to give discharged men training in afforestry. Have they trained a single discharged man in Scotland in afforestry? That is a very simple question, to which a very simple answer can be given. Have the Board of Agriculture set up any facilities at all throughout Scotland for this purpose? These are one or two questions with regard to the discharged men that might be worth answering.
      With regard to the general policy of the Board of Agriculture, I suppose it is rather beating a dead horse to criticise it during the War. If one were to say, what is true, that they have never overtaken anything like a tithe of the applications that they have for land, or that the administration of the Small Holders Act has been largely futile, I suppose the reply would be, "Because we are at war, because money is not available, and because of this, that, and the other nothing has been done." Perhaps, therefore, it is not fair to accuse the present Secretary for Scotland of any lack of desire to see those things made really administratively effective. After all, one would like to know what progress has been made, how many more holdings have been created, and how many applications, real live applications—I do not mean applications which are dead because of the War—have been satisfied during the past year. Finally, perhaps the Secretary for Scotland will tell us what arrangements the Board of Agriculture are making in Scotland for discharged men who apply for Land when they return. We know that south of the Tweed, after nearly two years' work by these large Departments that get on with the War, that five discharged men are actually on the land to-day. If that is going to be the kind of thing that we are to expect north of the Tweed, it will be very unsatisfactory. I should be glad to know what arrangements the right hon. Gentleman has made with regard to the settlement on the land of men who are fit to go upon the land when they return. If we get answers to those questions and
      1910
      others that have been put, perhaps we can continue the discussion further on the Board of Agriculture Vote, but we have already exhausted the forty minutes which can be allowed to this one subject in this British Parliament which pretends to govern Scotland.
      Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The point which I desire to raise has to do with the immediate future under very pressing national necessities. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell us something about the position of the agricultural labour in Scotland. We are told that 5,500 men, who have been described as holding the key of the industry—I think that was a phrase used by a present member of the Government—are to be taken. The taking of these men will not merely affect the ingathering of the harvest this year, but it will also affect the production of the harvest next year. No doubt I shall be told that we must take England and Scotland together. I agree; but the total number of men involved in both England and Scotland is only 35,000 or thereabouts. This is a great day when we are welcoming with all our hearts the alliance of the United States, and the remarkable official announcement has been made on the part of the United States that they have actually sent 1,000,000 men over to Europe, and that in a short time they are going to vastly increase that number. If that is true—and we know that it is perfectly true—why should it be necessary, for the sake of taking that very small number of men, to place agriculture in Scotland in the position in which it will be placed by taking them? Is there any sense of proportion in such a proposal? Is there any balancing of judgment in such a proposal? For the sake of getting a handful of men you are going to work immense mischief. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture for England (Mr. Prothero) has confessed—I have no doubt that it is equally true of Scotland—that the Government have pledged themselves, as deeply as any Government can pledge themselves, that if the farmers of England and Scotland do certain things which they desire them to do they shall have the labour for the ingathering of the harvest. He admitted that it was a breach of faith—I think he used that phrase—to the farmers of the two countries. Can my right hon. Friend tell us, on behalf of the Government, how he justifies incurring this real national danger to our food

      1911
      supply this harvest, and, what is not less important, endangering the next harvest, because if you break faith with the farmers you will not get them to repeat their efforts next year? Can he tell us what sense of proportion there is in a proposal of this kind?
      Mr. MUNRO: I regret that the discussion upon the Scottish Estimates this year has come on unexpectedly and that a, number of my colleagues who otherwise would have been here are unable to be in attendance to-day. The discussion which we have had, however, has been characterised by good sense and good feeling, as is usual on these occasions. One of the main subjects which have been canvassed is that of forestry, and reference has been made to the Report of the Reconstruction Sub-committee, which contains certain recommendations as to the area to be planted and as to the authority which is to control forestry. I am sorry that I cannot offer any considered opinion to the House on this matter, for the very simple reason, as announced a few days ago, that the document is under the consideration of the War Cabinet. It would therefore be quite improper for me at this stage, when the Report is sub judice, to express any view with regard to the proposals either on the one side or the other. I can only say that both points of view which have been expressed in the House to-day, the one by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Tennant) and the other by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire (Sir H. Cowan), are being fully considered before a decision is reached. I think, however, it is perfectly right that I should tell the House in a few sentences what has been done in forestry under the auspices of the Board of Agriculture.
      Certain criticisms have been made regarding their supineness in this matter, and, in view of those criticisms, I should like to tell the Committee exactly what is going on. I shall be perfectly frank in the matter. In the absence of Mr. Sutherland in France—Mr. Sutherland was in charge, as the Committee well know, of forestry in Scotland, and rendered very valuable services to it—I have entrusted the charge of that particular Department to Dr. Greig, another member of the Board. The Forestry Department of the Board, for the first time, has been divided into two sections. On the one hand, there is the scientific, statistical,
      1912
      and research section, which is under the charge of Dr. Borthwick, a very distinguished forestry expert. On the other hand, I have appointed Mr. Gordon, of the West of Scotland College, to be in charge of another and quite separate section, namely, the practical section, which has to do with the afforestation schemes. That division has already been carried out in India with very successful results, and, so far as one can judge—the thing was only arranged in October—it is working very well in Scotland, and a good deal of useful work, under most difficult conditions, has already been accomplished.
      I will tell the Committee one or two of the schemes which are now in hand. There have been two forestry nurseries set up, one at Hairmyers in the West, and the other in Aberdeenshire. There has been a very important collection and purchase of seed. I am not sure that the Committee realises, any more than I did at first, how important that matter is. As a result of the collection of seed organised by the Board, practically the whole of the available seed in the country has been saved. Owing to the abnormal felling, the situation, apart from that supply of Scottish seed, would be of a most critical character. In answer to what the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) said, there has been a scheme arranged for the training of discharged soldiers in forestry. That scheme is in operation at the present moment, and sixteen discharged soldiers—my hon. Friend asked this pointed question, and I am giving him my answer—have already been placed on the woodlands, under proper auspices, with the most satisfactory results. That scheme for the training of discharged soldiers, in my judgment, requires as a complement a school of practical forestry, and in connection with both of these schemes I want to acknowledge the valuable assistance which I have received from the hon. and gallant Member for West Perthshire (Colonel Stirling), who has been extremely good in connection with the working out of the two schemes. I have sanctioned the carrying out of a school of practical forestry. The buildings are being erected. It is necessary as a corollary to the scheme to which I have just referred for training discharged soldiers. A site has been given by Colonel Fotheringham, of Murthley, and the erection of buildings is now progressing. I hope that the school will be open in October.

      1913
      The woods at Murthley, Dunkeld, and the neighbouring estates have been made available for the training of these men. In addition to these particular projects, there is one other to which I should like to refer. There is a very important scheme, on which I have sanctioned an expenditure of, I think, £5,000, in connection with the clearing and burning of felled areas in Scotland. This amounts to a very large extent, unfortunately, at the present time. The work is of very great importance and urgency as well, for unless these felled areas are immediately cleaned and burned, they are the subject of certain pests of a most destructive character. To meet that danger the Board have organised supplies of labour drawn from schoolboys, convalescent soldiers, women, and other sources, and considerable progress has already been made for the carrying out of that scheme.
      Mr. J. HENDERSON: On what land?
      Mr. MUNRO: On areas all over the country. It is not confined to one person's land. These areas have been cleared and burned in a large variety in different places. Schoolboys' camps have already been arranged for in this connection, and I hope they will go on this season just as successfully as last. Then a flying survey has been undertaken, in which a Scottish representative is to take part, starting operations early in this month, which will survey representative areas in different parts of Scotland. Lastly, in connection with forestry, a very large number of planting schemes are under consideration by the Board. Some 13,000 acres are at present under consideration, including the scheme at Craigmyle, to which reference has been made in this House before now, and in connection with which I should like to acknowledge the courtesy of Lord Shaw, who has co-operated in the matter.
      Mr. WATT: Is the Craigmyle agreement completed?
      Mr. MUNRO: The documents are not signed, but the scheme is practically arranged.
      Mr. HOGGE: Tell us a little about it.
      Mr. MUNRO: I do not think I ought to give details to the Committee until the arrangement is completed.
      Mr. HOGGE: We might stop it.
      Mr. MUNRO: I think the arrangements are very satisfactory, so far as my advice goes, but I do not think it would be right that before the arrangement is completed and while definite steps are being taken in conjunction with Lord Shaw that I should give the Committee the full details. If the Committee thinks otherwise, I will reconsider the matter and questions can be put down and I will state what has been done.
      Mr. WATT: Is it a lease or a sale?
      Mr. MUNRO: I will give my hon. Friend this answer; I will tell him so much, and perhaps he will be satisfied with it: It is a lease. The Board has taken a seventy-five years' lease of the land at an agreed rental value of 3s. per acre. All the costs of the planting are to be borne by the Board, and the Board undertakes the management. The ultimate proceeds will be shared between the Board and Lord Shaw, according to the proportion of the cost borne by each, plus 4 per cent at compound interest. That, in rough outline, is the scheme that is now being arranged. I should, however, like the Committee to understand that the document has not yet been signed. I think I have gone a considerable way to meet my hon. Friends.
      Mr. HENDERSON: May I be allowed to suggest that this document ought not to be completed and the Exchequer bound to this action without this House having something to say to it? It may be all right or it may not.
      Mr. MUNRO: I am the last person to withdraw from the consideration of the House or the Committee any important act of administration that they desire to discuss, but it is quite impossible, owing to the limitations of time, to submit every administrative act of this kind which the Board has to carry out to the consideration of the House.
      Mr. HENDERSON: It costs money.
      Mr. MUNRO: Surely my hon. Friend will agree that the Treasury is a very good custodian of the public purse?
      Mr. HENDERSON: Not now.
      Mr. MUNRO: Well, I have given my hon. Friend a very full answer upon that particular topic, and any criticism he desires to offer I shall he glad to consider. I am perfectly certain that if one were to come to this House with every one of the

      1915
      administrative schemes that are being carried out, the House would be the first to blame me for not getting on faster. There are a great; many other forestry schemes, but I need not detain the Committee by details. I have mentioned these facts in order to show the Committee that, so far as forestry is concerned, we have, if I may use the phrase used by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwickshire (Mr. Tennant), got a move on, and the moving forward is going on quite satisfactorily. If the Committee have any views to express upon these various matters, I shall be most happy to have them and consider them. I thought it right to rise at this stage, so that if any of my Scottish or English colleagues desired to offer any observation on what I have said in this connection, they might have an opportunity of doing so. Forestry was the first and the main topic touched upon. With regard to the financing of these schemes, perhaps I may add this: As my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen-shire (Sir H. Cowan) said, the amount of money which is flowing into the Board of Agriculture for the purpose of carrying out these various forestry schemes is now on a somewhat more liberal basis than it used to be. Since October the amount granted from the Development Fund for forestry purposes is over £14,000. In other words, all the recommendations which the Board have made received due effect. I do not profess to be satisfied with the progress that has been made. I do not desire to be satisfied with the progress made in any direction, because I always think it is possible to go one better; but I submit to the Committee that I have shown that this subject is not only receiving attention, but that a number of practical schemes are now in course of being carried out.
      6.0 P.M.
      The next subject which was raised was that of the settlement of soldiers upon the land. I agree that that is a most important subject. But it is also a very difficult one. It is important, as we all agree, that any man who desires to settle upon the land when he comes back from the War should have an opportunity of doing so in this country. I am not sure that I entirely agreed with my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire when he said that men who have been accustomed to the horrors and excitement of war would not take kindly to country life,
      1916
      possibly in a remote part of Scotland, when they come back. I am not sure of that. My impression is otherwise; but I do not want to dogmatise on the subject. The difficulties are obvious. One difficulty is the uncertainty as to the number of men for whom one has to provide. Another difficulty is the system of long leases under which in Scotland we live. Those are two difficult topics, and one is giving them the best consideration one can. I want to give the Committee, in answer to several questions put to me, an account of the land which has already been secured in Scotland for this purpose. I will divide what I have to say on the matter into three parts. First, there is land which has been given to the Board of Agriculture; secondly, there is land which has been purchased by the Board under the Small Holdings (Colonies) Act; and, thirdly, there is land which is to be utilised under the Small Landholders Act. As regards the first, there are two estates to be mentioned—Borgie, in Sutherlandshire, which was presented by the Duke of Sutherland, the area of which is 10,000 acres. Secondly, there is an estate in Aberdeenshire, given to the nation by a very generous donor, Mr. Brown, a trawler owner, I believe, in Aberdeen. That is at Garriochside, in Aberdeenshire. It is suitable for small holdings and covers an area of 710 acres. I believe that that estate can be utilised very fruitfully in this direction. As regards the Small Holdings (Colonies) Act, the Board has succeeded in purchasing three separate farms, one in Ross-shire named Arabella, with an area of 650 acres, one in Dumfriesshire, named Locharwoods, with an area of 500 acres, and one a part of the Dysart estate, in. Fifeshire, with an area of 700 acres. All these estates consist of excellent arable land, capable of growing good crops and suitable, for small settlers. The Dysart estate in Fifeshire is particularly suitable, both on account of its character and of its proximity to good markets, for intensive cultivation and market gardening. These three estates have exhausted the powers which we possess under the original Small Holdings (Colonies) Act, under which we were limited to 2,000 acres. The Board, I may add, have been in communication with other would-be sellers, and when the new Bill, which is now in another place, reaches the Statute Book, they will be in a position to negotiate and secure

      1917
      new land for this purpose. With regard to the Small Landholders Act there is first of all the estate of Dounreay in Caithness, which is the property of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests. An arrangement has been made with them to settle soldiers and sailors under the tenure of the Small Landholders Act. The area comprised in that estate is 3,161 acres, and it is anticipated that at least forty holders can be settled on the property.
      Mr. TENNANT: Is it not moor land?
      Mr. MUNRO: I understand it is quite suitable for small holdings and it has been purchased by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests with that in view. Then there is Shinness Farm, in Sutherlandshire, which covers 16,000 acres. That has been, by arrangement with the Duke of Sutherland, made available for the settlement of soldiers and sailors, also under the tenure of the Small Landholders Act. A large part of this farm, which is one of the best in the country, is now under pasture, and one of the advantages of that settlement would be to restore this land to arable farming, and that is the intention. The present position of these various properties is this: The difficulties both in connection with labour and material are very great, but considerable progress has been made in making roads, in erecting fences, and in erecting buildings for the settlers. My hon. Friend (Mr. Hogge) asked whom we are going to settle at Borgie. Up to the present a limited number of persons, at least twelve and I rather think more, have specially asked to be settled at that particular place. With regard to Shinness, the Board entered into the question only in May, and operations have been begun for the necessary reconstruction and erection of the new buildings there. At Locharwoods the Board entered into possession of half the property recently and will obtain possession of the remaining half in November. The Board has also made an inspection of a large number of additional estates and will be in a position to secure them for the same purpose as soon as the other Bill becomes law. To sum up, with regard to the acreage which is available for the purpose of settling soldiers and sailors upon the land, it is somewhere between 33,000 and 34,000, and power has been taken under the new Bill, which I hope will soon be an Act, to get 20,000 acres more.
      1918
      With regard to arranging for settling these soldiers and sailors, one has done the best one could. I was asked by my Scottish colleagues some time ago, in a document which they presented to me, to do this. They said, "In the opinion of a conference which was composed of members of all three parties, Liberal, Conservative and Labour, the most hopeful line is that a preliminary private conference should be held between the Secretary for Scotland and the different interests affected." In conformity with that direction, I have made it my business during the last few months, on the occasion of various visits to Scotland, to meet in conference first of all representatives of all the large landowners in Scotland—there were more than fifty of them—then to meet the Highland and Agricultural Society, the Chamber of Agriculture, the National Farmers' Union, and the two small holders' societies. I do not know if any Member of the Committee can suggest any other interest which I could usefully meet. If so, I shall be most happy to endeavour to do so. As far as I can see, I have met all those persons who are interested either as tenants, proprietors or small holders in the land, and I have got a great deal of very useful information from these various sources. The whole subject of the settlement of soldiers and sailors upon the land is at this moment being considered by the War Cabinet. Therefore I am not in a position, any more than I am upon the question of forestry, to announce a definite and concrete policy on the subject, but the Committee may rest assured that this subject has been most carefully considered not only in Scotland, but also on this side of the Border, with a view to reaching the best possible solution of the difficulties which surround it.
      The next topic of importance which was discussed was the question of the agricultural call-up, as it has been termed. There I quite recognise the difficulty and the delicacy of the question in its new aspect. We must all, however, recognise the paramount military necessity of the moment, to which my right hon. Friend (Mr. Prothero) referred the other evening in discussing the matter. My right hon. Friend (Mr. McKinnon Wood) asked me certain questions which I wish I could answer frankly in this House, but it is not possible to do so. The Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke later the same night, and, as I understood his argument, it was

      1919
      simply this. The question which the Government had to consider was, Is it necessary in the national interest that these men should be called up from agriculture? And he added that while the Government had reached an affirmative conclusion on that matter it was quite impossible to give to the House the considerations pro and con by means of which they reached that conclusion. He said so quite frankly and the House accepted it. All one can properly say to the Committee—and I can speak of this from personal knowledge—is that all the considerations pro and con have been weighed, not once, but time and again, before a conclusion was reached upon the matter; and my right hon. Friend (Mr. Prothero), than whom there is no greater friend of agriculture, and I myself, in my humble capacity as Minister of Agriculture in Scotland, have been repeatedly heard in the War Cabinet before a decision was reached. It is a question of balancing risks. All I can say, echoing what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said the other night, is that in this matter the House either must trust the Government or cease to trust the Government.
      Mr. WATT: Did they make a stand against Lord Milner? Was it not Lord Milner who overrode the whole of them?
      Mr. MUNRO: I do not think that is a question which I am called upon to answer. If I had to answer it I should say the answer was most distinctly in the negative. Do not let it be supposed—I do not think my Scottish colleagues will be apt to suppose—that I, as responsible for agriculture, am unsympathetic towards the industry. I have endeavoured to show the greatest possible sympathy with farmers in the numerous troubles to which they have been subjected since the War broke out. They have shown the greatest patriotism again and again under the most irksome, disagreeable and uncertain conditions, and it is the uncertainty of the future which is probably one of the greatest difficulties with which they can fee confronted. After all, one has to maintain a certain sense of proportion in the matter, and to remember that while at home we have suffered very slight inconvenience—almost nominal inconvenience most of us—in connection with the War, those who are conducting it on the other side of the sea are suffering not only inconvenience but danger, to
      1920
      which none of us have been subjected, whether farmers or otherwise. And surely when one remembers that these men have given up comfort and safety and business, and even life itself, in order that they may defend the country, some of us at home who have not had to make this sacrifice, and who might otherwise be inclined to grumble, may very well hesitate to do so.
      When I say that, I am not in the least suggesting that the agricultural difficulty is not a very real one. No one realises that more than I do. England and Scotland, however, are on the same footing. The 30,000 in England corresponds arithmetically with the 5,500 in Scotland. As 30,000 is the total of the male agricultural workers in England, 5,500 is the total of the male agricultural labour on the other side of the Border. Accordingly, having got the same treatment for agriculturists on the North side of the Border as on this, I am afraid we must do the best we can in a very difficult and trying situation. The problem has now resolved itself into one of substituted labour, and I was rather struck, when listening to my right hon. Friend (Mr. Wood), who spoke very strongly on this subject, with the difference between his speech and that of the hon. Member (Mr. Hope), a practical agriculturist, who, knowing, voicing, and realising the difficulties of agriculture, came here to-day, and said, "I make no complaint about the taking of these men. I recognise that it is in the national interest, but the problem of substitution is the one with which I am now concerned." I think that is a very fair statement of the case, and accordingly all our energies must now be bent to the task of securing, in so far as it can be secured, substituted labour to take the places of the men who have gone away. I am quite sure from what I have seen and know of farmers during the last eighteen months or more that they will submit without a murmur to any inconvenience or irksome arrangement, provided they are satisfied that it has been reached with a single eye to the national safety, and that it is reasonably adequate for that purpose. So long as I am responsible for agriculture in Scotland it will be my endeavour to secure, so far as it can be secured, that labour should be obtained for the purpose not only of securing this harvest, but for sowing the crops for next year.
      My right hon. Friend (Mr. Tennant) referred to the accounts of the Board of

      1921
      Agriculture, and said they were stated in a somewhat confused way. I am sure they are stated in precisely the same way as they were stated when he stood where I do. I am told that there is no difference whatever in the statement of accounts during these last four or five years; but if an improvement can be effected, it will certainly be done. I am grateful to him for pointing out that there is difficulty in the matter. He also referred to two Orders under the Defence of the Realm Regulations, one about rabbits and one about grouse. With regard to the first of these he said the word "adjoining" was a word of somewhat vague character, and the Regulation might lend itself to abuse. I have said in public before now in Scotland that if it were shown that the Regulation was in any way abused, or that the word "adjoining" was wrongly construed, I would make it my business to put the matter right. So far as I am aware, no complaint of that character has been made in any quarter, and the Regulation has been reasonably interpreted and reasonably applied without any grievance in any part of Scotland so far as my information goes. As regards the date of grouse shooting, I am told that so far as one can foresee there may be a great many grouse in Scotland this year. I am not a sportsman like my right hon. Friend, and I can only speak on information, but I am told that it is probable. In considering whether or not to alter the date this year, as I did last year, I shall certainly bear in mind what he has said.
      The hon. and gallant Member for West Perthshire made a speech in regard to Inverailort. I thank him for the moderation with which he stated the case. The Board, early in 1917, had certain applications made to them from persons who desired to restock farms in that particular deer forest, but as the proprietrix was not prepared to meet the Board by a definite arrangement—such is my information—the Board entered into possession of about one-tenth part of the deer forest under the Defence of the Realm Act. The case really does not differ in its broad aspects from quite a number of cases in which the Board has used its powers under that Act in order to make deer forests available for sheep grazing. The results of restocking cannot possibly appear in a single season, but I have promised to go carefully into the matter, in the light of the proprietrix's correspondence with me, after 31st July, when
      1922
      I shall have a return from the Board's tenant, dealing with the various matters included in the questions which the hon. and gallant Member put to me. I think I must ask him to accept that assurance for the time being. In regard to the points raised by the hon. Member for Buteshire, he said that the county agricultural committees in Scotland had done a great deal of work, and had not been thanked for it by the Board. I should be very sorry to find that is so. I think he will find on page 34 the thanks of the Board are tendered to these committees, but even if that were not so, I should desire myself, speaking on behalf of the Government, to tender to these committees our most hearty thanks for the most valuable services they have rendered in connection with the increased production of food in Scotland. In regard to ploughs, we have got every kind of plough which can be got in any quarter. The results of the working of the tractors have not yet come in, but the work has, I am told, been very satisfactory. In regard to fertilisers, I believe there is now new machinery in operation for a better allocation between the various parts of the two countries. My hon. Friend rather complained that the Board did not sufficiently often consult agricultural opinion in Scotland. The Board is very willing to do that, and, from my personal knowledge, it has done so very frequently.
      With respect to the fixing of the prices of hay, wool, and strawberries, I may say that in regard to the price of hay the Board's Advisory Committee on hay consists, I am told, of a majority of producers. Of course, the Board cannot induce the War Office always to accept the price which their advisory Committee think is the proper price. In regard to the price of wool, it is very much in the same position. I think the Board supported the price for which the three agricultural societies contended, but the War Office did not find itself in a position to go as far as they desired. In regard to the twice of strawberries, I do not know that agricultural societies are very much concerned, but I am told the Board consulted the principal growers before assenting to the price which was fixed. The Member for East Aberdeen-shire referred to certain discrepancies in the matter of the calling up of men from agriculture. I am not aware of the discrepancy to which he referred in Aberdeenshire,

