Sitting of 9 July 1918

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:
Hamilton Estates Bill [Lords].
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
Scarisbrick Estate Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 7) Bill,
"To confirm a Provisional Order of the Local Government Board relating to Birmingham," presented by Mr. STEPHEN WALSH; supported by Mr. Hayes Fisher.
Ordered, That Standing Order 193A be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the first time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Bill accordingly read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 58.]
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 8) Bill,
"To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Blackpool and Southport," presented by Mr. STEPHEN WALSH; supported by Mr. Hayes Fisher.
Ordered, That Standing Order 193A be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the first time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Bill accordingly read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 59.]

DUTCH CONVOY (MISCELLANEOUS No. 13, 1918).
Copy presented of Correspondence respecting the dispatch of a Dutch Convoy to the East Indies [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
INEBRIATES ACTS (INSPECTOR'S REPORT) (IRELAND).
Copy presented of Fourteenth Report of the Inspector for Ireland under the Inebriates Acts, 1879 to 1900, for the year 1917 (with Appendices) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
IRELAND DEVELOPMENT GRANT ACT, 1903.
Copy presented of Report of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland of all his Proceedings under the Act, for the year ended 31st March, 1918 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copy presented of Closing Order made by the Council of the undermentioned local authority, and confirmed by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland:
County borough of Belfast
[by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

OWNER OF CHESHUNT PARK (ANNUITY).
Copy ordered "of Treasury Minute, dated the 2nd day of July, 1918, on the subject of commuting the Annuity to the owner of Cheshunt Park, now payable to the Reverend T. C. Bush."—[Mr. Baldwin.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR

    SWISS IMPORTS (COTTON EMBARGO).
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why the Admiralty and the War Office were not formally consulted on the question of the

    135
    removal of the embargo on the import of cotton into Switzerland; and whether the representatives of these two offices who took part in the negotiations made any representations for or against the removal of the embargo?
    The MINISTER of BLOCKADE (Lord R. Cecil): The embargo was imposed pending the completion of certain negotiations between the Allied Governments, acting in concert with the United States Government, on the one hand, and the Swiss Government on the other. The War Office gave assistance in the course of the negotiations, and an officer, who rendered valuable services to the Allied negotiations as technical adviser, was sent to Berne by the Admiralty. When the negotiations had reached a result satisfactory to the Allied Governments, and the reason for imposing the embargo thus removed, it was raised. In view of the assistance which the War Office and Admiralty had given in bringing about the agreement, there was no occasion for further consulting the Departments mentioned. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

    RUSSIA (NEWS CENSORSHIP).
    Mr. GEORGE LAMBERTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there is an official ban on British newspapers against publishing news indicating that the Allies are helping the Russians against the aggression of Germany; whether British newspapers are forbidden to reproduce telegrams published in Russian newspapers describing the assistance which is being given to Russia by the Allies; whether he is aware that the news published in the Russian newspapers is accessible to the German military authorities; and, if so, why should Germany be in possession of information published in the Russian newspapers which is forbidden publication in the British Press?
    Lord R. CECIL: There is no ban on Press statements concerning Russia beyond the ordinary military censorship, which applies to all publications concerning military operations. Any question connected with this latter should be addressed to the War Office.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Is the Noble Lord aware that newspapers in this country
    136
    have been forbidden to publish information that has been published in the Russian newspapers, and which therefore is available to the enemy?
    Lord R. CECIL: All I can say is that so far as my office is concerned we do not know anything about it. I do not know how the prohibition which has been placed has been issued. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be kind enough to let me have particulars.
    Mr. KING: Is the Noble Lord aware that through the mistakes of other Departments his Department gets unjustly blamed, and therefore he ought to look into it?
    Lord R. CECIL: I am sure that if my Department is blamed it is blamed unjustly.

    PASSPORTS (AMERICA).
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that certain persons who have had passports granted them to proceed to the United States have there made public speeches liable to misunderstanding and to cause trouble; and whether, in the event of other persons leaving these shores on a similar errand, he will give instructions or demand promises not to speak in public, so as to prevent difficulties arising?
    Lord R. CECIL: I do not think that the number or gravity of such cases, if any exist, would justify a preventive censorship of the kind proposed by the hon. Member. More harm is done by certain questions and speeches in this House than by any such cause as that alluded to.
    Mr. KING: Has the Noble Lord inquired into the very definite case which I gave to him or to his superior, the Secretary of State? If he has not done so will he look into this matter?
    Lord R. CECIL: If my right hon. Friend (Mr. Balfour) has been given any information by the hon. Member he had no doubt inquired into it.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Does the Noble Lord mean to imply by deprecating questions in this House that the Foreign Office is to be able to do just as it likes without any Parliamentary control whatever?
    Lord R. CECIL: I do not deprecate all questions; only some of them.

    RESERVE OF OFFICERS (PROMOTION).
    Colonel YATEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether officers of the General Reserve above the rank of major who have been recalled to the active list are ineligible for promotion other than by brevet, temporary, or acting promotion, irrespectively of their age or qualifications; and, if so, whether this ineligibility for promotion is clearly set forth in the rules and instructions governing the promotion of Reserve officers?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): Under present Regulations, officers of the Reserve of Officers recalled to the active list are not given substantive promotion above the rank of major. This rule has been communicated to all military commands concerned but was not included in the original instructions issued by the Army Council.
    Colonel YATE: Are we to understand that the Regulation 1252 of 1917 is abrogated entirely?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: No; I do not think the hon. and gallant Gentleman is to understand that. I cannot add to the full answer I have given.
    Colonel YATE: What are we to understand? Is an officer above the rank of major to get promotion or is he debarred?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: He does not get substantive promotion.
    Colonel YATE: Why not?

    ENEMY TOWNS (BOMBARDMENT).
    Sir RICHARD COOPERasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is in possession of information that would point to the enemy taking advantage of the decision of His Majesty's Government to refrain from bombarding Cologne on Corpus Christi Day for the purpose of moving troops or military supplies in the privileged area?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The answer is in the negative.

    VOLUNTEER FORCE (TRAINING).
    Mr. PERKINSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, in
    138
    view of the shortage of agricultural labour, he will consider the desirability of postponing the August field training of the Volunteer Force till after the harvest in rural districts?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am afraid I do not quite understand my hon. Friend's reference to August field training for the Volunteer Force, unless he has in mind the formation of camps which Volunteers may attend if they wish for week-ends, etc. I would remind my hon. Friend that the only compulsory training of a Volunteer is fourteen drills a month during the recruit stage and thirty drills a quarter thereafter. The original arrangement of ten drills a month was converted into thirty drills a quarter, in order to enable men employed in seasonal occupations, such as agriculture, to complete their drills for the quarter at such a time in the quarter when their energies were least severely taxed by their civil work.

    CABLE FACILITIES.
    Brigadier-General CROFTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he can now give information as to what other firms, if any, applied for and received preferential cable facilities with Spain; and what firms, if any, applied for and were refused the advantages granted to Messrs. Harris and Dixon?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I have written to my hon. and gallant Friend regarding this question. The answer is in the negative.
    General CROFT: If the answer is in the negative, how does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile it with the reply of the Prime Minister, who said that this was not the only firm that had this arrangement, and that the only thing asked was that this firm should be in the same position as other firms dealing with the same class of business?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am afraid we are not at one. My hon. and gallant Friend very courteously sent two names of firms. I inquired with regard to them, and my answer refers to them only.
    General CROFT: Can the right hon. Gentleman state if any firm asked for or received preferential treatment?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am told not, but I will make further inquiry. As I have said, I made my inquiries directly

    139
    with regard to the two firms which my hon and gallant Friend mentioned to me privately.
    Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the firm referred to in the question before the House did receive orders which they were able to carry out in consequence of advantages they had which were not given to competitors; and is he aware that this firm took away from their own competitors orders which otherwise would have gone to them?
    Mr. WATT: Will the right hon. Gentleman call for the balance sheets to see if any benefit arose from the advantage given?
    Sir R. COOPER: Is not the right hon. Gentleman's reply inconsistent with what the Prime Minister said in this House a fortnight ago?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I have already tried to make that point clear. I am quite prepared to make further investigations. I was alluding to the investigations in regard to the two particular firms whose names were supplied by my hon. and gallant Friend.
    Sir E. CARSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House, so as to set this matter at rest, whether any firms similarly constituted to Harris and Dixon have been refused privileges conceded to that firm?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am sorry I cannot answer that definitely, but if my right hon. and learned Friend will put down a question I will certainly answer it.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY CANTEEN BOARD (IRELAND).
    Major NEWMANasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he can give the composition of the Naval and Military Canteen Board in Ireland; does this Board exercise sole powers in the appointment of inspectors; will he say who selects the actual staff employed in each canteen; have the competent Naval and Military authorities any voice in the management and staffing of these canteens; and are the canteens themselves the property of any particular firm or firms, and run as profit-making concerns for their owners?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The composition of the Navy and Army Canteen Board in Ireland is exactly the same as that of the Navy and Army Canteen Board in other parts of the United Kingdom, and has been sanctioned by the Army Council.
    The Board have the sole right of the appointment of their inspectors. The actual staff employed in each canteen are selected by the Board's representative in that part of the country in which the canteen is situated.
    The competent naval and military authorities are members of the Navy and Army Canteen Board, and the canteens themselves are the property of the War Department or the Navy and Army Canteen Board, and are conducted by the Navy and Army Canteen Board for the benefit of the Services, in accordance with the instructions of the Admiralty, Army Council, and Air Ministry.
    Colonel McCALMONT: To whom is the Board responsible?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: To the War Office.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office why the revised pension of 9s. 9d. a week, granted several months ago to the father of the late Private F. Shaw, Scottish Rifles, has not been paid, though repeated applications have been made by the pensioner and the local war pensions committee; and will he have immediate inquiry made into the case and the reason for the delay and instructions issued for the immediate payment of the pension?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen): I much regret that, owing to a miscarriage of papers, the necessary authority to issue this pension, which was awarded in November last, was never received by the Pension Issue Office. A duplicate authority has now been sent, with instructions to issue the pension, with arrears, immediately. I am inquiring why the letters calling attention to the delay were not properly dealt with.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office why dependency allowance has not been paid to the mother of Private Heyes, Loyal North

    141
    Lancashire Regiment, who joined the Army on 29th April; and will he, in view of the delay and hardship resulting there from to his mother, see that the case is settled at once?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): I am informed that the claim was paid with arrears on the 3rd. The soldier's mother is also in receipt of separation allowance in respect of her husband, and the settlement of the son's claim necessitated correspondence with another pay office, which caused some delay.
    Sir F. HALLasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if old non-commissioned officers and soldiers who rejoined the Colours during the South African War for one year received an addition of 1d. a day to their pension in consideration of their doing so; whether, in similar cases where ex-non-commissioned officers and soldiers rejoined during the present War, he will have their pensions increased in respect of such period of further service; and, if so, on what basis?
    Mr. FORSTER: Pensioners who re-enlisted for a year during the South African War had the alternative of drawing either the bounty payable to other men or their pension. The year's service counted towards increase of pension. At that time re-enlisted pensioners did not continue to draw pension except in special cases. During the present War pensions have been drawn during service on the definite understanding that they would not be increased for the re-enlisted service, and the pensioners get the bounty as well.
    Mr. PRINGLEasked the Pensions Minister whether, in cases where a discharged man is dissatisfied with the amount of pension or gratuity granted by the Ministry, local committees are called upon to investigate and report; whether for this purpose Army Form B 179 is sent down by the Ministry without the signature of the doctors who have examined the man or any other authentication whatever; and whether the Ministry will in future take steps to show that the forms sent to the local committees are authentic?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: The hon. Member is no doubt alluding to the procedure whereby a man who is appealing against a decision that his disability is not due to or aggravated by service is
    142
    examined before the sub-committee of the local war pension committees. For the purpose of this examination a copy of Army Form B 179, the document on which the man is discharged from the Army, is sent down by the Ministry. By arrangementment with the Army Council, these copies do not include the signatures of the medical officers who examined the man. They are, however, sent with a covering note from this Department, and should be accepted as authentic, but to avoid any possible question it has been arranged that in future they shall be stamped as correct copies of the entries in the original document.
    Mr. PRINGLEasked the Pensions Minister whether discharged men are now being refused pensions on the ground that their disability was not caused or aggravated by war service and that they were not efficiently examined by the approving officer at the time of attestation; and, if so, whether he can state the number of discharged soldiers who have been refused pensions for this reason?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Under the Royal Warrants men have always been refused pensions if their disability was not caused or aggravated by service. They are given in lieu gratuities or allowances under Article 7. The question of efficient examination by the approving officer at the time of attestation does not arise. The number of discharged men who have been awarded gratuities or allowances on the ground of non-attributability is approximately 81,000.
    Mr. HOGGE: Can the hon. Gentleman say what right the Minister of Pensions has to send down to a local war pensions committee when they are awarding a gratuity on the ground of non-attributability a certificate which says that the man when admitted to the Army was not correctly examined and his disability diagnosed by the medical board which put him into the Army?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I am not aware that that is so.
    Mr. HOGGE: It is so.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: The document sent is A.F.B. 179, on which the man is discharged from the Army.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that forms have actually been sent to local pensions committees, in which, in lieu of the statement referred to, the

    143
    statement is made that the man's disability is not due to service, but that he was insufficiently examined by the approving officer at the time of his attestation?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: That point does not really affect the question. On the contrary, if he has been insufficiently examined it is to his advantage, because if any disability be possessed at the time he entered was not noted, it is far more likely to be decided that his present disablement is due to service.
    Mr. HOGGE: Can the hon. Gentleman say what service can be rendered by the statement referred to, seeing that if it were not given the man would then be eligible for an ordinary pension?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: He would not be eligible for an ordinary pension unless it had been decided by the Ministry that his disability was due to service or had been aggravated by service.
    Mr. ALDEN: Is it not a fact that 81,000 people have been so bady examined that they are not——
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better put his question on the Paper.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I beg to give notice that I will raise this subject on the Adjournment to-night.

    SOLDIER LABOUR (HARVESTING OPERATIONS).
    Mr. G. LAMBERTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if counties, like Devon and Cornwall, that have been prompt in securing their quotas under the recent calling-up Proclamation, and are now stripped bare of skilled agricultural labour, will receive a preference in the distribution of soldier labour for harvesting operations?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Soldiers who become available for agricultural work are sent to that part of the country where they had been employed previously to joining the Army, and are then at the disposal of the Food Production Department to be allotted where they are required. With reference to my reply on Tuesday last to a supplementary question by my right hon. Friend, I should like to explain that arrangements are being made for convalescent soldiers and men in command depots to assist in the harvest this year.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Will the counties which have secured their quotas have a preference?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I will have that carefully looked into.

    OFFICERS IN HOSPITAL.
    Colonel McCALMONTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether officers are gazetted out of the Army while they are still patients in hospital as the result of wounds or sickness contracted on service; if so, whether they are then called upon to pay towards their maintenance; and whether officers entitled to retired pay are treated differently to others in this respect?
    Mr. FORSTER: Officers whilst still in hospital may be gazetted out of the Army in certain circumstances. No charge is now raised against officers so retained in hospital, whether they are entitled to retired pay or not.

    SOLDIERS ON SICK LEAVE (RATION ALLOWANCE).
    Sir F. HALLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if soldiers, when discharged from hospital and given a certain period of sick leave, receive a reduced ration allowance; and, if so, whether, in order that the men may be able to make the best use of this leave and complete their recovery, he will arrange for at least the full-ration allowance to be given them, and, if possible, an addition to be granted in such circumstances?
    Mr. FORSTER: A soldier is not now given sick leave. Before leaving hospital he must be fit for duty, life in a command depot, or some employment. He is given an ordinary furlough on discharge from hospital, during which he receives ration allowances at the usual rates. When the wife of a soldier on furlough is in receipt of separation allowance, the rate of ration allowance is not so high as in other cases; but, as my hon. and gallant Friend is aware, some increase in the rate is now under consideration.

    GUNWHARF, PORTSMOUTH (WAGES).
    Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office

    145
    whether any decision has been arrived at concerning the rate of wages to be paid to skilled labourers employed at His Majesty's Gunwharf, Portsmouth; whether he is aware that the Admiralty offered his Department the assistance of an officer to confer with the chief ordnance officer at His Majesty's Gunwharf, Portsmouth, with a view to the assessment of their rates of pay in October, 1917; and whether he is aware of the discontent that exists in this Department due to the delay in arriving at a decision by the Admiralty?
    Mr. FORSTER: I hope that a decision will be reached shortly.

    ARMY CHAPLAINS (PAY, PENSIONS, AND ALLOWANCES).
    Colonel Sir ROBERT WILLIAMSasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if his attention has been drawn to the fact that the scale of pay, pensions, and allowances for Army chaplains is greatly below that for either the medical or the veterinary services, and if he will take steps for the removal of such inequalities?
    Mr. FORSTER: The inequality to which my hon. and gallant Friend alludes is of old standing. It is also to be found in the emoluments of gentlemen of the several professions in civil life, but, in any case, I think it could not be made the ground for a revision of the pay and allowances of the chaplains.

    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS, PRINCETOWN.
    Mr. RICHARD LAMBERTasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that C. H. Norman and J. P. Hughes were court-martialled together on the same charge arising out of the same incidents at Princetown, and were each sentenced to two years' hard labour; that J. P. Hughes has now been allowed to take up work under the exceptional employment scheme and that C. H. Norman has been refused any work at all under any part of the Home Office scheme; and will he say why, seeing that there are now remissions of penalties on all connected with the Dartmoor strike after the death of Mr. Firth, C. H. Norman is especially and solely singled out for indefinite punishment?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir George Cave): The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. In answer to the third part, the Committee on Employment of Conscientious Objectors, in considering whether a man who has been recalled to his unit as the result of an offence shall be given a second chance of service under them, have, of course, to take into consideration not only the circumstances of the offence, but also the man's previous record while under their control. In the present case the evidence before the Committee showed that there was a material difference between the two men, both as to their responsibility for the refusal to work at Princetown and as to their previous record, and they decided that Norman could not be allowed to resume work under the Committee.
    Mr. KING: Is that simply because Mr. Norman brought a case in the Law Courts and lost it?
    Sir G. CAVE: No; I believe that has nothing whatever to do with it.
    Mr. KING: As that is the only thing which suggests itself to those persons who know the whole history of this matter, will the right hon. Gentleman be a little more explicit and say what there is against this man who has been thus victimised?
    Sir G. CAVE: A Committee considered the whole case. The man's conduct was not satisfactory, and he took a much more active part than the other man did in promoting what was called the strike at Princetown.
    Mr. KING: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that that has been definitely met by many witnesses and was not asserted in this House when we had a discussion?