      1923
      but if he will give me particulars of the cases, I will have them inquired into.
      The Member for East Edinburgh referred to the Board of Agriculture in somewhat critical terms. I am sorry he should have done that I am sure if he realised the unselfish and devoted way in which the Board is carrying on its work under most difficult conditions, with a depleted staff, and with more work than the Board of Agriculture in the past has ever had to carry on, he would rather sympathise than criticise. I cannot pay too high a tribute to the devoted services rendered by every member of the Board from the highest to the lowest, especially under the trying conditions and with a very small staff as compared with the time of peace. In regard to the payment of messengers which my hon. Friend raised, I will have that looked into; but I would point out that these messengers, whose wages he says are 24s., have already had a very considerable war bonus of something like 11s. added to their wages, so that their condition is not so bad as my hon. Friend says. I am sorry to detain the Committee so long, but several points of real magnitude and importance have been raised. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh has reminded us, we have eleven Votes to get, and, while not in the least seeking unduly to limit the discussion on them, I hope we shall get through the work we have to do at a reasonable hour.
      Mr. DUNDAS WHITE: We have listened with great interest to what the Secretary for Scotland has said on these various points, but I think his observations give rise to other questions and there are some points which have not been dealt with. In speaking of the way in which the finance is presented in the Report of the Board my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire dealt with the way in which certain financial statements were made. The Secretary for Scotland has promised that he will consider this question further. I will put this same point to him on a higher scale, which I hope will receive consideration. The total estimate for the Board is very considerable. It exceeds £80,000, to which should be added another £5,000 for buildings, stationery, and so on, and it is growing. With the Estimates arranged as they are, I suggest that in future years the Report should be
      1924
      as far as possible co-ordinated with the Estimates in order that the Report and the Estimates may be read together. We have a general statement of accounts in the Estimates, but when we want to see the details of some of these things in the Board's Report we are quite unable to trace them and the figures are not given where they ought to be given. In the manifold activities which the Board is undertaking, where huge amounts are concerned, the general expenditure should be a subject of costing over the various Departments, and the Estimates and Reports should be so co-ordinated that we can trace that expenditure throughout and see what we are paying for the various work done in the same way as if it were private business. I am not suggesting that it should be done just like a private-business, but I suggest that this matter should be treated on more business lines and that there should be co-ordination.
      The Report refers to the effect of increased prices on land settlement. We all know how much the difficulties of land settlement have been added to by the increase of prices in various ways. One increase in price has been the increase in the price of land. That has been found in England, and I believe it has been found in Scotland, but I do not find that referred to at all. The same paragraph deals with one case where a farm had become vacant and was apparently wanted for small holdings, and the landlord was entitled to a considerable amount from the outgoing tenant. The Board paid an amount in order to get the small holdings, and the Report says that the loss in crops and sheep stock was very considerable. In a case like that I think we ought to have more detailed information so that we might know where we are. I do not like these generalities. Why should not particulars of expenditure be given with a view to showing that in the circumstances it was the best thing to do. As regards the amount of land taken under the Small Holdings Colonies Act, my right hon. Friend said that the area which may be acquired for the purpose has been increased tenfold. I was rather surprised to hear him speak of purchasing that additional area, because my remembrance of that Bill is that the additional amount shall not be purchased, but shall be acquired by lease, perpetual or otherwise, which, of course, would include feus. In the case of Borgie Farm, this is a case which has been advertised far and wide

      1925
      throughout Scotland. Here again we only get generalities. It is common ground that no one has yet been settled on the farm, and I believe the Board are keeping the farm in their own hands until such a time as a sufficient number of discharged soldiers and sailors is available. It has been managed by one of the Board's officers for the past year, so the Report declares, with satisfactory results. I should like to know something further. Since this farm has been in the hands of the Board has the result been a profit or a loss? What is meant by "satisfactory results"? Here is a case which we have heard of again and again all over Scotland, and surely in a special note dealing with the present position we should get information not only in generalities, but what is the exact financial position.
      I now come to a matter to which I hope I shall have the right hon. Gentleman's attention, because it is a matter of great importance so far as the Small Landholders Act is concerned There is a paragraph on page 12 which presents a difficulty which the right hon. Gentleman may perhaps be able to explain. It says:
      "In the case of the Middlebank settlement in Perthshire, where eleven full-sized holdings were created by the Board in 1914, the estate was recently exposed for sale by public auction. The holders would have preferred to continue as tenants under the Small Landholders (Scotland) Acts, but, rather than risk the possibility of losing holdings with which they were fully satisfied, in almost every case they bought the subjects."
      The Report goes on to say that the fact that the holders were in a position to buy the subjects shows how well they had been going on. Here we have a case in which, according to the terms of the Report, small holdings were created in 1914, and the men were in possession of these small holdings under the small landholders' tenure. Were these men threatened with loss of their holdings by reason of the fact that the proprietorship was sold? I was under the impression that those who were settled under small landholders' tenure were entitled to continue that tenure, and that no transfer of the landlord's right could affect them. I would like to know how that matter stands, because if they had the small landowners' security of tenure they were under a misapprehension in thinking that they could have been turned out. If they had not security of tenure, then they have been led to purchase under a misapprehension as to their rights, and if this is so I can only say that when this
      1926
      House passed that Act we understood that we were giving security of tenure under the terms of the small-holding system created. It is a very important point and one which goes to the position of smallholders in Scotland.
      In reference to the acquisition of these farms to which my right hon. Friend has referred, I would like to know something of the terms on which they were acquired. We have several pages devoted to those farms' and other properties that are being acquired. We hear what the rent has been in the past, but we do not hear on what terms they have been bought. It is very important that we should know. I hope that in future Reports we shall have satisfactory information on various points of this kind. The question of afforestation which was referred to is, we are all agreed, a very important matter, but if you are to start in a practical way you must first know on what terms you are doing it. I understand from my right hon. Friend that the plot to which he referred, which has been leased for afforestation, has been leased for a period of seventy-five years. I understand also, though possibly I may be wrong, that the profits during those seventy-five years are to be divided between the landlord and the Board of Agriculture. What is to happen at the end of the seventy-five years with the trees that have been planted at public expense but are not yet ripe for timber? Trees become ripe at different times. You may have some wind-swept, and you may have others damaged in various ways, and you are, or you ought to be, replanting all the time. At the end of the seventy-five years the guillotine falls. Is that a basis on which an individual or company would go in for afforestation? Not in the least. Yet in Scotland we have every possibility of the best system, because we have here the feuing system, and feus can and ought to be obtained in Scottish law practice everywhere. Why not feu property for afforestation? Why not take it on a feu which may be looked upon as a perpetual tenure at a rent arranged beforehand? I would suggest to my right hon. Friend that something of that sort should be done.
      Until we get some satisfactory system of acquiring land for afforestation, afforestation is a vague scheme, and you cannot have it on anything like a business basis. I know that in many cases we may assist in the plantation of private lands. If so, let us do so with our eyes open. If we

      1927
      assist in increasing the value of private property, let us have a charge placed on that property, so that private individuals may not gain by public expense. This question of the terms upon which land should be acquired for afforestation is of first-rate importance. Closely connected with it is another matter—the burning of timber that has been blown down in order to prevent the multiplication of insect pests. I understand that the Board of Agriculture has granted something like £5,000 towards this very desirable end; but, if this public money is to be spent on private property, those who benefit by that expenditure ought at least to make a substantial contribution, or, if they are not in a position to make a substantial contribution, then a certain charge ought to be placed on that land under the Improvement of Lands Act, if you like, so that the public will be recouped for the expenditure of public money on the improvement of private property. I could wish that my right hon. Friend, when dealing with these various matters, had seen his way to give us some assurances on these points. I hope that my right hon. Friend will deal particularly with these latter points, and also with the point which I raised as to those small-holders who hold land under the Small-holders Act.
      Mr. J. HENDERSON: I think it rather a misfortune that this Committee on Scottish Estimates was fixed for to-day. It was rather quickly arranged, with the result that several Members are in Scotland now who would very gladly have been here, but had made other arrangements, and thus have not been able to take part in this Debate as they generally do every year. I quite agree that the Board of Agriculture have had a great deal to do, and I do not pass any criticism on them in that respect. They have not only had to deal with the Act which created them—the Act of 1911—but on looking through the Report I find that they have also had to deal directly or indirectly with no fewer than ten Acts of Parliament. The Report touches all sorts of subjects, from horse-breeding down to the cure of asthmatic bees, and the Board seem to have started a stud farm—for horses, not for bees—and if the hon. Baronet the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger) were here he would like to read one part of the Report, in which they say that their premium stallions had been visiting Ayr, and were very successful. With regard to the
      1928
      original object for which the Board were founded—namely, the Small Holdings Act—I think that this is practically in abeyance. I do not wonder at it, seeing that the bulk of the large sums which they have spent on it has gone as compensation to landlords and tenants, and in the circumstances I quite see that they could not proceed with expenditure at that rate. With regard to the holdings which they are preparing for disabled soldiers and sailors', though they are doing their duty no doubt, I believe that the money is largely thrown away. I do not believe in soldiers and sailors going up to Borgie and settling there in any number. I maybe wrong, but I do not think so. Soldiers are accustomed to a gregarious life, and I do not think you will find them willing to go a considerable number of miles away from any town and settle down to the hard work of bringing land into good cultivation. In fact, I do not believe that small holdings anywhere will pay, unless they are within easy reach of some good town where their produce can be disposed of. I hope that I am wrong, but that is my view.
      I rose principally to deal with the question of afforestation. I wish the Committee once for all to understand the history of that subject. Under the Act of 1911 the Board of Agriculture was formed for the express purpose, among other things, of dealing with forestry. They have had a short time, but they have done practically nothing. On the question of forestry there was a Departmental Committee appointed, and it went into the whole matter. Then there was a second Committee, which went even more thoroughly into the question, and the members of that Committee went abroad to see the forests of Germany and France. They studied the whole question from first to last, and came home and made a Report. Then there was an Advisory Committee. Each one of these three Committees reported dead against anything in the shape of leases, and if I am anxious when I see some glimmering of leases, that is my reason. If three Committees who have studied this subject have been dead against anything in the shape of leases, cannot the Committee see at once why leases are objected to? Anyone who knows anything about forestry knows that it requires certain periods for different trees to mature. Some trees mature in twenty years, some in thirty years, some in forty, fifty, and sixty years. The Douglas

      1929
      pine takes a little longer. In these circumstances, I ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland, if he had a lease for seventy-five years, with fifty years gone, what would he plant? Would he plant thirty-year trees to inure for the benefit of the landowner?
      Mr. MUNRO: Why should they inure to the benefit of the landowner? At the end of the lease a valuation could take place, and there could be a distribution of the proportion of profits.
      Mr. HENDERSON: I know what that means. At all events, all the authorities have decided against anything in the shape of a lease. Of course, it depends on the terms of your lease, but, under any circumstances, I think I could show that the lease is not a profitable method of dealing with the question of forestry. The Government were evidently in earnest about this matter at the time when the Advisory Committee turned their attention to the finding of an administrative area for the purpose of afforestation. They wanted a forest of from 3,000 to 4,000 acres of timber. It was found that there were only four where they had followed the correct and scientific line of sylviculture—that is to say, where the trees were developed at certain ages. They actually had the offer of an estate where the trees were valued at almost the amount the landlord was prepared to accept. The sum he asked was £63,000, and the Advisory Committee at that time unanimously voted that acquisition of the property should be recommended. It was also recommended by the Board of Agriculture in Scotland, by the Secretary for Scotland, and by others; but what was the malign influence which prevented our obtaining that forest? We could have acquired it at practically the value of the timber, and it was an excellent bargain Who stood in the way—what was the malign influence? It was the Development Commissioners, a body that should never have been created. I voted for their appointment, and I regret my having done so to this day. You have got two bodies, the Roads Board and the Development Commissioners, both outside this House, who judge for themselves. Of course, we had the idea that it was better to have men who were outside political influence in dealing with these development matters, but I would point out that if political influence is a bad thing, private influence is a great deal worse. We have the fact that this advantageous bargain was turned
      1930
      down, and from that day to this we have had no suggestion of anything to take its place. Because the Development Commissioners, and one gentleman particularly, did not believe in buying but in leasing, this opportunity to buy the forest was turned down; and, immediately after it was turned down, a proposal came from the Development Commissioners involving the expenditure of £150,000 on leases. The Advisory Committee looked at the proposal, and the Board of Agriculture looked at it, and they turned it down as preposterous.
      What makes me so suspicious about this matter is that I believe the very self-same gentlemen have something to do with this leasing. I am the last to suggest that my right hon. Friend should submit to the Committee every little arrangement that he has got, or every bargain he makes, but there are elements in this case which deserve consideration. It is a lease to begin with, and there are elements, I say, which ought to induce the right hon. Gentleman to let us know the full particulars. I will tell him what is in my mind. There is a guarantee of 3s. an acre rent. Is that going to be a first charge? If it is to be a first charge, the Government will never get back any of their money. If it is to be a first charge on the value of the trees when sold, the Government will never get any profit, because I think it is admitted that forests cannot be created as an economic paying proposition. I do not think they can, and I do not think they pretend to be an economic paying proposition. The fact is that nations have seen the necessity for having these forests for national purposes. Germany has not suffered during the War for want of timber because she has 40,000 square miles of timber. France has not suffered for want of timber, because she has 30,000 square miles. This country at the beginning of the War had only 4,000. Forests are required for climatic and other national purposes. Yet here and there we have only been leasing land, and forestry has been delayed and postponed for all these years. There is a popular delusion that when you get a piece of land for afforestation you have only to plant trees. To plant trees properly, on a systematic, economic, and prosperous basis, you have to study all sorts of questions in regard to it. To plant 2,000 or 3,000 acres of land does not afford any education in forestry; it is an education in planting. What is required is an area already full of trees

      1931
      of all ages, where students and apprentices can learn everything from planting right up to cutting.
      The Ministry of Reconstruction has recommended a central authority to deal with afforestation, and if they can be kept clear of the Development Commissioners, and not subject to the whims of that body, it would be a very good thing. I see that there are on the proposed central authority some of the most eminent men in this country on the question of afforestation. None could be better, and that makes me all the better satisfied with this recommendation. You have afforestation in England and Ireland, but in Scotland, the country where it is most needed, you have not got it. Here you have an opportunity, and for goodness sake get rid of the men who have preconceived ideas about leasing instead of buying forests. Leasing is going to land you in greater losses than buying. I have not the slightest doubt about the patriotism of the Secretary for Scotland, and his absolute and straight honesty in these transactions, but I want him honestly to let the Committee see that there is to be no loss to the Exchequer on these leases. Has he made any estimate to show the value of the trees in a certain period; has he set himself to work that out? If you are going into afforestation you must revise your local rating on forest land. Men will not plant trees if you are going to tax the land during the period of growth. It is not fair; it is a bad enough risk as it is. Many men, especially in the four forests in Scotland to which I have referred, have lost a great deal of money; still they were patriotic enough to do it. You should help them by removing all rating during the time the trees are growing, and you could tax the profit that may be received at the time when the trees are cut and sold. I am very anxious that my right hon. Friend, or whoever may be in his position in the future, should understand that all those who are judges in this matter of forestry are dead against leasing in any shape. We should create forests here, just as they have done in other nations and in other colonies, where they have spent large sums of money for the purpose of forestry.
      7.0 P.M.
      Mr. C. PRICE: It is a very serious matter that we should have only one day in the whole year to discuss Scottish
      1932
      Estimates, and that these Estimates, involving all sorts of questions, should be brought forward on a day when many Members have made arrangements to be elsewhere. We have heard that we were to get two days for Scottish Estimates, but we have only had one, and I think that Scottish Members should insist upon getting more time for Scottish Estimates, instead of Members having to rise and endeavour to say all they have to say in five minutes, because they know that other Members are waiting to speak. I wish to call attention to two matters which will be within the recollection of the House. When first this question of forestry came up we were to have a grant of £185,000, and then when the War broke out we were asked to forego this Grant, and it was reduced to £10,000. We were very greatly concerned in acceding to this request made on behalf of the Government, and we are suffering from having had this Grant withdrawn. This has gone on for four years, and the Grant has only been £10,000. I am not quite clear whether it was intended that the Grant was to be £185,000 a year. I think it was. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes, yes!"] Then I am supported in the view that it was intended. We have only had a £10,000 Grant in aid of this Department during this War, with the result that we have lost £175,000 per annum, which would have come to Scotland if the War had not taken place—a total loss of over £700,000. That is a very serious matter indeed. I should like to know what has been done in regard to the English Grant for similar purposes. I see the English Grant-in-Aid this year is £70,000, and last year it was £170,000. The English Board, apparently, are getting the Grant, while we in Scotland are only getting a reduced sum of £10,000. We were assured when the War began that we would not suffer, but I have very grave doubts whether we shall ever get the money now. While we were content to accept this £10,000 under the circumstances, I think we are entitled to ask from the Government some explanation as to why England has been treated differently in this matter. With regard to the question of afforestry, I had the pleasure of introducing a deputation to the last Secretary for Scotland, when Edinburgh University raised a question as to the estate proposed to be taken over. Personally, I was quite satisfied that it

      1933
      could not be accepted as a business proposal, and the Government came to the same conclusion. Another estate was suggested, and there was a feeling chat it was so far away from Edinburgh that the Edinburgh students would not be able to take advantage of it. I agree that we in Edinburgh should have a fair chance along with other places in these matters, but, at the same time, I was quite satisfied to support the purchase of the estate, because I thought the terms suggested constituted a good commercial proposition, vastly more so than those in regard to the estate of the Duke of Atholl. I entirely disagree with this idea of taking land on lease for afforestation; it is wrong in principle. We must have complete security of tenure, so that there may be no fear, at the end of the lease, of a valuable property falling into the pockets of a private owner. If the proposal regarding the Duke of Atholl's estate had been accepted the owner of that estate would, at the end of the lease, have become very wealthy indeed. I hope that any agreement in the future will be on the lines of purchase and not on leasehold lines.
      I have one other question I wish to touch upon. I have received a good many letters with regard to the subject of fruit. We have been informed that it was under the advice of the Board of Agriculture in Scotland that the prices were fixed for strawberries and other fruit. I must say that the Order which has been issued has caused absolute consternation to fruit growers in Scotland, and I certainly cannot understand how the Board of Agriculture, in view of the common knowledge that the fruit season in Scotland is two or three weeks later than that in England—I say I cannot understand how this Order, which applies to both England and Scotland, was sanctioned by the Scottish Board, seeing that it deprives the great bulk of the fruit growers in Scotland of the advantages of selling their fruit for the same length of time as the English grower is allowed to. I think an extension of time should have been granted in the case of the Scottish growers, and that in this matter they should have been put on an equality with England. I am the last man to claim any privilege for Scotland, but I suggest it is only fair that in a matter of this sort Scottish growers should be put on an equality with English growers.
      Sir W. BEALE: Although I am always reluctant to take up the time of the House,
      1934
      I do not think I ought to allow the Debate on afforestry to pass without saying a word, because I had the advantage of serving on one of the Commissions which have dealt with the question. I agree that hon. Members who have spoken have drawn very striking pictures of the way in which promoters of experimental afforestry schemes in Scotland have gone about their work. But I have come to the conclusion that the notions of the hon. Members are not necessarily correct as to the kind of arrangements that ought to be made The hon. Member for Aberdeen-shire said that it was admitted that afforestry could not be a paying undertaking. But that was not the conclusion come to by the Committee on which I sat. It may be the case at the present time: I admit that it cannot now be made a paying undertaking. But, having gone carefully into the figures, the Committee of which I was a member came to the conclusion that at that time it would be possible to work it on a 3 per cent. basis on the money laid out. But, of course, you cannot apply the conditions which then obtained to the present time. On the other hand, it must be remembered that the value of timber has risen enormously, and, therefore, I am not at all willing to admit that forestry, properly undertaken on the scale and in the manner which the Committee recommend, could not now be made a paying undertaking. Of course, it cannot be done under present conditions or by such bodies as have hitherto been set up, admirable though they may have been for the purpose of teaching afforestry and for carrying on research work. It might, however, be done by a national scheme with a very much larger expenditure of money than can posibly be contemplated for some years to come.
      I take it that the life of conifers is somewhere about seventy years; there are hardwood trees which take longer; the beech tree, if I recollect aright, requires from 120 to 130 years to mature. But you have to make your calculations from the beginning; you may get some return after the end of twenty years. It is not quite the case that you are continually replanting; you do not replant year by year: what you do is each year to plant a new area so that you may have a rotation, and when the first planted area is ready to be cut down then you have another area which in a year's time will also be ready,

      1935
      and so the rotation continues. That is a businesslike view of the matter. A question was put to a large landowner about giving up his land for this purpose, and, if my recollection serves me rightly, he showed every disposition to conform to what is the essential thing of all, and that was that he should not look to regain his land under any circumstances or in other forms or for other purposes than as continuous afforestry. The system of rotation of areas must be a continuous operation. But the landowner did suggest something of this sort—a permanent renewal of a leasehold arrangement by which he gave up the management and superintendence of his land entirely to the Government Department, while retaining the other rights of the landowner, which, for reasons I am really unable to fathom, he was unwilling to part with altogether. The landowner does not like the idea of a sale out-and-out. He is willing for his property to be used by the Government for afforestry, and quite ready to yield supervision of it, but he still wants to retain the sense of ownership. I would call attention to the necessity of a large expenditure of money in this matter. You want to combine with this scheme of afforestation a system of small holdings round about and close to the forest; you must acquire land for that purpose; you must create permanent agricultural holdings for the labourers employed on the land. The essential labour for the Forest Department comes at one period and the necessary labour for the small holding at another period. Then you must have an arrangement of light railways to get the stuff away and to bring to the people living in and near the forest the necessaries of life, so that they may have some degree of comfort. You must have proper establishments and plant for preserving this timber; you must have sawmills; and, what is still more important, you must have apparatus for pulping the wood as they do in Norway. I only want to point out that these schemes cannot pay unless they are carried out on a big scale, and the idea of taking quite small areas and of patting soldiers on the land is mere trifling with the matter compared with what the position of afforestation should be. I hope the Government will go on with this matter. I hope they will have the courage to make the nation less dependent upon imports for its timber supplies in the future.
      1936
      May I refer to the dilemma which the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of National Service, and the military authorities jointly have put us in in regard to labour on the farm. We are now told that whatever may happen to agriculture the military authorities must have these men. That may be right or wrong; we, at any rate, cannot dispute it. Up to the present we have done our best to conform to the demands of the authorities. But if there are certain concessions to be made, I would ask the Secretary for Scotland to use his influence with and to put pressure upon those with whom the decision rests to ensure that men who are really essential to the farmer shall not be taken away. The farmers no doubt must put up with worse labour, but there are cases in which it is essential the skilled men should be retained. I would mention the case of a shepherd taken away and no one being available to fill his place. I have two important eases in my own Constituency. The case of a farmer and a man to drive his self-binding machine has been sufficiently ventilated, but I ask the Secretary for Scotland to listen to the representations which have been made, where the importance of retaining a man is quite out of proportion to any possible advantage the military authorities may gain by their refusal to make an exception in any case.
      Sir E. PARROTT: I should like to accentuate the grievance with regard to the fruit business to which my hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. Price) has referred. I make no apology for raising the question of the strawberry crop, for I think nearly everybody will agree with the ancient divine that "God might have made a better berry, but doubtless He never did." I have in my hand a letter from the secretary of the Scottish Wholesale Fruit Merchants' Association, in which he gives the state of the case as follows:
      "The strawberry season now being almost full upon us, if anything is to be done it must be done instantly. Personally we do not believe that the preserver, the trade or the public would have grudged a considerably higher price being fixed. The unanimous opinion of our association was, and still is, that if the Food Control had claimed 70 per cent. and allowed the 30 per cent. to have been sold in the open market at an uncontrolled price, the extra received on the 30 per cent. would have been sufficient to have reimbursed the grower for the small price fixed by the Controller and would have ensured the full crop being harvested. Whoever fixed the price, they certainly did not consider the present purchasing