    ENEMY ALIENS.
    Mr. R. LAMBERTasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that many men interned as alien enemies have sons fighting in our Armies and a large number have lost sons so fighting; and whether he will give instructions that inquiries shall be made in all internment camps how many such cases exist, giving to men interned the assurance that the information will be respected and not used to injure themselves or their sons in our Armies?
    Sir G. CAVE: I am aware that a number of alien enemies interned in this country have sons serving in the British Army, and that some of them have had sons killed in action. I think it undesirable to make the inquiries suggested at the present moment.
    Mr. MORRELL: Would not the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of allowing the services of these sons to be reckoned when the question of the release of the father comes up?
    Sir G. CAVE: It depends on the conditions of the sons' service. The point is not forgotten when the case arises.
    General CROFTasked the Home Secretary whether any members of the police force are of enemy birth, and whether any members of the police force have been naturalised since 1914?
    Sir G. CAVE: So far as the Metropolitan Police Force is concerned, it has been the rule for over thirty years that only natural-born British subjects can be admitted to the force, and I think this is the general rule in the police forces of the United Kingdom. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
    General McCALMONTasked the Prime Minister whether the Regulations affecting aliens of enemy origin are the same for Ireland as for Great Britain; if so, who is responsible for similarity in administration; and whether all future Regulations will be as rigorously enforced in Ireland as elsewhere?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): The Aliens Restriction Act, 1914, and the Defence of the Realm Regulations affecting aliens of enemy origin apply equally to Ireland and to Great Britain, and the administration of the Regulations is similar, being carried out by the competent naval or military authority and the Chief Secretary.
    General McCALMONTasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he can state the number of aliens of enemy origin in Ireland who are at present un-interned?
    Sir G. CAVE: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question, as the central records as to alien enemies, to whom I assume the hon. and gallant Member refers, are kept by my Department. According to the latest available
    148
    figures, the number of uninterned male alien enemies in Ireland is 170, namely, 125 Germans, forty Austrians, four Turks, and one Bulgarian.
    General McCALMONT: Are we to understand that although the administration of these Regulations is in the hands of the Chief Secretary, the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary keeps the register of them?
    Sir G. CAVE: Of course, the Chief Secretary has got it.
    Mr. FRANCE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give a definition of an "alien of enemy origin"?
    Sir G. CAVE: My answer applies to alien enemies properly so called. I have not attempted to deal with aliens of enemy origin.

    FEMALE PRISONER INSANE (HOLLOWAY).
    Mr. KINGasked the Home Secretary with reference to the case of the young woman, M.B., who was brought into the remand hospital of Holloway Prison on 24th May, 1918, whether she was certified as insane before she was placed in the padded cell; if so, what was the proof that she was suffering from acute mania; what was the name of the doctor who certified her; where did the procedure of certification take place; and, since she took food of her own accord when it was left for her, will he say why it was necessary to feed her forcibly without giving her the opportunity of taking it in a normal manner?
    Sir G. CAVE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The attack of acute mania developed in the night, and the medical officer was fully competent to judge of the patient's condition and to give proper treatment. Certification, which has to be by two doctors and two magistrates, is only necessary when it is proposed to remove a prisoner to an asylum. The patient suffered from the delusion that her food was poisoned, and when it was left with her flung it about the cell. For this reason it was necessary to feed her from a spoon. This was done as gently and with as little use of force as possible.
    Mr. KING: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that she was actually removed to an asylum, and that his answer assumes that she was not?
    Sir G. CAVE: The question assumes that. It is asked whether she was certified as insane. The answer only deals with the facts which happened. I will inquire whether she was removed to an asylum.
    Mr. KING: As this matter arose and excited a very great deal of public interest in the papers in the absence of the right hon. Gentleman abroad, will he look into it himself?
    Sir G. CAVE: I have already said I will do so.

    MILITARY SERVICE.

      RUSSIAN ALIENS.
      Colonel YATEasked the Home Secretary what proportion of the Russian aliens of military age between eighteen and fifty-one have now been enlisted in Labour Battalions, and what proportion remain to be enlisted; and whether the enlistment of aliens is now general throughout the country, or is it only confined to London?
      The MINISTER of NATIONAL SERVICE (Sir Auckland Geddes): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. Approximately 22 per cent. of the Russians made liable to service by the Military Service (Conventions with Allied States Act, 1917) have been enlisted in Labour Battalions, or other special units formed for the enlistment of Russian Jews. The enlistment of aliens who are liable to military service by reason of a Convention is general throughout the country.
      Colonel WEDGWOOD: What other units are there available for Russian troops to join besides the Labour Battalion?
      Sir A. GEDDES: There are special units for the Russian Jews.
      Colonel WEDGWOOD: Why was I informed the other day by the Secretary of State for War that there was no other alternative to the Labour Battalion?
      Major NEWMAN: What happened to the rest of the Russian Jews—the 78 per cent.?
      Sir A. GEDDES: A very large percentage of them are unfit, a considerable percentage has received exemption from tribunals on one ground or another, and there is quite an appreciable percentage in a state of absenteeism.
      Colonel YATE: Have steps been taken to collect those absentees and to consider again those who are reported unfit?
      Colonel WEDGWOOD: Would there not be a better chance of reducing the number of absentees if they were allowed to join Zionist regiments and fight under their own people?
      Mr. SPEAKER: We are getting rather into deep water here. We are a long way from the shore.

      MEDICAL GRADING.
      Sir JOHN BUTCHERasked the Minister of National Service whether it is permissible to call up men for military service before they have been examined and graded by a National Service medical board and before the time has elapsed for them to enter such appeals as they are entitled to enter on personal grounds; and, if such a course is not permissible, whether he will state the proper course to be followed and give directions to the local authorities to adhere to this course?
      Sir A. GEDDES: It is not permissible to call up for service men of the new military age or lads who have newly attained military age until after they have been called for medical examination and have either been examined or have failed to report for examination. The procedure with regard to other men remains substantially as it has been since the inauguration of compulsory service. Under it, no calling-up notice can defeat any un-exhausted rights which a man may possess to have an appeal on personal or other grounds heard by a tribunal.
      Mr. SNOWDEN: Is it permissible for a man when he reaches the age of eighteen to be examined within a week of reaching that age, and sent into the Army at once after the examination without being given an opportunity of appealing?
      Sir A. GEDDES: No. I have stated the exact opposite—that it was necessary for a man on attaining military age to be examined before he receives a calling-up notice.
      Mr. SNOWDEN: Why is the practice stated in the question carried out?
      Sir A. GEDDES: I was not aware that it was carried out. If the hon. Member will give me particulars of any case in which it is happening, I will be very pleased to see that it is discontinued.
      Mr. SNOWDEN: I submitted a case in a question in this House nearly a fortnight ago, and I have not had any assurance on the point.
      Sir J. BUTCHER: In view of the fact that the practice indicated by the right hon. Gentleman has not been followed in some cases, will he give directions to the local authorities to adhere to the course which he has indicated?
      Sir A. GEDDES: Very strict instructions have been given to them, and even so late as yesterday where it was found that these instructions were not being followed further instructions were sent out, and I do not think that there will be any further cases.

      RACEHORSE ATTENDANTS.
      Mr. G. LAMBERTasked the Minister of National Service if he will state the number of men and boys now charged with the care of racehorses; and whether he will tap this reservoir of equine experience for assisting farmers to utilise farm horses to secure the coming harvest?
      Sir A. GEDDES: Accurate figures could only be obtained with difficulty, and there are no powers to compel individuals in civil life to do work other than that which they themselves select. As regards the reinforcement of agricultural labour, my right hon. Friend is aware that every effort is made by the War Agricultural Volunteer Scheme and other methods to procure the maximum number possible of persons for work upon the land.

      CHINA CLAY INDUSTRY.
      Mr. DUNCANasked the Minister of National Service (1) whether he is aware that both the employers and the whole of the organised workmen are represented on the interim committee of the National Council for the china clay industry in Devon and Cornwall; that all interests concerned desire to work harmoniously together in order to avoid difficulty and friction in connection with the calling up of men to the Colours; whether he will state what is the object of the Director of National Service at Bristol in refusing to consult with the above-mentioned committee; (2) if he is aware that the present uncertainty as to the method to be employed in selecting the men to be called up from the china clay industry in Devon and Cornwall is preventing the trade from making such arrangements as may prove necessary to
      152
      enable them to meet the national needs and at the same time avoid the closing down of any of the firms at present engaged in the industry; and will he say what action he proposes to take?
      Sir FRANCIS LAYLAND-BARRATTasked the Minister of National Service (1) whether he is aware that the Pottery Industrial National Council has been consulted as to the selection of men to be called to the Colours from that industry; and will he say why the same policy does not obtain with regard to the china clay industry in Devon and Cornwall; (2) whether he is aware that an interim committee of the National Council for the china clay industry in Devon and Cornwall, representing the whole industry, both employers and workmen, has been formed; and whether, with a view to avoiding the closing down of any of the firms connected with the industry, he will favourably consider the offer made by the above-mentioned committee to assist the Ministry in the selection of such men as may be imperatively required to be called up for military service?
      Sir A. GEDDES: A committee appointed by the National Council of the China Clay and China Stone Industries was interviewed by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry on the 29th May, and the Decertification Order and the general man-power position of the industry were fully discussed. The committee asked for an assurance, which was readily given, that further Orders affecting the industry would not be made without consultation with the new council. I am asking the Director of National Service for the South-Western Region to arrange for an early meeting with the National Council of the china clay industry, in order that they may have a full opportunity of putting forward their views. I am always most desirous of consulting the National Councils, as they are established on questions of general policy in relation to the industries which they represent.
      Sir F. LAYLAND-BARRATT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Director of National Service in Bristol refused to have any communication whatever with the interim committee of the National Council of the china clay industry?
      Sir A. GEDDES: I understand that the Director of National Service in the south-western

      153
      region knew that the council had sent a deputation to London, and that certain arrangements were made there, and he did not wish to have any chance of confusion.
      Mr. T. WILSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman make more careful inquiries into the qualifications of his representatives?
      Sir F. LAYLAND-BARRATT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Director of National Service at Bristol refused to have anything to do with the interim committee of the National Council of the china clay industry in calling up their men, and professed his intention of dealing with each of the small firms, numbering sixty-five, separately?
      Sir A. GEDDES: No; I was not aware that he had refused to have anything to do with the interim committee of the National Council. I understand—I may have been misinformed—that he knew that a committee of the National Council had already been received in London, and that certain arrangements had been made with them as to general policy.
      Sir F. LAYLAND-BARRATT: May I send the right hon. Gentleman a copy of the letter of the Director of National Service, in which he refused to deal with the National Council?
      Sir A. GEDDES: I should be very pleased to receive it.

      MIDDLESEX APPEAL TRIBUNAL.
      Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Minister of National Service whether his attention has been called to the case of G. J. Worcester, aged thirty-eight, Grade 2, whose appeal was recently dismissed by the Middlesex Appeal Tribunal and is due to join up on 11th July; whether he is aware that this man's daughter of eighteen years was, on the 15th of June, accidentally killed by a motor omnibus while cycling, that as a result his wife is suffering from nervous prostration and shock, that her condition is causing her medical attendant considerable anxiety, who has certified that freedom from worry and careful nursing are essential for her further recovery, and that this can only be gained by the continued presence of her husband; and, seeing that the man applied to the Appeal Tribunal for an extension of time to enable his wife to recover from their loss and
      154
      that such application was refused, whether he will cause inquiries to be made with a view to an extension of time being granted?
      Sir A. GEDDES: I have inquired into this case, and have ascertained that the whole of the circumstances were before the Middlesex Appeal Tribunal when they refused to give Mr. Worcester any extension of time. The directors of National Service of the National Service regions have a certain discretion to suspend the issue of calling-up notices in particular cases, and I have ascertained that the director of London region has suspended Mr. Worcester's call until the 1st August.

      AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS.
      Mr. ALDENasked whether some-think like 300,000 Americans are being brought over to England and France every month; and, if so, why is it necessary during these next few months to take 30,000 out of agriculture, where they are so urgently required?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I can add nothing to what was said in Debate on Monday, the 1st of July, on this subject.
      Mr. ALDEN: Was it not known at that time that we were getting 300,000 Americans a month?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I could not say.

      CONSCRIPTION (IRELAND).
      Sir F. HALLasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that many Members of Parliament voted for the Military Service Act, 1918, because of the direct promise given that Conscription would be applicable to Ireland; and whether, in consequence of the inability or undesirability of the Government to carry the measure into effect as regards Ireland, he will consider as to the advisability of withholding the operation of the Act to men over forty-five years of age until the Regulations which were made applicable to Ireland are carried out?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I can add nothing to the previous statements on this subject.
      Sir F. HALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to answer the first part of the question? I think I am right in saying that it was not answered on the occasion of the previous question.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: Oh, yes; it has been answered many times.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that he promised to resign if this policy was carried out, and why did he not do so?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: No; I am not aware of that. I made no such statement.
      An HON. MEMBER: You made a promise.
      Mr. KING: But did not the Prime Minister make it for him?

      CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
      Sir J. BUTCHERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can give an assurance that conscientious objectors who are employed in the Civil Service and who have refused to serve in the Army shall not be promoted over the heads of Civil servants who have served or are serving in the Army?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: On behalf of the Government, I gladly give the assurance asked for by my hon. and learned Friend.

      MILITARY TRIBUNALS (DISCHARGED SOLDIERS).
      Sir F. HALLasked the President of the Local Government Board if he will consider the advisability of adding to each of the military tribunals one or two discharged soldiers, preferably men discharged on account of sickness or wounds, as a safeguard against the granting of exemptions on other than grounds of national interest, and in order to give more adequate representation to the views of those who have undergone the hardships and dangers of the fighting line?
      The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that tribunals in general fully appreciate the requirements of His Majesty's forces for men; but proposals to add discharged members of the forces to tribunals, where additional members are needed, will receive my sympathetic consideration.

      RECRUITING, IRELAND.
      Major NEWMANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the Irish Government and the two other Government Departments concerned have now completed their arrangements for the further enrolling of 50,000 recruits for the British Army by 1st October; and when the Bill to enable the Estates Commissioners to distribute untenanted land to those who have enlisted will be introduced?
      The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Samuels): The Irish Recruiting Council are actively engaged in the prosecution of the task entrusted to them. I am informed that the administrative details of their organisation are almost complete, and that the work of recruiting will be commenced as soon as possible. As regards the latter part of the question, I am at present unable to specify a date for the introduction of the Bill.
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: In the meantime, will recruiting proceed on the basis of the land offer before the Land Bill is introduced into Parliament?
      Sir E. CARSON: May I ask whether any scheme has been published for the distribution of untenanted land, to whom applications are to be made, and whether any applications have already been received?
      Mr. SAMUELS: This matter will come in due course before the House.
      Mr. SAMUEL: Can I press the right hon. Gentleman for an answer to my question as to whether recruiting will proceed in Ireland on the basis of the offer of land before the necessary legislation is introduced into Parliament?
      Mr. SAMUELS: The Proclamation of the Lord Lieutenant speaks for itself.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when exactly recruiting will begin in Ireland?

    FOOD SUPPLIES.

      INTERNED ALIENS (JAM).
      Major NEWMANasked the Home Secretary whether he can give the amount of jam per diem or week at present allowed to interned aliens; and whether, in view of the shortage of jam for the civil population, this amount is to be continued?
      Sir G. CAVE: The dietary at present in force allows an amount not exceeding 1 oz. per day of syrup or jam, but in view of the shortage of jam this item is being reconsidered, and in some of the camps no jam has been issued for some time past.
      Mr. KING: If any exception is made, will it be made on behalf of those Irish prisoners, against whom no charge whatever has been brought?

      RABBITS.
      Sir J. SPEARasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food if he has received an appeal from the Tavistock branch of the Devon Farmers' Union, asking that the coupon restrictions on the sale of rabbits might be revoked, in view of the fact that large quantities of this useful food were being destroyed in consequence of the restricted sales; and will he, in order to prevent this waste of food, suspend the operation of these coupons during the summer months?
      Mr. PRATT (Lord of the Treasury): I have received this resolution from my hon. Friend. It is the first suggestion I have heard that the supply of rabbits has anywhere exceeded the demand. The requirements of industrial areas absorb a considerable number of imported rabbits against coupons in addition to the home supply, and any farmer who has a difficulty in disposing of rabbits which he has shot on his farm should get into touch with the market superintendent of some large consuming centre. In this respect assistance will willingly be given. It is, moreover, in contemplation to raise the coupon value of rabbits and to enable gifts of rabbits from the killer to be consumed ration free.

      OCEAN CONVOY SYSTEM.
      Mr. ALDENasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller whether he can state the results of the ocean convoy system up to date in so far as it relates to homeward-bound vessels?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING (Sir Leo Chiozza Money): The results of the ocean convoy system continues to improve, and the percentage of loss is now less than when I answered a similar question put by the hon. Member for North-East Lanarkshire on 29th January last. Taking all the homeward-bound convoys since the inception of the system in June, 1917, 30,692,799 gross register tons of shipping, with a dead-weight capacity of 42,345,500 tons, have been convoyed to United Kingdom and French ports with a loss expressed in gross tons of 1.31 per cent., and in dead-weight capacity of 1.29 per cent.
      These figures are for the period ending 29th June, 1918, and relate to British, Allied, and neutral tonnage. They cover war and marine losses, and include losses
      158
      which have been incurred through the dispersal of convoys owing to bad weather, as well as losses due to vessels failing to maintain their position in the convoy.
      Mr. RUNCIMAN: On what is that percentage reckoned—the percentage of arrivals?
      Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: It is reckoned on the percentage of ships homeward-bound.

      OVERSEAS TRADE (TONNAGE LOST).
      Mr. ALDENasked the percentage of ships lost homeward-bound to the United Kingdom and also the proportion of vessels carrying food supplies to the United Kingdom which have been lost?
      Sir L. CHIOZZA-MONEY: The percentage of all ships engaged on overseas trade lost homeward-bound to the United Kingdom since 1st January, 1918, was rather more than 1½ per cent. As regards the second portion of the question, it is not possible to give the information in the exact form desired by my hon. Friend, as this would involve a complete analysis of all cargoes (including mixed cargoes) brought to the United Kingdom during 1918. It may be stated, however, that of all foodstuffs homeward-bound to the United Kingdom from 1st January, 1918, down to 30th June, 1918, the proportion lost was rather less than 1¾ per cent.

      TAY SALMON FISHERIES.
      Mr. ADAMSONasked the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to the action of the Tay Salmon Fisheries Company in netting the mouths of the streams flowing into Loch Leven in order to prevent the loch trout from going upstream to spawn before the close of the stream fishing season; and whether he will take steps to prevent the continuance of this practice?
      The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I understand that the object of the company is to prevent the destruction of spawning fish in the small streams flowing into Loch Leven. I am advised that there is nothing in the information furnished to me to indicate that any offence has been committed by the company.

      COTTON AND WOOLLEN YARN EXPORTS.
      Sir R. COOPERasked the President of the Board of Trade what was the total export in value of cotton and woollen yarns from the United Kingdom during 1917?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Wardle): The cotton yarn exported from the United Kingdom during 1917 was valued at £16,701,000, and the woollen and worsted yarns (including alpaca, mohair, and cashmere yarns) exported in 1917 were valued at £5,662,000.
      Sir R. COOPER: Is it wise, at a time when so many of our own factories are working short time through shortage of raw material, to export such large quantities of yarns?
      Mr. WARDLE: I think the hon. Member will find that the exporting of these quantities gives employment here.

    NATIONAL SERVICE.

      RECRUITING OF WOMEN (IRELAND).
      Major NEWMANasked the Minister of National Service whether he has now been able to ascertain the reasons that for some time past have led to the complete failure of the National Service scheme for recruiting women in the South and West of Ireland; and who is responsible for the recruiting of women at the present time?
      Mr. SAMUELS: My right hon. Friend the Minister of National Service has asked me to reply. As regards the employment of women in work of national importance in Ireland, I have nothing to add to the reply given on this subject to the hon. and gallant Member on the 17th ultimo. Women are recruited in Ireland through the Labour Exchanges and the Department of National Service.
      Major NEWMAN: Who is actually responsible for National Service in Ireland? Is it the Irish Office or the Minister of National Service?
      Mr. SAMUELS: A gentleman and a lady preside over the Department in Ireland under the National Service Department.
      Major NEWMAN: Then my right hon. Friend the Minister of National Service should reply: To whom are those people responsible—to the Irish Government or the Minister of National Service?
      Mr. KING: As there is confusion on the Treasury Bench is there not certain to be more confusion in Ireland?

    MUNITIONS.

      CENTRAL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).
      Colonel GRETTONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions whether the Liquor Control Board has been contemplating the acquisition of the whole of the breweries and licensed property in the county of Cumberland; whether it is intended to acquire the property as above; whether the cost of acquisition is known; and whether the Treasury has any control over such expenditure?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): The answer to all four parts of this question is "No, Sir."
      Colonel GRETTONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions when the full accounts of the Liquor Control Board will be issued and published?
      Mr. KELLAWAY: I have nothing to add to the very full answer given to my hon. Friend on the 14th May, and to the statement made on this subject on page 21 of the Fourth Report of the Central Control Board, to which reference was made in that answer, and a copy of which I am sending to my hon. Friend.
      Colonel GRETTON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his previous answer gave no information and contained no dates?
      Mr. KELLAWAY: My answer gave a good deal of information, but it was impossible to give dates. As my hon. Friend knows, there are certain outstanding questions now before the Court of Appeal.
      Mr. LEIF JONES: Is there any prospect of these outstanding questions being cleared up, and are we to wait till after the law's delays before we see the accounts?
      Mr. KELLAWAY: It is impossible to take a decision until the law's delays have been overcome.

      LICENSED RESTAURANTS, CARLISLE.
      Sir J. D. REESasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions what object is served by the acquisition of licences and establishment of restaurants by the Government in the city of Carlisle?
      Mr. KELLAWAY: The object in view is the mitigation, in a district in which the Minister's responsibility is especially grave, in view of the great aggregation of munition workers, of the evils commonly associated with the excessive use of intoxicating liquor.
      Sir J. D. REES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that though very good food and very good drink are obtainable in Government restaurants, yet the public cannot understand why the Government is in the business?
      Mr. KELLAWAY: I should have thought the first part of my hon. Friend's question answered itself.
      Sir J. D. REES: Though this food and this drink give complete satisfaction, may I ask whether it involves any cost to the taxpayer; and, if so, why?
      Mr. KELLAWAY: I think the results, when the full accounts are published, will not be unsatisfactory to the taxpayer.

      INCREASED ALLOWANCES (REPORT OF COMMITTEE).
      Mr. WINGasked the Prime Minister if the Committee for the consideration of increased allowances will report before the rising of Parliament for the Recess?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer is in the affirmative.

      IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT (DEVOLUTION).
      Sir HENRY COWANasked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the fact that there is no sufficient evidence to show that public opinion in England is favourable to immediate devolution on a federal basis, and in view of the increasing
      162
      congestion of business in the Imperial Parliament, he will consider the desirability of taking steps for the devolution to a subordinate Legislature, representing England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, of all matters not affecting the interests of the Empire as a whole, leaving Parliament as at present constituted to deal with Imperial questions?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The Government are not prepared to adopt the suggestion of my hon. Friend.

      PRISONERS OF WAR.
      Colonel Sir JAMES CRAIGasked the Prime Minister whether, in order to deal promptly and efficiently with all matters relating to prisoners of war, he will place the necessary powers in the hands of the Secretary of State for the Home Department or some other Minister of Cabinet rank?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: In order to avoid delay, which might be caused by the interest of different Departments in this question, it was arranged some time ago that any differences should be settled by a Cabinet Minister deputed for the purpose, and this system is now in operation.
      Sir J. CRAIG: To which Cabinet Minister has this been deputed?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: To Lord Curzon.
      Sir J. CRAIG: Are all communications relating to prisoners of war to pass through the hands of Lord Curzon, including parcels and so forth?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: That is not the arrangement suggested in the question. The Prisoners of War Committee deals with these matters, but whenever they wish to get a decision on a particular point they go to Lord Curzon and get that decision.

      COAL CONTRACTS (AMERICAN TROOPS).
      General CROFTasked the Prime Minister whether the contracts for coal for the American troops in France were given to a British firm; what was the name of the firm; was the largest shareholder a member of the present Administration; and, if so, whether he will, in the interests of the country, take steps to prevent

      163
      great international business transactions being carried on with financial advantage to a member of the Government?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I am informed that the firm of Harris and Dixon, without any solicitation whatsoever on their part, was appointed by the American authorities as agents to superintend the shipment of the coal as a result of the fullest inquiries, and previous long business connection. My right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Blockade Ministry had no knowledge whatever of the matter. Let me add that in my opinion to make suggestions which have no justification in fact, such as are contained in this question, is not only in the highest degree unfair to individuals, but is very detrimental to the public service.
      General CROFT: Will the right hon. Gentleman give me an answer to the latter part of my question?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I have already given the answer. The answer shows that no one in the Government had anything whatever to do with this transaction, and, as I have said, to suggest suspicions of this kind without cause is very detrimental to the public interest.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that early in the War an arrangement was made with all firms engaged in coal export in this country for the purpose of pooling the trade to our Allies, and a committee was appointed to represent the trade, for the purpose of distribution, and can the right hon. Gentleman give any explanation of why a firm that was outside that body, outside that trade, and not represented on that committee, was enabled to get this contract?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I have already given the explanation that the British Government had nothing whatever to do with the matter. The arrangements were made entirely by the American representatives, without any interference of any kind by my right hon. Friend.
      General CROFT: Is it, in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman, desirable for a member of the Government to remain a large shareholder of a company by which these great international business transactions are carried on?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I really do not know what my hon. Friend means. There are at present thousands of business men assisting the Government, many of them without receiving any reward of any kind. Does he suggest that a firm should be deprived of business which otherwise it would get because a member of the firm is serving his country?
      Mr. PRINGLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at the time this transaction took place it caused discontent on the Committee which was specially appointed by the Government to deal with the question of trading with the Allies?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I know nothing about that at all, but I know that the arrangement was made by the American representatives, who were alone responsible.
      Mr. WATT: Are we to understand that this company who got the contract had the capacity to supply at a lower price?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: It is not a question of price. This contract was given on the basis of a commission, and I am informed by those concerned that it was given entirely on their own initiative, and without any representations by anyone connected with the British Government.

      FISHING IN BRITISH TERRITORIAL WATERS.
      Commander BELLAIRSasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that, subject to the requirements of naval strategy and the safety of the fishing vessels, the Government allow territorial waters to be fished in by British fishing craft, but the maximum catch is not obtained owing to local prohibitions against trawling; and whether the Government will examine these local prohibitions with the view of their withdrawal in all or certain localities, such as the West Coast of Ireland, and thereby increase the vital food supply of the nation?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I am informed that the Departments concerned are prepared to consider applications for the relaxation of the local prohibitions affecting trawling in cases where such restrictions can with safety be removed. As regards the West Coast of Ireland, the naval requirements prevent any relaxation of the prohibitions.

      ENEMY BANKS AND BUSINESSES.
      General CROFTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any sum was advanced by the Bank of England to the German banks in London since the declaration of war with Germany; if so, of what value; and was this advance guaranteed to the Bank of England by the Government?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: Under the Government scheme of September, 1914, for financing all approved pre-moratorium bills at maturity, funds were provided by the Bank of England under Government guarantee to pay the holders of such bills accepted by the German banks in London, aggregating £7,239,000. This arrangement, of course, was made, not in the interests of the enemy banks, but in those of the holders of the bills which would otherwise not have been met at maturity. Full particulars of the position of the enemy banks in London in connection with the scheme referred to will be found in the Comptroller's First and Second Reports.
      General CROFTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any British money has been utilised since the commencement of the War for the payment of debts of the German banks in London to neutral countries?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The advances by the Bank of England referred to in the previous question were earmarked to the payment of particular acceptances, which were held in the main by London banks and discount houses. As regards the rest of the assets and liabilities it is not possible to earmark particular payments against particular receipts, but debts have been both collected from and paid to neutral countries.
      Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the President of the Board of Trade if the 24 per cent. of the share capital of Holzapfels, Limited, held on the 18th October, 1916, by two naturalised subjects of enemy birth, is still held by them; if not, what is the proportion, if any, now held by these persons; if they are still absentees from this country; and, if so, where they habitually reside?
      Mr. WARDLE: The 24 per cent. of the share capital in Holzapfels, Limited, which on the 18th October, 1916, was held by two naturalised British subjects of enemy birth, to whom my hon. Friend
      166
      refers, has been transferred to British-born subjects, and those two persons are no longer shareholders in the company.
      Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Secretary to the Admiralty (1) whether any orders have been given by any Department, with the knowledge and consent of the Admiralty, to Holzapfels, Limited, since 24th October, 1916; if so, will he state what has been the value of such orders and the last date on which any such order was given; and (2) whether Holzapfels, Limited, are now on the Admiralty list of contractors; if they have been removed from that list at any time since the outbreak of War; if so, on what date were they removed and for what reason; and, if they have since been restored to the list, when were they restored, and what was the reason for their restoration?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): In April, 1915, orders were given for the gradual discontinuance of this firm's compositions. In April, 1916, in view of the demands for their composition, and the fact that, according to the Board of Trade, the firm appeared to have taken considerable steps in the direction of purging itself of enemy taint, business was resumed. It was, however, suspended in July, 1917. The matter, as I said last week, has again recently come before us, and it was decided to resume business transactions with this firm, after inquiry of the Board of Trade. In consequence of a supplementary question which my hon. Friend put to me last week, I have, however, referred the whole matter again to the Board of Trade. Orders to the value of about £6,000 have been placed with the firm since 24th October, 1916.

      DYE-MAKING INDUSTRY.
      Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether it has been indicated to the dye-making concerns which are being amalgamated that the Government propose to grant licences for the after-war importation from Germany of such dyes as cannot be made in this country with the same skill or in the same quantities as in Germany; and, if so, will he state exactly what is proposed?
      Mr. WARDLE: The intentions of the Government with regard to the control of importation of dyestuffs after the War were explained by my right hon. Friend in the statement which he made to the House on the 15th May last. I am sending a copy of this part of the statement to my hon. Friend.

      FUEL AND LIGHTING ORDER.
      Mr. EVELYN CECILasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the new Order for rationing household fuel and lighting applies to Ireland?
      Mr. WARDLE: The system of rationing household fuel and lighting cannot, owing to different conditions, be applied to Ireland, but the amount of coal consumed in Ireland for all purposes has been reduced by about 25 per cent., which secures practically the same degree of economy as is aimed at in Great Britain.

      TIMBER SUPPLIES.
      Sir J. AINSWORTHasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Order issued by the Controller of Coal Mines in July, 1917, dividing the country into separate districts for the purpose of supplies of home grown timber for use in coal and ironstone mines is being constantly evaded; whether the attention of the Timber Controller has been repeatedly drawn to the shortage of stocks of mining timber at the coal and iron ore mines in Cumberland caused by large exports of timber to other areas, contrary to the Order; and what is the cause of the delay in making the Order statutory and binding?
      Mr. WARDLE: There has been no Order issued by the Controller of Coal Mines in connection with pit timber, but an instruction was issued by him to the district committees in charge of the development and allocation of home-grown supplies to the effect that deliveries outside their respective areas would not in general be allowed. The Cumberland district is one in which there is a surplus of standing timber over that required by the needs of the district. The Coal Mines Department is in close touch with the Timber Supplies Department in this matter, and in urgent cases of need timber is supplied from Government stocks. It
      168
      is proposed soon to make the pitwood supply districts fixed and statutory, but the matter is at the moment held up by a difficulty in arranging Scottish pitwood prices.
      Sir J. AINSWORTH: May I ask the hon. Gentleman how soon he expects the Government will be able to deal with the difficulty?
      Mr. WARDLE: It depends upon making a bargain with some Scottish people.

      TELEGRAPHIC FACILITIES, COUNTY ANTRIM.
      General McCALMONTasked the Postmaster-General whether an unusually small limit has been placed on the radius of delivery of telegrams from Islandmagee Post Office, county Antrim; whether he is aware that many residents who receive a daily postal delivery from that office have to receive telegrams from Larne Harbour office, necessitating a crossing by privately-owned ferry, which is neither regular nor independent of the weather; and whether, in view of the number of residents who are connected with seagoing professions, he will arrange that their telegrams are delivered by the quickest available route?
      The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Illingworth): Inquiry is being made, and I will let my hon. Friend know the result as soon as possible.

    IRELAND.

      ALLEGED INCITEMENTS TO MURDER.
      Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the words uttered by certain Irish priests inciting to the murder of policemen and others if they discharge their duty in certain circumstances; and, if so, what action the Government are taking or, if they have decided not to take any action, will immunity also be granted to persons in England, Scotland, and Wales who utter similar incitements?
      Mr. SAMUELS: The attention of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary has been drawn to alleged incitement to

      169
      forcible resistance to the police. The Government has the matter under careful consideration.
      Mr. KING: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that a number of the statements put forward in the Government communiqué have been diametrically denied?
      Mr. SPEAKER: I should like to see that on the Paper.

      PRISONERS.
      Mr. KINGasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he will state the number of prisoners now, or on the 1st July, in Irish prisons who have been arrested under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887, or under the Regulations of the Defence of the Realm Act; and how many of them were arrested in May and June, 1918, respectively?
      Mr. SAMUELS: Inquiries are being made, and I will communicate the result to the hon. Member.
      Mr. KINGasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he will state, if necessary by publishing details in the OFFICIAL REPORT, the exact scale of the special dietary for prisoners who are kept in prison under the Defence of the Realm Acts without being charged or brought to trial; and, if there are more than one such dietary, whether the distinguishing numbers of such dietaries and their differences can be stated?
      Sir G. CAVE: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question, which, I presume, refers to persons interned under Defence of the Realm Regulation 14B. Their dietary is arranged so as to conform to the allowances of rationed foodstuffs laid down by the Ministry of Food, and they are allowed in addition to purchase or have sent to them unrationed articles of food. The dietary is liable to variation from time to time as the rations are altered, and I do not think any useful purpose would be served by publishing details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
      Mr. KING: Does that answer apply to prisoners in Irish prisons as well as to prisoners in English prisons, or only to those in English prisons?
      Sir G. CAVE: I understand that the answer applies to both.

      TELEGRAPHIC DELAYS.
      General McCALMONTasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the delay in telegraphic communication from Ireland is due to censorship; and, if so, whether he will take steps to expedite the work in the Censor's offices?
      Mr. SAMUELS: I am informed by the Press Censor that only Press telegrams are submitted to his office, and that there is no more delay than is absolutely necessary in dealing with such telegrams.
      General McCALMONT: Do we understand that ordinary telegrams are not liable to censorship, and, if so, can the right hon. Gentleman account for the extraordinary delay which occurs to telegrams from Ireland?
      Mr. SAMUELS: The hon. and gallant Gentleman should refer to the Postmaster-General.
      Colonel YATE: Are Press telegrams between England and Scotland submitted in a similar manner to the censorship?
      Mr. SPEAKER: We are dealing with Ireland.
      Mr. SAMUELS: The hon. and gallant Member should ask the Secretary for Scotland.

      NATIONAL WAR AIMS COMMITTEE.
      Colonel YATEasked the Joint Patronage Secretary to the Treasury how much money has been expended by the National War Aims Committee in the publication of books, pamphlets, photographs, and cubist pictures, etc.; and how much has been expended on lectures and addresses on the subject of the war aims of our enemies as against ourselves, respectively?
      Captain GUEST (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): The expenditure referred to in the first part of the question, up to the end of March last, amounted approximately to £41,000, and for the two months of April and May, 1918, to £17,400. The expenditure on lectures and addresses, including the cost of supplying speakers, amounted to £21,600 up to the end of March last, and for the two months of April and May, 1918, to £5,800. It is impossible to differentiate between the expenditure, as

      171
      asked for in the last part of the question, because, at all the meetings and lectures, the war aims of our enemies as well as those of the Allies are dealt with.
      Mr. MALCOLM: May I ask whether the purchases referred to in the first part of the question will, when finished with by the War Aims Committee, be offered to the Imperial War Museum to be kept for the nation?
      Captain GUEST: I will submit that to the Committee.
      Mr. PONSONBY: Has not the War Aims Committee proved itself to be an extravagant fiasco?

    RIGHT OF SEARCH.

      STATEMENT BY LORD R. CECIL.
      Mr. R. McNEILL(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any statement with regard to the abandonment of the right of search at sea in connection with the Dutch convoy sailing to the East Indies?
      Colonel WEDGWOOD: On a point of Order. May I ask if a Member puts a question on the Paper, and advantage is taken by another Member of putting down a Special Notice question in order to get an answer beforehand, whether that is the correct procedure? If people put questions on the Paper in the ordinary course of events, are other Members entitled to come up with Special Notice questions in order to get in before them?
      Mr. SPEAKER: To which question does the hon. and gallant Member refer?
      Colonel WEDGWOOD: It is on the Paper for to-morrow.
      Mr. SPEAKER: I have not yet studied the Notice Paper for to-morrow.
      Mr. KING: As this is a question which has repeatedly arisen, and as those who put down questions are naturally interested in the replies, are we to suppose that if we give notice of a question for two days ahead it is quite in order, and is consonant with the traditions and amenities of this House, for other Members to come in before with Private Notice questions? And if such practice is
      172
      carried out and we call attention to it before the Private Notice questions are put, will you, Sir, in future refuse to allow them?
      Mr. RUNCIMAN: May I ask, Sir, whether your attention has been called to the fact that on page 7 of the Order Book of the House of Commons, question No. 62, put by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), asks practically the same question as has been put from behind by Private Notice, and whether it would be in order, therefore, to accept a Private Notice question when there is one on the Order Paper already?
      Mr. McNEILL: On the point of Order, Sir. May I say that I myself have put down two questions on this subject, which appear on the Notice Paper for to-morrow? I was quite unaware of the fact that any other hon. Member had put down the same thing, and I was intending to ask these two questions when an intimation was conveyed to me from the Foreign Office that as this was an important matter they would prefer that I should put the question, if I would, in a more general form, and on that intimation I asked leave to put it as a Private Notice question.
      Mr. SPEAKER: I think, speaking generally, it would be a discourteous act if an hon. Member saw a question was down in the name of another hon. Member for a future day that he should ask the same question as an urgent question. That, as a general rule. As to to-day, I was not aware, as I had not yet studied the Order Paper for to-morrow, that these questions stood in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), and also in the name of the hon. Member for St. Augustine's (Mr. R. McNeill). If the House does not wish to have the answer till to-morrow, of course it need not, but as the matter seemed to me to be a pressing one, and this convoy is about to sail, it seemed to me to be desirable to clear the matter up now.
      Mr. RUNCIMAN: May I say that, so far as I am concerned, I have no desire to delay the answer, but I thought it necessary to ask your ruling on a point which arises frequently?
      Colonel WEDGWOOD: Perhaps we may have an explanation from the Foreign Office as to why the hon. Member for St. Augustine's was selected?
      Lord R. CECIL: I was not aware that my hon. and gallant Friend had a question on the Paper, but had I known that he was anxious to ask a question, I would as soon have asked him as my hon. Friend opposite to put the question. I did think it was very desirable that this matter should be cleared up as early as possible, and I quite admit I was anxious to make a statement on the subject today. I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend there is nothing discourteous to him.
      I will endeavour to give the fullest information in my power, but my hon. Friend and the House will, I am sure, realise that there are certain aspects of this question which it is impossible to discuss in public. In the first place, let me say that His Majesty's Government recognise to the full the vital importance to this country of the maintenance of the right of visit and search, and they are satisfied that nothing that has occurred in connection with the Dutch Convoy can be regarded as either an abandonment or a modification of that right. Papers will be laid to-morrow, which will give a detailed account of exactly what has happened, and I need not therefore now trouble the House with more than a very brief outline.
      On the 16th April, it was announced in Holland that the Netherlands Government intended to send a convoy of Government passengers and goods to the Netherlands East Indies, and the Netherlands Government were immediately informed that His Majesty's Government did not recognise the right of convoy, and that they would exercise the right of visit and search of any merchant vessels in it. On 31st May an official statement was published in Holland which contained the following sentences:
      "It is not intended to institute under protection of warships commercial intercourse which, without such protection, would not be permitted by the belligerents according to their views of commercial liberty of neutrals. No mail will be carried. It is obvious that convoy commandants would not tolerate any examination of the convoyed ships. According to usage, he will, on meeting belligerent warships, permit perusal of cargo documents in his custody by commander at latter's request. In fact, those documents will be communicated to Powers concerned before departure from Netherlands."
      His Majesty's Government thereupon sent a Note to the Netherlands Government reiterating in the most formal manner that the right of visit and search
      174
      could not be abandoned. At the same time, His Majesty's Government were ready to agree that, provided the same security against any evasion of the blockade was secured by other means, they would, as a special act of courtesy to the Netherlands Government, in view of the exceptional circumstances of this ease, permit the convoy to pass through the Naval Patrol without arrest. The conditions were as follow:

      (a) A detailed list of all passengers sailing in the convoy to be furnished to His Majesty's Government, none but Netherlands Government officials and their families being allowed to proceed;

      (b) Full particulars of the cargo on board any merchant vessel sailing in the convoy to be supplied in the same way as is now done by the Netherlands Oversea Trust in respect of ships under their control.