      1937
      value of a sovereign. The fixed price is lower than in pre-war times and the cost of production very much greater. The crop is unfortunately very short, and therefore the grower needs a higher price, and our proposal of 30 per cent. free at uncontrolled price would have helped the grower and given housewives the opportunity of using the reserve sugar they have denied themselves of in other ways in order to have their usual boiling of home-made jam, and the higher price would have allowed the grower to gather all the crop without monetary loss. At the fixed price and the higher rate of wages the grower cannot continue to pick to the finish except at a serious loss in money. Can anyone blame him if he fails to gather them? If the Controller's plea is that the fruit is required for jam for the needs of the Army and Navy, why is the jam on the open market for sale?"
      I have nothing to add to that letter, which I think puts the case very succinctly, and I hope we shall have some statement later on by the Secretary for Scotland on this question.
      Mr. WATT: I seem to have a peculiar capacity for not catching your eye, Mr. Chairman, and it cannot be that my physical characteristics are unobservable. Therefore I do not know why it is. I have a few observations to make on this Vote. In the first place, I desire to associate myself with the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. Price) and with the hon. and learned Member for West Aberdeen-shire (Mr. Henderson) in complaining of the day that has been fixed by the Government for the consideration of Scottish Estimates. As they have indicated, a number of our Friends the Scottish Members had engagements in Scotland and were unaware that the Estimates were coming on this week and are therefore absent, and, moreover, this is an attractive day outside to the other Members of the House, they wanting to attend some baseball match, and whenever there is an odd day when the Englishman wants to get away, I will not say on the spree, but on an outing, Scotland is always shoved into the Cinderella place. The Committee are here to consider a very large sum of money in connection with the Department of Agriculture. The sum that is being passed is something like £80,000, and the point that the Committee have to consider is whether the nation gets value for this £80,000. Is the Scottish Board of Agriculture and are its works worth £80,000 per annum? I do not believe that even the Secretary for Scotland, with a brief for the Department, would be able to assert, much less to prove, that that Department was worth that large sum.
      Mr. MUNRO: I shall be glad to do both, if I can.
      Mr. WATT: I am glad to think we shall have the pleasure of listening to the right hon. Gentleman again. I take the liberty of thinking that it is not worth quite that figure, that it is not energetic enough in big things, and that it fritters away its time largely in comparatively small things, and I think the right hon. Gentleman, although he took the opportunity of praising in a superlative manner the work of that Department, does not mean it with his whole heart, because I believe he has had in view on many occasions since he became Secretary for Scotland the idea of making great alterations in the Department, and unfortunately since he got there no alternations have been made whatever, except a reshuffling of the cards when one of the Board Was sent to France. May I say that a Secretary for Scotland—indeed, all highly-placed officials—show their power and the suitability for their positions by effecting changes. I think that when a man makes no change when he is put at the head of a Department he is not the best man for that position. He allows things to drift, and indeed it is necessary, in occupying a position such as my right hon. Friend occupies, that he should not only have a head and an intellect, but that he should have a strong foot too, and that he should exercise his foot on some occasions by removing the inefficients. That has been the boast of the head of his Government, for the Prime Minister has boasted that his policy has been always to remove inefficients, and I think my right hon. Friend should imitate that in some of his Departments. I do not know who are the inefficients in the Board of Agriculture and who are not, but he should find them out, and, having found them, I think he should make changes there.
      The right hon. Gentleman took exception to an observation of mine about the taking of the men from agriculture when I said that the War Secretary in the struggle before the Cabinet had overridden the agricultural representatives both of England and Scotland, and had got his—the War Office—way in dealing with the men engaged in agriculture. Perhaps that was a rough way of putting it. No doubt the necessities of the War weighed a great deal with my right hon. Friend and with the representative of England in these discussions, but at the same time may I point this out to my right

      1939
      hon. Friend, that in many cases where there is a struggle between the Scottish Office and other Departments—such as the Food Department, for instance—the latter wins? My right hon. Friend is there at the forefront of the Scottish Office and nation to fight the battle of Scotland, and when he is put up against the Food Minister and the War Office, and so on, I regret to find that very often he is overriden. As a concrete instance of that, I will say this: A struggle took place with the Ministry of Food and the Scottish Office about the price of the potatoes that the farmers were growing in Scotland, and in that struggle for equality for farmers throughout the two countries my right hon. Friend was ousted. He allowed the Scottish farmers to get less for their potatoes than the English farmers got. The English farmers are to get £7 a ton, whereas a large portion of Scotland is just to get £5 10s. a ton. The growing of potatoes in Scotland is a more expensive thing than the growing of them in England: wages are higher, the ground is less prolific, rents are higher for the same class of soil, and in every way the Scotsmen have greater difficulty in putting their produce on the market than the Englishmen have. Yet the Englishmen are to get 30s. a ton more than the Scottish farmers for potatoes. The protagonist for the Scottish farmers was my right hon. Friend, and, that being so, the result is that they will get less money.
      There is another point with which I want to deal in connection with potatoes. My right hon. Friend, or the Food Department, have arranged that as much as £100 an acre should be given to the early potato growers in Scotland, whereas the late potato growers are allowed only £5 or £6 a ton, which comes to about £30 an acre, and the one is just about as difficult as the other to grow, whereas in the case of the early potato grower he gets in another crop, and will move two crops on his land, while the late potato grower can only have one. How is it that that came about? What has the right hon. Gentleman to say to that? May I say what my diagnosis of the situation is? It is that the right hon. Gentleman and his Department consulted only an early potato grower, and that gentleman, of course, gave the advice which has led to this particular condition of affairs. Another point to which I wish to draw attention is the want of sympathy which the Board of
      1940
      Agriculture has shown to co-operative selling. If one reads this Report one finds that they are taking credit for having in one instance advanced £500 to the Central Markets Supply Association and a similar sum to the Agricultural Organisation Society. These institutions are for the selling of the produce of the farmers in a cooperative way, and it is such institutions that have made the success of Ireland. Co-operation in selling has made Ireland in the last twenty years a prosperous country, and there has been a great desire on the part of everyone who knows anything about agriculture to advance this co-operative principle by the encouragement of the various societies in Scotland so that they could be put on a par with Ireland. England, too, has sought in every shape and form to encourage, if not enforce, the institution of co-operative societies. The Board of Agriculture in Scotland, with its £80,000 per annum, has given on loan to these co-operative societies £500—a most magnanimous sum—to encourage this best scheme that is on the tapis. This same Board of Agriculture, which gives £5,000 for the clearing away of cut wood on private estates, gives for the encouragement of this great necessity of modern times £500!
      The last point on which I desire to speak is the question of forestry and the encouragement of forestry. Every Scottish Member knows the history of Scottish forestry. A Committee has inquired into the question, and decisions were come to which were definitely and clearly against taking over anything in the shape of leases. My hon. Friend said they had a very favourable offer of leasehold property from the Duke of Argyll, and they turned it down because of the principle. But now an offer has been made of a seventy-five years' lease, and my right hon. Friend tells the Committee to-day that that offer has been accepted, and will be signed and sealed shortly. I think that is a lamentable and an unfortunate thing. We are inclined to wonder how it has been brought about under the regime of my right hon. Friend, and one is inclined to think there has been something wrong in the state of Denmark when one realises that the individual in the Development Commission who turned down all the proposals made with reference to purchase is in this particular instance interested in the estate—to put it mildly, interested in the estate—which has now been leased for

      1941
      seventy-five years. My right hon. Friend and his Department were not desirous of purchasing. I need hardly tell him there was an intermediate course between purchasing and leasing, namely, that of feu, which would have given permanent possession at practically a rent, and would have prevented a disadvantage which my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeen-shire pointed out, that at the end of seventy-five years all the benefit of the Government's expense and money will go to the owner of the property.
      One word more, and it is in connection with the estate of Shinness which the right hon. Gentleman has taken over. Reference is made to it in the Report as having come into the hands of the Board of Agriculture on the 28th May, but no details are given as to figures. Nebulous references are given as to sums spent, but no details, which, I understand, will not stand examination. This particular estate is the gift about which my hon. Friend said you should not look a gift-horse in the mouth. This gift was made by the Duke of Sutherland. I understand the lease was coming to an end, and that the Duke was bound to take over the sheep, the value of which, I am told, was as much as £30,000. Whilst this liability was over his head, he presented the estate to the nation, but with his presentation was also the liability of the Duke for the sheep, estimated at £30,000. We are not told whether the Government had to pay that extraordinary price—that serious price—or whether they had not. Of course, the Duke of Sutherland handed it over to the nation because he saw the difficulty of getting another tenant to take this Shinness property, and, when last I asked the right hon. Gentleman regarding Shinness, he said it was not the case that a tenant could not be easily found for this particular farm. I can just imagine a farmer in that district and of that status being able to take over a liability of £30,000! No tenant could have been got, and the Duke, with that cleverness which characterises that particular section of society, saw the difficulty coming and avoided it by presenting this estate to the nation.
      Major CHAPPLE: I agree with my hon. Friend that the State should not undertake any forestry schemes except upon Crown lands. Forestry is pre-eminently a State function. Although I have very little confidence in State enterprise in most things, this is one of the
      1942
      things in which the harvest is so far removed that it is a matter for State enterprise. But the State should start on this principle, that no trees should be planted on any land except Crown land. It should be very easy to secure land. In the first place, land in Scotland appropriate for forestry is useful for very little else, and should be secured at its revenue value capitalised at 5 per cent., the arbitrators being limited as to the factors which they should take into consideration in estimating the value. The difficulty arises from the fact that arbitrators seem to lean so much to the side of the owners and in estimating value to take factors into consideration which are really preposterous. Quite recently some land was secured for Government purposes which was practically useless and had no revenue value whatever. The arbitrator took into consideration that, while the land had no intrinsic value, the land adjoining was worth £45 an acre, and that if the State could not get this valueless land, it would be forced to take land valued at £45 an acre, and therefore the arbitrator put £45 an acre on this valueless land. It is essential that strict limitations shall be laid down in the case of arbitrators as to what they shall take into consideration. Even if the State buys at a prospective revenue of the land, capitalised at 5 per cent., there is no reason why it should not own most of the land in Scotland otherwise useless, but suitable for forestry. I feel it my duty to press that point upon the Committee, because I think it is so important.
      I want to call attention to the value of supplying information and knowledge to those who are dealing with agriculture in Scotland. I read in this Report about a supply of bulls, a supply of pigs, a supply of stud horses, and so on. These are not nearly so valuable to the farmer as a-supply of scientific knowledge by leaflets, and so on, and research work should take the form of research along those modern methods of increasing the fertility of the soil and increasing the supply of land. I want to make a reference to the possibility of reclaiming large areas of waste land in Scotland, and making it available for agricultural purposes, largely by spreading knowledge as to how that land may be reclaimed. I do not mean that the State should reclaim land. That is one of the functions it cannot satisfactorily perform. When you get to an enterprise

      1943
      which can be better performed by private enterprise the State should leave it severely alone. Forestry is one of the things private enterprise cannot afford to undertake, and therefore the State should take it up, but land reclamation is a thing which can be done infinitely better by private enterprise than by the State. That can be done by spreading knowledge among those willing to learn, who have the capital ready to invest in land reclamation, and who would, if they had facilities for reclaiming land, adopt the modern methods. To one or two of those modem methods I will refer. There are enterprises only about five or ten years old in the United States. They are now using machinery for nearly all purposes of land development. If the Agricultural Department of Scotland got into touch with the Agricultural Department there, and with those experimental stations that are so numerous all over the States, they would get an abundance of information, some only five or ten years old, which would be invaluable in Scotland for the purpose of land reclamation.
      Let me give one or two instances. Machinery now can ditch, drain and embank in a way hand-labour cannot possibly do, so far as cheapness and efficiency are concerned. The time is coming when labour is going to be dearer and more inaccessible than ever. A good many enterprises for land reclamation were turned down under the old estimates of hand-labour, but land which has been waste for the last twenty to a hundred years could be brought into use if these modern machinery methods were adopted. You can use dredgers which can walk a mile a day and dredge as they go. I have seen dredgers in Canada digging a ditch 14 ft. wide and 4 ft. 6 ins. deep at the rate of a mile a day, and only two men were required for each shift. To see this monster walking across the plain was a weird sight. That dredge was turning over that ditching spoil at 7½d. a cubic yard, and from that it is quite easy to estimate the cost of a mile of ditching 14 ft. wide and 4 ft. 6 ins. deep, which it can do in a day. The farmer could be told what the estimate would be, or, taking the kind of land into consideration, how much it would cost to drain it with one of the small drainers and ditchers which move on caterpillar wheels, like the tanks, and go over swamps which formerly could not be
      1944
      drained at all. These things have been brought into use in the United States, and on land which would not bear an animal, a bullock, a horse, or even a man, these tractor ditchers will drain at a cost of 7s. 6d. per acre, and drain land with open drains which beforetime it was estimated would cost from £5 to £7 per acre to silt drain. The work could be done in some cases for even less than 7s. 6d. per acre. This information should be made available to agriculturists in this country. There are thousands of acres in Scotland to-day which could be brought into use if these modern methods of reclamation were applied.
      Apart from the method of machinery and the draining which I have just described, there are also other methods of improving the soil. You may reclaim land in three ways; by draining the water off, by banking the water out, and by fertilising. You may have absolute reclamation, or, you may have relative reclamation. Land that is of the value of £2 per acre by reclamation and by these fertilising methods may be made worth £3 to £4 an acre. There are chemical methods in use in the United States. There are agricultural colleges in the United States in connection with agricultural stations, and from these stations you can, for a guinea, get a report as to the capacity and capability of the soil. The report that you will get for that guinea will tell you what is the chemical nature of your land, in what it is deficient, whether; you had better grow potatoes, or wheat, or grass; and, finally, it will tell you what you have to do in order to get out of the land its maximum fertility and what particular plant or crop you ought to grow upon it. Helping forward by methods of this kind, and spreading information about them, is infinitely more valuable than buying bulls and sending them round to the farmers. It is infinitely more valuable that they should have knowledge to show them, as in the United States, how by scientific methods they can get the maximum amount of produce with a minimum amount of labour and expenditure. I read a leading article in one of our leading newspapers where there was an estimate given of the value of wheat as a crop. The writer said that if you lost 6d. a bushel on wheat, and by more science grew 2 bushels instead of 1, that only meant that you were losing 1s. The writer ignored the fact that the problem of agriculture is to get the maximum result with the minimum

      1945
      of labour and expense. I am suggesting to my right hon. Friend that if he induces the Agricultural Department to get into touch with all these scientific methods, these up-to-date methods, that the sowing of this good seed of knowledge will, in a few years, produce perhaps a hundredfold. I have very little else to add to what I have said, except that I could give illustrations that bear upon what I have said from land which I know in Scotland in which this knowledge could be used with the utmost effect. There are rich areas along the Firth of Forth of land, so rich in their productivity as to produce 85 bushels of wheat per acre. Some of it has been reclaimed, and last year produced a crop of 85 bushels per acre. There are 2,000 acres of exactly similar land. You can get a modern dredge, capable of dealing with 10,000 cubic yards in the course of twenty-four hours. Hand labour is not in it. Hand labour on such a machine could be paid £5 to £10 per week. By the use of machinery like this you could pay labour higher than ever before, and yet increase the productivity of the soil. I commend these observations to my right hon. Friend, who I am quite sure will appreciate the significance of them.
      Mr. MUNRO: Perhaps I may be allowed to deal with one or two of the important points which have been raised since I last spoke. The last speech to which we have just listened was a most interesting one, and my hon. and gallant Friend may be quite assured that the suggestions he has made will be most carefully considered. I agree with him as to the importance of spreading a knowledge of the best agricultural methods, and in particular a knowledge of modern methods. In that connection, if my hon. and gallant Friend will refer to page 15 of the Report he will see that the county extension work of the colleges is going forward on these lines, not perhaps to the extent that he would desire, but he will see that the matter has not been lost sight of. Bearing also upon this interesting observations as to draining and ditching, I may tell the Committee that a scheme for the purchase of a drainage machine from America was sanctioned by me only the other day. That machine is being brought across, and it will be tested by the Highland and Agricultural Society on behalf of the Board of Agriculture. The circumstance may be small perhaps, but I think it is significant of
      1946
      the fact that the Board of Agriculture has really got an open mind upon these modern improvements. The Board has recently published a journal to which reference has been made. I am very glad I have been able to sanction it. It is called the "Scottish Journal of Agriculture," and is a quarterly production, in which the most recent knowledge about these scientific matters with which my hon. and gallant Friend has dealt is published. He, therefore, may rest assured that the observations he has made will receive the utmost attention from the Board, and, if possible, that effect will be given to his suggestions.
      A question was put by the hon. Member for the Tradeston Division with regard to Middlebank. The question is of a legal nature, and I have asked my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General to reply to it. I rather think he cherishes a misgiving which is not well founded, but it is really a legal question, and, as I say, I am asking my hon. and learned Friend to reply. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire County (Mr. J. M. Henderson) delivered one of his characteristic speeches, and at this hour I cannot possibly deal with the various matters into which he went in detail. I am rather sorry for the attack he made upon-the Development Commission, particularly at this moment, for, so far as I am concerned, as head of the Board of Agriculture, I may say that every recommendation which the Board has made during the last eighteen months or so, I think, without exception, has received effect at the hands of the Development Commission. I am really at a loss to suggest any better arrangement that can be made at this time than the system under which we are working at the Board of Agriculture and at the Development Commission. There may have been grievances in the past. I know quite well the history of which my hon. Friend spoke, but I really do not desire to go into it to-day. I think it is desirable, if possible, to avoid recriminations regarding the past.
      Mr. J. HENDERSON: Not recriminations. I only stated the facts.
      Mr. MUNRO: My hon. Friend went very far back into ancient history, and referred to the Development Commissioners and the Board of Agriculture. I do think it would have been more useful

      1947
      to have concentrated upon the position to-day, and to have endeavoured to forget rather than to remind us of what may have been an unfortunate episode in the dim and distant past.
      Mr. HENDERSON: It is not dim and distant.
      Mr. MUNRO: Yes, dim and distant so far as we are concerned to-day. I do not see any useful purpose that can be served by raking it up. So far as Craigmyle is concerned, I should like to say that I quite appreciate the observations of the hon. Member that in certain cases land should preferably be leased, but I do not agree that it is invariably so. He takes a strong view—
      Mr. HENDERSON: The three Committees have reported strongly, and, of course, the right hon. Gentleman, if he agrees with me, must agree with them.
      Mr. MUNRO: I think my hon. Friend puts that a little higher than he is justified in doing. It is always a question of circumstances. If we can lease, in the first place, the same amount of capital is not required; I think my hon. Friend will agree with me there. In the second place, planting can be made upon areas which are not in the market at all. These are considerations which my hon. Friend agrees must be taken into account, on the one hand; and, on the other, there are other considerations in favour of purchase. What I say is it is largely a question of the circumstances, and the period for which the lease is entered into. It is surely a matter upon which one must be guided by one's expert forestry advisers?
      Mr. HENDERSON: They reported against it!
      Mr. MUNRO: Not so far as I am aware, In any case, I acted with the advice of my expert forestry advisers, and I do not think one can do better than that.
      Mr. HENDERSON: I am sorry to interrupt, but why was not the Advisory Committee, which is still in existence, consulted?
      Mr. MUNRO: The Advisory Committee, so far as I know, has not met for years. Whether that Committee is in existence or not at the present moment, I really do not know. If my hon. Friend desires to have it resuscitated or thinks
      1948
      it can serve any useful purpose, I am quite agreeable to consider the suggestion. All I do say is that the attitude that my hon. Friend has taken up in regard to the Craigmyle transaction is rather ungracious. I take full responsibility for that transaction.
      Mr. HENDERSON: I do not know what the transaction is.
      Mr. MUNRO: Really, Mr. Whitley, I must be allowed to state my case. I did not interrupt my hon. Friend. I do put it that when he attacks, as he does, not the Development Commission, but Lord Shaw, who was a party to this transaction—
      Mr. HENDERSON: I did not?
      Mr. MUNRO: My hon. Friend himself said that this was a transaction for the benefit of the landowner. I do not agree. The transaction is one for which I accept the fullest responsibility. I do not profess to be able to judge a matter of this sort, but I took the best expert advice I could get, and I do say that, in the circumstances, it was a good bargain for the State. I hope that time will show that I am right and that my hon. Friend is wrong in this matter.
      Mr. D. WHITE: Has my right hon. Friend considered the possibility that I suggested of obtaining the land for afforestation by feu?
      8.0 P.M.
      Mr. MUNRO: That possibility certainly has been considered, but it depends a good deal, does it not, upon the circumstances? There are certain cases, in my humble judgment, where it may be desirable to feu, other cases where it is desirable to lease, and other cases, again, where it may be desirable to purchase. In deciding which of these particular methods one shall adopt, we must, it seems to me, take the best advice we can get upon it, and that is what I did. The hon. Member for Central Edinburgh spoke of the agricultural Grant being reduced £10,000. The reason for that was that we have had, and have at present, as much money as under existing conditions we can spend for small holdings and other purposes. There is the problem of war-time conditions in both Scotland and England, and you cannot create small holdings under these conditions; you cannot get the labour nor the material at reasonable prices. We had an accumulation) of money

      1949
      to the credit of the Agriculture (Scotland) Fund. When the matter came on it was a question between the Treasury and myself. It was put to me with some force that looking at the state of our accounts, and the estimated expenditure for the coming year, that we could not spend what we had then, even if the expenditure came up to the estimate. When my hon. Friend referred to the English Grant he should remember that it was reduced to £170,000.
      Mr. PRICE: My point is that last year £170,000 was voted for Scotland and England, and in England they spent it.
      Mr. MUNRO: Yes; but that money included money to be devoted to the construction and purchase of small-holding colonies. What I do know is that small holdings have been damped down in England just as in Scotland in war-time for precisely the same reasons. I can assure my hon. Friend that all these considerations were very fully argued before the Treasury, and we thought it was not wise to press the matter further at the present moment. With regard to strawberries, for some time the market remained uncontrolled. As my hon. Friend knows, English strawberries are earlier than Scottish strawberries, and, therefore, the English strawberry grower, while the market was uncontrolled, sold his goods at the high figure. Then the price was controlled both in England and in Scotland, but inasmuch as the Scottish crop is later the Scottish grower did not get any advantage from the higher price. I do not know how you could avoid it.
      Mr. PRICE: I will tell the right hon. Gentleman. I would make the Order applicable to Scotland three weeks after it applied to England, and then you would equalise the advantage.
      Mr. MUNRO: I am glad the hon. Gentleman has raised this question, and I shall be glad to consider his suggestion.
      Mr. PRICE: I saw the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Clynes) on this subject, and I have had a good deal of correspondence, and the extraordinary thing is that not in a single instance have they replied to my query about making the Order applicable to Scotland later, and that is the point I hope the right hon. Gentleman will press.
      Mr. MUNRO: I am much obliged to the hon. Member for raising this point. I know that it is important. I will
      1950
      make it my business to confer with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food to see whether anything can be done, and I shall not forget that time is pressing. I listened with great attention to the speech of the hon. Member for Ayrshire, and the observations which he, from his wide experience, made upon the question of forestry, and I can assure him that I shall bear them in mind. The last speech made by the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Watt) was of the usual breezy character which we always enjoy, and I am quite sure the criticisms he has made will be taken in good part. With regard to the estate to which he referred, I cannot go into details, but I am assured that the transaction is regarded by the Board of Agriculture as a thoroughly good business transaction, and if he desires any further information, perhaps he will be good enough to put down a question, and I will do my best to give him a satisfactory answer. After the Solicitor-General has dealt with the point raised by the hon. Member for the Tradeston Division (Mr. Dundas White), may I appeal to the Committee to allow us to get this Vote, which has been under discussion for some considerable time?
      Mr. HENDERSON: My right hon. Friend said he was not aware that this Advisory Committee was in existence. It has not been dissolved, and on the Committee of Reconstruction three of the members of that Committee are included.
      Mr. MUNRO: Not as such!
      Mr. HENDERSON: There are five, and they are all available with the exception of one, and they are the very men that the Minister of Reconstruction has put upon his Committee. I think my right hon. Friend was very unfair in saying that I was ungracious to the landlord's interest in this particular case. I would like to say that if he had been my own brother I should have opposed the matter. The terms of the lease have not been stated, but I object to it because it is a lease, and because I believe a lease is altogether wrong under these circumstances. I distinctly said that I did not doubt the bona fides of my hon. Friend in the matter, and I would not do such a thing.
      Mr. MUNRO: I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that the very last thing I desire to do is to be unfair to him or to anyone else, and if he assures me that he had no

      1951
      idea of suggesting that this arrangement was unduly favourable to the landlord, I at once withdraw what I said on the point.
      The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Mr. Morison): The point raised by the hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. Dundas White) is one of some importance, but I think it may be dealt with in a very few sentences. I quite agree that the passage in the Report of the Board of Agriculture is rather elliptical on this particular topic, but I can assure him that the tenure of the small-holder is perpetual. It can only be ended in one of two ways. Either it may be renounced by the small landowners, or the tenure may be ended in exceptional circumstances by the resumption of the holding by the landlord. Section 18 deals with the former and Section 19 with the latter of these two ways. When the proprietor comes to sell his estate he of course is not limited in the way in which he proposes to put it up to auction. But, as in the Middlebank case, he had chosen to put it in twelve separate holdings, he might have had twelve purchasers, and each would have had the right under Section 19 of the Statute to go to the Land Court and say that he wished to have this particular holding for his own personal occupation, and the particular tenure on the estate would have been ended in accordance with Section 19 of the Statute. That is a risk which the Middlebank small-holders wish to avoid.
      Mr. D. WHITE: Do I understand that, in conformity with Section 19 of the Act, if the landowner should sell land which is in small holdings in small lots, the tenure of the small-holder may be jeopardised?
      Mr. MORISON: I think that is so. Under Section 19 the particular occupier may have his tenure jeopardised because of the operation of Section 19 of the Statute. But this is all subject to the order of the Land Court. That is the particular explanation, and I can assure my hon. Friend it is not the tenure that gives rise to this difficulty. It is the operation of Section 19.
      Mr. WHITE: That danger exists throughout Scotland, even in the case of the small landowners?
      Mr. MORISON: In regard to the latter case I should not like to say, but it is certainly so in regard to existing small holdings.
      Mr. WATT: Am I to take it that the right hon. Gentleman is unable to explain why the Scotch farmer is getting £5 10s. for potatoes while the English farmer is getting £7 10s.?
      Mr. MUNRO: Yes; I am able to explain. I think the hon. Member will agree with me that there have been a large number of points to deal with, and I am sorry I omitted to deal with that. My hon. and learned Friend is an authority on the subject of potatoes, but I am sure he will appreciate the explanation. He knows that Scotland produces chiefly potatoes, but we get our own back in the matter of seed potatoes. My hon. and learned Friend says that when you put one account against the other it does not work out quite well from the point of view of Scotch interests, but my information is that it does.
      Mr. WATT: When seed potatoes come to have their prices fixed, will he see that Scotland gets a higher price?
      Question put, and agreed to.

    FISHERY BOARD, SCOTLAND.—

      Class II.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £12,250, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of. March, 1919, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Fishery Board for Scotland and for Grants in Aid of Piers or Quays."—[NOTE.—£8,000 has been voted on account.]
      Mr. PRICE: On a point of Order. Is it possible that this Vote might be postponed, seeing that no Report has come from the Fishery Board? We are unable to consider that, owing to the fact that we have no Report of last year's proceedings, and I should like to move that this Vote be postponed.
      The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): That is not a point of Order. The Vote has been set down, and it is my duty to put it to the Committee, and I know that some hon. Members are prepared to speak upon it.
      Mr. HARCOURT: I should like to say, in reference to what the last speaker has said, that I have every sympathy with him in regard to what he has said about the Report of the Fishery Board, but I think there are certain topics which can conveniently be raised. I remember myself,

      1953
      in happier days before the War, dealing with the subject of fish, a most entrancing and alluring topic which I brought to the notice of the House at great length, and, though I say it that should not, with no inconsiderable research in spite of that, it is definitely on record that an utterance of mine at one o'clock in the morning, on the relation of the Bell Rock to the doctrine of the three-mile limit, kept at least one English Member awake to the extent of nearly a column in the "Morning Leader." The Secretary for Scotland, whatever his personal opinions, is estopped from saying I talked bad law, because, being a private Member at the time, I believe he actually followed on the same side. War has changed many things. I have had some practical experience of the three-mile limit. It used to depend on the principle of ubi finitur quercuum vis. I have myself shot out to sea from an Egean island, which shall be nameless, well over three miles with a weapon of comparatively modest calibre. I only say this because I desire to peg out a claim—political life is a little uncertain—on behalf of the line fishermen at Arbroath in the present or late constituency of my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland, and, indeed, in the constituencies of others of my hon. Friends, to a considerable extension of that doctrine in days when the principle of the freedom of the seas is established in a British, not in a German, sense. But there has been a curious inversion of fishing politics as to the proper limits of trawling. I fear that the vexed question of trawling must remain, shall I say, quiescent during the War. But there has been—and that is my reason for referring to this portion of the topic of sea fishing as distinct from fresh-water fishing—quite recently a rather curious inversion of what I might call the official views as to the proper limits of trawling. Courts inflicted heavy penalties for illegal trawling this year, and, following upon it, the Fishery Board have since, by arbitration—and they did right without coming to this House—permitted in certain conditions, and within certain areas, trawling within the three-mile limit as a war measure.
      I understand that this was actually done at the request of the line fishermen themselves, who had previously most strongly opposed it, but I understand this is confined to specified types of vessels with specified types of nets. I have sufficiently described the point for the opinion of my
      1954
      right hon. Friend, on which I should be glad to have a reply. Of course, I must not be taken as agreeing, and I do not think he himself would be taken as agreeing with that on the broad question of food supply. That is wise as a permanent measure. Of course, there remains to be considered the question of spawning grounds and of nurseries for young fish, and I think it would be very convenient for the information of fishermen themselves in Scotland if my right hon. Friend I would take this opportunity of making a general statement of what has been unquestionably a departure from policy in this regard. I also desire to raise a quite separate topic as to fishing with rod and line on all lochs and streams—what is known as free fishing. This has been raised again with considerable vigour quite recently, but I would emphasise the fact that this is not by any means a new question. I remember at my first election in Forfarshire having this topic brought to my attention. The general question is this, How far landlords, proprietors, riparian owners, whatever you choose to call them, are entitled to claim that a limited number of human beings are alone to take fish for food by methods which are in themselves perfectly legitimate and sportsmanlike? The contention which is advanced is that this exclusive claim is not justified either in law or as a matter of policy. I will refer at once to the well-known point, that I am not entitled on these Estimates to argue the question of legislation owing to the Rules of the House, and, indeed, had the Rules of the House permitted me, I would not have desired to argue it at all upon this occasion. Because, to my mind, the Secretary for Scotland could himself do a great deal by personal influence in the matter. I have myself drawn his attention to very widely-signed petitions from my own Constituency—one from Forfar, I think, at the end of March of this year, and another quite recently, within the last few days, from Montrose.
      I told the petitioners at Forfar at the time that legislation under existing Parliamentary conditions was not very promising. But there are, as is well known, angling associations. They are getting to work. They are responsible bodies and represent very large numbers of fishers, responsible and respectable men. They would be in a position, I think, to guarantee legitimate methods of fishing and to give some sort of security

      1955
      against wilful damage. What I desire to put before my right hon. Friend is this, that if the angling associations undertook to negotiate with the owners, are they not entitled to expect the good will—indeed, I personally would go so far as to say the active assistance—of the Scottish Office? I do not wish to develop this point, because other of my hon. Friends are prepared to emphasise it, but I should like to add my personal point of view. Many of us have lived during the War in lands where perhaps natural rights have been more conspicuous than landlords' rights. In the aerodrome where I lived for some time, for instance, there was no more private property in a game bird than in a mosquito. It was a question of who had a gun or a cartridge and not who had a board with "Trespassers will be prosecuted." I doubt if, when men come back from the War, whether you will get the jealous regards for landlords' vetoes which used to be regarded as part and parcel of the British Constitution. I do not wish to enter into any disquisition on the Game Laws. I confine myself entirely to this special case. I want to be understood as saying there is no reason to suppose that the riparian owners are not perfectly amenable to argument. I never desire to attack a man before he has been given, at any rate, the opportunity of coming to an amicable and honourable agreement, and I believe it would be fair to say that some of them have always permitted the right which is being claimed at the present moment. The question has certainly grown both in urgency and importance, and my right hon. Friend will be acting in accordance with a real and genuine popular opinion if he himself will give a lead in the matter, and will use his good offices to see whether this long outstanding question cannot be settled by agreement, and, I would add, cannot be settled at an early date.
      Sir J. BARRAN: I should like, in the first place, to supplement what my hon. Friend opposite has said in his later remarks. With his experience and his views regarding the three-mile limit I am less acquainted and less interested, but in all that he said on the subject of line and rod fishing in lochs and rivers I am in cordial agreement, and I sincerely trust that my right hon. Friend will take his views into consideration. It has been already pointed out that on this particular Vote we are at a great disadvantage by
      1956
      reason of the fact that we have no Report from the Fisheries Board before us. That disadvantage is increased by the fact that another Report, the second interim Report of the Select Committee on Scottish Fresh Water Fisheries, which was presented to my right hon. Friend as long ago as 27th March this year, is not before the Committee in the ordinary sense. Numerous inquiries have been made by myself and my hon. Friends interested in this matter why the Report has not appeared. We have never been told why it should not have seen the light of day. We have merely been informed that my right hon. Friend has been engaged in a careful and close scrutiny of the matters arising out of it, and we now find ourselves in the position that this Report, which, as I say, is dated 27th March, 1918, has actually found its way into the offices of newspaper editors, and has been made the subject of comment and quotation in the public Press, while Members of this House are unable to get a copy of it from the Vote Office.
      I think it is not unfair comment to say, in the first place, that, in view of the approach of this Debate, the Report, which has been in existence so long, and about which my right hon. Friend has known that there has been a great deal of legitimate and not unfriendly interest, might have been made available; and, in the second place, that for the future in all similar matters it surely lies with the Scottish Office to see that documents which are ready for going out for comment in the public Press are at least ready at the same time for the use of Members of this House who may wish to see them. I am personally indebted to the courtesy of my right hon. Friend for the copy of this document which I hold in my hand. It covers ground less far-reaching and less important than those matters which have been dealt with hitherto this afternoon, but nevertheless it is a document containing certain concrete practical suggestions of a by no means unimportant kind. It deals with the question of fisheries from two points of view. There is, first, the question of fisheries as a means of increasing our food supply—a more immediately important question—and there is, secondly, the question of fishing from the point of view which has already been put by my hon. Friend opposite. As a means of increasing the food supply of this country, the Committee point out that further steps can quite well be taken.

      1957
      They allude to such matters as the increase of netting for certain varieties of coarse fish, and the increase in the use of set lines for the same purpose. With regard to the more difficult and vexed questions of the taking of salmon and sea trout, they lay down certain general propositions which are important enough to warrant me in asking the Committee to let me quote. This is what they say:
      "We consider that the pursuit of salmon angling must, as far as necessary, give place to the need for food supply."
      They base certain practical suggestions on that broad principle. They recognise that certain rivers in Scotland are already as fully fished as they can be from the nature of the case, but at the same time they declare that there are certain other rivers from which an additional supply of salmon and sea trout can certainly be obtained by more extensive netting, and that there are yet more rivers in which no netting has taken place at all, and it is to these that they draw attention for the purpose of this increase. They do not stop there. They proceed to say that the selection of the rivers to be so treated should, in their opinion, rest with the Inspector of Salmon Fisheries with the consent of the Fishery Board for Scotland. This gentleman is to say, having regard to the merits and the circumstances of each case, which streams should be so netted. They recognise, as practical men, that while, happily, there is likely to be a very large measure of consent on the part of owners and others interested that more fish should be taken from the rivers in the national interest and that their view about it is likely to be generally responded to, there will probably be cases of unwillingness, and they suggest that an Order under the Defence of the Realm Act may be necessary in order to meet such cases. There are certain concrete and practical suggestions for an immediate increase in our food supply in this fourth year of war which is a matter of very urgent necessity, and we are entitled to ask the reason for the delay in dealing with them. What has caused the delay? Where has the block been? Who has been stone-walling these proposals? What are the negotiations with the Treasury to which my right hon. Friend referred when I put a question to him on this subject a few weeks ago? In spite of his assurance at that time that he is very anxious about this matter and desirous of pressing it on to some practical result with the least possible delay, I am
      1958
      sure he will be the first to admit that the circumstances of the case, so far as they stand at present, are distinctly against him and that without further explanation his profession of anxiety to push this matter forward is very hard to reconcile with this delay. I hope that this afternoon he will be able to give us not merely some explanation as to why nothing has been done until a large portion of the suitable season has already gone by, but also some assurance that something is in shape now, or is going to be in shape shortly, whereby these suggestions may be put into force.
      I will say a further word on a matter to which I have already alluded and which has been dealt with at some length by the hon. Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Harcourt). Free fishing, as it is called, is no doubt relatively unimportant as a means of producing food, but it has a distinct utility—the right hon. Gentleman would be the first to admit it—from certain other points of view. The Committee in their present Report suggest that agreements should be found between riparian owners and popular angling associations for the extension of that practice. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Montrose Burghs that that is not going far enough. It is not going as far as I should like to see the Scottish Office go. When there is found a great body of keen anglers, prepared to play the game, prepared to regularise and extend this sport on a popular basis—with that existing on the one side and a great body of public spirit and good will existing on the other side on the part of riparian owners, the Scottish Office is not playing a very distinguished part in merely standing by with folded hands and saying, "Let them make private agreements amongst themselves." Here is eminently a case in which the right hon. Gentleman can step in as amicus curiœ and take active steps in bringing together all those who are prepared to make arrangements on this matter. In that direction he can go a long way towards the solution of the question, which is not without difficulty, but which I am sure is capable of solution with common sense and good will on both sides. The prospects in that direction are so promising that I urge him most carnestly to consider whether he cannot tell us this evening that he is prepared to take active steps towards extending and making very widespread, if not universal, these agreements.

      1959
      I say that with the more insistency because both this question of what is popularly called free fishing and the kindred question of the taking of salmon from Scottish streams are interwoven so closely with the question of poaching. I am not going to enter at this moment into the ethics of poaching, nor am I going to ask the right hon. Gentleman to do so, but I would point out this to him: He is perfectly well aware that every year, and this year, perhaps, more than in most years, the taking of salmon from Scottish rivers otherwise than by legal lure has been going on, not merely on a big scale, but in the broad light of day, not merely winked at but openly regarded and taken almost as a matter of course of everyday proceeding. My right hon. Friend will agree, I am sure, that, whatever may be the ethics of poaching, it cannot be a salutary thing that if a law exists it should be broken in that downright and wholesale fashion in the light of open day. There is something wrong about the state of the law which permits that extent of popular recognition and toleration of poaching which must underlie such an habitual course of proceeding. I am not going to suggest precisely what the remedy is, but this I do say, that if he, as the responsible head in these matters, will see to it that our streams yield, by whatever methods, the maximum amount of human food they are capable of yielding, he will to that extent provide himself and provide the representatives of law and order with an answer, which they lack at present, to those who say that they are not going to stand by and see the rivers maintained merely as a preserve for the taking out of a handful of fish, when far larger quantities can be removed from the streams without any damage to the streams or to the maintenance of the supply of fish by these other methods. That is true of the taking of salmon. It may be in other ways true of the methods by which trout and other fish are taken from the streams under the present restrictive conditions. I urge the right hon. Gentleman most strongly to take a lead in this matter; if need be, to take his courage in both hands, and to show that he is determined to put the whole question on a sounder and, as I think, a fairer footing. He may rest assured that if his Department remains supine and procrastinating on this question, neither the landlord
      1960
      element on the one side nor that vast body of public opinion on the other side which looks at the matter from the point of view of the working man will hold him and his office in very high esteem. He will get, and I am sure he will deserve, neither thanks nor credit from either party unless and until he will take some practical step on this question. I hope, therefore, that what I have ventured to urge on him to-night will not fall on deaf ears, but that he will, in the first place, put this document immediately at the disposal of Members of the House, announce to us without delay what the immediate practical steps are to be, and, further, that he will lay down some general lines of policy which he proposes to adopt towards the solution of the fishing problem, generally speaking, in Scotland.
      Mr. GULLAND: I am sorry I have not had the privilege which the hon. Baronet (Sir J. Barran) seems to have had of seeing this very valuable Report. I could have hoped it would have been out before this discussion to-day. I should like to associate myself with everything that my hon. Friend has said with regard to the matter of free fishing and angling generally. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will do something before the season proceeds much further, because everyone, who, like myself, is an enthusiastic angler, knows that over the most of Scotland the best time for angling has already passed. I, for one, look forward to spending some part of my vacation—if there is a Parliamentary vacation—somewhere in Scotland where I can have a chance of catching some trout, and if I can get access to waters and lochs which are not usually available, where I have a better chance of getting a good basket and thereby helping the national supply of fish, I shall be only too glad. I am sure that the large number of people in Scotland and England who are keen anglers would like to know as soon as possible what facilities there will be for either free fishing, or paid fishing, or regulated fishing, or whatever it may be called, and that it will be made known in time to enable them to catch some fish.
      I want to talk about the other facilities for fishing. For instance, to go to a part of the world which has not been mentioned in this discussion, there are in the South and West of Scotland many bays and waters, such, for instance, as "Luce" Bay, where trawlers might, I think, very well be allowed to fish. I have brought this matter to the attention of the right

      1961
      hon. Gentleman again and again, but during the War, where so many places are naturally closed to fishermen, there are many bays and inlets of the sea where trawling might justifiably be allowed without doing anyone any harm and with the distinct advantage of adding to the national supply of fish and thereby reducing the price the people have to pay for it. The chief matter I wish to bring to my right hon. Friend's attention is the question of the salmon fishing in the Sol-way Firth. There is a strong feeling in the South of Scotland that the time for fishing salmon in the Solway should be extended for a fortnight. At present the closing date of the River Annan is 9th September, and all the interests on the Solway are in favour of extending it for a fortnight. By law there must be 168 days close time in the twelve months. There is no question of reducing that. Everyone who is interested is quite prepared to give up fourteen days at the beginning of the season and to extend the open time by fourteen days at the end of the season. Salmon are very kittle fish, and they have curious ways of doing things, and their habits, at any rate in that part of the world, have changed of recent years. They are running up very much later than they previously did. The fourteen days at the beginning of the season are worth very little so far as catching fish is concerned, but fourteen days at the end would be of great value. That is all the more reason why I should like that Report to be published at the earliest possible moment, because it would enforce my argument. The matter has been before the Annan Town Council, which is very greatly interested in the matter, and it unanimously requested the Annan Fishery Board to present a petition to the Secretary for Scotland to grant this extra time. The Annan Fishery Board refused. The chairman, Mr. McGlasson, a very competent expert, said there could really only be two reasons why the matter should be refused. One was, would the alteration of date injure the interests of the riparian proprietors, and the second was, would it reduce the number of salmon migrating to the rivers for breeding purposes. With his practical experience of thirty-seven years, he gave an emphatic No to both questions. On that committee is the Scottish salmon inspector, and if he also gives that as his opinion it seems to
      1962
      me that that is conclusive. The River Annan—and it applies, I know, to the Nith and other rivers in the South of Scotland—is overstocked with salmon at the end of the season.
      Mr. MUNRO: Was there complete unanimity with regard to this matter on the Fishery Board, or was there a division of opinion? I rather think the latter.
      Mr. GULLAND: There was a division. The Annan Fishery Board turned it down by a majority. I think it was four to three or four to two, or something like that. It was the up-river people who voted against it, and the Solway people who voted for it. The rivers are overstocked at the end of the season, and the result is disease, which does no one any good. Instead of getting good wholesome fish, which could be used and sold, and would be of great service to the national supply, you only get later on diseased fish, which are of no use to anyone. The rentals of the minority represented on the Annan Fishery Board, favouring the extension, amounted to £2,123 10s., and the rentals of the up-river proprietors, who were in the majority, was only £170, so the big interest is that of the Firth. The burgh of Annan is interested to an extent, and so are the interests that my right hon. Friend represents in connection with the Government. The Secretary for War now draws a rental of £200 from the Solway fishing, and the Crown, in respect of the new areas of land that it has bought there, has a rental of £426; so that the right hon. Gentleman is interested in his capacity as a member of the Government, apart from the interests of the people of Scotland. I know my right hon. Friend is very favourable to this. He has been extremely good about it, and has allowed it to be known that if the Annan Fishery Board declared in favour of the extension he would be very glad to agree. It is really only a matter of legal procedure that prevents this being done, and I suppose legally the Secretary for Scotland is not entitled to do it except on the petition of the Annan Fishery Board. But many things can be done nowadays, not according to the ordinary law, but under the Defence of the Realm Acts. There is a great need for increased food, and the Food Controller, whose death we all deplore, has expressed himself again and again in favour of every opportunity being taken of increasing the the supply of food, and there is no

      1963
      better or more wholesome food—and I believe we often eat it in this House—than Solway salmon. Cannot the right hon. Gentleman devise some means by which this can be granted as a war measure? The matter presses, because 9th September will be upon us very soon, and if the Government is to act it must act quickly; Therefore, I would appeal to my right hon. Friend to grant this fortnight's extension.
      Mr. MUNRO: The Debate on this Vote recalls to me recollections of what now seems to be the dim and distant past, when many of us who represent fishing constituencies addressed much larger audiences than I am addressing now upon these engrossing and important topics. My hon. Friend (Mr. Harcourt) referred to the Fishery Board Order permitting a limited form of trawling. It is quite true that an Order was made by the Fishery Board, with my consent, authorising beam and otter trawling within three miles of low-water mark along a certain stretch of coast of Forfarshire and Kin-cardineshire. A request for the relaxation of that Order came from the line fishermen. At the same time other line fishermen presented a petition against the proposed Order. After carefully considering the whole matter, the Fishery Board came to the conclusion that the Order should be made, and they made an Order extending the period from 1st March to the 13th April this year. The main reason which animated the Fishery Board in taking that line was that, as a rule, fishing is less productive off that particular coast during those two months, in consequence of the spawning season, than at any other period, and it was hoped by permitting trawling under certain conditions during that period a contribution to the food supply of the country would be achieved which would not otherwise be accomplished. The permission granted was limited in various respects. It was limited in respect of the size of the vessel. Permission was granted to vessels not exceeding 45 ft. That meant in practice that the only vessels which came within that description controlled by mechanical power were motor-boats. Other conditions related to the size of the mesh and the maximum size of the fish which it was permissible to land. These restrictions were placed upon this limited form of permission, and we are in a position to judge of the result so far. The policy represented
      1964
      by this Order is that of removing restriction upon methods of fishing that can properly be done in the interests of the food supply and without endangering the productivity of the fishery. As I have indicated before, the scale of the experiment was limited to an Order full of necessary safeguards, it must not be inferred for a moment that any general Order permitting trawling within the three-mile limit by all classes of vessels can be thought desirable, or that this should form a precedent for any such request. The result of opening the waters in question was quite disappointing, and my information is that most of the fishermen have already abandoned trawling operations. The experiment has had a full opportunity of being tested, and the result is not what we had hoped so far as increasing the food supply is concerned. That is all I can say on that point.
      9.0 P.M.
      Another point is that of free fishing. I am sure you would immediately call me to order, Mr. Hogge, were I to deal with that subject from the point of view of the legislation which is required to give effect to the argument of my hon. Friends. Accordingly I do not touch it from that point of view. I did receive, early in the year, from the Border Angling Association, and certain petitioners in Forfarshire, representations in favour of free fishing, and my hon. Friend questioned me about this on 6th March, when I said that I was in consultation on the subject with the Fisheries Board and the Freshwater Fisheries Committee. On the 9th April, in reply to the hon. Member for Roxburgh, I gave an answer that I had consulted both the Board and the Committee, and both of these bodies were of the opinion that no material addition to the food supply would result, and I saw no reason to differ from that conclusion. I adhere to that view still. This question may be regarded from two different standpoints. It may be suggested on the one hand that a valuable addition to the food supply can be obtained if these facilities were given. A more general point of view might be taken that it is right that people should have fuller access to the rivers and lochs of the country than they now possess. On the first point, as regards increased food production, I do not think any of my hon. Friends who have spoken will dispute the view taken by the Freshwater Fisheries Committee that it is an unimportant matter. In other words,