      (c) The Netherlands Government to give a formal guarantee that no goods shipped in the convoy are either wholly or in part of enemy origin.

      (d) The ships sailing under the Netherlands naval flag, including the converted liner—[this is one of the ships in the convoy]—not to carry any civilian passengers, nor any goods or articles other than warlike stores destined for the colonial authorities or forces, of which complete lists should be furnished.

      (e) No mails, correspondence, private papers, printed matter, or parcels to be carried by any ship in the convoy (except official despatches of the Netherlands Government).

      (f) The convoy not to sail until the above stipulated particulars and undertakings have been furnished and have been found satisfactory by the British authorities.

      These conditions were accepted. It is obvious that they in fact give us considerably more than could be obtained by the older methods of visit and search. In particular, the passengers are confined to Netherlands Government officials and their families. There is a formal Government guarantee that no goods carried are of enemy origin. Only Government goods destined for the colonial authorities or forces are to be carried, and no mails, correspondence or other printed matter is to be included.

      175
      Perhaps I may be allowed to explain that, from a very early period in the War, it has been found impossible to exercise the right of search on the high seas, as it used to be exercised in previous wars. The much larger size of cargo vessels, the increasing complications of modern commerce, the special difficulties of having to carry out the blockade through neutral countries, would have made any examination on the high seas of ships' documents quite insufficient for our purposes. Besides that, the submarine warfare makes it impossible for ships to be kept hanging about in mid-ocean without great danger, not only to the ship under examination, but to the warship which is conducting the examination. At first we adopted the practice of sending the ship into a British port for examination, but this was found to be exceedingly burdensome, not only to the neutral ship, but to the naval forces, since it involved putting an armed guard on each ship. Latterly, therefore, in many cases the shipping documents have been examined in London before the ship starts, in the light of the full information available to the British authorities, and if nothing suspicious is found, a certificate to that effect is given which passes the ship through the Naval Patrol. It is this form of exercising the right of search that has been in substance adopted in the case of the Dutch convoy.
      Finally, I should add that we have received an explicit assurance from the Netherlands Government that there was no intention to raise the so-called "right of convoy" by this particular transaction. Indeed, the acceptance of the conditions imposed by His Majesty's Government preclude any idea of that kind. I should add that the Netherlands Government have been informed that this act of courtesy on the part of His Majesty's Government must be regarded as altogether exceptional and one which should not form a precedent for any future action.
      Mr. RUNCIMAN: May I ask whether any assurance was given by the Netherlands Government that the German Government is to grant immunity from submarine attack to this convoy?
      Lord R. CECIL: No, Sir; that is entirely a matter between the Netherlands Government and the German Government.
      Sir E. CARSON: Could the Noble Lord say briefly what the exceptional circumstances in this case are?
      Lord R. CECIL: I should like very much to be allowed to say in full what the exceptional circumstances are. I am afraid I cannot. They are connected with the very special international relations, and I am sure my right hon. Friend would not wish to press me.
      Sir E. CARSON: I do not want to press.
      Sir H. COWAN: Would the Noble Lord say whether the American Government and the French Government have come to a similar understanding with the Dutch Government with regard to this particular convoy?
      Lord R. CECIL: I do not know that they have. Perhaps I may remind my hon. Friend that the views of the Foreign Governments have not been in accordance with our views as to convoys up to this time.
      Sir H. COWAN: As to the right of search?
      Lord R. CECIL: That is the same thing—search in relation to convoys. We stood alone.
      Mr. McNEILL: Arising out of that part of my Noble Friend's answer in which he said Papers would be laid To-morrow, is it the intention to give the House an opportunity of discussing the whole question?
      Lord R. CECIL: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, but I imagine if my hon. Friend or anyone else wishes to discuss it, there will be no objection on the part of the Foreign Office.

    NATIONAL PARTY OFFICES (RAID).

      QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.
      General CROFT: May I ask a question of which I have given you notice, Mr. Speaker, to clear up a misconception, whether, in giving your ruling on a question of privilege on 2nd July, when you expressed your doubt that "there was any privilege in Members of Parliament to be outside the law, and to be in a position to break the law without being subject to visitation from the military or the police," such words were meant to apply to an hon. Member who raised a question of national interest and national importance, and quoted from documents which came into his hands from an unknown source, and whether such action on the part of an

      177
      hon. Member is to be deemed to be breaking the law; further, whether it is not the privilege of a Member of Parliament to disclose any information in Parliament which he considers to be in the national interest without fear of subsequent action by the military or police, unless such information is obtained by him in an illegal manner, or is likely to imperil the safety of the State?
      4.0. P.M.
      Mr. SPEAKER: The House will remember that on the occasion in question—which, I may say, was the 1st July and not the 2nd—my ruling was given on the question of time, and I then ruled that the hon. and gallant Gentleman was out of time and could not raise the question of privilege. But I went on to guard myself by saying—and perhaps I had better state the exact words—
      "I give no decision—I am not called upon to do so—and I make no pronouncement whatever as to whether there has or has not been any breach of privilege. I am not in a position to do so. I do not know what privilege the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggests exists. I should be very doubtful whether there was any privilege in Members of Parliament to be outside the law, and to be in a position to break the law without being subject to visitations from the military or the police. I have never heard of such a privilege. But I do not inquire with regard to that."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st July, 1918, col. 1407, Vol. 107.]
      I must say that what was in my mind was not the action of the hon. and gallant Gentleman in raising the question here and introducing here a file or copy of a file which had come from some Government Department—what was in my mind was Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act, which I had previously looked at, and which runs thus, omitting all unnecessary words:
      "If any person receives any article, note, document or information knowing or having reasonable ground to believe at the time he received it that the article, note, document or information is communicated to him in contravention of this Act, he shall be guilty of misdemeanour unless he proves that the communication to him of the article, note, document or information was contrary to his desire."
      That was in my mind; but, as I say, I do not know whether the particular document in question came within the Official Secrets Act at all. Whether the hon. and gallant Member comes within the mischief of this Section, I do not know for I am not acquainted with the circumstances. Therefore, I declined altogether to give any pronouncement whatever upon that. I hope that will satisfy the hon. and gallant Member.
      General CROFT: I thank you very much for your ruling. I raised the question, because it was stated in one or two newspapers that that impression had been given by you—that it was a question of breaking the law. May I suggest in this particular connection it was quite unknown to me or to my hon. Friends where this document came from, whether it was from the business where copies of the document were or from a Government office. It was quite unknown to us that it was a secret document at all.

    PRIVATE BUSINESS.
    Local Government Provisional Order (No. 6) Bill,
    Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
    Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  MATERNITY AND CHILD WELFARE BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  CLAUSE 1.—(Powers of Local Authorities with Respect to Maternity and Child Welfare.)
  (1) Any local authority to which this Act applies may make such arrangements as may be sanctioned by the Local Government Board, for attending to the health of expectant mothers and nursing mothers, and of children who have not attained the age of five years and are not being educated in schools recognised by the Board of Education:
  Provided that nothing in this Act shall authorise the establishment by any local authority of a general domiciliary service by medical practitioners.
  (2) This Act applies to the following local authorities in England and Wales, that is to say, the council of any county or county borough, the common council of the City of London, the council of any Metropolitan borough, and the council of any borough or urban district having a population of ever twenty thousand:
  Provided that if any case after consultation with the council of any county the Local Government Board are satisfied as respects any county district in the county that any such arrangements as aforesaid (whether actual or prospective) can more efficiently be made by any district council not being a local authority to which this Act applies, the Board may, subject to such conditions as they think fit, sanction the making of such arrangements by the district council, and the district council may make such arrangements accordingly.
  Sir W. MIDDLEBROOK: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "to which this Act applies," and to insert instead thereof the words "within the meaning of the Notification of Births Act, 1907."
  In moving this Amendment I am giving expression to the views of the Association of Municipal Corporations, who are anxious not to take up any position of antagonism to this Bill, with which both the association and myself are in full accord, but to make the measure as universally applicable as possible, and to put the enforcement of its provisions in the hands of those who are responsible for dealing with questions of public health. If the words at present standing in the Bill which I am moving to omit are allowed to remain it will mean that only certain of the authorities who are now responsible for health administration
  188
  will be entrusted with the powers conferred by this Bill, and there will be excluded from the exercise of those powers all non-county boroughs and urban councils which deal with a population of less than 20,000. The same applies to rural councils. This exclusion would lead to confusion, which it is desirable to avoid. We want to ensure that the authorities shall be identical in each case for carrying out powers which are similar in their purpose and similar in their object.
  Major NEWMAN: I should like to support this Amendment. Ever since I have been in the House I have done all I could on behalf of the smaller local authorities, acting as vice-president of the Urban District Councils Association. I am confident my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board will grant this small concession for which we ask. As a matter of fact, he has definitely promised to do so. Some time ago he received a very influential deputation representing county, borough, and rural district councils on this subject, and he told them that, as far as they were concerned in asking that these powers should be conferred on all local authorities, whether they dealt with a population of 20,000 or not, they were pushing an open door. That was on the 18th of October last. On the 24th of last month, when this Bill was being read a second time, the right hon. Gentleman told us that the question of powers was a point for the Committee stage. I think we have the very strongest reasons for hoping that on this point a concession will be made to us. I should like for a few moments to put another aspect of the case to the right hon. Gentleman and to suggest another reason why local authorities, whatever the size of population they may deal with, should have these powers conferred upon them. I am not for a moment opposing this particular Bill. But for the fact that I am vice-president of the Urban District Councils Association I dare say I should not have taken any part in the discussion at this stage. But undoubtedly this Bill, be it a good Bill or a bad one, is one which will constitute another link in the chain that is being wound around the British citizen. We are putting him under still another bureaucratic Department, and, that being the case, I do suggest that we ought to give the British citizen the chance of dealing direct with the man who is to exercise these powers. We

  189
  ought to enable him, if he dislikes the way in which he is treated by the members of the body who will have the enforcement of the powers, to express his opinion by voting against them if he so desires. Therefore I urge that these powers should be conferred on the small local authorities. Take the case of a man in the county of Middlesex, where there is a great body like the Middlesex County Council, with big offices in London. Suppose the man in question lives in a small rural district with a population of less than 20,000 which has its own district council. What is going to happen if the powers under this Bill are not to be exercised by the district council but by the county council? The man in the rural council area, if he has a grievance against some particular official set up by this Bill, will have to come up to London and try and see some official—some bureaucrat—at the Middlesex Guildhall, and possibly he may have a slender chance of voting against him should he stand for election as a county councillor. But to all intents and purposes this particular aggrieved individual would have no actual redress whatsoever in case something is done under some Clause of this Bill which he thinks ought not to be done. You are thus proposing to impose upon the ordinary citizens further restrictions and to deprive them of the chance of saying "Yes" or "No" as to what is proposed to be done under the Bill. It is for that reason that I support my hon. Friend's Amendment.
  Sir HENRY HARRIS: I think it right to point out that the effect of this Amendment is to leave the London County Council out of the Bill. I have been asked by that council, on the assumption, of course, that it is one of the authorities under the Bill, to move an Amendment which would raise the question of the desirability or otherwise of the Metropolitan borough councils having concurrent jurisdiction with the London County Council on this question. Should arrangements be made by which both of these authorities will be performing the same duty? I have no information from the London County Council as to whether or not it considers it desirable to be in the Bill. It seems to me that this must depend on what arrangements the Local Government Board have in view under the Bill and how long it is going to be before some permanent measure for dealing with health matters is going to be
  190
  introduced. I certainly think that the Metropolitan borough councils ought to continue to do the work they are doing as health visitors and in other ways, but I can conceive that the London County Council would play a part in some comprehensive scheme for dealing with health matters in London; for example, they might take action in connection with the provision of maternity hospitals. I cannot think that in such a matter they should be left out. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend is going to accept this Amendment as has been suggested, but if he does take that course I hope it will not be accepted as prejudicing the position of the London County Council when more permanent legislation comes along. I wish to enter this protest. There is great difficulty in dealing with these matters in piecemeal fashion, but for the moment I will content myself with pointing out that this Amendment leaves the London County Council out of the Bill altogether, and any such action deserves careful consideration.
  Major HILLS: There is one further point on the Amendment which was not mentioned by the Mover, but which the Committee should have before it. I am not altogether out of sympathy with the Amendment, but I think the Committee ought to understand the exact meaning of it. It says that the authority for the purposes of the Maternity Bill is to be the authority under the Notification of Births Act. 1907. Clause 2, Sub-section (4), of that Act names these authorities as the county councils, the borough councils, and the urban and rural district councils, which were given a chance of adopting that Act. But in 1915 another Act was passed which said that all the authorities which had adopted the Act were to remain the authorities for the Act, and where authorities had not adopted it they were to adopt it with the proviso that where a district council did not adopt the Act, then the authority should be the county council. If the Amendment is accepted in the form in which it is drafted it will practically effect the repeal of Clause I of the Notification of Births (Extension) Act, 1915. It there says that the county council is to be the authority and not the district council. I do not think that is the wish of the Mover of the Amendment. I do not think he wishes to go back on the Act of 1915. There is a good deal to be said on the general principle for not

  191
  multiplying these committees. I myself have another suggestion to make that I like better, only I cannot refer to it now—at least, I can only refer to it. The proper authority in the case of the county is not the notification of births committee, but the health and housing committee, which all councils are now obliged to set up under the Housing and Town Planning Act, 1909. I am afraid this is rather wearisome to the Committee, and it is rather technical, but there is a real point behind it, for if we accept the Amendment in the form it has been moved by my hon. Friend, we repeal by implication Section I of the Notification of Births Act, 1915, and we also leave out a large number of districts and a great many councils which did not adopt the Act of 1907 until they were compelled to do so in 1915. So it is quite clear that the Amendment cannot go as it is. On the general question I am with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Enfield, that the multiplication of authorities is bad. I also feel great difficulty in dealing with the question piecemeal now. It puts us in a great difficulty. I think on the whole the better plan is to use the existing machinery, that is the committee under the Notification of Births Act, or, as I think, the health and housing committee, but as the Amendment is drawn it will not do.
  Major ASTOR: May I ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, if this Amendment is accepted, Sub-section (2) would be ruled out? It also deals with the local authorities. Before we go further in discussing this Amendment, and certainly before we vote, we ought to know what effect the Amendment would have on that part of the Bill?
  Mr. BOOTH: I feel quite sure that we are not dealing with an unsympathetic President of the Local Government Board in asking that these non-county boroughs and the large urban districts should have a chance of helping him. I take it this is largely an empowering proposal, because it only asks these various authorities to be in a position to make such arrangements as may be sanctioned by the Local Government Board. There, I think, is ample power against overlapping. If one authority is dealing with the matter satisfactorily I cannot conceive that the Local Government Board would sanction another
  192
  authority in spending money in duplicate. I should be sorry to think that. Where, on the other hand, for some reason or another, an authority is backward, I do not think a progressive non-county borough or a progressive urban district council should be refused the chance of co-operating in this scheme. I remember my right hon. Friend attending the annual conference of the urban district councils, and I think he will agree with me that, considering the difficulties under which many of them labour in the fact of rapidly growing districts, no more public-spirited bodies are in existence in the State than the urban district councils. The right hon. Gentleman will, I feel quite sure, admit that the rural councils, as well as the many larger councils, have given much time and a great deal of self-sacrificing labour to assist matters of local government. It would be, I think, an ill-recognition of their local patriotism if in a Bill like this these authorities were refused all recognition. The matter is not one which needs much speaking about. I merely rise to say that there will be keen disappointment on behalf of those engaged in these difficult public services, whose members are endeavouring to work in harmony with the Local Government Board, if they are not allowed to come into these matters. I made the same plea in connection with the Education Bill. The plea is even more permanent here. It carries me beyond the immediate subject. If you say to these authorities time after time, "You shall not help us, you are not big enough or good enough, you shall not come into this new idea, or have these new powers, we shall not give you this new confidence," then so much the worse. I remember well when business men refused to go upon boards of guardians because, they said, they were bound up with red tape from Whitehall. They said, though, they would become members of municipal corporations. If you do as is suggested in an enlightened measure of this kind, and pass by a number of distinguished authorities, the tendency is to dishearten workers in local government, and, as I say, to lead desirable people to look askance at the matter. If my right hon. Friend will encourage them on this occasion, will give them a chance under the Bill to play a little part, I am sure it will be appreciated.
  Mr. SHERWELL: Like other Members, I am thoroughly prepared to endorse the

  193
  principle of this Amendment, but for the misgiving which already has been indicated as to how far it will actually limit the operations of the Bill. As one of those jointly responsible for the introduction of the Notification of Births Act, 1907, it was rather a misfortune to have its possible usefulness circumscribed by the unwillingness of the then President of the Local Government Board to accept it on a compulsory basis. It was in consideration of his support that the promoters of that Bill made the Bill optional. The very fact, however, that the Bill was made optional has determined the number of authorities prepared to accept the powers given in the Bill. I am not at all sure that the case of both parties might not be met, that the case of the promoters of this Amendment might not be met, by some slight subsequent alteration in the terms of the second paragraph of Sub-section (2) of this Bill, where the President of the Local Government Board takes power to sub-divide a county area, and the special case of certain districts by consultation with, and with the approval of, the county councils. If the right hon. Gentleman could hold out the possibility of redrafting that particular Sub-section so as to give himself power not dependent upon the sanction of the county councils, that might meet the case of the promoters of this particular Amendment.
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): The discussion has been as to what the area should be in which these powers should operate, as to what councils we shall entrust the carrying out of any of the powers, which either can be exercised now under Treasury Regulations, or will be able to be exercised under the new Treasury Regulations, which I hope to publish very shortly. There were three possibilities. The first was to follow the lines of the Act of 1907, amplified by the Act of 1915, that is to say, that all sanitary authorities, both large and small, all county councils, borough councils, urban district councils, and rural district councils—omitting the London County Council—that we should give to them, one and all, great or small, all the powers which were given by the Act of 1915, and which will be given by this Act, very much amplified and extended, in my opinion, by the new Treasury Regulations. That was one possibility. Another possibility was to follow the line that I certainly thought
  194
  from the statement made by my two hon. Friends (Majors Hills and Astor) was their view. Certainly, if I may judge from their Amendments, they seem to desire to limit the user of these powers to boroughs of more than 50,000 population.
  Major HILLS: Certainly!
  Mr. FISHER: Under the supervision of the Local Government Board; so that the power, even after consultation with the London County Council, is not to be given to smaller bodies than those of 50,000 population. I certainly judged that from the Amendment put down. I did not gather, from their speeches, that the view they held, and which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the City of Durham——
  Major HILLS: I think I must interrupt the right hon. Gentleman here. I appear to be misunderstood. I am afraid I did not make myself clear. I have an Amendment down which gives power to the authorities, under the Notification of Births Act, 1915, to subject to a numerical limit. In my speech I should have made that clear, that the only terms on which the Amendment ought to be accepted are the inclusion of a numerical limit.
  Mr. FISHER: My hon. and gallant Friend certainly did not make himself clear to me. As I was saying, the third, alternative was to take the middle course, which is one we very often do take, and make a limit to the size of the borough and of the urban district council to whom you give these powers, a population of about 20,000; and to give the Local Government Board the option, the discretion, after consultation with the county council, to enable these smaller bodies—smaller than 20,000 population—to exercise either the whole of the powers or a portion of the powers for any particular district in which they may be the authority. These, then, were the three possible courses open to the Government. The Government, in framing the Bill, followed a middle course. After all, there is a good deal to be said, and has been said, for still leaving these powers in the hands of the smaller authority. There is a good deal to be said because, after all, even the very smallest authority, and any authority, great or small, can only make such arrangements as are sanctioned by the Local Government Board. Those who think, as I think, and as the Local Government

  195
  Board always has thought, that a great many of these schemes will undoubtedly be far more successful if they extended over the larger area, can remember that this would still give the same opportunity for the Local Government Board to say, "So far as the portion of the scheme which you submit to us in concerned, we think that it may be worked much better over a county area than it will be worked by half a dozen small district councils, each trying to work their own scheme in the county council area."
  It seems to me that by giving power to the Local Government Board to sanction any arrangement, you leave it to their discretion to choose the larger area for some portions of the scheme, while they may choose a smaller area for some other portion of the scheme. If the House were to decide on that arrangement—that is, to give power to the Local Government Board to sanction any arrangement put forward, either by the larger or by the smaller authority—so far as I am concerned, I should offer no objection. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Enfield (Major Newman) is quite right when he says that a very powerful deputation, representing urban district councils, gave an explicit assurance that they would be most willing to carry out these powers, but I want to discriminate between these powers, because some of them are much better carried out over a large area. There are other powers, such as the treating of expectant and nursing mothers, the power of establishing creches and matters of that kind, the power to establish perhaps a lying-in-home for certain unfortunate mothers—all these might operate over a district not of the larger size, and this would necessarily have to be part of a whole scheme, whereas other portions of a really comprehensive maternity and child welfare scheme would be infinitely better spread over the whole county. I have tried to get the opinion of the House on this point and the Committee seems to me to be willing to leave these powers in the hands of all those sanitary authorities, both large and small, and to trust to the Local Government Board not to sanction any arrangement made by any of these smaller authorities in smaller areas, if it thinks those arrangements ought to be made over the larger areas. If that is the opinion of the Committee, I shall be ready to accept the Amendment.
  Mr. GEORGE THORNE: I think what the right hon. Gentleman has just stated represents the prevalent feeling inside and outside this House, and after what he has said, I trust the Committee will be willing to accept the Amendment.
  Major ASTOR: I am very much surprised that the right hon. Gentleman has not given the Committee a lead on this point.
  Mr. FISHER: I have already expressed the opinion that if the Local Government Board had power to sanction the arrangement, then, if part of the scheme would operate better in a larger area, or part would operate better in a smaller area, the Local Government Board should have power to sanction such an arrangement.
  Major ASTOR: Then I gather that my right hon. Friend thinks that the larger authorities should have the power to delegate their powers to the smaller or subsidiary authorities. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Then I take it what is suggested is that the smaller authorities are to be able to exercise these powers if the Local Government Board approves, and that otherwise it should be the larger authorities.
  Mr. FISHER: If the Amendment is carried, any local authority within the meaning of the Notification of Births Act, 1907, may make such arrangements as are sanctioned by the Local Government Board. The Board will have power to say, "We do not sanction or we do sanction the scheme, or we sanction it conditionally, or we may prescribe that it shall fall into line with the rest of the county."
  Major ASTOR: Then I misunderstood my right hon. Friend. I sincerely trust that we shall stick to the larger authorities. This point was discussed a few days ago in another place on the Midwives Bill. Under the 1902 Midwives Act, the larger authorities have power to delegate their powers to the smaller authorities. When this point was dealt with the other day in another place and they were dealing with that particular power, that Clause was repealed, so that only the larger authorities now have the power of exercising those functions under the Midwives Act, 1902. I think it would be a great pity if at the same time, within ten days, this House should pass another Bill dealing also with maternity, giving powers very similar to a different local

  197
  authority. I think that would not tend towards efficient administration. The reason the House of Lords repealed this particular Clause in the Midwives Act of 1902 was that they found it operated detrimentally. There was a Departmental Committee appointed in 1909, and they inquired into the working and operation of the Midwives Act, and that Committee emphatically recommended the repeal of the power of the delegation of the powers of the larger authorities from the county councils to the smaller authorities within their areas. They found in certain cases—I believe there were ten cases—that county councils had delegated their powers to the smaller authorities, and this power had to be revoked because it worked unsatisfactorily, and as a result of the practical experience of the working of the Midwives Act they came to the conclusion that the power should be exercised by the larger authorities.
  My right hon. Friend just now, in suggesting that the smaller sanitary authorities should exercise these powers, said that some of them would only probably exercise some of the powers given to them—that is to say, that within a county you might have adjacent authorities exercising a certain quantity of the powers available. You might have one authority exercising 40 per cent. of the total powers available, and this might be sanctioned, and later on, after this had been in operation some time, an adjacent authority might get powers to carry out 60 per cent. or even 70 per cent., of the powers available, so that in one county you would have different powers in operation. I think it simplifies administration to have equal powers exercised in large areas, and not to have different rules and regulations in adjacent smaller areas. The bigger the district over which you have powers, the better it is for administration. In my view, the tendency nowadays is to give powers to the larger local authorities and not to encourage the smaller authorities to come forward with comparatively small schemes. I admit that the local authorities have done excellent work, but the whole tendency has been to give new powers to the larger authorities, and I suggest to the Committee that, in view of these facts, and the fact that in another place a larger authority has been selected for dealing with the Midwives Act, it would be a great pity within ten days to give powers dealing with maternity to a
  198
  different local authority. Therefore, I hope the Committee will decide in favour of the larger authorities.
  Mr. ROWLANDS: First of all, I desire to congratulate the President of the Local Government Board upon the attitude that he has taken up in regard to this Amendment. I think he has shown a very fair spirit in trying to meet the various differences that exist in the House. The right hon. Gentleman has clearly denned to the House that, in accepting this Amendment, he maintains, or rather retains for the Local Government Board, full power over all schemes that may come in, and at the same time he has not lost that entire faith in local life which some of our hon. Friends seem to have lost, and which many of us have studied for a long period, and have seen great and good work done under those local authorities. We have also seen the work done by these men and women locally earn the esteem and respect of all those with whom they have been associated. I should like to point out, in asking for the powers still to be given in some of the smaller authorities, that we are not asking for a power to be given that is not in many instances being worked out well at the present time. Last night week I was down in one of the urban council districts in my own Constituency in the Erith district, where we were celebrating baby week, and the great work done during 1909, and especially the work done in later years and the work of the institution which has been started. This organisation has in full swing nearly all the things that you require. They have trained nurses and doctors, institutions, maternity classes, and all that is considered to be necessary under this Bill.
  If you go into the urban district council area of Dartford, you will find that they are doing the same kind of work, and you will find that they have at the present time no less than nine maternity centres and three visitors, and they are advertising for a fourth visitor. I am sure that where there is public life in a locality a great deal of this work is being done, and that is what I desire to see maintained. It has been of the greatest benefit to the people of this country, and gives work to those who are deeply interested in the locality. I could take you to one or two of those places and show you how ladies and gentlemen and working women, who, I am glad to say,

  199
  have plenty of public spirit, are devoting themselves to this work, and it is on their behalf and in their interests and that of the community as a whole that I am pleased to think that the right hon. Gentleman is not going to snuff out all these local bodies, but is prepared, under such safeguards as he thinks necessary, to keep them in existence.
  Mr. THEODORE TAYLOR: There is one thing that has not been mentioned yet that I think reinforces very strongly the argument for enlisting the work of smaller local bodies, and that is the coming into public life of women. You are now for the first time to have an enlarged body of electors, much larger than formerly, and they take a great interest in these questions. That is an additional reason, it seems to me, why we should not extinguish these sparks of local patriotism. I think the hon. Member for Plymouth (Major Astor) is a little mistaken in the interpretation he puts on the attitude of the President of the Local Government Board towards this matter. I did not understand the President of the Local Government Board to say that all the small bodies are equal to doing the larger kind of work suitable to the larger bodies, but I did understand him to foreshadow, at all events, that the Local Government Board would endeavour to divert the work of the larger bodies to the larger issues. It seems to me that this elasticity of scheme which the hon. Member for Plymouth seems to deprecate is one of the merits of the measure, and that is one reason why I desire to support it. I know the feeling of the larger bodies throughout the country. They have been expressed in this House for many years past. I remember very well that other measures of local legislation have been brought forward where the smaller bodies have been quite indignant, for instance, that a local body of 20,000 population should not have the same rights as a small borough with 5,000 or 10,000 population. I think we have got past that. I think the tendency of the time is to allocate more and more work for the local bodies and cause them to feel that they have a real interest in these questions.
  Colonel WEIGALL: May I humbly submit to the Committee that it is not a question of small bodies versus large bodies? We are all probably agreed
  200
  that there is a useful sphere both to large bodies and small bodies, but, as far as this particular measure is concerned, it is not a question of small bodies or large bodies. I would suggest to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Plymouth that if you are to have this Bill the arrangement suggested by the President of the Local Government Board is far and away the best. It gives an elasticity and business arrangement which no other system will give. I do not want to disguise from the Committee my general view, for expressing which, I hope, I shall not be called to order, that it appears to me that in all this legislation, so long as you cannot guarantee our immunity from the jealousy of one Department of another, and also from the local authority point of view, the question whether it is to be a 1d. rate or a ½d. rate, I do not think you will go really very far in social reform. At the same time, I know the immense amount of good work that has been done on local authorities, and I suggest to the Committee that now we have got the umbrella of the Local Government Board over all these authorities, the suggestion made by the President of the Local Government Board is far away the most workable.
  Mr. MORRELL: I do not want to detain the Committee, as I am entirely in favour of this Amendment. I merely want to clear up my mind on one particular point. I presume that it is the policy and intention of the Local Government Board to extend these maternity classes in time to the whole country. What I want to know is, Is anything being done now to prejudice that extension? It seems to me that if these provisions are good for one locality, they are probably good for another. I do not know why we could not have a simple form of words that any council may make such arrangements as may be sanctioned by the Local Government Board. I do not know what is the virtue of the particular words of the Amendment.
  Mr. FISHER: It covers the Metropolitan borough councils.
  Mr. MORRELL: I want to make it quite clear that the smaller boroughs will be admitted and that it is the policy of the Government that this shall be extended in time to all local authorities.
  Major HILLS: I hope the Committee ill realise the revolution they are

  201
  making. It is simply a complete change from top to bottom of the Bill as it was presented. It included only the urban councils of 20,000 and over. We are now letting in, urban and rural councils of all sizes. The 20,000 limit is to go absolutely. I should like to ask my right hon. Friend this question. He says, and I agree to a very large extent, that there is a proper work for both the larger and the smaller bodies, but where does this Bill give him power to divide power between these two authorities? It is perfectly clear it does not. This Bill grants certain powers to certain authorities but does not give power to divide it. Unless the right to divide these powers be more clearly included it is perfectly clear that they cannot be divided. Before we give these very autocratic powers to the Local Government Board we ought to know on what principle they mean to distribute the duties between the larger and the smaller authorities. In the past, unfortunately—I speak entirely of the past—the reputation of the Local Government Board has been that they favoured the smaller against the larger authorities. I have to call attention to this also that all the Members who have spoken with the exception of my hon. and gallant Friend are all more interested in urban district councils. Assuming that there ought to be certain powers for a large area and certain for a small area, which is the best authority to delegate, the Local Government Board in London or the county council on the spot? Here I am quite sure I shall receive the assistance of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Enfield. I want to make a stroke for local rights on a bigger and wider scale. I believe if there is to be anybody who has got the power to delegate it ought to be the local authority. I am not a great friend of the Bill. It may do more good than harm, but that is a doubtful point, but if my right hon. Friend is anxious for his Bill to succeed I do ask him to pause before he sets up these small rural councils against the county councils. I do not think it is the way to get what we want. We all want a distribution of power, the larger powers of healing to the larger authority and the smaller powers of domiciliary treatment to the smaller authority. I believe that if we carry the Amendment in this form, including the rural district councils and leaving out the 20,000 limit, the Bill will be a failure.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I am in a difficult position. I see my Socialistic Friends opposing this Amendment on the ground that the Bill will do more harm than good if the Amendment is carried. There I agree. I do not believe in all these sort of Bills. I really do not quite know where I am or what I want to do. Is it a reactionary Amendment or is it an Amendment which tends in the direction of Socialism? I am not quite certain. I think on the whole if we go to a Division I shall have to abstain.
  5.0 P.M.
  Sir H. NIELD: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be reassured when he sees me joining not the Socialist ranks but the ranks of those who are protesting against this Amendment. Not a little pressure has been put upon me to support the proposal to introduce the lower limit of population, but I have resisted. What has struck me as so remarkable is that those who have become responsible for putting down this Amendment are in the happy position of not being affected. All of them but one are so situated as not to have a direct interest at all in the reduction. As one who has worked for many years on a county council, I protest against the extravagance, particularly in these times, of allowing a smaller body with 20,000 population to set up its own machinery under this Bill. It is perfectly clear that persons would not be able to give profitably their whole time to this work. Therefore, the authorities would have to appoint an officer who is partly an officer under this Bill and partly under something else. That is not at all desirable. In my own county of Middlesex I do not suppose that we have more than three or four rural districts or areas which will profit by this redistribution. There are two municipal boroughs and there will be three or four Parliamentary boroughs presently. The rest of the areas are big urban districts, whose area is sufficiently large and whose population is sufficiently large to justify the appointment of a whole-time man. We have actually got schemes in existence. We have actually maternity schemes in force. Are those to be completely cut out in order to make way for the powers of these smaller bodies? I am quite sure that my right hon. Friend in charge of the Bill, although he may have an intimate knowledge of the working of the county of London—in that he is second to none—does

  203
  not know how these measures affect an ordinary county council with regard to its rural areas. With all respect to those persons who take part in public life in the rural areas, I say that you will not get in those districts the right type of man, even if you could justify their appointment from the point of view of the work that is being done, who would be able to carry out this work half as efficiently as the county council for the area. I do not know that anybody can indict the county councils, at any rate justly, because they have discharged their duty in matters of this sort uncommonly well. I would urge, in the interests of economy, which is so necessary at this time, in the interests of good administration, and in the interests of getting an area sufficiently large to get a competent person at a competent salary, that this Amendment should not be accepted, and that the size of the area should not be cut down.
  Sir J. SPEAR: I heartily support the acceptance of the Amendment because I believe it will make for the success of the measure. We are all convinced of the great importance of taking steps in the direction of maternity and child welfare. The only difference at issue is how to bring it into operation. I support the Amendment because it will enable the people affected to express, through the local bodies, what they wish. The mothers will be able, through the local bodies, to give effect to their preferences and their wishes with regard to the administration of the measure. While they have practically no influence at all on the county council, they will have that influence on the local council. Acting on the principle of the Government of the people by the people, we must accept the Amendment with the knowledge that thereby the people whose interests will be affected by this Bill will have an opportunity of deciding who shall be the men and women who will administer it.
  Colonel Sir HAMAR GREENWOOD: I rise to support the Amendment. With reference to the comment made by various speakers who have opposed it that those of us who support it are not in direct touch with the counties, I would point out that the three hon. Members who have led the attack upon the Amendment cannot claim to speak for the counties themselves. The only two hon. Members representing
  204
  county divisions who have spoken in the Debate are the hon. and gallant Member for Horncastle (Colonel Weigall) and the hon. Member for the Tavistock Division (Sir J. Spear), both of whom supported the Amendment.
  Sir H. NIELD: Enfield is not a county, and the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Rowlands) also spoke against it.
  Sir H. GREENWOOD: At any rate, three county Members have supported it. The fact that no county Members have seen fit to come into the Committee at this time when this important measure is being considered proves to me that the county people are not the people to be entrusted with these duties as against the central bodies now carrying them out and who are at present empowered to carry them out in Scotland and Ireland. The President of the Local Government Board says that he desires to meet the views of the House of Commons. It shows how far we have travelled from any spirit of democracy when a Cabinet Minister has to say that he is anxious to meet the views of the House of Commons. I am glad that at least there is one who is prepared to listen to the House of Commons in matters of this kind. The President of the Local Government Board will be able to look back on a long life with considerable pleasure in knowing that he has always been anxious to accept the views of the House of Commons. The acceptance of this Amendment is in accord with the views of those most concerned, namely, the smaller bodies. Several deputations from them waited upon the President of the Local Government Board in reference to this measure, and they have asked that there should be granted to them these powers which, through a miserable squabble between two English Departments of State, were denied them, but were granted to Scotland and Ireland under the Notification of Births Act, 1915. We are now desirous of giving to the predominant partner in this realm powers which were denied to it owing to what I may call a fluke in 1915. The point that appeals tome in regard to this Amendment, and in regard to the Clause, is the fact that anything that is done is subject to the approval of the Local Government Board. As the Government finds a large portion of the Grant that will go to these various bodies, we can be assured that the Local Government Board and the Treasury