      1965
      so far as rod and line are concerned, fishing in in a river or in a loch is not likely to produce very important results as affecting the food supply of the nation, and the people who use their rod and line during the day might be more usefully employed in using a hoe and a spade in the present state of things. From that point of view, the increasing of the food supply, I am not very greatly impressed by the necessity of my intervention. One has important duties to perform at the present time, and whether or not this subject is sufficiently important to warrant me in endeavouring to bring the people concerned together, is a matter for consideration. I suggest that it would be desirable if riparian proprietors and the angling associations would meet and endeavour to come to some amicable arrangement between themselves.
      Mr. HARCOURT: My right hon. Friend was good enough to confer with me at the time, and I passed on the suggestion. I hope he will be able to deal with the point.
      Sir J. BARRAN: I did the same.
      Mr. MUNRO: I hope in both cases something followed upon the suggestion, but neither of my hon. Friends seem to be in a position to tell me that anything did follow. If local enterprise is exhausted, if the resources of local civilisation are exhausted, and if every effort has been made to bring them together and has failed, I will consider whether or not it is possible for me to endeavour to achieve what has not been found possible locally. I should be very happy to reconsider the matter in the light of any further information, but I do think, looking at the unimportance of the question from the point of view of the food supply, which is corroborated by the Freshwater Fisheries Report, I am justified in suggesting to both my hon. Friends that first of all local effort should be made. Whether or not that has taken place, they are not able to tell me. If they come and tell me that local effort has been made and it has failed, then I would be very willing to confer with them again as to whether or not my services would be of value in the matter. Further than that at present I do not think I can reasonably be expected to go. I regret that the Report of the Fisheries Committee was not published before this Debate. I understand that so far as the Fishery Board Report is concerned, some of my hon. Friends were under a misapprehension in thinking that
      1966
      it has not been published. I understand that the main Report was presented on the 19th June.
      Sir J. BARRAN: I asked for a Report of the Fishery Board in the Vote Office this afternoon and could not get it.
      Mr. HARCOURT: I did exactly the same thing and could not get it.
      Mr. MUNRO: I am merely passing on the information I have received. I much regret it that the Report is not available. It was presented on the 19th June, and I will have inquiries made why it was not available, as I had assumed it was, in the Vote Office for hon. Members to-day. My information was that the only Report which was not available was the Land Court Report. My right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries Burghs referred to the question of Luce Bay, and I shall have it again considered as he has brought it up to-night. There is also the question of salmon fishing in the Solway Firth. My right hon. Friend knows quite well the difficulties—he himself has stated them—however he may analyse the majority and minority vote from the point of view of rental. That may be a fair enough test. I am not concerned to dispute it. Nevertheless you have a divided local board, and there are certain difficulties not only legal, but real, in the way of my taking action and overruling the local board. But as my right hon. Friend has pressed it upon my attention I will have that matter also again considered in the light of what has happened and see what can be done. Further than that at the moment I am afraid I cannot go, and I do not think that my right hon. Friend would expect me.
      Mr. GULLAND: Would the right hon. Gentleman not proceed under the Defence of the Realm Act?
      Mr. MUNRO: That I must frankly admit I have not considered. I will look into it from the point of view, first, as to whether I have got the power, and, second, as to whether I should exercise it. I think that I have dealt with the various points raised. I am very much indebted to my hon. Friends for the speeches which they have made and I shall bear their views in mind.
      Colonel COLLINS: There are some questions which I desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the Fishery

      1967
      Board. I have in my Constituency several shipyard workers who spend their weekends on different parts of the Clyde catching fish, and during the last twelve months they have been prevented from following that pleasant occupation through their inability to get petrol for their motor boats. The Petrol Commission have refused licences to these men, and they have been unable to follow that occupation during the summer months. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would bring pressure to bear upon the Petrol Commission to set free a certain quantity of petrol for these men? I need not mention that it is very advisable that during the week-end they should have some sort of occupation and pleasure. They are working during the week in the shipyards, and the strain during that time is very great, and if they can during the week-end spend time profitably and pleasantly in fishing in the lower reaches of the Clyde, I am sure that my right hon. Friend will think that it is a national advantage. Then there is another point, if it is in order. That is in reference to the price that may be paid by the Food Controller to the fishermen in Scotland for their fish.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Hogge): That does not arise on this Vote. It arises on another Vote.
      Colonel COLLINS: I have no desire to question your ruling, but I am sure that you are willing to give a little latitude to myself and hon. Members in raising this point. The point is that the Fishery Board should be consulted by the Food Controller if the Food Controller decides to fix the price of fish in the immediate future in Scotland. Having put myself in order, I may draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the fact that in the past the fishermen in the North Sea have not received a fair percentage of the price of fish. These men, plying their trade in these dark and difficult waters, are receiving a small reward for their services in comparison with—
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That question does not arise on this Vote.
      Colonel COLLINS: My point is that the Fishery Board should lend all their influence and all their power to press the claims of fishermen when the Food Controller decides to fix the price.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is quite in order to suggest that they should do that, but my hon. Friend cannot pursue the subject further.
      Colonel COLLINS: Having made my point, I will only ask the hon. Member (Mr. Pratt) to bear these remarks in mind and consider the claims of these poor men in the immediate future.
      Sir J. BARRAN: I must press my right hon. Friend to give the Committee an answer to the specific point which I made in the course of my previous remarks on the recommendations of the Committee with reference to increased salmon netting. Their Report was presented to us on 27th March. The right hon. Gentleman has assured us again and again that he has been considering that Report, and that he has had lengthy correspondence with certain individuals about it, and has been in touch with the Treasury on the subject, but as yet he has made no announcement as to what he is going to do, and this afternoon, in response to my question, he has not stated what he has done or is going to do. It is not unreasonable that I should take this opportunity of getting something definite stated on the matter. The best part of the season is slipping away. Here are recommendations not without value for the purpose of achieving certain objects. These recommendations include resort, if necessary, to action on his part under the Defence of the Realm Act. Yet I understood him, in reply to my right hon. Friend, to say that he has not yet considered whether he can take such action. If I have misunderstood him on that I am very glad, and no doubt he will correct me, but I beg that he will, in a few words, give the Committee a clear answer on some of these points, and set at rest a great deal of criticism.
      Mr. WATT: There is a small point which I have put forward in the form of questions. That is the system of sending over-iced fish to markets, such as Glasgow market. That is the market to which I particularly refer. Boxes are sent with an over-supply of ice, and when they are opened they are found to contain not so much fish as ought to be in such boxes, but an unduly large quantity of ice. In some instances, I am told, that when buyers are supposed to be buying 180 lbs. of fish they find, on opening the box, that they have only 150 lbs. of fish, and that they have 30 lbs. of ice. The rule in the

      1969
      markets is that if attention is called to the fact that the boxes have been over-iced on the day on which the transaction takes place, and before the fish leave the market, some consideration would be given to the buyer. But in working this out it is found that if buyers, especially small buyers—and it is for them that I am speaking—seem dissatisfied on opening the box after the purchase, the result is that the auctioneers do not see or hear their bids on subsequent occasions. They, therefore, suffer by that complaint when they attend to get fish at the ensuing sales. I have brought this matter to the attention of the Fishery Board before, and they asked mo for specific cases. But buyers do not like to give their names, as they think they suffer injustice. Rightly or wrongly they think they have suffered for having given specific complaints to the Fishery Board. For my part, I think the Fishery Board should themselves take the intitiative by intervening in these markets to see that the boxes are labelled with the exact weight of fish, or endeavour to adopt some other remedy. May I congratulate you, Mr. Hogge, on the very great honour of occupying the Chair. There is an old adage that the poacher makes the best gamekeeper, and we have seen that adage justified to-night by the particularly smart manner in which you called my hon. and gallant Friend to order when he was only following your own lead.
      Question put, and agreed to.

    SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND'S OFFICE.—

      Class II.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £6,628, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1919, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of His Majesty's Secretary for Scotland and Subordinate Offices, Expenses under the Inebriates Acts, 1879 to 1900, and Expenses under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899."—NOTE.—£12,000 has been voted on account.]
      Mr. GULLAND: I do not grudge the Secretary for Scotland his salary, and I think we all congratulate him on the very hard work he has carried out in his post. He has travelled to and fro from Scotland in a way which has commanded the approval and admiration of us all. Before
      1970
      he gets his Vote I should like to bring one or two questions to his notice. There is now a great deal being done in the country in connection with bringing the Representation of the People Act into operation, and it is very difficult for those who are interested in that work to understand exactly what the relation is between the work being done in England and the work being done in Scotland. The Local Government Board in England are issuing a large variety of Orders, some of which apply to Scotland and some of which do not. It is very difficult for those who are trying to carry out this work, which is of enormous interest to all of us and to the constituencies for which we sit, to know whether or not it is being done properly, For instance, the forms of the register are different in Scotland from what they are in England. So far as I have seen, the forms in Scotland are much better than they are in England. Take the question of the absent voter or the proxy voter. The Local Government Board in England have issued a paper which gives all sorts of instructions about the drawing up of the claims, and it is difficult to find whether the same Regulations apply to Scotland. Take another instance, the English Local Government Board is drawing up, and I think has now issued, if not they will be issued in a few days, very elaborate instructions in regard to proxy voters. I confess I should like to see those greatly simplified, because, as they stand, it would be very difficult for anyone to understand them, and the result will probably be that a very small number of the proxy voters will actually give their votes at the next election. I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Regulations with regard to the proxy voters will be the same in Scotland as in England?
      Then another point is that the Local Government Board in England, on the representations of the Whips of the different parties, who were very anxious that the parties should help in every possible way in the preparation of the register, have agreed to supply the political agents, in different constituencies, copies of the lists of electors free of charge. The English Local Government Board have been in communication on the subject with the Treasury, who have raised no objection to a direction being given to supply a reasonable number of copies to such agents. The Glasgow assessor, presumably thinking that what is

      1971
      good for England is good for Scotland, gave some copies, but in Edinburgh that has not been done, the assessor there not having had any instructions from the Secretary for Scotland, and in other parts of Scotland also this has not been done. Will the right hon. Gentleman, if he has not already done so, give instructions for the supply of copies of the lists of electors? Undoubtedly the registers in Scotland are far ahead of those in England in the majority of cases, and it is evident from the returns I have had from different parts of Scotland that there will be a very large number of claims. However carefully you carry out this work, it is impossible to get, at the first go off, everybody on the register who ought to be on it, and the more you can get the assistance of the agents to make your register complete the better. Therefore it stands that if you give these registers free of charge, you get them more freely distributed and more widely examined than if you asked these agents to pay for them. It seems to me that in order to help to make the register, these draft registers ought to be circulated as widely as possible, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, if it is not too late, will give instructions that these registers shall be supplied free of charge in Scotland as in England, and that where payment has been made the money will be refunded.
      Another point which is of great interest to us all and to all the electors is the charge that is to be made for the new register. In the old days in the constituency of Edinburgh it was possible to get the register for the whole of the city—for the four divisions—for a sum of 10s. But there has been a new Regulation issued—it is now on the Table of the House, and it applies to Scotland as well as England—under the second Schedule of which the charges are fixed for copies of the register, or so much as relates to any registration unit, at 4d. for the first 100 names and 2d. for each additional 100 or part of 100. On a register of 30,000 electors the cost would work out at £2 10s., and the comparison between the 10s. which had to be paid in the old days and the £2 10s. now demanded deserves consideration. It must be borne in mind that the number of voters on the register has enormously increased, so, too, has the cost of printing and paper, and therefore the cost of production has gone up. But we ought to regard this as a public
      1972
      charge, a considerable proportion of which should fall on public funds. I think it would be good policy if the Secretary for Scotland, in consultation with the President of the Local Government Board in England, would try and get a reduction in the price of these registers. The hon. Member for one of the divisions of Manchester and myself put questions on this subject last week to the President of the Local Government Board, and the answer was returned "that the Treasury was being consulted on the matter." All I ask—and of course I do not expect a definite reply to-day—is that the Secretary for Soot-land should make representations to the Treasury, pointing out that when an almost unlimited amount of money was allowed to be expended on elections copies of the register were cheap, whereas now the expenses are limited and restricted they are being made very dear. It seems to me that a charge like that ought to fall in its main burden on the public purse, and not on the private purse of the candidate.
      Mr. MUNRO: Perhaps I may be allowed in a sentence to express my thanks to my right hon. Friend for the very generous allusion which he has made to my humble efforts in the execution of the duties of my office. In regard to the various points that he has raised I wish to assure him that none of them have been overlooked. The first was with regard to the Orders issued by the Local Government Board with reference to elections. My right hon. Friend may assume that none of the Orders issued by the Local Government Board in England have any application to Scotland. We shall look after our own literature on that side of the Border and issue any directions or injunctions which may be thought necessary. But so far we have not found it necessary or desirable to issue so many as have been issued in England. The next question is with regard to free copies of the election lists. I think the right hon. Gentleman said that such free copies had been arranged for in England and in the city of Glasgow. I am giving instructions that that shall be done generally throughout Scotland, and I am sure he will regard that as a satisfactory arrangement. With regard to the charges for copies of the new register, all I can say is that the amount has been fixed in consultation with the Stationery Office. One has to remember that these registers will contain twice as many names as formerly, and that the cost

      1973
      of production will probably be twice as great. I very much doubt whether, under these circumstances, it will be found possible to reduce the charges, but I will confer with the President of the Local Government Board and see whether anything can be done in that direction.
      Mr. A. ALLEN: A question was put to the Secretary for Scotland to-day with regard to special constables in Glasgow and other large Scottish cities. The Committee will be aware that in London certain concessions have been made to special constables who have served for a certain time and who are of a military age by which they are exempted from being called up for military service. I suggest that special constables in certain cities in Scotland are entitled to the same consideration, in view of the work they are called upon to do. I know there is a strong feeling on the point as they have given up a great deal of their time at great inconvenience, and I therefore hope that it will be found possible to come to some arrangement with the Ministry of National Service to extend to them the concession which has been granted to the London special constables.
      Mr. WATT: I want to draw attention to an appointment made by the Secretary for Scotland in July of last year—the appointment of a distinguished Member of this House, the Member for Edinburgh University, to a senatorship of the College of Justice or a judgeship in the High Court. The gentleman appointed was well worthy of the position, but my objection is to the date of the appointment. The Courts rise on the 20th July for a long vacation of three months. This appointment was made on the 21st of July, just one day after the long vacation had commenced, so that the new judge was in the position of drawing his salary for a period of three months, during which he had nothing to do. The nation thereby lost a sum of £900, and I understand that the distinguished gentleman appointed would have been quite willing to await the reassembling of the Courts before receiving has appointment. I have received letters pointing out that this is not a proper method of transacting public business. The Secretary for Scotland has been making very strong observations about the necessity for the nation saving in every respect. He made an historic speech in Edinburgh and made this most startling observation, that everyone who did not economise or everyone who wasted money
      1974
      at such a time as this was a traitor to his country. Yet we have him in his official capacity making an appointment in these conditions. I venture to think that he erred in judgment in so doing, and I do not know that there is any remedy for it except that in future appointments he will exercise the strict economy which he so eloquently desires the people of the United Kingdom to adopt. May I before sitting down associate myself with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Gulland) in what he said about his desire not in any way to begrudge the expenses of this Department of the Secretary for Scotland, and a fortiori the salary of my right hon. Friend, because the figures that are put down for the Secretary of Scotland's office are only £18,000, which, compared with what we have passed this afternoon for the Board of Agriculture, is a very small figure indeed. The expenses connected with the Secretary's office are therefore less than a quarter of the expenses of the Board of Agriculture, and I think we may safely assert that the Board of Agriculture does not do four times the good work which is done by the Office of the Secretary for Scotland, so that, judging by what we have thought right as a Committee to pass for the Board of Agriculture, we are fully justified in passing with pleasure the necessary sum for, the Secretary of Scotland's Office.
      Colonel COLLINS: I wish to ask a question in connection with the salaries on this Vote. I do not take exception to the total expenses of the Secretary's office, but it has been apparent to many hon. Members connected with Scotland for many years past that that office appears to be overworked. Not that we take exception to the manner in which they perform their duties, but in view of the vast amount of new work which has been thrown on this office during the past several years it has seemed to me that the staff of this office might be increased with advantage to the public service. The total amount for this office is a very small figure, and if the office in the coming twelve months desires to increase its staff I am sure it will find that hon. Members from Scotland will not take any exception to such an increase. This increase is rampant in every other Department, and the numbers of officials of all types in these offices during the last twelve months have very much increased, but the total salaries in the Secretary for

      1975
      Scotland's office have actually shown a decrease. That, I think, is very clear evidence that where Scotland asserts her authority and the Scottish spirit of economy is not thwarted by English interference the result is eminently satisfactory. I desire to lay emphasis upon this, in view of the ever-growing increase of bureaucracy in this country, that the Secretary for Scotland's office, increasing its work and carrying through that work in a very satisfactory way, yet has been able to do so for a smaller amount of public money. I am sure I only express the minds of the Committee when I say that they hope and trust that this spirit which permeates the Scottish Office will permeate every other office in Whitehall.
      Question put, and agreed to.

    GENERAL BOARD OF CONTROL FOR SCOTLAND.—

      Class II.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £18,348, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1919, for the Salaries and Expenses of the General Board of Control for Scotland."—[NOTE.—£12,000 has been voted on account.]
      Colonel COLLINS: I am sure it must be a matter of deep regret to yourself, Mr. Hogge, that other duties have prevented you from taking part in the discussion on this Vote, as we know your interest in the work of the Board of Control for Scotland. I was hoping that the representative of the Government would tell the Committee the results of the work of the Board of Control during the past year, and, in view of the startling developments which have taken place in that period in the work of this Board, I think the Committee are entitled to some information from the Government. From time to time during the last twelve months we have read in the inspired Press good accounts of the work of this Board, but what I am anxious to find out is whether the public money which is being spent by the Board is bringing in a fair return. We know that very large sums of public money have been spent by this Board during the past twelve months, and many of us are sceptical as to the results of this expenditure and whether they are charging to revenue—
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am not sure whether my hon. Friend is confusing the title of the General Board of Control with that of the Board of Liquor Control. This is the Board concerned with lunacy.
      Colonel COLLINS: I am bound to say that I certainly understood that the Vote concerns the Board of Liquor Control. May I ask whether this Lunacy Board has any jurisdiction over the prison at Greenock?
      Mr. MORISON: They have nothing to do with prisons.
      Mr. D. WHITE: On this Vote I had rather hoped we might have had some words from the representative of the Government as to the excellent work which this Board has, I believe, done, in addition to what might be called its ordinary duties, in the case of the arrangements that have been made for nerve-stricken soldiers. I understand that a very great deal has been done by it in this way. Various representations have been made to me that the institutions under the Board might rather be regarded as sanatoria. I do not know how far that may be carried into effect, and in making any suggestions of that kind I would not limit myself to a question of names, but would also suggest that as far as possible they should be put on that status. We all know the great difficulty of this subject. We all know that those gallant men who have suffered in that way deserve the kindest and most sympathetic treatment that they could possibly have. We know what the Board of Control has been doing, or, at least, we have some idea of it, and I venture to hope my hon. and learned Friend on the Front Bench will be able to give us a little detailed information on this subject. I myself should have given notice of this beforehand. The Vote has been reached rather early, and perhaps it is unreasonable to ask for that just now, but I am sure throughout Scotland some record of the work that has been done would be very welcome. It may possibly be in the Report. I do not know whether that has been issued.
      Mr. MORISON: It has.
      Mr. WHITE: How long ago?
      Mr. MORISON: That I could not say. It is dated 29th May.
      Mr. WHITE: I only wanted to mention this because this particularly useful kind of work has been done in Scotland, and, I believe, very well done.
      Mr. WATT: I desire To make a few observations on this Vote, but I quite candidly admit that had I had a satisfactory reply, or any reply at all, to the observations I made on the last two Votes, so far as I am concerned I would have allowed this Vote to go through without favouring the Committee with any observations. But the Vote is one on which I must take strong exception that on our one day in the year in which Scottish Members get an opportunity of stating their criticisms of the various Departments, when we have made these speeches, we do not have the honour of a reply from the Front Bench. That has from time immemorial been considered an insulting way of treating Members—I repeat it, an insulting way—and the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), an old Parliamentary hand, was astonished beyond measure the other evening that, having made a speech to the Committee, he was not replied to by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education, and he made so pronounced a complaint that the Committee had an immediate apology from the President of the Board of Education regretting that he had been discourteous. I hope that Scotland is not more discourteous than England, and that my hon. and learned Friend will on this Vote give us an answer to the speeches that have been made. The expenses, according to the heading, amount to £30,348. Mr. right hon. Friend the Member for St. Rollox (Mr. McKinnon Wood) was responsible for the passing of the measure dealing with mental deficiency in Scotland, and I remember when we had that in Committee that we adumbrated that the cost of that measure would be very stiff indeed, and no one was more eloquent on those occasions than my hon. Friend, who has commercial experience and who represents so well the Central Division of Edinburgh (Mr. C. Price). I hope he will have a few observations to make on the expenditure now it has eventuated, because £30,348 is certainly a very large sum for any single Department to spend in Scotland. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman should indicate to the Committee what kind of work this Board of Control have done. What are their duties? How have they fulfilled them? There is
      1978
      one particular item to which I should like to refer, and that is the travelling expenses of the Commissioners and Deputy-Commissioners—exactly £1,600. It is rather extraordinary, by the way, that the expenses should come to an exact figure. It looks as if a rough-and-ready way of totting them up had been adopted. Would my hon. and learned Friend indicate what those Commissioners and Deputy-Commissioners have to do in the way of travel? They must have a great deal of it to do when it amounts to two or three times the salary of any one of them. I cannot see what can be the object they have in travelling. I should have thought that they would have been stationed in Edinburgh, and would have gone through their duties there daily, and would not have been called upon to make visits outside Edinburgh; but, judging by the very large sum in travelling expenses, they seem to have a great deal of work to do outside Edinburgh. I hope, therefore, my hon. and learned Friend will explain the matter clearly and succinctly to the Committee.
      Mr. PRICE: When this Mental Deficiency Act passed through Committee upstairs, I took the liberty of calling the attention of the right hon. Gentleman opposite to the expense which would fall upon the authorities, and the, Grant made by the Treasury was not sufficient to meet the expenses under the Bill. I remember at that time he so frequently criticised my figures that, when the Committee was over, I wondered whether I had been competent to take part in the discussions at all upstairs. I think I have been justified in the criticism I made at that time by the Report which is now before us under the Vote we are now considering. I pointed out that the Treasury would not grant a sufficient amount to meet the increased expenditure, and I find this in the Report. It says that, in consequence of the embargo placed by the Treasury on building operations, no expenditure on new buildings has been undertaken. A note says:
      "In view of the fact that there is not likely to be any increase in the amount of the Parliamentary Grant in the immediate future, and also that there is a likelihood of the Grant falling below the limit of 10s. in the £, the local authorities have refrained from placing defectives under care as they are entitled to under the provision of Section 26 of the Act."
      Therefore, whilst it was estimated to us by the right hon. Gentleman opposite what would be the effect of passing that