  205
  between them will see that the schemes submitted to them are good schemes, and that the money which is to be administered by the local bodies will be well administered. The Local Government Board especially is under the eye and immediate control of the House of Commons. I am one of those who believe in strengthening the Ministerial Department involved which is under the direct control of the House rather than in strengthening or giving larger powers to a large number of local bodies, like the county councils in this case. I prefer to have the House of Commons as the immediate lever for good work rather than the county council:
  The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): I have considerable hesitation in intervening in an English Debate, particularly after what was said by the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury), who seemed eager to deny me the right to sit on the Front Bench on occasions. While that is so, perhaps the Committee will allow me to say a word or two with regard to our experience of the Notification of Births Act in Scotland. After all, we have had some experience on the other side of the Border of the working of that Statute which it is now proposed England should secure for itself. In Scotland, as the Committee know, under the Notification of Births Act, 1915, there is no restriction laid upon the size of the authority which is to exercise the powers under that Act. The powers are exercised by burghs, whether large or small, by public health authorities of the counties, whether large or small, and I am glad to say that our experience of the working of the Statute has been entirely satisfactory. I am told that at the present time child-welfare and maternity schemes are in progress affecting two-thirds of the population of Scotland. That is a very creditable record, considering the short time the Act has been in operation. While I should be the last person to dictate, or even to suggest, to English Members what they should do in England, they might perhaps consider it relevant that I should state, as I do here, that I know that the Act in Scotland, without any restriction as to the size of the authorities, has worked exceedingly well. I do not see why a system which has worked well on the other side of the Border should fail to work well on this side of the Border.
  Mr. ALDEN: May I make one suggestion? There is something to be said for
  206
  the position taken up by the hon. Member for Ealing (Sir H. Nield). There are certain small local authorities who fail to carry out their duties. Over and over again the Local Government Board has remonstrated with those smaller authorities because, legislation having been placed on the Statute Book, they have failed to carry out their duties and have been compelled to do it. That is a good point. But, on the other hand, as the hon. Member for Tavistock (Sir J. Spear) has said, if you can interest the people of the actual locality in a Bill of this nature, you have undoubtedly secured a great point. If we hand over too much to the larger authorities, we fail to excite that interest in the smaller localities which is so desirable. My object in rising is to suggest to the Committee and to the President of the Local Government Board that, in any case, supposing the Bill stands as it does without the Amendment, the right hon. Gentleman might leave himself free, as has been done under other Acts, to include smaller local authorities where necessary and when they have shown their desire to carry out this Bill on their own account. There are certain small local authorities that are rather cut off, and which are not in very close touch with the county councils. At the same time they have displayed over and over again their zeal in local government work. In such cases, supposing the Bill stands as it does without the Amendment, it might be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to say, "We reserve to ourselves the right to give to these smaller authorities of 20,000 population or under the power to administer this Bill on their own account." I should prefer the Amendment as it stands on the whole, but if we cannot have that, I would suggest that the President should meet us in that way.
  Mr. FISHER: I think we might possibly bring our Debate on this Amendment to a conclusion. The voices I have gathered from the Committee, whether they come from the urban areas or from the county areas, have satisfied me that in accepting the Amendment I am following the wishes of a very strong body of opinion in the Committee. So far as I am concerned, I accept the Amendment without any sacrifice of my own judgment. Let me assure my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Durham (Major Hills), that the Local Government Board, at all events since I have been its

  207
  President—and I think I may say for long before that—has followed the general practice of enforcing the larger areas rather than the smaller areas for large schemes. I have here a circular of the 23rd September, 1916——
  Major HILLS: That is dealing with the present. I referred to the past.
  Mr. FISHER: Perhaps it is a long past. Here is a paragraph of that circular, which says:
  "The experience which the Board have hitherto gained confirms them in the opinion that as a general rule the smaller sanitary districts can be served more economically and efficiently by a county scheme than by separate schemes for each sanitary district, provided that proper co-operation with the sanitary authority is secured."
  We have not gone at too great a pace, at any rate for me. I know that the pace does not at all suit the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir F. Banbury), but then he cannot get any horse to go his pace—it is too slow. We are constantly adding to what is called the comprehensive scheme of maternity and child welfare, and anybody who examined it will see that some of the items are better suited to a large area, and others are better suited to a smaller area. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Ealing Division of Middlesex (Sir H. Nield) should not lay too much stress on what the county councils do and what the smaller local authorities do not do, because sometimes the smaller local authorities set a good example to the larger authorities. There are laggers in maternity and child welfare schemes, sometimes among the larger authorities and sometimes among the smaller authorities. They are not always to be found in the smaller areas. There is no doubt, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Sunderland (Sir Hamar Greenwood) says, that the Local Government Board have very great powers in being able to give or to withhold the Grant. It gives them a large power in the schemes and the area that they will sanction I believe the Committee have come to a wise conclusion. At all events, we shall now be able to try this measure and put it into the power of local authorities, both large and small, to carry out what has been done in Scotland, covering two-thirds, and, I hope, before long, the whole, of England and Wales with schemes of this kind.
  Mr. HUGH EDWARDS: I only intervene to thank the right hon. Gentleman for having accepted the Amendment. We have heard a good deal about Scotland and England, but no one has spoken for the principality of Wales. The President of the Local Government Board will be glad to know that the smaller authorities there have been unanimous in their request for this compulsory power, and that the feeling there is exceedingly strong. I venture to say that the local authorities of Wales in this matter have shown even more wisdom and esprit de corps than either England or Scotland.
  Major HILLS: I take it, if this Amendment is carried, that the whole of Subsection (2) of Clause I will come out?—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!"]—I am glad to hear it.
  Question, "That the words to which this Act applies stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  Major HILLS: I am not at all sure that it is worth while moving my next Amendment.
  Sir W. MIDDLEBROOK: On a point of Order. Do not the words "within the meaning of the Notification of Births Act, 1907," require inserting?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir Donald Maclean): I am very much obliged. There was some confusion between the "Ayes" and the "Noes," which for the moment distracted my attention from the remainder of my duty.
  Question, "That the words 'within the meaning of the Notification of Births Act, 1907,' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Major HILLS: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the word "may" ["to which this Act applies may"], and to insert instead thereof the word "shall."
  I am not at all sure that it is worth while moving this Amendment now that the Committee in its wisdom has decided that the authority which is to exercise the powers under this Bill is to be the smallest authority that we have, namely, the rural district council. When I put this Amendment down, I thought that I was dealing with county councils, with the large boroughs, and with urban districts of 20,000 and over. You can compel them to carry out the provisions of the Bill. You can compel them to raise a rate for the

  209
  purpose, and it is quite fair that you should do so. Unless the Act is made compulsory, I do not see that any good will be done. Otherwise, all that you would do would be to cause the advanced local authority to adopt the Act. I suppose the less advanced would not do so, and you would really remain in very much the same position as now, for, as the President of the Local Government Board informed us on the Second Reading, the progressive authorities at present, by hook or by crook, are doing the work that they will be enabled to do under this Bill. It, therefore, seemed to me that the best plan was to make the Act compulsory, and I still strongly feel so; but how can you compel a little rural district council with a weak personnel, no financial powers at all, and no experience to set up all this vast machinery?
  Mr. BOOTH: On a point of Order. Is not this a speech against the Amendment? Do we understand that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is moving this Amendment?
  Major HILLS: Yes, I am moving it. I am trying to explain the difficulty in which the President of the Local Government Board has placed us by revolutionising the basis of the Bill without notice. I do not see how we can compel a small rural district council. We might just as well try to compel a parish council. The Committee, however, has chosen to make the authority under this Act the small local authority. It has given the go-by entirely to the county council, and it is perfectly clear that there is no power to divide the duty under the Bill. I noticed that the Secretary for Scotland was extremely reticent on that point. There is no power to divide the duty, and it is therefore all or none. I formally move the Amendment in order to ask the President of the Local Government Board how he means these powers to be exercised.
  Mr. SHERWELL: The point is more important than the Mover of the Amendment in his speech suggested. The provisions of the Bill proceed upon the assumption that the powers provided in it are of great importance from the point of view of the health of the children and of the nation. If the importance is such as to require the introduction of provisions of this kind, I cannot understand why the recognition of the importance of the provisions should not be made compulsory.
  210
  May I remind my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the City of Durham (Major Hills) that in the actual experience of the operation of the Notification of Births Act, it has happily been proved that some of the smaller authorities are very ready and alive to adopt the optional powers given them under that Act?
  Major HILLS: You could not have made that Act compulsory.
  Mr. SHERWELL: I have already explained that although that Bill, as originally introduced by the present Minister of Blockade and myself, was compulsory, we adopted the suggestion of the then President of the Local Government Board in Committee upstairs and made it optional in order to win his assent, because as private Members we were quite aware that there was not the least chance of procuring a private Member's Bill unless we had his support. Even under the voluntary basis it has proved that a number of the smaller authorities have been prepared to adopt the powers. It does not seem to me that there is any radical objection to making these powers mandatory, especially in view of what the President of the Local Government Board said a little time ago that he retains discretionary power, in sanctioning a scheme, to say that certain powers may be operated by a smaller authority, and that other larger powers shall be operated by a larger authority. The Bill in this Section provides that the schemes proposed shall be subject to the sanction of the President of the Local Government Board, and it is perfectly easy to see that he may make his sanction conditional on some such arrangement as he has suggested. I attach so much importance to the value of these provisions that I sincerely hope that the hon. and gallant Member will press his Amendment in a rather more serious spirit than he exhibited in moving it.
  Mr. FISHER: This, to my mind, is a very important Amendment which raises a large point of principle, and I hope it will be a long time before this House makes it mandatory upon local authorities to carry out schemes of this kind. I am a thorough believer in local government, and by local government I mean giving power to local authorities to decide whether or not they shall carry out schemes of this kind, and, indeed,

  211
  schemes of many kinds. There is no doubt a very strong disposition throughout local bodies, large and small, to advance very considerably with schemes for maternity and child welfare, and we have no case at present for any mandatory measure to coerce them. Let us try the policy of persuasion, plus the policy of Grants. We have not tried it sufficiently. I quite admit that many local authorities are not doing anything like as much as the Local Government Board would like them to do in the direction of maternity and child-welfare schemes, but there is a very strong body of opinion which is growing round this question, and which will be able to make itself felt at the next election, when, I believe, it will have a stimulating effect upon those local bodies. In Australia it has been found that the women have not supported either the one party or the other on the larger questions, but have concentrated on matters of domestic policy that concern the health of the mother and the children and the sanitary condition of the houses in which they live, and I believe that the enormous women's vote that we are going to have will give a very great stimulus to the local authorities to put into force the powers that are now being given them, and which have been backed up by the Treasury in a very generous way by Grants which are placed at the disposal of the Department over which I preside. I believe it is far better to trust to the stimulating effect of public opinion on the laggard local bodies. I am thoroughly in agreement with this policy, and I think local authorities will be wise if they spend a limited portion of the money which they can raise from the rates to join with the money which is given by Treasury Grants for purposes such as these, and they will immensely improve the health of their people at no very great expense. But I do not think the time has come to make these powers mandatory.
  Sir H. HARRIS: I should like to say a few words on this important question as one who has long experience of municipal government. When Parliament has definitely made up its mind that it wants certain things done in the localities, the doing of those things ought to be made a duty and not an option. Governments in the past have been rather apt to give optional powers to local authorities, and to make the fact that they are
  212
  optional an excuse for not making any Grant-in-Aid. But while I hold that view, I think there are great difficulties in converting this into a compulsory Clause. I am a believer in local self-government, and I think there is a limit to the extent to which you can spoon-feed the local authorities. The right course to adopt in connection with matters of this kind is, in the first place, to throw the responsibility direct upon the local authorities, and leave it to them to exercise some originality and to use their knowledge of the needs of the locality. You want also power to put pressure upon local authorities, but I cannot help thinking the right way of dealing with the matter is what has been adopted in the present Education Bill, where it is laid down in Clause 2 that any local authority "shall make adequate and suitable provision" for doing certain things. It should be provided in this Bill that any local authority shall make adequate and suitable provision for attending to the health of expecting mothers, and so forth. At the end of the Clause in the Education Bill it is provided that "any such authority from time to time may and shall, when required by the Local Government Board, submit to the Board a scheme for the purposes aforesaid." In any permanent legislation the matter ought to be dealt with in that way. But I think there are great difficulties in turning this into a compulsory Clause, and therefore, on the whole, it would be best to leave the Bill as it now stands.
  Mr. ALDEN: I wish to echo what the hon. Member has said. On the general principle I should be in favour of turning "may" into "shall," but on this occasion it would be as well to try the experiment of seeing what the President can do by bringing persuasion to bear on local authorities, with the addition, of course, of Grants-in-Aid. I would suggest that, instead of merely sending the ordinary circular to the local authorities informing them of their powers under this Act, he should send with it a statement as to how these maternity committees are to be formed, and an illustration of how they have been formed in many districts. It seems to me that many local authorities fail to carry out Acts of Parliament because they do not know at the time just how to carry them out. They want that little extra bit of persuasion and advice which the President can very

  213
  well give in this instance. On the whole I am inclined to think he is right, and perhaps it would be well to wait until the Ministry of Health is set up before making it mandatory.
  Amendment negatived.
  Major ASTOR: I beg to move, after the word "arrangements" ["may make such arrangements"], to insert the words "including the providing, maintaining, and aiding of maternity hospitals and hospital beds."
  I am under the impression that these powers are already in the Bill, but I should like my right hon. Friend to tell us, and I think it would be some advantage if the Amendment were accepted so as to make it quite clear that the authorities have these powers.
  Mr. FISHER: I can see no advantage in accepting the Amendment. These are already within the powers which the local authorities have, and they are within the Regulations which I shall shortly issue for Treasury Grants, and to include one set of powers within what is more or less a definition Clause is rather, by implication, to exclude other powers. I cannot accept the Amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  Major ASTOR: I beg to move, after the word "Board" ["as may be sanctioned by the Local Government Board"], to insert the words, "after having obtained the concurrence of the Insurance Commissions for England and for Wales, the Board of Education, and the Central Midwives Board."
  There is a precedent for this in the Milk and Dairies Act of 1914, which says, "Orders shall be made by the Local Government Board with the concurrence of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries." In the Report of the Departmental Committee on Tuberculosis, where several Departments were concerned in the same way as several Departments are concerned with the administration of maternity under this Bill, there was a definite recommendation that, with a view to securing prompt and effective concerted action, schemes should be jointly considered by the representatives of the Departments. Also in another place the other day the representative of the Government, when moving an Amendment to the Midwives Bill, said the Local Government Board should consult the Central Midwives Board in dealing with
  214
  schemes under the Midwives Bill. My object in moving this Amendment is that there should be one policy dealing with maternity. There are several Departments—the Local Government Board, the Insurance Commissioners, the Board of Education, and the Central Midwives Board—all interested and all concerned with maternity; and I think it would be an advantage and in the long run would expedite the administration of powers concerning maternity if we were assured that there was only one central policy, and the best way of obtaining that would be by co-operation between the Departments concerned.
  Mr. SHERWELL: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not accept this Amendment. I do not quite understand the view with which it has been put forward. There are various public authorities already dealing with this, but it would be an extraordinary condition of things for this House to confer powers upon local authorities subject to the sanction of the Local Government Board, and yet making the sanction of the superior Board depend upon the concurrence of the Insurance Commissioners and other Government Departments. It would be a most extraordinary innovation in our Parliamentary and Governmental proceedings. The Board of Education is one of the Government Departments dealing with this question, but its work is not in any way impinged upon by the Bill. It only deals with children under the age of five years who are not within the control of the Board of Education, and I do not see for the life of me why we should not supplement the work of other Boards.
  Major ASTOR: Instruction in maternity.
  Mr. SHERWELL: This is an arrangement for the care of children who are not yet within the control of the Board of Education. It is true the Board of Education has certain powers by way of instruction now, then why should the hon. and gallant Gentleman wish to make them dependent upon the concurrence of the Insurance Commissioners? The Insurance Commissioners have a vital interest in the question of public health, but it would be a startling innovation to make Statutes of this kind subject to a body constituted as the Board of Insurance Commissioners is. I think we should not fetter the powers of the local authorities concerned

  215
  more than they are necessarily and properly fettered by being made subject to the approval of the President of the Local Government Board. I hope in the interests of the Bill the right hon. Gentleman will not accept the Amendment.
  Sir H. GREENWOOD: I wish to support what has been said by the hon. Member (Mr. Sherwell). I am sure I do my hon. and gallant Friend (Major Astor) no injustice in saying that with commendable and admirable zeal he wishes to make this small Bill a much larger measure, in agreement possibly with the very noble ideal which he has, and which moat of us share. But the acceptance of the Amendment would limit the paramount power of the President of the Local Government Board, and I pin my faith to the strength of his approval and control in the successful working of this Bill. I hope, therefore, he will resist the Amendment with all his power.
  Sir C. WARNER: I wish to say a word on behalf of local authorities. It is very difficult to serve more than one master. They may serve the Local Government Board, but if they have three masters it would make it very difficult for them to submit satisfactory schemes. They are always under the control of the Local Government Board to a great extent, and in this case they will be completely under its control, because they have to have their schemes approved or they will not get the Grants. But I think it would be unfair to put them under four different Departments. More than that, are the four different Departments also to have control of the Grants, because, if not, it will be only half control by three of the four Departments. I would urge the hon. and gallant Gentleman to withdraw the Amendment, as I think it would be quite unfair to the local authorities.
  Mr. BOOTH: I wish to oppose this so far as regards the first sentence. I should like to ask the Mover what he means by "Insurance Commission"? No such thing is in existence. The hon. and gallant Gentleman himself had on the Notice Paper on the Second Beading the correct term, but when he drafted this Amendment he forgot his own phrasing. If he means the National Health Commissioners I wish to offer the strongest opposition from the point of view of the insurance committees. The insurance
  216
  committee is a county affair. The Amendment would have been applicable before the Amendment already carried, but it will not at all suit the Bill now. As I understand, the discretion of the Local Government Board is to be exercised on a matter on which it is specially qualified to speak. It is informed, and it knows all the authorities, but the Insurance Commissioners do not know anything about large or small authorities. They only know about the county insurance committees. How the Insurance Commissioners at Buckingham Gate can be able to decide which maternity affairs are better put into operation by several districts united, and which are better put into operation by each locality in its own way, I have not the slightest idea. Surely the only possible connection between the insurance scheme and this Bill is the fact that the Insurance Commissioners give a maternity grant of 30s. One hon. Member who supports this Amendment but has not spoken on it, indicated apparently that that is why they think the Insurance Commissioners should be brought in. All that the insurance scheme does is to simply pay 30s. maternity benefit. It is an easy benefit. There is no malingering and no deception. It is simply a payment for which the people insure week by week out of their wages to get this benefit. All that the approved societies have to do is to hand over the 30s. They have nothing to do with the way it is spent. They have nothing to do with maternity. If you bring the insurance people in it would only lead to obstruction. It would not be intentional obstruction, but it would be actual obstruction. They might have to communicate with the county council, which might have to refer the matter to some sub-committee which would have to make inquiries, and they would not know what it was all about. As this is the first Amendment of several which seem desirous of bringing insurance matters inside the purview of this scheme, I think I had better offer a word of warning. I do not see how the Insurance Commissioners at Buckingham Gate can help. They might want time to consider, and it might be an obstruction. The Mover of the Amendment never suggested that it would be a driving or a helping force. While I do think that insurance committees should be kept in touch with the matter in the way that is suggested later, I do warn the Committee not to give either insurance committees or Insurance Commissioners

  217
  power over this Bill. They are not qualified for it. I hope, therefore, that the Amendment will not be accepted.
  Mr. ALDEN: What the Mover of the Amendment wants could be secured in the Bill. I imagine that what he wants is that those people who are on insurance committees, or on midwives associations, or on education committees, should be consulted. That is secured in Sub-section (2) of Clause 2, where it says:
  "The council shall also appoint as members of the committee persons specially qualified by training or experience in subjects relating to health and maternity who are not members of the council."
  It seems to me that the President of the Local Government Board, when he is issuing his instructions, will point out that it is desirable to have one member of the education committee and a member of the insurance committee upon the committee. That would serve the purpose which the hon. Member has at heart.
  Mr. FISHER: I cannot possibly accept this Amendment, unless I accept it with the desire of making the Bill practically inoperative I cannot think of anything more calculated to hinder matters than that the local committees should submit their schemes to four different Departments of State. I have listened to a good many speeches of the hon. and gallant Member for Plymouth on the subject of the Ministry of Health, and I understood that his main argument was to get rid of too many Departments dealing with health matters. He is anxious to get rid of these Departments, who now, he thinks, mess and muddle things, and to get matters under one control, but he now proposes that no local authority shall ever be able to obtain sanction for any scheme even of the most limited character relating to the health and well-being of a mother and child unless it gets the sanction of the Local Government Board, then the Board of Education, then the Central Midwives Board, and then the National Insurance Commissioners. What an awful thing to contemplate, that all these hundreds of local authorities should have to submit their schemes to four different Departments! I wonder whether any one of these Departments have invited my hon. Friend to be their spokesman. I have never heard that the Central Midwives Board desire to intervene. I have a good understanding with the President of the Board of Education, who has no
  218
  desire whatever to interfere with this Bill, or to intervene in the operations of the Bill. I have not yet heard that the Insurance Commissioners want to have these powers. I cannot imagine that any possible good can come from an Amendment of this kind. It would put an immense amount of grit into the machine and would probably prevent the machine from working at all. I think the hon. Member is alone in desiring this, and I think I shall be acting consistently with the views of the House in refusing to accept the Amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  Major NEWMAN: I beg to move to leave out the words "and are not being educated in schools recognised by the Beard of Education."
  I put this Amendment down in order to find out what this provision really means. I suppose it is the result of a friendly collusion between the President of the Board of Education and the President of the Local Government Board. The President of the Board of Education knows that there are already doctors and inspectors going to the schools, and he does not want any more of these officials going in to disturb the course of instruction. Therefore, he has arranged with the President of the Local Government Board that the officials under the Maternity and Welfare Bill shall not go into these schools. It will be said that these schools have their kindergarten, and that everything is done for a child under five years that can be done there, and that it is not necessary for another inspector, male or female, to go in to disturb the admirable arrangements that are being carried out by the masters and mistresses. That may be so, but I do not quite understand how far the thing goes. Can an inspector, made or female, go into the child's home and inspect it there, and see whether it is properly cared for, and brought up, and that the parents are doing what they are required to do under this Bill; or is it a fact that if a child is being educated in a school recognised by the Board of Education that that child is immune for the first five years of its life from attending under this Bill?
  Mr. FISHER: I have a working arrangement with the President of the Board of Education, by which the local authority shall attend to the health of children who have not attained the age of five years and are not being educated in schools recognised

  219
  by the Board of Education. It is unwise to have two authorities attending to or having the power to attend to the health of the same children. I think this is a very good practical provision, and I hope my hon. Friend will not press his Amendment.
  Sir W. CHEYNE: I do not think it is a good arrangement. Under the Education Bill, Clause 19, it is provided that the local education authorities have power to attend to the health, nourishment, and physical welfare of children attending nursery schools. They are also empowered to aid the supply of nursery schools for children over two and under five years of age, whose attendance at such a school is necessary for their healthy, physical, and mental development. I cannot see, therefore, what children are left for the President of the Local Government Board. I think it is a monstrous arrangement. Of course it has been made and I suppose we cannot help it, but I think the President of the Local Government Board who is practically the trustee of the health of the community until the Ministry of Health is set up, has made a very bad arrangement. I should like to have children under five included in this Bill.
  Mr. FISHER: We have to have some kind of working arrangement. There may come a day when this House, in its wisdom, may say that there must be a Ministry of Health and that the whole of the medical inspection and treatment of children and other health matters must pass under the purview of one Minister of Health. Until that time comes it is absolutely necessary for the Local Government Board and the local authorities to have some working arrangements with the Board of Education and the Education authorities. We have made this working arrangement, that where the children are at nursery schools recognised by the Board of Education, whether they have attained the age of five years or not—they may be only two or three years of age—the doctors employed by the Education authorities will inspect them and provide for them. The President of the Board of Education might not have been a willing participator in this Bill unless he had secured immunity from interference with the health of the children concerned by the authorities other than the local education authorities. It may not be the very best possible arrangement and
  220
  method of supervising the health of the children, but unless and until the Government come to the conclusion that all children, of whatever age, whether at school or not, should be put, so far as their health is concerned, under one authority, it is obviously necessary that we should have a working arrangement between two Departments who are given supervision over children.
  6.0 P.M.
  Sir C. WARNER: Am I correct in thinking that the children who come under the Department of the right hon. Gentleman will be those who are not at school? The children under five who are at school are sent voluntarily by their parents, and there will not be so many of them. There is no compulsion about going to school for children under five years old, and therefore the vast majority of these children will not be under the education authority, but will be under the Local Government Board?
  Mr. ALDEN: We are making a great fuss over a comparatively small thing, because the Board of Education has, through the local education authorities, only a small number of these nursery schools, and we can fairly leave them to take care of the children in those schools. Where there are no nursery schools the children will come under the Local Government Board. In either case, whether they are under the Board of Education or the Local Government Board, it is perfectly certain that the children will be safeguarded.
  Sir H. HARRIS: The London County Council, which is largely interested in this matter, has expressed the opinion that any confusion between different authorities would be most undesirable, and suggests that the Government should consider whether the powers of the rival authorities should not be so arranged as to make such competition impossible. It has not made any definite suggestions as to how that should be done, but I may express the hope that my right hon. Friend will go into the matter before the Report stage, in order to see if there is any likelihood of undesirable competition.
  Amendment negatived.
  Major HILLS: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words "or authorise the transfer of any of the powers or duties of the supervising authority under the Midwives Act, 1902."

  221
  By Section 8 of the Act of 1903 the county council, which is the authority for supervising midwives, has power to delegate its duties to rural or urban district councils. In the consolidating Bill, which is now before another place, on Tuesday last the Section giving this power was repealed. If the Bill in another place as amended becomes law there will be no need for my Amendment, but until it becomes law the point is of great importance. Inspection of midwives is now, generally speaking, in the county council area. It is extremely important that it should be a large area, otherwise you cannot employ and pay a skilled inspector. Again, unless there is a large area, the skilled inspectors cannot keep their hands in by constant inspection. Again, if you have a, small authority as the inspecting authority, there is a great temptation to employ a part-time inspector, and employ a lady part-time as an inspector of midwives and part-time at other duties. That is extremely undesirable. Again, it would be very undesirable to have a different standard in different parts of the country, and in one part of the county have a highly-trained inspector inspecting midwives on a high standard and in another part of the county have a less well-trained and a less well-paid inspector inspecting them on a totally different standard. All my arguments are met if the present Bill now before another place becomes law, but it can do no harm to insert my Amendment. It will meet a very obvious evil, and I hope that my right hon Friend will accept it.
  Mr. FISHER: I think that the words suggested are entirely unnecessary. I do not think it a good thing to put into a Bill words which are unnecessary. My hon. Friend has referred to the danger of a county council desiring to transfer the powers of supervising midwives to some smaller authority in some smaller area. After all, if it did so, that must be part of a scheme which would have to come under the supervision and control of the Local Government Board. At all events, there is nothing in this Bill which authorises them to make any such transfer of powers or duties, and nothing to suggest that they should, or encourage them to, make use of such powers, if they have any. Therefore I cannot see that these words in any way add to the value of the Bill.
  222
  At the same time, I agree thoroughly with my hon. Friend that it would be most unwise to choose a small area.
  Major HILLS: I desire to right a misapprehension. The power conferred on county councils by Clause 9 of the Act of 1902 is an absolute power, and they can delegate without the consent of the Local Government Board. When the amending consolidating Midwives Bill was introduced the other day into the House of Lords, Clause 12 provided that the power was not to be exercised except with the consent of the Local Government Board, showing clearly that up to that time such consent was not required. In the result the other House refused to accept the Government Clause 12, and refused to allow the power of delegation even guarded in that way to stand. They struck Clause 12 out of the Bill, and in express terms repealed Clause 9 of the Act of 1902. The matter is of extreme urgency and the chances of legislation of this kind, especially of a small Bill, are not very bright. The words suggested do no harm, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept them, because at the very worst they express what we both want and I do see a great danger, if this Bill passes, of a state of affairs arising which he will deprecate as much as I do.
  Mr. FISHER: I will look into the matter between now and the Report stage, and if there is any such danger as my hon. Friend suggests, and that it can be safeguarded by some such words as these, I will consider whether or not we can insert them.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Sir W. MIDDLEBROOK: I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (2).
  It is necessary to leave out this Subsection in consequence of the first Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. BOOTH: It may be well to reassure the fears expressed by the hon. Member for the City of Durham with regard to the Amendment that was accepted. Most of us who supported that Amendment thought that it would lead to more being done than in any other way. We do not all wish to exercise the powers of destruction which sometimes masquerade

  223
  under the name of co-ordination. You have not gained anything when you say to one authority, "Leave this question alone until a certain time when something else is done." I know that some people are obsessed with the idea of a Ministry of Health, and a long series of questions are withheld because they think that we must not do anything until this is granted. But where we have these local government authorities, small authorities, taking part in and dealing with matters relating to health, I think that that is a matter to be rejoiced at. All that my hon. Friends are threatening to accomplish is destruction. They may prevent Bills for doing good, and try to take existing powers away, but whether some new set of bureaucratic officials in some idealistic form will replace the multifarious agencies now at work throughout the country is a matter which I think requires some proof, and the fact that different authorities now under this amended Clause will take their part in looking after child life will probably lead to fruitful experiments. It cannot be a good idea that the whole country should have uniform administration. Some hon. Members of this House are perpetually urging that the same thing should be done everywhere, and that the bigger the authority and the more uniform and the more monotonous is its administration the more successful it will he. That has not been so. We have a great deal to learn in local government, particularly in these matters relating to child life, and various authorities of different sizes are about to join in this work. Some will probably do a larger amount of work at less expense——[HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed!"]—I do not know that it is agreed—and if some authorities are able to show better results with comparatively smaller demands on the public purse it will have a stimulating effect on other authorities. Sometimes they are apt to think that spending a lot of money means a great deal, but that does not always follow. I would not like it to go forth that an Amendment which has been pressed for by the smaller authorities is going to have anything else but a very beneficial effect on the Bill.
  Major HILLS: The Clause as now amended delegates important duties connected with maternity and the care of
  224
  mother and child from the larger to the smaller authority. You wish provision made on the most modern and up-to-date lines for maternity cases, and the care of mother and child afterwards, and you propose to employ small rural district councils. When that is the case, I think it is an end of your Bill. When the country appreciates that fact, I think the measure will suffer from ridicule, and will do no good. I am, in a way, sorry, because I think perhaps the Bill might do more good than harm, but there are many flaws in it. I have not the least wish to speak of these authorities other than as being valuable, self-sacrificing, and patriotic in their work, but I do not think that small authorities are the proper bodies to have control of the important duties and matters dealt with by this measure.
  Mr. FISHER: My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Durham has shown bitter hostility to this Bill throughout its course, and I cannot allow what he has said to pass without some reply. The Bill has so far passed without a single Division in Committee, which is very well attended. My hon. Friend says this Bill is ridiculous, and can do no good, but I submit that with the new powers conferred, and the Grant to be given by the Treasury, will effect an infinite amount of good in the hands of the local authorities. When the hon. and gallant Gentleman describes the Bill as ridiculous he is covering Scotland with ridicule, for we have heard the Secretary for Scotland state that over two-thirds of Scotland there are large schemes in connection with maternity and with children's welfare, and very much useful work is being done for the good of the community. This has been called a shabby little Bill, but, as I said the other day, it will give to many a shabby little mother—shabby because she is too poor to clothe herself well—proper treatment both before and after confine-men which she will be uncommonly glad to have; and all this will be effected, under this measure, for the mothers of England, at a time when they are most in need of the assistance and attention which can be afforded under this Bill. I for my part believe that this measure, little as it is—it cannot be compared with a great Bill like that of the Ministry of Health—will do far more than most of the little Bills that are passed by this House, and will really touch the whole root of

  225
  social reform in this country, while the poor will get that benefit and attention of which they are so greatly in need.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  CLAUSE 2.—(Maternity and Child Welfare Committees.)
  (1) Every council in England and Wales exercising powers under this Act Or under Section two of the Notification of Births (Extension) Act, 1915, shall establish a maternity and child welfare committee, and all matters relating to the exercise of the powers of the council under this Act or under the Notification of Births (Extension) Act, 1915 (except the power of raising a rate or of borrowing money), shall stand referred to such committee, and the council, before exercising any such powers, shall, unless in their opinion the matter is urgent, receive and consider the report of the maternity and child welfare committee with respect to the matter in question, and the council may also delegate to the maternity and child welfare committee, with or without restrictions or conditions as they think fit, any of their powers under that Act or this Act, except the power of raising a rate or of borrowing money.
  (2) Not less than two-thirds of the members of every maternity and child welfare committee shall consist of members of the council, but the council shall also appoint as members of the committee persons specially qualified by training or experience in subjects relating to health and maternity who are not members of the council. Maternity and child welfare committees shall include women and members of the insurance committees concerned.
  (3) The committee established under this Section shall take the place of any committee appointed under Sub-section (2) of Section two of the Notification of Births (Extension) Act, 1915, and the provisions of that Sub-section relating to the exercise of powers by a committee shall cease to have effect.
  Major HILLS: On a point of Order, Sir. I have upon the Paper later a proviso to the Clause. It is a long Amendment, and I would rather move that than the one which stands earlier in my name. Therefore I do not move.
  Major NEWMAN: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "or under" ["Act or under Section two"], and to insert instead thereof the words "may direct those powers to be exercised in the manner provided by the second paragraph of Sub-section (2) of."
  The Clause, by the omission of these words, will read, "Every council in England and Wales exercising powers under this Act may direct those powers to be exercised in the manner," and so on. By this Amendment we want to have the powers under the Bill given to the district authorities, plainly, freely, and in a friendly way. We do not want to hamper
  226
  them at all; we simply give them the powers under the Act, and they then exercise those powers in accordance with the second paragraph of Sub-section (2) of the Notification of Births (Extension) Act of 1915. There is a further Amendment, which comes next, to leave out, from "1915" all the words to the end of the Clause; and one of the chief reasons why we are anxious that the Amendment, in the form I have suggested, should be carried is that we desire to get rid of the co-opted member. We do not want the principle of co-option if we can possibly help it. A member who is co-opted is one who does not face the electors or the turmoil of an election. He becomes a member of the authority under the principle of co-option, and is entitled to exercise the full powers of an elected member. As I said earlier this afternoon, I want to make the men who exercise these powers directly responsible to the electors, and I want the elector to be in a position to know who is responsible for any particular order that may be given or line of action that may be adopted. If you had a certain number of members co-opted, they would not be so responsible for their action as would be elected members, who have to satisfy the electors in regard to any course they may have taken. For that reason I strongly urge that in connection with this particular Sub-section the co-option of members should be omitted. If we give these powers to the rural district councils, the borough councils, and the urban district councils, then we should trust them to carry them out in what they consider to be the best way, subject to the approval of the Local Government Board.
  Major HILLS: May I ask whether it would be convenient to take a general discussion of this Amendment and that which I have on the Paper later on? There are several Amendments providing for different schemes whereby the local authorities may carry out the duties of this Act. May I suggest that it perhaps might save time if there was a single discussion of the whole matter raised by the various Members?
  The CHAIRMAN: I think this Amendment, and that which strikes out the words from "1915" to the end of the Clause, leaves it open for alternative methods to be proposed, and therefore they could be debated.
  Major HILLS: I think there ought to be a good deal of elasticity in connection with the powers that are to be exercised, and I agree that they should be left free to carry out the powers in the way they think proper; but I do not think that the Amendment which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has moved will exactly meet the object we have in view. I suggest that the larger authorities would be the proper bodies to carry out the provisions of this measure, and, in the case of the county council, I think the health and housing committee already established by the Act of 1909 should be the authority to carry out this Bill when it becomes an Act. As I have stated, I have an Amendment upon the Paper which provides that the public health and housing committee may co-opt members especially interested in the maternity question, and also at least one certified midwife, one member of the nursing association, and one member of the insurance committee concerned. The reason why I make that proposal is that, if we are to have fresh powers, it is not advisable to start a fresh special authority, because health administration in this country is already extremely elaborate. You have got the local sanitary authority, you have got the notification of births authority, and you have, in the case of the county council, the public health and housing committee. What I wish is to bring all those authorities and their powers under one roof. In the case if the county council, the obvious body to exercise these powers is the public health and housing committee, because it is the nucleus of all the health activities of the larger authority—namely, the county councils—and it is just for such cases as those with which this Bill deals that an authority of that kind should be set up. I think it is rather absurd to pass it by and to start a new kind of authority. The importance of the health and housing committee of the county council will, I believe, grow—I hope it will—and now is a very good chance for doing away with some of the confusion and multiplication of authorities which exist. What I would suggest to my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board is that he should transfer to the health and housing committee of the county council all the maternity powers under this Bill, and also, if he sees well, power under the Notification of Births (Extension) Act.
  Sir C. WARNER: May I again say something on behalf of the local authorities under this Bill? Both the previous speakers have claimed that they want to give the local authority greater freedom, and apparently it is thought that greater freedom will be given them by taking away one set of Orders and putting in another set of Orders. I do not think that is much freedom. What I think would really meet the case is not the freedom of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Amendment or the later Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Durham, but, as I suggest, the freedom which would follow from the word "shall" in the Clause being omitted and the word "may" substituted. In many cases a great advantage would be obtained by co-opting people, but It does not follow that making it necessary to co-opt people will give an advantage in carrying out the work. Surely the local authorities should judge for themselves whether or not there would be any great benefit in having people co-opted, and I think the simple method of giving freedom to the local authorities and encouraging them to do as much as possible is to give them the power to co-opt, but not to compel them to co-opt.
  Sir W. MIDDLEBROOK: The system of co-opting, which is one of quite modern growth with regard to the administration of public health measures, has certain advantages as well as serious disadvantages. The great disadvantages are that you have people taking part in certain sections of a public authority who have neither the responsibility nor the authority of a popular election. They are selected for a particular purpose and for that only; but a more serious disadvantage is that whilst they are members of a committee for one particular purpose, they have no seat on the body of which that committee forms part, and though their work may be done in committee, when it comes up for consideration by the superior authority they are not there either to defend or to support it. On the other hand, it is advisable to have the opportunity of occasionally bringing into particular committees certain individuals of special experience and knowledge, and whilst I came this afternoon with the object of opposing the principle of co-option, I think the suggestion made by the last speaker would cover the whole ground, by giving to the local authority the power to co-opt where they thought fit, but not to make it compulsory upon them.
  Sir H. HARRIS: I think we want to understand what is exactly the effect of this Amendment. As I read it, the authority is to exercise its powers in the manner provided by the second paragraph of Sub-section (2) of the Notification of Births Act of 1915. I have a copy of that Section here, and it says that
  "any such powers may be exercised in such manner as the authority directs by a committee or committees, which shall include women, and may comprise, if it is thought fit, persons who are not members of the authority."
  Therefore, the suggestion made by the last speaker, it seems to me, would be carried out by the Amendment, because there would be power to co-opt if it is desired. If that is the proposal, I am disposed to agree with it, and I do not understand why the President of the Local Government Board has proposed to constitute a Statutory Committee for the sole purpose of infant welfare. It is inconsistent with what the Local Government Board said in a circular which they issued in 1915 in regard to the Notification of Births (Extension) Act of that year, because in that Memorandum they say
  "The Board are anxious to insist on the importance of linking up this work with the other medical and sanitary services provided by local authorities under the Public Health and other Acts."
  If that is their desire, why propose to put infant welfare into a separate compartment? It seems to me to be inconsistent with their own policy, and the Amendment which is now proposed seems to me to carry out that policy, and I am therefore disposed to support it.
  Mr. RENDALL: I think it would be to the advantage of the Government in this matter if the existing committees were made use of, and I look forward to the possibility of there being no co-option with absolute dismay, because, in spite of the fact that we have millions of women who have now got the suffrage, it is still the fact that there are very few women on the local authorities throughout the country. Here we are dealing with a subject which is more peculiarly a women's subject than any other, and if there is no co-option it may be impossible to have one woman on a committee dealing with this matter. It seems to me, therefore, absurd if we are to pass this Bill and actually find the little rural district councils throughout the country debarred from having any woman at all on a committee dealing with child
  230
  welfare. That would seem to me to be the last word in absurdity, and I think that now the President of the Local Government Board has chosen to accept all these small bodies, the essential duty is thrown upon him of seeing that these small bodies are compelled to co-opt in order to get women on the committee. Personally, I hope the majority on these committees will be women.
  Mr. ALDEN: All I am anxious for the Committee to see is that if they accept this Amendment they are not going to get their maternity committees established. I have spoken against compulsion so far as this Bill is concerned because I thought the time was not quite ripe for it and because I think an experiment ought to be made by the local authorities themselves. But I am in favour of compulsion so far as the formation of maternity committees is concerned. When women get the vote I think they are going to take this question largely into their own hands, and I am not very much concerned whether the public health committee or the maternity committee is set up, as long as some committee is necessarily set up by this Act. I trust the President will see his way to resist the Amendment and to keep his words very much as they stand in Clause 2, because I am sure that if you get your compulsory maternity committees you are going to get an immense improvement in the health of this country. Give the women the vote, as you have done, and give them the chance of being co-opted on to these maternity committees, and you are going to see a great change, a perfect revolution, so far as the health of these little children is concerned. It is from that point of view that I look at it—the fresh interest that will be thrown into this question by the fact that women now have the vote. Although hon. Members may object to the principle of co-option, I hope they will allow it in this case, because there are a good number of people in each district who are competent to be on these committees, but who would never be elected on them and who yet have the special and the requisite knowledge for dealing with these questions. I have no fear whatever about the future if you will only get these maternity committees compulsorily established.
  Sir W. COLLINS: I do not wish to impede the progress of the Bill. I desire to support it, and I do not wish to see it sacrificed in the hope of securing another