      1979
      Act on local authorities, it is now reported that the Treasury actually declines to meet the obligations placed upon them by that Act. Therefore I have called attention to this fact by way of justification of the observations I made at that time. I am quite sure it must be a very great pleasure to my right hon. Friend, as it has been a great pleasure to many people, to notice a fact which very few people would have thought possible, that since the War began there has been a considerable decrease in lunacy. If you refer to page 6 you will find that there has been a steady decline from 1st January, 1915, in the number of patients in these establishments. That is a very gratifying thing to observe. It only shows that, as a great many of these people have been called upon to work, that steady occupation is a preventive of the maladies from which they suffer.
      Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I feel I must make one or two remarks in reply to the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh. I am afraid he cannot congratulate himself upon having justified his prophecies. The normal state of affairs has not occurred, and, therefore, it is quite impossible to test whether he was right in his prophecy or whether other people were right in theirs. As a matter of fact, before this Act could be brought into effective operation the War broke out, and it was quite impossible to prepare the. buildings necessary. The result was that neither did the Treasury provide the money which had been proposed, nor were the local authorities really called upon to spend the money which they would have had to expend under peace conditions. No test whatever has, therefore, occurred, and I am afraid my hon. Friend cannot congratulate himself on his prophetic insight when the circumstances did not occur which were required to test it. My hon. Friend and colleague in the representation of Glasgow need not be surprised that the Commissioners of the General Board of Control require to have travelling expenses. I must point out to him that one of their duties is a duty which cannot be performed in Edinburgh, and that is to visit and inspect the lunatic asylums all over Scotland. I am rather surprised at the smallness rather than the largeness of the amount. The fact of the matter is that, in my time at any rate our medical Commissioners were employed in war work. Though I presume their salaries
      1980
      would remain upon the Vote they really were serving the State by performing war services rather than by carrying out their ordinary duties. I think it will be found that the expenditure has not been incurred in carrying out the provisions of the Mental Deficiency Act, but in doing special war service of various kinds, some of it, I hope—though I do not know what has happened recently—involving the use of their special experience in dealing with cases of nervous disorders amongst wounded soldiers and officers. I do not know that I have anything further to say upon this matter except that this General Board of Control is a very competent body, and I thought I was bound to make some reply to the criticism of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh.
      10.0 P.M.
      Mr. A. ALLEN: One realises fully, I think, that the outbreak of the War has prevented any serious work being undertaken under the Mental Deficiency Act. Personally, I was a supporter of that Act, and I think it is a very unfortunate thing that no work has been able to be done under it. I know from experience in other cases what a serious thing it has proved having so many mental defectives at large during these last few years. But I am bound to say that nothing has been able to be done during the War. The Department, I trust, is insisting upon schemes being got on with so that local authorities will be prepared with them at the end of the War, when there will be a reasonable chance of putting the Act into effective operation. I hope we may have some assurance on this matter, that it has not been lost sight of, and that the local authorities are being pressed to prepare their scheme so that they may be ready when the time comes.
      Mr. MORISON: I am particularly obliged to my right hon. Friend opposite who has so kindly explained what has happened in respect to the Mental Deficiency Act, passed so comparatively recently. What my right hon. Friend said was perfectly true. The putting into operation of that Act was interrupted by the outbreak of the War, and the situation is such that one can neither foretell nor foresee what the expenditure will be that we shall require to make in order to carry out the Statute. Then, as to the other question put, I am afraid the hon. Member has

      1981
      not read the Report issued by the General Board of Control dated some six weeks ago. It is a very clear Report. It gives the details of the administration which has been conducted by the General Board of Control. I think I can safely refer my hon. Friend to that Report as being a complete and accurate account of the administration which that Board has carried out during the past year. In regard to the question of expenses raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Glasgow, all I need say is that I quite agreed with what was said by my right hon. Friend opposite. My hon. and learned Friend will recollect that the Commissioners undertake a statutory inspection of all the lunatic asylums in Scotland, and I fancy that the great bulk of the expenses which this Vote carries on that subject have been incurred in the discharge of these statutory duties. At the same time, I know that the members of the General Board of Control do good work which is intimately connected with the War. There is no doubt that they have rendered very valuable services to those members of the Army and Navy who are classified as Service patients. Not only important work has been done, but regulations have been drawn up by the Board of Control which deal with the treatment of Service patients. In regard to what the hon. Gentleman opposite said about schemes being put in order, I am sure the local authorities are keeping steadily in view the importance of carrying out the Mental Deficiency Act. Personally, I cannot speak for the various local authorities, but I think I may state on behalf of the General Board of Control, that they are extremely anxious that that Statute may be made as beneficial as possible in Scotland, and they are desirous that the local authorities should discharge their part in carrying out that Statute.
      Question put, and agreed to.

    REGISTRAR-GENERAL'S OFFICE. SCOTLAND.—

      Class II.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £4,909, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1919, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of the Registrar-General of Births, etc., in Scotland."—[NOTE.—£3,000 has been voted on account.]
      Mr. PRICE: I should like to refer to one matter about which I have had considerable correspondence now for four years with the Scottish Office in regard to the question of the registration of the death of men who have taken part in the War. At the present time a man may suffer the most terrible consequences of the War, and the only thing the relatives have is an intimation from the War Office that their son, or father, or whoever it may be, has been killed. I have been in correspondence with the Scottish Office, and I am sorry to say they have found difficulty in carrying out my suggestion that they should record the deaths of all these persons, certificates of which should be supplied to them by the War Office. My reason for raising this question is that a great many difficulties may occur in the future, more particularly with regard to property and the right of succession. It is quite possible in the case of persons who receive information of the death of their relatives that the certificate may be lost, and accordingly no one in the future will be able to refer to the fact as to how such persons had come by their death. That may raise a great many difficulties in Courts of law, and it may affect property, and in the absence of the certificate great complications may arise. That may be a very fruitful source of revenue to the legal profession, but as it may cause great hardship in regard to the persons who have met with their death I think their deaths should be recorded at the Registrar-General's office. I appeal to my right hon. Friend to see that where a death has been absolutely proved it should be recorded in the journal of the registrar's office. It is a very simple matter, and it can be done if my right hon. Friend will only do something to see that it is carried out.
      Mr. MORISON: The matter raised by my hon. Friend is, I agree, a matter of importance. The difficulties to which my hon. Friend alluded arise in consequence of the non-applicability of the terms of the Statute to particular facts, and I am afraid the important question he has raised is one that can only be dealt with by legislation. My information is that no suitable opportunity has occurred for introducing legislation on that subject, and that is really all I can say. The only explanation is that the Statute does not fit the particular case. Legislation is required, and I have no doubt my right hon. Friend will remember what

      1983
      the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh has so fairly and properly said on this point.
      Mr. PRICE: The Solicitor-General says this can only be done by legislation. May I point out that we have had a good deal of emergency legisation passed without discussion, and I am quite sure that no difficulties would be raised in this House, and the very last place where any difficulty would arise is in the House of Lords. Therefore, I would suggest to the Scottish Office that they should frame a Bill, and I am quite sure my hon. Friends would not say a single word to retard the passage of such Bill.
      Question put, and agreed to.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD FOR SCOTLAND.—

      Class II.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £61,537, be granted to His. Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1919, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Local Government Board for Scotland, and also Expenses in respect of Advances under the Housing Act, 1914."—[NOTE.—£20,000 has been voted on account.]
      Mr. HOGGE: This is perhaps one of the most important Votes we have to discuss to-day, and I am sorry we have only reached it at this late hour. I pointed out in one of my earlier speeches to-day that one of the drawbacks of discussing Scottish Estimates is that we get so few opportunities of discussing very important matters, and we are forced to deal with them in the last hours of the Session. This Vote, though small in amount, so far as money is concerned, is very large in interest, so far as the needs of the people of Scotland are concerned. There are one or two items in the Estimate which suggest a change in policy which, I think, we should be entitled to discuss on this Motion. On page 116 there is a sum put down entitled "Additional staff for housing, £3,000," as against nothing in 1917–18. There is a further item down, under (B), "Travelling and subsistence; additional expenditure in connection with housing and advisory committee on the welfare of the blind,
      1984
      £2,500," as against nothing in 1917–18. It is rather futile in an empty House to discuss the problem of housing conditions in Scotland, even if that were altogether permissible on this Vote, but we should like some information from the Solicitor-General showing exactly how this question of housing now stands. We had a very elaborate Commission, which investigated the question of housing in Scotland, and it produced a Report which proved beyond any possible doubt that so far as Scotland was concerned, more than any other part of the United Kingdom, there was an enormous need for the community addressing itself to the question of providing decent houses for the people of Scotland.
      In this Vote to-day there is a significant phrase, "Additional staff for housing, £3,000." I have heard it stated that certain arrangements are being made to set up a separate Department to provide separate accommodation for a staff to deal with the question of housing in Scotland. I do not know whether this is in the way of preparation for a scheme which will eventually result, but, at any rate, a beginning appears to have been made. Obviously, there is no question can concern us more seriously than this question of how far the people of Scotland should be housed properly and what provision can be made for assisting either local authorities or any other bodies concerned with the erection of suitable houses for the people. I will not now go into the questions which lie at the root of the housing problem, because it might not be in order, but I think we are entitled to know what steps the Local Government Board are prepared to take as a result of the very serious Report which has been issued to the people of Scotland on the question of housing. I should have thought that on this Vote more than on any other Vote discussed to-night, it was absolutely necessary—
      Notice taken that forty Members were not present; Committee counted, and forty Members not being present, Mr. Deputy-Speaker resumed the Chair. House counted, and forty Members not being present, the House was adjourned at twenty minutes after Ten o'clock until Monday next, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 13th February.

WAR.
  WOMEN CIVIL SERVANTS.
  WOMEN CIVIL SERVANTS.
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  MAIZE.
  MAIZE.
  BUTTER.
  BUTTER.
  INVALID'S RATIONS.
  INVALID'S RATIONS.
MILITARY SERVICE.
  LABOUR COMPANIES.
  LABOUR COMPANIES.
  MEDICAL MEN (FRANCE).
  MEDICAL MEN (FRANCE).
  LEICESTER REGIMENT.
  LEICESTER REGIMENT.
  REPATRIATED PRISONERS.
  REPATRIATED PRISONERS.
  DESERTERS.
  DESERTERS.
  MEDICAL GRADING.
  MEDICAL GRADING.
  CASES UNDER INQUIRE.
  CASES UNDER INQUIRE.
  EXEMPTIONS.
  EXEMPTIONS.
  PROTECTED OCCUPATIONS.
  PROTECTED OCCUPATIONS.
  FIRE BRIGADES.
  FIRE BRIGADES.
  GOVERNMENT OFFICES (STAFFS).
  GOVERNMENT OFFICES (STAFFS).
  SHIPBUILDING AND ENGINEERING TRADES.
  SHIPBUILDING AND ENGINEERING TRADES.
  TRIBUNALS (LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES).
  TRIBUNALS (LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES).
  SPECIAL CONSTABLES.
  SPECIAL CONSTABLES.
  ARMY DENTAL SERVICE.
  ARMY DENTAL SERVICE.
  REMOUNT CAMPS, IRELAND (EMPLOYES).
  REMOUNT CAMPS, IRELAND (EMPLOYES).
  PRISONERS OF WAR.
  PRISONERS OF WAR.
  ARTILLERY OFFICERS.
  ARTILLERY OFFICERS.
  SOLDIERS' LEAVE.
  SOLDIERS' LEAVE.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  LEATHER (WAR OFFICE SALES).
  LEATHER (WAR OFFICE SALES).
  EDUCATION BILL (SCHOOLS OF ART).
  EDUCATION BILL (SCHOOLS OF ART).
  PRISON OFFICERS (LEAVE).
  PRISON OFFICERS (LEAVE).
  SALVARSAN SUBSTITUTES.
  SALVARSAN SUBSTITUTES.
  ACETYLENE GAS (CARBIDE).
  ACETYLENE GAS (CARBIDE).
  IMPORTS.
  IMPORTS.
  RAILWAY CLERKS (IRELAND) (OVERTIME).
  RAILWAY CLERKS (IRELAND) (OVERTIME).
  CASTLECOMER RAILWAY (CONTRACTORS).
  CASTLECOMER RAILWAY (CONTRACTORS).
  JOINT INDUSTRIAL COUNCILS.
  JOINT INDUSTRIAL COUNCILS.
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (AGENTS).
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (AGENTS).
  Congested Districts Board (Pension Scheme).
  Congested Districts Board (Pension Scheme).
  Prison Warder Reduced.
  Prison Warder Reduced.
  Postmen's Duties, Dublin.
  Postmen's Duties, Dublin.
Preamble
Lord ROTHSCHILD—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
Read 2a.

THE SHELL FACTORY EXPLOSION.
LORD ARMAGHDALE: My Lords, I desire to ask the Government whether they are able to afford us any further information in regard to the recent explosion in the Midlands.
LORD ELPHINSTONE: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for having given me private notice of this Question, and I am glad of the opportunity of giving all the information that is now available as to the serious explosion which took place, as your Lordships know, last Monday evening. The explosion was instantaneous, and as far as can be ascertained it was not preceded by a fire, nor, I am glad to say, was it followed by any but small fires which were easily subdued. This was on account of the non-inflammable, material of which the factory was constructed. I regret to say that the loss of life has proved to be larger than was at first believed. About 100 persons, as far as at present can be ascertained, were killed, roughly two-thirds men and one-third women, in addition to which about 150 people were injured.
The House will realise that it is not always possible, in the case of an explosion, to say exactly what causes it, more especially in a case such as this when it is a question of a comparatively new explosive, but an independent Inquiry is going to be held into all the circumstances. One thing I can say, my Lords, and that is that it is quite certain that no factory, certainly not in this country, nor I believe anywhere else in the world, has ever been conducted with greater regard to the safety of the workers. I may add that less than a quarter of an hour before the explosion took place the factory had been thoroughly gone through by the military danger building officer, who is responsible for seeing that all the conditions of the safety
608
regulations are carried out. A very large number of workers were on the premises at the time, and, as previously instructed, they scattered at once on the explosion taking place, but returned immediately to assist in the work of rescue. There never was the slightest semblance of panic, and owing to the prompt measures taken by the staff and employees, as well as by the local authorities and others, the wounded were all taken to local hospitals in the neighbourhood in a marvellously short space of time.
I am glad to be able to state also that within twenty-four hours of the explosion taking place arrangements had been made whereby a portion of the factory will be able to continue manufacturing. This has been arranged on a continuous three-shift basis, and has been in operation since yesterday morning. I think that the House will agree that this is a magnificent proof of the courage and spirit of the employees in the factory. The loss in output will, therefore, I am glad to be able to say, be considerably less than was at first feared.
It is impossible to praise too highly the admirable arrangements that were made by the manager and staff in the event of any explosion taking place, and in the measures which they took when the disaster occurred; and it is difficult for me to express to your Lordships in any adequate fashion the magnificent spirit which animated every single person in the factory from the highest to the lowest. I think I can say that this spirit was really nothing short of heroism, and I am confident that I am only voicing the feelings of all present in the House in paying a sincere tribute to the splendid behaviour of every one on that occasion, and in offering our deepest sympathy to the relatives of those who have lost their liven, as they have done, in the service of their country just as much as any soldier on the battlefield.
Several NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I am certain that the whole House will desire to echo the concluding words of my noble friend opposite in expressing profound sympathy with the relatives of those who have lost their lives in the performance of duty in this appalling accident, and also the sentiments of admiration which the noble Lord expressed of the coolness and

609
courage which was shown by those who were present. I think I understood the Noble Lord to say that an Inquiry would be held into the circumstances. This Inquiry will, I suppose, be of a purely technical character. There is no suggestion, as the noble Lord said, that any carelessness was shown in the handling of these dangerous materials. Of course, in one respect that is not in itself a rea-assuring statement. One can understand that human nature being what it is some lapse from perfect care may from time to time take place, but an unexplained disaster of this kind, due possibly to some physical or chemical qualities in the material which have not hitherto been understood, may be more serious, but I have no doubt that the Inquiry of which the noble Lord spoke will throw such light on this calamity as can be expected to be thrown after a devastating accident of this Kind.

LAND DRAINAGE (PINCHBECK) PRO- VISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order).
LAND DRAINAGE (WOODWALTON) PRO VISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order).
FINANCE BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

RECONSTITUTION OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE THE MARQUESS OF CREWE had the following Question on the Paper—
To ask His Majesty's Government when it is proposed to take action upon the subject of the reconstitution of this House, regarding which the Conference of Members of both Houses appointed by His Majesty's Government has recently reported.
The noble Marquess said: My Lords, in asking His Majesty's Government the Question which stands in my name on the Paper, I desire to confine myself strictly to its terms. I say this because a few days ago there appeared in the Press a by no means unnatural conjecture that I intended on this occasion to raise a debate upon the
610
subject of the reform of your Lordships' House. In my opinion it would not have been wise to take that course. It would I think have been idle, until His Majesty's Government, who are the only people in the position to deal with such a subject, are prepared to bring forward some concrete proposals relating to it. I should never have thought of asking your Lordships, in the course of a day or two's debate, to traverse the whole field over which we plodded day by day in my noble friend's Committee during several months. No useful result could follow from such a proceeding.
I shall therefore confine myself to the terms of the Question on your Lordships' Notice Paper; but I desire to impress with the utmost gravity upon His Majesty's Government, and upon your Lordships' House as a whole, the danger which in my view, and I believe in the view of all those who have been able to examine this question, would attach to complete inaction upon it up to the time when a General Election takes place. It is, of course, impossible for any of us to say when the General Election will be. One hears that it is likely to be deferred somewhat later than was at first thought. It was freely estimated at one time that a General Election might have taken place in November, or even October, of this year, and I understand that His Majesty's Government have taken all possible steps to accelerate the preparation of the new Register. But the general belief in the public mind is that a General Election is at any rate not likely to take place before the early months of next year. I repeat that if, when that General Election takes place, nothing whatever has been done towards the reconstitution of your Lordships' House, there are possibilities of serious constitutional danger. We know what the present position is. Your Lordships are subjected to the restrictions of the Parliament Act, which are complained of by some as practically sterilising the energies of the House. The Parliament Act, by the admission of its authors, of whom I was one, was never intended to be a permanent measure. Therefore it is reasonable to say that men of all Parties and of all views agree that that Act, if not repealed, ought to be seriously qualified by further legislation. That is, as I have said, a matter of general agreement.
But although it is true that the Parliament Act powerfully restricts the possible

611
action of this House as it might have been taken before that measure became law, yet it leaves extensive powers to your Lordships' House. I will give only a single instance. Supposing it had been the view of the majority of this House that woman suffrage ought not to become law until after a General Election. Supposing this House had shown itself so closely wedded to a system of proportional representation that it would rather have sacrificed the Representation of the People Act than agree to its passage without it—will anybody say that your Lordships could have been regarded as powerless and futile if you had rejected that Bill? Will even my noble friend Lord Salisbury take that view? We should have been on the edge, at any rate, of a social revolution if your Lordships had thrown out that I say this merely to show that the possibilities of the future are not altogether on one side.
Nobody knows what the constitution of the majority of the House of Commons will be after a General Election, and nobody knows what Government that majority will advise His Majesty to form. The possibilities are, of course, numerous. It may be that a General Election will take place, not only before the war is in any sense over, but while its ultimate issue, though not uncertain—because we have never admitted any uncertainty of that issue—may yet be so obscure as not to make it clear what the future, either abroad or at home, will be immediately after it. Expressing a purely personal opinion, and speaking for nobody else, my own view is that if an Election were so to take place in the full currency of the war, the present state of affairs as between Parties ought to be maintained. I do not think it is possible during the actual course of the war to resume a clear-cut Party conflict, even though the two or three Parties in the State were to be constituted on different lines from those which existed before the war.
On the other hand, it is possible that the end of the war may be in immediate sight when a General Election takes place. If that were so, it is difficult to believe that some return to controversies between Parties would not be actively set on foot. I ask the House to consider what would be the position of this House in a revival of Party controversy of that kind. I confess I look forward with great dismay to such a prospect. Personally I have no fear of
612
the actions of any Government, whatever its complexion, which is chosen by the majority of the British people. We cannot always get a Government of the precise complexion which we prefer. But one thing I do dread, and that is the possibility of a conflict between the Government of the day and your Lordships' House, compared with which the conflict that took place a few years ago between your Lordships' House and the Liberal majority in another place would be merely a pale shadow, regarded as a constitutional conflict. It is impossible to say what the effect on the future of the Constitution, possibly upon the existence of any Second Chamber at all, might be if such a conflict were to arise. And it is for that reason that I implore His Majesty's Government to take into serious consideration the possibility of dealing with this matter before the life of this Parliament is closed.
Before very long, I suppose, we shall be invited to consider a further term of life for the existing Parliament. Unless I am mistaken, that has to be done during the present month. It is possible that the date which is then mentioned may give, or at any rate appear to give, some indication of the time when His Majesty's Government expect that a General Election may be held. But be that as it may, I cannot see why, in the course of the present autumn, your Lordships' House, to whom I should have supposed in the first instance consideration of the subject would be remitted, should not undertake the consideration of a Government Bill on this subject. So far as I know, the only important measure which we are likely to have to consider in the immediate future is Mr. Fisher's Education Bill, deserving, of course, the closest consideration and examination, which it will no doubt receive here, though not at the same length as has been devoted to it in the other House.
When that measure is passed there does not appear to be anything impending which should prevent the consideration in the autumn by your Lordships of this subject. I am assuming—and I do so confidently—that it is not proposed to adjourn your Lordships' House for a very long period. During the whole progress of the war the Government of the day has always assumed that the House would not wish to part for a period at any rate of months with the power of being called together for a consideration of public business. I assume,

613
therefore, that no very long adjournment will be proposed, and that we shall consequently have a considerable period in the autumn to consider such a measure. And I put it seriously to the noble Earl, the Lord President, whether, in view of the considerations which I have stated, and which, as I firmly believe, cannot be traversed, he will not advise his colleagues to proceed with the consideration of this subject; not necessarily, of course, precisely on the lines which my noble friend's Report indicate, though I hope that close examination will show that those main lines might reasonably be followed in preference to the many other alternatives which some would prefer. I can hardly think that His Majesty's Government would desire to give the whole matter the go-by, realising how deeply it has occupied us in the past, and realising also the untoward results which may follow a complete neglect of it in the immediate future.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, I agree with the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition that the present time would be singularly inopportune for a discussion of the general question of the reform of your Lordships' House; or, indeed, for a discussion of the particular proposals that are contained in the Report of the Conference of which the noble Marquess himself was a member. Moreover, elastic as our system is in this House, I conceive that such a discussion would be out of order in strict relation to the terms of the Question which the noble Marquess has placed upon the Paper. That is the Question which I will endeavour to answer. But before I do so, may I take the opportunity—I am sure the House would wish me to, because it is the first occasion that has presented itself—of testifying to our general recognition of the immense amount of time, of care, and of thought, devoted by the members of Lord Bryce's Conference to the examination of this problem.
Several NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: To that I should like to add that it is really a great tribute to Lord Bryce personally that he should have brought his colleagues to so considerable a measure of agreement. Reading through the Report of his Conference for the third or fourth time, as I did this afternoon, it seemed to me to be a
614
model of patient investigation, of careful and well-balanced reasoning, and of an earnest desire to reconcile conflicting points of view; and of this we may be sure, that whenever this (10vernment, or any Government, proceeds to legislate upon the subject, this Report will be of invaluable assistance to them in taking up the duty.
I noticed that the noble Marquess did not ask whether any action had already been taken by the Government in connection with the presentation of this Report; and I assume that he did not ask the question because he was well aware in advance of the reply that I should be compelled to give. I will be candid about the matter. Since the presentation of the Report it has been simply impossible for the Government, amid the overwhelming duties connected with the war that have rained upon them, to address themselves to a question of this great moment with the time and the seriousness that it demands. In other times, under a pressure less severe, it would have been the duty of this Government, or of any Government, immediately to consider the Report of such a Conference. But not only have we ourselves been absorbed; Parliament has been absorbed with important business in what have been, as we all know, and what continue to be the most anxious days of the war, and we have not yet been able to turn our attention to this matter.
The noble Marquess's questions were addressed rather to the future. A considerable portion of his speech was devoted to a consideration of the circumstances that will arise when next we are confronted with a General Election. With what he had to say about the attitude of Parties on that occasion, the possible evolution of the Party system in this country, I, perhaps, could hardly deal; it would be scarcely germane to the subject to do so. I did, however, note with much interest that he stated most emphatically, and with all the authority that attaches to his position, that he—and I am sure he spoke also for his friends—regarded the Parliament Act as of an essentially temporary nature which must in time—and let us hope in no long time—be replaced by some better constitutional instrument.
The noble Marquess then went on to lay stress upon the grave consequences of delay, upon the desirability of not letting a matter of this description simmer, of not allowing public opinion to form in

615
hostility to it, and of taking advantage of such time as may be at our disposal between now and a General Election seriously to approach the matter. With a good deal that he said on that point I, in common with your Lordships, will be in general agreement; but I should like to put to him and to the House one consideration. It is this. The reference of this matter to Lord Bryce's Conference was an attempt, based upon the lines of a successful endeavour of a similar description elsewhere, to deal with an intensely controversial matter by agreement. Such agreement, or a large measure of such agreement, was secured and was acted upon in the case of the Representation of the People Bill. Now as regards these proposals I have already pointed out that great credit is due to the noble Viscount for having secured a not unsubstantial measure of agreement amongst his colleagues on the Conference. Whether that agreement would be maintained in debate upon a Bill in this House, it is not for me to conjecture—I take the Report of the Conference as it stands—but I respectfully point out to your Lordships that there are two other forms of agreement that are required in order to induce His Majesty's Government to take its hands off the war machine and devote itself energetically to legislation of this kind. They are some assurance of Parliamentary agreement, and some assurance of agreement in public opinion.
Let me remind your Lordships of what happened in the case of the Report of the Speaker's Conference. After Mr. Speaker had written his letter to the Prime Minister and his Report was made public property, a Motion was made in the House of Commons by no less a person than Mr. Asquith, calling the attention of that House to the subject and inviting an expression of general approval, and calling upon His Majesty's Government to legislate in the matter. That Motion was, if I remember aright, carried by a majority of 341 to 62—in other words, by an overwhelming majority of one House of Parliament in favour. On that basis His Majesty's Government felt justified in proceeding without delay. There were similar manifestations, I think, of public opinion throughout the country. I do not know whether the whole of the people are so absorbed in the war that they have not had much time to devote to the Report of Lord Bryce's Conference, but I have not yet observed any very general signs of public
616
enthusiasm in favour of these proposals, or of public desire that they should be proceeded with without delay. I do not want to exaggerate that, or to misinterpret public opinion, but if noble Lords are anxious that the Government should devote themselves in this matter to the preparation of a Bill and to placing it with Government authority on the Table of both Houses, I would suggest that they should take such steps as may be open to them to marshal and organise public opinion in order that His Majesty's Government, before taking such action as is suggested, may be assured that it has public opinion behind it. Such an assurance has, I must confess, not vet reached us, and I think that this preliminary stage ought to be gone through by noble Lords before they come, as no doubt they will at a later date, to press the Government to make some more definite declaration upon the matter.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, I rise not, of course, to discuss the merits of this subject, but because I wish to make one or two observations upon points which fell from my noble friend beside me and from the noble Earl opposite. I do not find myself wholly in agreement with my noble frond Lord Crewe about the expediency of trying to take some step between now and the General Election. I think that all the objections which the noble Earl pointed out apply, and, more than that, that we are in this enormous difficulty, that it is evident that the Government has not made up its mind in the least on any question of principle in this matter. On that I want to say a word.
My noble friend Lord Bryce presided over a Conference in circumstances of great difficulty. Instead of, as is usual, being given a principle and asked to work it out, he was given no principle but was asked to preside over a Conference and to see whether agreement was possible. Of course, agreement was not possible, and there were dissents at every turn. My noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh headed one dissent, and there was another dissent by my noble friend Lord Loreburn and others who were associated with him. But all this was as nothing to the storm of dissent which arose in every quarter of public opinion as expressed in the newspapers; yet I venture to say that this nation owes my noble friend Lord Bryce a debt of gratitude for what he did, because it was obvious that he could not present

617
a Report from the whole Conference, but what he did present was one of the most illuminating and helpful State Papers of Our recent records. So long as this subject is under discussion, so long will those who discuss it turn to the composition which my noble friend signed with his own signature and sent to the Prime Minister, indicating the course of the inquiry and the various views presented. Why did my noble friend take this course? Because the Government failed in the duty of the Government, which was to make up its mind on some policy and lay that policy down for the Conference to try to bring about an agreement. If ever there was a question on which it was hopeless to expect agreement without a principle being given in advance it was this question, and because no principle was given it was obviously impossible for the Conference to come to any sort of agreement.
In this condition of things, and with this hopeless disagreement, I am entirely with the noble Earl in thinking that it would be most inexpedient to make any attempt to bring a Bill before Parliament unless there is general agreement, which I do not think is possible, upon the form which that Bill should assume. It is perfectly plain that there is not going to be perfect agreement in the form expressed in Lord Bryce's memorable letter, and I do not gather that the Government have anything more in their heads. Nor is it much to be wondered at. I take a great interest in this question. I was in a Government which did not neglect it but was constantly considering it, and we found it intensely difficult to come to a conclusion. That was the reason for the delay in regard to the Preamble of the Parliament Act; but there were views which very definitely presented themselves and present themselves now.
At one extreme is the idea that in a reformed Chamber you should get a Second Chamber with a large hereditary clement. At the other end is the antithesis, which is that the most conservative and effective of Second Chambers is one which is nearly a replica of the House of Commons, and should not hold office longer than the House of Commons, and should be elected by the House of Commons. It may be paradoxical, but I believe that to be the most conservative and effective Second Chamber which you are going to get in this country; that with any other, you are
618
likely to be in conflict. You have just added to the electors at least 8,000,000, and probably a good many more. You are also verging upon a new state of social questions upon which it will be very easy for the two Houses to come into conflict and about which unity of policy is essential. It is perfectly obvious that democracy is progressing at a tremendous pace in this country. The war has accelerated that pace; all old notions are being reconsidered, and there is a general feeling that the distance between the conditions of the poor and the conditions of the rich should be réndered much less than it has been hitherto.
Another very serious consideration which arises out of the war is the financial prospect. My noble friend Lord Emmott made a most interesting speech on Tuesday in which he gave some figures of a reassuring kind, but economists have not been unanimously satisfied about Mr. Bonar Law's figures given in the House of Commons. Those who are interested in the subject have only to turn to the current number of the Economic Journal and read the articles appearing there, in which you will find an estimate, supported by a good deal of plausible reasoning, that we might to expect as at least possible that we shall have to make provision for a debt of £8,000,000,000 at the end of the war. I will not go into the reasons for that. If that be so, then we have to provide £400,000,000 for the interest, £80,000,000 for a 1 per cent. sinking fund, £50,000,000 at least for pensions, before we can begin to live; and to begin to live with the social problems in front of us, and with the new outlook, suggests that the provision of £800,000,000 will not be too much. All sorts of changes will have to be made. Cottages have to be provided in enormous numbers. The State has already undertaken large obligations. The electrical supply has to be forthcoming if the production of the country is to be developed, and on all hands the prospect is one of largely increased expenditure. Therefore, though I think it the idlest of all things to prophesy, the last thing I should wish to commit myself to is, that those economists are wrong who think that we cannot look forward to an expenditure of less than £800,000,000 as the amount which we shall have to meet as the annual expenditure if the war goes on a little time longer.
If this be so, it gives rise to a set of social problems in which it is most im-

619
portant that the two Chambers should be as nearly as possible of one mind. I say, parodoxical as it may seem, that I believe this to he a real source of Conservative instinct. The First Chamber will agree with a Second Chamber with which it is in sympathy and will delegate to it powers, even of checking itself and retarding its action, which it would never tolerate in a Chamber that was different; and in the face of these tremendous changes of which I have spoken, what chance is there of your Lordships here—if you desired it, which I am sure you would not—being able to resist the demand of the coming democracy for a change in the constitutional relations in this country?
I have risen to say these things, not because I wish to speak in an alarming way, not because I wish to speak as a pessimist at all, but because I think they are enormously serious. I feel that our great comfort and mainstay is that we are dealing with a great, sane, generous, good-natured people, which has never been revolutionary when it has been properly treated, and which is not likely to be revolutionary in the future if we do not raise revolutions. It is because I am afraid that to take action on the footing of the proposal in the letter of my noble friend Lord Bryce to the Prime Minister, or anything remotely approaching to that—or anything falling much short of what I have indicated to your Lordships as what seems to me the view which is gradually looming out and likely to be pressed on—will be a source of great danger, that it is with some relief I learn from the noble Earl that the Government is not in the slightest degree likely to take any action at present, and, as I gather, has not even made up its mind in the least on the principle which it will desire to follow.
VISCOUNT BRYCE: My Lords, I had not intended to take any part whatever in this debate, but some remarks which have just fallen from my noble and learned friend make it necessary for me to do so, because it would not be right that some of his statements should go uncontradicted. I thank my noble friend for the kind words he has been good enough to use about the Report, and the small share which I bore in that Report, but I must express my regret that he should have thought it necessary, in spite of the remarks with which my noble friend Lord Crewe opened the debate, to diverge into what was prac-
620
tically a discussion of one of the schemes which was before the Conference and which was dealt with in it. I think it extremely undesirable that we should venture at this stage to enter into any discussion of the schemes or of their merits, and I am sorry it should have been begun.
I cannot follow my noble and learned friend into the general consideration—economic, financial, and others—into which he seemed to me to diverge, and whose relevance to the particular question I confess I have failed to discover, but I do want to point out to your Lordships that I think he has, unintentionally, very much exaggerated the amount of what I will call the haste and comparative indifference with which this scheme was received. The scheme appeared at the moment when the mind of the country was entirely occupied by two questions of the gravest import. One was the position of our Front in France; the other was the situation in Ireland. It was perfectly impossible for the newspapers or for public opinion in the country to devote themselves with due deliberation to a question of so very difficult a nature, and I think that to speak of a storm of disapproval is a complete, though unconscious and unintentional, misrepresentation of the facts. It was my duty to read a good many—I think nearly all—of the statements which I saw in the Press, but I did not find them always very illuminative. They did not all seem to be the result of a close study of the proceedings of the Conference, but I certainly did not gather that they were in any sense whatever an indication of general disapproval, either by the Press or by the public, of the suggestions which the Conference had put forward.
Similarly, my noble friend has, I think, very much exaggerated the differences of opinion which, as he stated, arose in the Conference itself. You could not possibly have any body of men treating a question which bristles with so many difficulties—which in time past has been the subject of so much controversy, upon which in time past so many people have committed themselves to views—without having some difference of opinion; and I do not believe, if I were to take my chance of any five members of your Lordships' House, that you would find that those five members, even if they belonged to the same Party, would necessarily be agreed upon all the rules or principles which ought to be laid

621
down for the constitution of a Second Chamber. There must be objections taken to every scheme. We are perfectly well aware that objections could be taken to this scheme, and that they would be taken to any scheme that has been proposed or will be proposed. If you were to go, as some of us have gone, into an examination of the conditions of the Second Chambers in other countries you would find that there is no Second Chamber against which serious objections cannot be and are in fact taken; but, nevertheless, this does not prevent these Chambers from rendering extremely valuable services to tae countries in which they exist.
Upon one thing at any rate the Conference was, with hardly an exception, agreed, and that was as to the extreme importance and gravity of this question. I think the longer our deliberations lasted the more I was struck by the sense which emerged from the discussions of the extraordinary value which a properly constituted Second Chamber would have in the constitution of this country. Therefore I have ventured, if I may do so respectfully, to support what was said by my noble friend Lord Crewe when he commended this question to the very earnest attention of His Majesty's Government, and I regret that any different opinion than that should exist in the mind of my noble and learned friend, because I can safely say that the longer our deliberations lasted the more we were impressed—and the more I think those who have outside Parliament addressed themselves to the subject have been impressed—with the undesirability of leaving things where the Parliament Act now leaves them, and the urgency of bringing this question to a permanent settlement.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I am quite conscious that there are other Questions upon the Paper, and I certainly do not desire to abstract any great quantity of time from the period which the noble Lords in whose names these Questions stand will desire to use in placing them before the House. But there are one or two points that I should like to submit for your Lordships' consideration.
The noble Earl the Leader of the House has led us to understand that the Government is so occupied with other matters that it finds itself quite unable to give time for the consideration of this question. I must say I heard the statement with great
622
regret. Every one knows how absorbing must be the questions of a wider and more international character with which the Government is engaged, but it is their first duty to provide us security at home, as well as victory in the field. It is no use pursuing this war without regard to the effect of the social fortes that are fermenting in this country and may produce dangerous results if they are not properly guided and controlled.
There are two things to which, I think, we should all agree. The first is, that in order to obtain stable and wise government—and at no time in our history will stable and wise government be more needed than when this war is ended—it is necessary there should be two Chambers to our Constitution. I think also that most of us, possibly not all, would be in agreement that this House as at present constituted will be quite unable to stand the storm that will be raised against its existence by the large and newly enfranchised electorate that will take part in the next election. It would be, to my mind, something both pitiable and dangerous if, when this war is over, we were once more to be restored to some of the old barren controversies that have occupied the platform for the last thirty years. Unless we can clear them out of the way, and proceed to deal with the other new and difficult problems which will await us, we may run the danger of a great disaster. There can be no doubt that one of the most important of all these questions is the proper constitution of the Second Chamber of our two Houses of Parliament, and the proper adjustment of the relations between the two Houses themselves. I am uneasy lest this matter should be treated as one that can be postponed and put off, and it may be found that the growing tide of popular opinion will make short work of the whole matter and sweep the Second Chamber completely away. I sincerely hope the Government may find time, among their very many grave and arduous duties, to consider a question which, in my mind, is one of the most important and serious to which their attention could possibly be directed.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I rise with some reluctance to take part in this debate, but I should like to say one or two things, having been a member of the Conference to which allusion has been made. I venture, very respectfully, to express my agreement with much of what

623
the noble and learned Lord has just said. I am very glad to hear his adherence to the principle of there being two Chambers, and I am afraid I also rather agree with him that there are dangers to us in the present constitution of this House. I do not want to go further into that point, because it would be debating the subject upon its merits, which almost every speaker heretofore has refrained from doing. I could not sit down without bearing a word of additional testimony to the well-chosen words which have been used by more than one speaker as to the skill, courtesy and knowledge which the noble Viscount (Lord Bryce) brought to bear upon our deliberations. I agree that his letter to the Prime Minister is perfect monument of learning, and will be useful for a long period of years to any one who desires to study this question.
On other matters I want to express, respectfully, my agreement with the noble Earl the Leader of the House as to the position in which the Government is placed. I should like to see them take up the question, but I do think the challenge he used was a perfectly fair one—that more evidence should be given of general agreement before the Government are asked to attempt to formulate a scheme. I think that perhaps the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Haldane, went a little too far as to the amount of dissatisfaction which was expressed at the proposals contained as the result of the Conference, but I hope it will not go out—and this is the one point on which I am rather inclined to dissent from the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Bryce—that it was in any sense an agreed Report. Much of it was agreed, but there were very serious divergences of opinion upon some other points. I personally felt all along, and I feel now, that it was a grave mistake not to let those who disagree state their disagreement in their own language. Pressure was put upon us not to do so, and we consented but I am bound to say, excellent as I think the letter of the noble Viscount to the Prime Minister was in many respects, I am one of those who think it gives but a very pale reflection of the feelings some of us hold as to the proposed new constitution of the Second Chamber. It contained an inadequate statement of our objections, and I think no real progress will be made unless and until those who think the scheme, as a whole, can be carried into effect will make some public demonstration in this House or the other House of Parliament to see what
624
amount of agreement there really is, not amongst those who composed the Conference, but amongst those who will have to live under the two Chambers. I do not conceal that I think the particular method suggested for the constitution of the Second Chamber is the worst that could possibly be devised.
LORD BURNHAM: My Lords, as I am the only member who sat throughout the whole of these two constitutional Conferences, I should like to say a few words on the speech of Lord Haldane. To my mind, it was a gross caricature of the proceedings of the Second Chamber Conference, and it did not hear any sign of his being informed of the proceedings of the Speaker's Conference. I can assure him that there was no more guidance given from above, or from the Government, in the one case than in the other. All the Speaker did, when his Conference assembled, was to say that a hope had been expressed by the Government that we might arrive at some sort of national agreement upon the suffrage and electorate of the country. There was no other guidance than that; and in the same way the noble Viscount who presided over the Second Chamber Conference said that it was hoped to arrive at a measure of national agreement. There was more agreement in the Second Chamber Conference than there was in the Speaker's Conference.
In the Speakers Conference there were two great divisions on the main questions—woman suffrage and proportional representation. With regard to woman suffrage, those who disagreed reserved their liberty of action in the House of Commons when the Report appeared in statutory form, and, I believe, took advantage of the independence they had claimed. There was a reservation made in the course of the proceedings in the Conference held in regard to the reconstitution of the Second Chamber, but there was a larger measure of agreement on the real principle at issue, because I do not believe there was a single member of either House who took part in the Second Chamber Conference who did not take it as assumed, from the first, that the existing constitutional arrangements under the Parliament Act were unsatisfactory and ought to be amended. I do not think Lord Balfour of Burleigh would disagree with me as to that. Therefore we started on common ground, and, more than that, for the particular plan that was put forward in this House this afternoon by

625
the noble Viscount I do not think there was one single champion in the Conference. He has produced here the official programme of the Labour Party, which was that every session there should be elected as a Second Chamber a sort of Revising Committee which should have to deal simply as constitutional experts with the drafting and re-drafting of Bills. There was only one member, I believe, at the Conference that sat with regard to your Lordships' House who was of that opinion.
With respect to the question that has been put by my noble friend Lord Crewe, I am bound to say that I largely agree with him that it was the hope and expectation of us all that something would be done during the currency of this Parliament to produce a legislative proposal for the reform or reconstitution of the Second Chamber. I think that it is urgent, but not only for the reasons that have been put forward. It scents to me that the best reason for reconstituting this Chamber is that unless your Lordships regain confidence in yourselves you are not likely to exercise that amount of public authority in the future which will be so virally requisite. I am afraid that you fear your fate too much to try in any way to revise what has been done elsewhere.
I would only, in conclusion, draw your Lordships' attention to this fact. I am told by those who are electoral experts that the increase in the electorate and the power of our democracy is far greater than was anticipated. All the calculations have proved wrong. It was said, when the Representation of the People Bill was under discussion in another place and here, that under its provisions a greater number of men and women were being enfranchised than under all the Reform Acts of the last century put together. It has turned out that the increase is larger still; in fact, it is difficult to imagine who will not exercise the franchise as the Registers are being made up. In these circumstances I think that we all want to feeel a little more the sense of public responsibility, and still more that we should enjoy that public confidence that I am afraid can never be extended to your Lordships' House as it is at present constituted.

INTERNED N.C.O'S AND MEN.
LORD SALTOUN LORD SALTOUN rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they can give any information regarding our non-
626
commissioned officers and men interned in Holland—(1) as to food; (2) as to clothing.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in asking this Question, I want it to be made perfectly clear that none of the information which I shall use has been received from any non-commissioned officer or man. I do that because I de not know what the consequences would be to any one in the Army giving such information. All my information comes from civilians who have had it given to them when they were abroad, and who have been able while in Holland to go about and see for themselves the conditions under which our prisoners are, living. There is no doubt that these prisoners have been suffering very much from want of food. I have heard that 2 ozs. of meat a week was the ration about a fortnight ago, but I have also heard that they did not get even that; in fact, that they have received no meat at all for over a month.
We are not now allowed to send food parcels to our prisoners. The tremendous depreciation of our own money is another factor, because it makes it extremely difficult for the non-commissioned officers or men to supplement their rations by buying food. I do not want to make very much of this, but it seemed to me that this is the time for bringing it forward when we have a Commission over in Holland. Surely advantage should be taken of the presence of that Commission in Holland to take up the question of putting the feeding of our prisoners on a better footing. I have been told that they have not been getting a ration equal to that provided for the civilians in Holland. That does not seem to me to be a right thing.
Whatever may be the excuse arising from the scarcity of food in Holland, I think that the manner in which our prisoners are dealt wits as regards their clothing is a most serious matter, and one it regard to which them can be no excuse. I understand that many of our non-commissioned officers are still wearing the prison clothes that they wore in Germany, with yellow stripes upon the trousers and yellow bands—the prison badge—round their arms, and that they are pointed out by Germans and by various spies in the hotels as being incorrigible scoundrels, and as having been put in prison for that reason. That is not a very happy or a healthy state of things for these unfortunate men who have been rescued from prison

627
in Germany and sent to a neutral country; and when we consider that German prisoners who have been confined in this country and then returned to Holland are swaggering about there in purple, blue, grey, or whatever be the colour of the uniform of their regiments, I think it is time we did something to provide new clothes for our own men. It is highly undesirable that they should be left in the very miserable condition in which they now are. I can understand that there may be a scarcity of khaki in this country, and that it may all be required for our soldiers, but why cannot we send out to these men the peace uniforms of their regiments which are now stored away in the depots at the headquarters of the regiments? Surely those uniforms could be used in order to clothe our men decently, and enable them to look respectable in the country where they are interned. Except for the boon of the liberty which they have obtained, the unfortunate non-commissioned officers—I think there are no men there now, all of them having been sent back—in Holland are in no better condition as regards clothing than they were when imprisoned in Germany.
I do not wish to press my point unduly, but I think it is one which should be taken up while we have a Commission in Holland. There may be, and very probably there is, considerable difficulty, if bales of clothing are sent over to Holland, in getting tailors to make the clothes, and this is an additional reason for sending the uniforms which are already made and which the men themselves could easily alter if they required alteration.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE WAR OFFICE (EARL STANHOPE):My Lords, the rations for the non-commissioned officers at present interned in Holland, as originally planned, were on a liberal scale, and I have here a summary. Approximately a little over 1 lb. of bread a day was given to each man and a little over ½ lb. of meat, inclusive of 20 per cent. of bone. There were also coffee, butter, vegetables, potatoes, and so on. Unfortunately, the Dutch civil population became very dissatisfied with this arrangement, as the ration given to British prisoners was very considerably in excess of what was available for the Dutch civil population. We found it difficult to make the Dutch civil population realise that meat and bread were being imported from England for the purpose of feeding our own
628
prisoners, and therefore it was somewhat difficult to allay their dissatisfaction. His Majesty's Government were very anxious that the good feeling which exists between the Dutch people and our prisoners should be continued and, above all, that no difficulty should be placed in the way of the Dutch Government's accepting further prisoners as we managed to get them released from. Germany.
Therefore, after very full consideration, it was decided that we must reduce the ration for bread and meat given to our prisoners to the amount which was available for the civil population of Holland. In regard to bread, I understand it is about 200 grammes daily. Substitutes are provided in lieu. I have a copy of the weekly diet sheet, which is rather long to readout to the House, but I should be very glad to show it to any noble Lords who desire to see it. But I may add that His Majesty's Government were not satisfied that the conditions with regard to the feeding of our prisoners in Holland were all that we could desire, and therefore when our delegates were sent out to effect an exchange of prisoners with Germany they were asked to go into the whole question of the feeding of our prisoners now interned in Holland. I understand that is is being done.
In regard to uniforms and other clothing required by non-commissioned officers interned, these are sent out from England. There was at first some delay, owing to transport difficulties, in getting our supplies out to that country, and the officer in charge was authorised to purchase immediate requirements locally. Large consignments of clothing have been despatched, and I understand that matters are now on a satisfactory footing. I believe I am correct in saying that more than 5,000 suits of clothing have been sent out to Holland within the past six months, a large part of that having been comparatively recently. I trust, therefore, that our prisoners in Holland are now clothed in the way in which we should desire to see them clothed as members of His Majesty's Forces.
LORD SALTOUN: I am much obliged to the noble Earl for the answer he has given. The only thing I would point out is that my information is not more than a fortnight old, and then the men were not getting the food, even the reduced amount to which the noble Earl has referred. Furthermore, they were at that time in

629
prison clothes. It is only a fortnight since I was told these things, and they were seen only three weeks ago. I should be very glad to hear that the Commission had been called upon to undertake the smatter at once and get it done.
EARL STANHOPE: I can assure the noble Lord that it is really being done. The clothing was, as I have said, sent out fairly recently and I believe has now arrived, though I cannot guarantee that.

ENEMY ALIENS.
LORD BERESFORD LORD BERESFORD had the following Notice standing in his name on the Order Paper for Tuesday next—
To call attention to the number of uninterned aliens in the country, and to ask whether a Return can be given of uninterned aliens; whether a Return can be given of the number of aliens who were naturalised since the war; if it can be stated how many naturalised aliens are employed in Government offices; whether particulars can be given of Mr. Wendt, at present serving under the Road Board; whether he is of German birth, what salary he is getting, and what work he is doing, and who were the persons who undertook to be sponsors for his loyalty; can a Return be given of the number of Germans who have changed their names during the last five years, and whether enemy aliens are now permitted to change their names; who is the official at the Home Office to whom the powers are entrusted for relaxing regulations laid down as regards visits to prisoners of war or interned aliens; to ask for particulars as to the storage of coal by Baron Schroeder; what amount of coal he had ordered during 1917–1918; what amount of coal was found to be in his possession; whether he got permission from the Coal Controller to buy the coal; has the coal been removed, and if not, can a reason be given; and to move for Papers.
The noble and gallant Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that I be given the permission of the House to advance my Motion (now standing for Tuesday next) to Monday next. It would not be respectful to your Lordships if I did not give quite shortly the reasons why I wish to do this. I put down this Motion about inquiry into the aliens in this country twice. It is now
630
down for Tuesday, and I see that the Government have put down four Bills on that day. I do not suppose that the Land Drainage Bill and the Midwives Bill will take long. The Loans (Incumbrance of Benefices) Amendment Bill may; but; the Corn Production (Amendment) Bill will certainly take a long time. Therefore I should again have to postpone my Motion. The Government must be quite aware of the great excitement in the public mind about the aliens—
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): We agree to the Motion.
LORD BERESFORD: Then there is no need for me to say anything further?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I cannot guarantee that the Government will reply, but we agree to the Motion to advance the Notice to Monday next.
Moved, That the permission of the House be given to Lord Beresford to advance his Notice (now standing from Tuesday next) to Monday next.—(Lord Beresford).
On Question, Motion agreed to.

AMENDMENT OF THE CRIMINAL LAW.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether it is a fact that, while the proposals to create new criminal offences are awaiting the consent of Parliament in the Criminal Law Amendment Bill (H.L.), an Order has been issued whereby a proposal contained in the said Bill has been created into a new criminal offence without awaiting Parliamentary sanction.
The noble and learned Lord said: Lords, when I put down the Notice which stands in my name a Question by the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, stood on the Paper dealing with the same subject-matter. I understood, in fact I know, it was the object of the noble Earl to expedite, if he could, proceeding with the Criminal Law Amendment Bill, of which the Second Reading has been passed in your Lordships' House. The main object of the Question which I put down was in the same direction. No doubt I expressed my objection in rather a different form, because until the Bill is passed you might get matters of this kind dealt with under the procedure of the Defence of the Realm Act, and as a matter of fact a Proclamation dealing with this same subject-matter—namely sexual offences—has been promulgated

631
under the Defence of the Realm Act and known as Regulation 40D.
This question of sexual regulation—I do not want to go into it at any length to-day—is undoubtedly a very difficult one, and it has raised a great difference of opinion both in the other House and here. Last year a Criminal Law Amendment Bill was introduced into the House of Commons, and afterwards went to a Standing Committee. The particular provision dealing with the contamination of venereal diseases was dealt with in that Committee, with the result that the penalties to be imposed were made applicable equally to men and women, which, to my mind, is a matter of great importance, because if legislation of this kind is to be introduced, you want it to be introduced with as little friction and on as equal and fair lines as possible. It appears to me to be not very just to introduce Regulations of this kind throwing a penalty upon women, whereas men, who very often may be the authors of the offence, are to go exempt.
One other thing I should like to say on this point. In all matters of this kind I think the leading consideration should not be punishment, but the attempt to reform, and these women are rather subjects of pity than subjects of punishment. If you deal with these matters in the ordinary way by Parliament, of course you get the opportunity of introducing reformatory regulations at the same time as you introduce penal punishment, and that is one of the features of the Criminal Law Amendment Bill which has been before your Lordships' House for Second Reading this year, and which has been reefrred to a Joint Committee, in reference to which Lord Beauchamp put down his Question. I call the attention of the noble Lord opposite to the provision of Clause 5 of this Bill. It is in the same terms as the section of the Bill after it had been considered by the Standing Committee last year in the House of Commons. In the first place, as I pointed out, it applies both to men and to women, and I think that is an essential condition of a provision of this character. Secondly, there are two safeguards in the provisos also having a very important and material bearing. One of these safeguards is that—
"a person shall not be convicted under this section if that person proves that he or she bad reasonable grounds to believe that he or she was free from venereal disease in a communicable orm at the time the alleged offence was committed."
632
I doubt whether even in that form the safeguard is sufficient, but at any rate it introduces the well-known criminal protection that persons shall not be held guilty of an offence in reference to which they have no guilt; intent or knowledge.
But, as I shall point out in a moment when we come to the Regulation issued under the Defence of the Realm Act, there is no similar protection of any kind. In fact, under the Criminal Law Regulation 40D, although a woman may have perfectly good ground for believing that she was free from venereal disease—the Regulation does not apply to men at all—yet she may be found guilty and subjected to heavy penalties for the offence which she has committed. It appears to me extraordinarily harsh that where in the Second Reading of a Bill in this House, and after consideration in the House of Commons, you have had a provision of that kind introduced as a safeguard, you find on the other hand an Order issued in which no such safeguard exists.
The second proviso to the proposal in the Criminal Law Amendment Bill is this—
"No person shall be convicted of any offence under this section upon the evidence of one witness unless such witness be corroborated in some material particular by evidence implicating the accused."
There, again, is a most valuable safeguard introducing what is really a new principle in our Criminal Law. As regards (b) I should like to emphasise this fact—although it is well known to Lord Sydenham, who has taken so much interest in this question—that it was not in the Bill as originally introduced in the House of Commons last year, but was introduced by the Standing Committee. It is fair if, in the consideration of Parliament, a Regulation of this kind should apply to both sexes equally, and that there should be these two very important safeguards, that we should have a Regulation under the Defence of the Realm Act applying it to women only, with both of those safeguards omitted. I do not want at the present moment to go into the general question, about which I feel strongly, of introducing by Proclamation and without Parliamentary sanction what are really new criminal offences.
Let me turn to the Regulation in question, because I know the noble Earl opposite

633
is going to reply on behalf of the War Office. It is true that this Regulation applies only to members of His Majesty's Forces, whereas the provision in the Bill will be general; but surely there is no difference, so far as the criminal offence is concerned, whether you make the matter general or applicable only to members of His Majesty's Forces. I mean that you ought to have the same provision that a woman who is really innocent, because she does not know she is guilty of the offence, ought not to be protected. Your Lordships will feel that even a woman who is in what is called a degraded position is hopelessly penalised as regards any reform if she is sent to prison under a provision of this character. It is very hard, therefore, that a protection, which in the consideration of Parliament one may assume is necessary, is not open to her under this particular Regulation. In the same way as regards corroborative evidence.
It may be said, in answer to my objection, that the soldier is subject to special penalties in matters of this kind. I accept, that. But that is no reason whatever why a woman should not have the protection which is contained in the provisions that I have read, both in the Criminal Law Amendment Bill which was dealt with in the last session in the House of Commons, and the Criminal Law Amendment Bill which has been read a second time your Lordships' House. The importance of this matter for those who intensely desire reform, as I do, in these questions of sexual offences, is that by introducing your reform in a method which raises, and, I think, not unjustly raises, opposition owing to its unfair incidence, you do all that you can to excite public opinion against what in my view is a most important amendment of our law which ought to be introduced with proper precautions and under Parliamentary sanction.
The other point on which I feel strongly is that in the Bill You not only impose penalties, but you also have provisions for reform; and if you are to deal anything like successfully with this difficult question pat ought to put reform in the foreground; you ought to do all you can to bring back into respectable social conditions a large number of these women, and not, by additional penalties without any chance of reform, push them still further into the bottomless pit into which they have been brought by the degradation of their lives. As I have said before, the object
634
should be pity and reform, not penalty and punishment. I do not want to raise any wider question upon the present occasion. I have now put forward the views on which my Question is founded, and I will ask the noble Lord to answer what I have said.
LORD SYDENHAM: My Lords, I hope, and I think, that my noble and learned friend in putting down this somewhat cryptic Question did not intend to prejudice in advance the provisions of the Criminal Law Amendment Bill, and especially Clause 5.
LORD PARMOOR: Certainly not.
LORD SYDENHAM: That Bill, for the first time, enables our law to take cognisance of an offence which in many cases is, in my opinion, a worse offence than murder; and I think it is a disgrace to our law that it has not hitherto had that power. The reason is that it is only in late years, in fact, perhaps, only in the last year or two, that people have begun to realise the terrible consequences of venereal disease.
I will not follow my noble and learned friend in discussing Clause 5, because think it would hardly be in order, as that clause is not before your Lordships' House at the present moment. I think he forgets that Regulation 40 D was discussed in detail in your Lordships' House on the initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, and on that occasion the noble Earl the late Secretary of State for War (Lord Derby) explained the Regulation at considerable length, and showed clearly that the man was far more penalised than the woman. I think my noble and learned friend said that the man went scot free. As a matter of fact, if I remember correctly, the man can get two years hard labour. There is, however, as he has pointed out so well, an inequality between the sexes in the working of this Regulation, and very strong resentment has been aroused, quite naturally and quite justly. I feel it as much as my noble and learned friend.
But the Regulation has also been discussed in the other House. On June 18 the Under-Secretary of State for War said—
"I cannot, on behalf of the Government, say that we will withdraw this Regulation, because we believe it is useful, and it may prove effective in a very difficult, a very delicate, and a very dangerous situation."

635
I believe that the Government are right in maintaining this Regulation in spite of all the difficulties, because the present conditions in certain areas are distinctly dangerous. But the moral I draw is this, that Clause 5 of the Criminal Law Amendment Bill ought to be passed with the least possible delay, because it equalises all conditions between the sexes, and would remove the very legitimate grievances to which my noble and learned friend referred.
I have already begged that the Government would take up that clause and pass it as a separate Bill; and I would again ask the Government if they would take that course, without waiting for the Report of the Joint Select Committee, which body, I am afraid, has not yet been set up. I believe that if that clause could be passed it would remedy the great defect which my noble and learned friend has pointed out, and do away with the marked resentment which is now being felt by a large number of women.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, Section 40 D of the Defence of the Realm Regulations does deal with a part of the subject covered by Clause 5 of the Criminal Law Amendment Bill, which I understand is now being considered by a Select, Committee of both Houses.
LORD SYDENHAM: The Joint Committee has not been set up yet.
LORD PARMOOR: The Bill has been referred to a Joint Committee.
EARL STANHOPE: It is not quite correct, however, to say, as I think appears in the Question, that this Regulation was made while similar proposals were awaiting the consent of Parliament. Section 40 D of the Defence of the Realm Regulations was issued under an Order in Council of March 22 last. The Criminal Law Amendment Bill was not ordered to be printed until a month after that date—namely, on April 24. It was read a second time in your Lordships' House on May 7, and was then referred to a Select Committee.
The history of this question is briefly this. The representatives of the Oversea Dominions pressed very strongly at the imperial War Conference last year that steps should be taken to prevent the spread of venereal disease in this country.
636
A Bill was therefore introduced last year in another place and was given a Second Reading and made considerable progress in Committee. The clause dealing with sexual intercourse of persons suffering from venereal disease passed the Committee stage. The Bill then failed to make satisfactory progress, and therefore did not become law.
Your Lordships, in the various debates which have taken place on this unsavoury subject, have, I think, all agreed as to the urgency of the matter; and you will therefore perhaps not disapprove of the Government taking action in the only way that it was open to them to do without having to undergo the delay necessary before a Bill could be passed into law. It is an open secret that the Army Council urged strongly that if any Regulation were to he promulgated it should be a Regulation dealing with the entire population, civil as well as military, but we were advised that it would be ultra vires to deal with the civil population on this matter under a Defence of the Realm Regulation. It is for that reason that Section 40 D has taken the form which it has, although, as noble Lords know, it does not contain the whole policy of the Government. The full proposals of His Majesty's Government were contained in the Criminal Law Amendment Bill. It is, of course, for that reason that we have found it impossible to deal with the male population other than those in the Army, but, as I have already pointed out, the Army Council were only too anxious that if it had been possible this should be done in a Regulation.
In regard to the unfairness as between men and women, the penalties, as the noble and learned Lord himself pointed out, that are imposed upon men of His Majesty's Forces if they conceal the disease, as a woman would conceal her disease under this particular clause, are infinitely more severe than are shown by this Regulation. As Lord Sydenham pointed out, it can amount to two years imprisonment with hard labour instead of six months or a fine of £100. The noble Lord referred to the inadvisability of making new criminal offences under the Defence of the Realm Regulations, but as he himself, I think, pointed out, this very often happens under the Defence of the Realm Regulations; and it was with that object that Parliament gave authority to the Government to issue Regulations when it was found to be

637
necessary and urgeat, as this case. I think that is all that the noble and learned Lord asked me to reply to, and I can assure him that it is the wish of the Government that the Bill dealing with this question should receive early consideration, and, if possible, be passed into law.
LORD PARMOOR: I thank the noble Earl for his answer and for the lucid way in which he gave it, and I hope the result of this discussion may be that the Bill will be pressed on in order that matters may be considered and sanctioned fairly by Parliament.
LORD SYDENHAM: May I ask whether the Government would consider my proposal that Clause 5 should be taken as a separate Bill, thus avoiding the delay which will necessarily occur if the Bill is taken as a whole?
EARL STANHOPE: I will consult the Home Office on the subject.

PATRINGTON SMALL HOLDINGS COLONY.
VISCOUNT GALWAY VISCOUNT GALWAY rose to move, That a detailed balance sheet, differentiating between capital and annual farming expenditure for the Patrington Small Holdings Colony, for the farming year April, 1917, to April, 1918, be presented to both Houses of Parliament forthwith.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in accordance with the notice that I gave yesterday I propose to move the Motion which stands on the Paper. The reason for my doing so is that I think we have a right to know the result of one year's working; and as the Board of Agriculture took over this farm in the spring of 1937, we should be told what is the result of the working for twelve months from that date. My noble friend was good enough to give me some figures yesterday, but, as I gather, the result would have been to put the value of two harvests into one Return. I cannot see why the Board of Agriculture are not prepared to give a Return for the year from the date at which they took possession of the farm, whether Lady Day or Michaelmas. I am anxious to have the opinion of the House upon this, and although I hope my noble friend will not refuse this Return, if he does refuse it, I should wish, as there are so few members of the House present, to put the matter off.
Moved to resolved, That a detailed Balance Sheet differentiating between capital and annual farming expenditure for the Patrington Small Holdings Colony for the farming year April, 1917, to April, 1918, be presented to both House of Parliament forthwith.—(Viscount Galway)
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (LORD CLINTON): The noble Viscount has asked me, on behalf of the Board, to agree to a Return showing the position of this colony at Patrington at Lady Day, 1918. Under the Act of 1916 it is our duty to submit to Parliament in each year the results of the colony working. A Return—I admit a very incomplete Return—has been submitted, and last night I gave the noble Viscount certain further particulars in my possession. The noble Vicount is not satisfied with those particulars, for two reasons. Firstly, because the Return includes two harvests. That is perfectly correct, the time being for eighteen months from the date on which we took possess in, estimated forward to Michaelmas of this year. It seemed to be the only way in the circumstances by which I could put the proper information before the House. It is true that it entails two harvests. It is equally true that it entails two expenses of working, as applicable to both those harvests, and in giving the Return I stated that it was for eighteen months; but in showing the profits I allocated them to the or e year only. That is to say, I took one-half or two-thirds of the total sum by which the credit side exceeded the debit side and gave that as the profits of the year.
The noble Viscount now says that the Return should be to Lady Day. We discussed that question last night, and I said that in my opinion, for purely grain-growing farms like Patrington the Michaelmas term is much the better term to which to make up our accounts. That is the opinion of the Board. As your Lordships know, the Board have a considerable number of farms in their possession, some Lady Day and some Michaelmas entries, and it is an obvious convenience to settle them all up to the same date. There is a practical difficulty, which I would point out, at this moment in endeavouring to comply with the suggestion of the noble Viscount that we should bring the accounts up to the Lady Day which has just passed It is perfectly clear that merely to put the

639
cash statement so far as payments and receipts are concerned can be done quite easily, but your Lordships know very well that such a statement would in no sense disclose the position of the farm, because the bulk of the value of the farm is included in the valuation. How I am to go back three or four months now to Lady Day and value the stock and crops as they existed at that moment, I really do not know. I think it is a serious practical difficulty, if I am to do anything more than make a guess at the whole thing; but, apart from the unpractical nature of it, the labour and cost and time involved would be out of all proportion to any advantage which your Lordships would get from it.
I submit that our proper course is the one that we have suggested, which is to lay before the House, immediately the Michaelmas year is ended, a full account of the cash, valuations, and all transactiens if the farm up to that date. That complies with the Act, and I am quite certain it will give the House much more information than any partial statement we could give at this moment. I am, of course, perfectly ready to give the noble Viscount the statement from which I quoted last night and all the data upon which the accounts are based. I hope that this will be satisfactory to the noble Viscount.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: 11v Lords, I intervene with some reluctance. It is no use dividing on this now, because there are not thirty members in the House and the result would be that it would be postponed to another day. On one point I am in great sympathy with the noble Lord who represents the Board of Agriculture, and that is that the financial year from Michaelmas to Michaelmas is a very much better period for English farming than any other period of the year. In Scotland, we should take it from Martinmas to Martinmas, November to November, but then our harvest is later and the work following on it is not all done, potatoes are not gathered, and so, on. I agree that Michaelmas to Michaelmas is better for the debtor and creditor accounts of English farms. But—and this is one point on which I was not quite satisfied—the noble Lord did not seem to give a promise that his Return, whenever it comes, will make a real difference between capital and ordinary expenditure. A great point for enabling us to decide whether these small farms and farm colonies are a success or
640
not is to discover whether the accounts as between capital and expenditure are fairly distinct. You may stock a farm very largely, but unless you have the valuation of what remains at the end of the year and compare it with the beginning you cannot settle the question whether the farm is being run on commercial and successful lines or not. Capital expenditure may mean buildings, but also it may mean management and the amount of stock and implements on the farm. Therefore I think it is of the greatest importance that in these accounts there should be a distinct differentiation as between what is put down in the name of capital and in the name of ordinary expenditure. We may differ as to these items, but if they are stated separately we can form our own opinion.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, every one who pays Income Tax on farming profits, apart from paying on a rental basis, has of necessity to make an account in which differentiation is made between capital and annual farm expenditure. Unless that was done, it would be impossible to bring forward any balance sheet which would comply with the requirements of the Inland Revenue Department. I think the noble Lord, from his know ledge of these matters, appreciates this. I understand that the desire of the noble Viscount is to have the same sort of account made out as is necessary when making out farm accounts for Income Tax purposes—that is to say, he should have a balance sheet which would really show what was the profit during the year in question, differentiating entirely what is a mere matter of capital expenditure. What I want to ask the noble Lord who represents the Department of Agriculture is this. Assuming, as I will assume in his favour, that generally Michaelmas is the more convenient date up to which it is desirable to make farmers' accounts, will he in such an account, when made up to Michaelmas, show a differentiation between capital expenditure and annual farm expenditure such as you would have to make for Income Tax purposes, in order that any one who sees the accounts may know whether there has been a profit or not, and what the true extent of the profit may be? If the account is given in that form, although in a number of instances it would be for more than a year and subsequently from Michaelmas to Michaelmas, that would be satisfactory
LORD CLINTON: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord who has just spoken that a valuation is a necessary part of the accounting to enable any one to understand the financial position of a farm. I stated that, but not sufficiently clearly, when I was replying to the noble Viscount. It is one of the reasons why I find it so difficult to make out the account up to a time previous to the present when I cannot get at the valuation. A model form, which I have had under discussion for two or three days, is being got out, and it will show quite clearly the capital which the farmer has in the undertaking at the beginning of the year and the capital which he has when he comes out at the end of the year, and it will also show the capital which he has expended on the estate, expenditure which is for cottages and other buildings, and the farm as a farm will pay interest upon that expenditure. I think that is the main point which both the noble Lords raised, ask I can assure them that the account will snake a proper differentiation between income and capital, which, I quite agree, is the only possible way in which you can fairly present farm accounts.
VISCOUNT GALWAY: My Lords, I did wish to have the Return for the year, as for Income Tax purposes, and that is why I specially suggested a differentiation between capital and farming. I want to point out, if time noble Lord is going to try and make everything go from Michaelmas to Michaelmas, that in the case of all the farmers who make out their accounts now in my pan of the country and elsewhere, Lady Day tenancies will be the only tenancies. I think that fact might have led to the Board of Agriculture saying that the two dates were equally good for Income Tax purposes and valuation of stock. As Income Tax has been referred to, I should like to point out that there is great danger if, for Income Tax purposes, the valuation of stock is included. If a man has £200 more stock at either Lady Day or Michaelmas, 1918, than at Lady Day or Michaelmas, 1917, he might be called upon to pay Income Tax on that sum, while it would only be producing income in the year 1918–1919. In that case you would be forcing the tenant to pay Income Tax twice over. If the stock was sold in 1918, then you would bring it into the profits of the farmer on
642
which he would be justly charged Income Tax, but if the increased valuation is brought into the return made for Income Tax, I think a great injustice is liable to be done to the tenant farmer. I hope the noble Lord will bear that point in mind. With regard to my Motion, as there are only a small number of noble Lords present—and I desire to consult some of my friends with regard to pressing the Motion further—I should like to withdraw it for the time being.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I desire to give notice that, as it is inconvenient to several noble Lords interested in the Land Drainage Bill that the Committee stage of that measure should be taken on Tuesday next, it is proposed to defer that stage to Wednesday. I now beg to move that the House do adjourn until Monday next.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

PRIVATE BILLS.
[From Minutes of July 3.]
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 2) BILL.
    PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
    Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.
BELFAST HARBOUR BILL.
  LONDON UNITED TRAMWAYS BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.

WEST BROMWICH CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past six o'clock.