  231
  and larger measure, which is apparently still in a problematical condition. However, I think the right hon. Gentleman might pay some attention to the Amendment before the Committee with a view to limiting the power of co-option. As one who served for fifteen years on the London County Council and was its chairman, I have watched with apprehension the growth of co-option in matters of local government. I remember that in 1902, when the Education Bill of that year was introduced by the present Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, he urged the hope that in making education a municipal function it would induce some persons who had not hitherto taken an interest in civic affairs to offer themselves at municipal elections. That result might have been achieved but for the fact that at the same time, by the process of co-option, something like a backdoor was opened, so that persons interested in education could get on to the local education committee without going through the process of election, and so the desire of the right hon. Gentleman was defeated. I am afraid the tendency in so many health matters at the present time to introduce compulsorily co-opted members on statutory committees does confuse local government and does not tend to strengthen the sense of local responsibility. Many of these members are elected rather because they are enthusiasts for a particular subject than interested in municipal matters as a whole; they are apt to initiate matters which may result in large expenditure, and they never have to give an account of their responsibility to the ratepayers, who find themselves playing a game of "hunt the slipper" when they wish to discover where the responsibility for the large expenditure rests. The principle of co-option has gone too far, and the Amendment will leave it permissive but not compulsory on the local authority. As one who believes in local government and in this Bill, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will limit this power and, if possible, remove the requirement for compulsory co-option.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: There are two or three points involved in this Amendment. In respect to the form of the Amendment itself, I think if my right hon. Friend had drafted his Bill as proposed by this Amendment we should have had indignant criticisms on the ground that the Government were again indulging in the vicious practice of legislation by reference, and
  232
  from all quarters of the House Members-would have risen and protested that really they ought not to say that powers shall be exercised "in the manner provided in Sub-section (2) of Clause 2 of the Notification of Births (Extension) Act, 1915," but that the Bill ought to set out on the face of it quite clearly what its purpose and what its machinery are. For that reason I think my right hon. Friend ought rather to be commended than discouraged in setting out in this Bill what authorities are to act, particularly since the work of these committees under this Bill will be far larger in scope than the work under the Notification of Births Act. You ought rather, if anything is done to repeal that Act, to bring it into this Bill than to treat this Bill as if it were a mere amendment of the Notification of Births Act.
  With regard to the substance of the Amendment there are two points involved, and the first is whether the local authorities are to be compelled to appoint a maternity and child welfare committee. I certainly think there ought to be a maternity and child welfare committee. What should be the relation of those committees to the existing health committees of the local authorities I am not quite so clear upon. It may be that we should inconvenience the local authorities if we insist upon their having another committee which has the same status as the existing health committee, and they might find it much more convenient to have one important health committee which should have as one of its main sub-committees a maternity and child welfare sub-committee, and I am not sure that this committee would be wise in making the machinery too rigid at the start. Would it not be better to allow the local authorities to feel their way and to adopt whatever methods they think may be most convenient for their purpose? At the same time, it may be that an indication should be put in the Bill that there ought to be a special committee or sub-committee dealing with maternity and child-welfare questions, leaving it open to the local authority to work them in with their existing machinery, and perhaps my right hon. Friend, if he favours that idea at all, will consider it between now and the Report stage.
  The other point that has been raised is whether there should be co-option, and, if so, whether it compulsory. Co-option is a comparatively new experiment

  233
  in our local government system. I believe in many cases it has worked well with regard to education, and that people have been brought in to share in the work of education whose assistance would not otherwise have been forthcoming, and who have rendered very useful service. On the other hand, as has been said, it has its dangers. One danger is that it may deter candidates from coming forward. They may be told by their friends on the council, "You need not trouble to stand because of your interest in education, or health, or whatever it may be. We will see that you are co-opted on to the committee," and so you may weaken the personnel of the local authorities for the bulk of the work they have to do. I confess I should like to see co-option tested a good deal more before being made compulsory. I should not like to stop it altogether. It seems a useful experiment, but the proposal of the Government seems to me to be going too far. I quite agree that these committees dealing with maternity and child welfare will certainly be ineffective unless they have women upon them, and perhaps the Local Government Board by circular might impress upon the local authorities, if they have the power of co-option, where they have not elected women members to serve on these special committees and sub-committees, that they should co-opt women, but it is far better that women should be elected as members of the council themselves for all purposes, and should serve on these particular sub-committees as one part of their function.
  Colonel W. THORNE: I myself have always set my face against co-option, but I think on this occasion I shall have to give way and support Sub-section (2) of Clause 2, because it does appear to me that, unless there is some form of co-option, it will mean that there will be no possibility of women being selected to sit on these committees at all. If there were a number of women elected to sit on these local bodies in different parts of the country, certainly I should vote against this particular co-option. The council I represent, fortunately, have one woman on it, but if you take all the local authorities in the country, I do not think you will find at the outside more than half a dozen where women sit on them, and as this Bill affects women and children, it seems to me women should be compulsorily co-opted, because it has been
  234
  my experience that there is a great deal of antipathy to women sitting on committees of any kind by some of the local authorities. Some of them seem to think they have all the brains in the world, and that women have no brains at all, but in my experience I have found that women have as much brains, and, in some cases, a great deal more than the men, and, therefore, I hope the President will stick to this particular principle for the time being, and make it compulsory for women to be co-opted on these maternity committees.
  Mr. G. THORNE: I think it ought to be made perfectly clear what our position is. If the effect of the Amendment before the Committee were to do away altogether with the power of co-opting members, I should be opposed to it, but I do not think that would be the effect of the Amendment. It only throws us back on the provisions of the Act of 1915, under which the appointment to the committee of persons who are not members of the council is optional, and, if I understand this discussion rightly, it is that the provision to co-opting members shall be optional, rather than compulsory, and that is the whole question. The Amendment before the Committee is one supported by the Association of Municipal Corporations, which represent a large proportion of the local authorities in the country. I understand from them that, while they quite accept the principle of authorising co-option where it is desired by the local authorities, they certainly object to it being compulsorily thrust upon them, and I trust the right hon. Gentleman will be prepared to meet us, at any rate, to some extent. I quite appreciate the point of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland (Mr. H. Samuel) that possibly it would he better in the Bill to indicate the kind of committee, but that is a matter of form and not of substance. The real matter of substance is whether co-opted members shall be compulsory or optional, and, as I strongly support the view of the local authorities that it should be optional rather than compulsory, I support the Amendment in the way suggested by my right hon. Friend so as to meet the objections raised.
  Major NEWMAN: On a point of Order. Would it not make matters rather more rapid if I were to withdraw my Amendment, which is to leave out the whole of

  235
  the Clause, after the first "1915"? What we are actually discussing, I think, is whether we shall have "may" or "shall" in Sub-section (2). Would it not be better for me to withdraw my Amendment, which I shall be pleased to do, and for the Committee to take the discussion on "may" or "shall"?
  The CHAIRMAN: I think that would bring the discussion more to a definite point. I was anxious to give an opportunity in the first instance to consider the various schemes. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will ask leave to withdraw?
  Major NEWMAN: I beg to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Sir C. WARNER: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the word "shall" ["the council shall also appoint"], and to insert instead thereof the word "may."
  I have said what I wish to say, and this Amendment is to bring up the question as to whether or not the local authorities shall be obliged to co-opt. Some of my hon. Friends think they ought to be obliged to co-opt, but I think in country places that would be very awkward. I think if they have the option in every case, they will co-opt women.
  Mr. J. W. WILSON: Would it not be possible to combine the two? In many local bodies where there are already suitable women members, it is unnecessary, but in other cases, where there are no women already represented on the council, then it might be a case of compulsory co-option. I think we are all agreed that anything that would tend to increase the representation of women on these local authorities would be all to the good from a health point of view, but where a council has been progressive enough to have suitable members within its own body, both male and female, for these committees, the need for co-option would disappear.
  Sir R. NEWMAN: May I point out that it is almost unnecessary to put in the word "shall"? Although county councils in our counties—I do not know about large cities such as London—have the power of co-opting women, I hardly know a case where they have done it. I think ladies now can serve on the district
  236
  councils, but I do not know of a single lady district councillor. Therefore, I think all this points to the fact that we ought to have some compulsion ma matter of this sort.
  Mr. FISHER: We have been discussing two points. We appear to have decided one. Whether we knew we had decided it or not, I am not sure, but my right hon. Friend opposite pointed out there were two questions we had to discuss and decide. The first was whether local authorities ought to be compelled to create these committees for carrying out the maternity and child-welfare policy. That question has been decided, and we have got by that point. It might have been possible to have followed the Scottish measure, and to have left it perfectly optional to the local authority whether or not to appoint a committee. The Scottish system is that the local authorities are not obliged to appoint any committee to carry out these duties, but, if they do appoint a committee, then they must co-opt women on that committee. It is a case of "shall." We have decided as to that part of the Clause which compels local authorities to appoint a committee to carry out these duties. What we are now discussing is whether or not the local authority, in appointing a committee, shall or shall not co-opt women and others who are not members of the authority on that committee to carry out these duties.
  The policy of the Local Government Board as regards these committees generally is laid down in the Local Government Board booklet, entitled "Maternity and Child Welfare," and there we commend to the authorities the desirability of appointing a separate committee to carry out these duties, and that this committee should contain a majority of direct representatives of the local authority. We say that to meet the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Sir W. Collins), who lays it down very strongly—and I entirely agree with him—so that the elected members should have control over all expenditure, and, unless you have a strong majority on these bodies to carry out the maternity and child-welfare policy, you are not assured that the electors control their own policy and the expenditure of their own rates. Then we go on to say it should contain adequate representation of working women, and we point out how to obtain

  237
  working women on these committees. I am no opponent of a reasonable system of co-option on one or two committees—certainly on the education committee—and I am now a very warm advocate, indeed, of a certain reasonable amount of co-option, especially of women, on the public health committees of our local authorities.
  7.0 P.M.
  I admit there is a danger that if you have a very large process of co-option people will say, "I think I am pretty sure to be co-opted, and, there fore, I will not face an election." There is real danger of that. But, on the other hand, you have to remember that many of the most devoted women I have met recently in connection with this work never will face all the turmoil and unpleasantness of an election, and, therefore, you will not obtain their services to the fullest extent. They may work as volunteers on a committee, but you will not obtain their services to the fullest extent unless local authorities have power to co-opt them for public health purposes, and there never were duties more peculiarly suited for women than those dealt with under this Bill. Take, for instance, the power to set up homes in which unmarried women and their children can be kept together. If you are to have any success for a policy of that kind you must have women to carry it out. I need not go through the whole string of powers to show that unless you have women on your committees who are by nature and experience accustomed to deal with the work you cannot hope to be successful. Then comes me question, Shall it be "shall" or "may"? Are you to leave it to the option of the local authorities whether or not they shall appoint women on these committees? It must be borne in mind that the great majority of these authorities have refused to appoint these committees at all, and I am afraid that one of the reasons which induced them not to appoint the committees was that if they did so they would be bound to put women upon them. There is a disinclination at the present time to make full use of the feminine quality in local government. I thnk that feeling is likely to disappear after the next election, as women will have something to say upon it in all probability.
  But I have come to the conclusion that on the whole it will be better for the Government to adhere to their Bill. If
  238
  these powers are to be enforced it is necessary that local authorities shall appoint committees to carry them out. On those committees the local authority will be represented to the extent of two-thirds, while women and others specially qualified for this work will constitute the remaining third. I think that is a plan well worth trying. I do not think any of these policies we are discussing now are likely to be of a very permanent nature. I hope the day will come when this House will establish a Ministry of Health and when it will consider the whole of its health policy. By that time we shall have obtained a good deal of experience as to how these powers have been working, how they have operated, and whether co-option has turned out to be as successful as I think it will prove or as lamentable a failure as the hon. Member for Derby seems to fear it may be. We shall have gained a great deal of experience which will be of value when Parliament comes to reconsider the whole question; and, guided by that experience, Parliament will be able to frame an Act which will deal suitably with the whole question of the public health of the country. I must adhere to the Bill as it stands. So far as I can gather the opinion of this Committee, I think that in doing so I am probably adopting the views of the majority. I certainly prefer the scheme of the Bill to that embodied in the Amendment of the hon. Member for the City of Durham, which only applies to county councils, the sole bodies compelled by Statute to set up public health committees. Quite clearly that Amendment would not cover the ground at all.
  Major HILLS: It is not meant to do so.
  Mr. FISHER: The Amendment applies to county councils only. We have to deal with all the local authorities which are intended to use the powers conferred by this Bill. I hope they will use them, and I suggest that the machinery set up must be adequate to enable them all to do so.
  The CHAIRMAN: That is really a separate point. We will take it separately.
  Sir J. BUTCHER: Then are we to understand that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Durham will be considered later?
  The CHAIRMAN: Yes. The issue now before the Committee is "shall" or "may."
  Sir J. BUTCHER: I was going to say a word about "shall" or "may." I am glad my right hon. Friend has decided to adhere to the words of the Bill. I think we are all agreed that the principle of co-option is an exceedingly valuable one in connection with these local authorities. There are large numbers of persons with expert knowledge, on matters such as education and maternity who, for one reason or another, do not care to go upon local authorities. It may be that they are not specially fitted to fulfil all the duties cast upon them as members of a local authority. But they are eminently fitted to help local authorities on certain special matters on which they are experts. I believe that state of things will go on permanently, notwithstanding the addidition of women to the election lists. It seems reasonable to my mind that women with special knowledge and special qualifications should be called in to help the members of local authorities on matters on which they are specially qualified. Therefore, I regard the principle of co-option as most valuable. No doubt my right hon. Friend has good reason for holding that the co-option principle should be made compulsory, but, as he said, there are many cases where the local authorities will not bring in these people from outside.
  Mr. FISHER: In the great majority of cases.
  Sir J. BUTCHER: Then the principle of co-option is desirable I am glad, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman sticks to the word "shall" as against "may," and that he is going to adhere to the words of the Bill and to insist that women who are specially qualified to deal with these particular subjects shall be brought in to assist the committees.
  Sir C. WARNER: In view of the expression of opinion by the President of the Local Government Board, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Mr. H. SAMUEL: Before that is done, I should like to say a few words——
  The CHAIRMAN: If leave be asked to withdraw, I must put the question.
  Leave to withdraw refused.
  Mr. SAMUEL: There is one point I wish to suggest for the consideration of the Committee. It is one thing to say that women must be on these committees.
  240
  There are very strong arguments in favour of that. But it is another thing to say there must be co-option in all cases. Supposing there are a number of women already on the council. They may be willing to serve on the committee and yet it will still be compulsory to co-opt women from outside. My hon. Friend must remember we are now legislating for a series of years, and it is not therefore sufficient to suggest that there are very few councils at the present time on which women have been elected. This Bill may be in operation for ten or fifteen years. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Worcestershire (Mr. J. W. Wilson) threw out a suggestion which I think deserves more consideration. If the word "may" were inserted here, and if the latter part of the Sub-section were to remain as it stands, his idea would be carried into effect. You would then have a Clause which would read, "The council may also appoint as members of the committee persons specially qualified by training or experience who are not members of the council, and the maternity and child welfare committees shall include women members." You would therefore make it compulsory on the local authorities to have women on their committees, and if they were not able to put on women from among their own members they would be obliged to co-opt. That is really what a good many of us desire, and I would suggest to the President of the Local Government Board whether that is not the best course to pursue. A good many members of the Committee do not wish to compel local authorities to co-opt where they have among their own members suitable women quite willing to serve on these committees. With respect to the other point, we passed the word "shall" earlier in the Clause because of the somewhat sudden withdrawal without much consideration of the Amendment then before the Committee, but when we come to the Report stage perhaps my right hon. Friend will be willing to consider the desirability of inserting words compelling the local authorities to establish these committees.
  Mr. ROWNTREE: I hope the President will carefully consider the suggestion. We are all agreed that in the present position it is very important indeed there shall not be any jarring notes on this question. I have had a communication from the York Council, in which they say they prefer the

  241
  Amendment suggested by my right hon. Friend, and I hope the President will carefully consider it before the Report stage.
  Mr. MORRELL: I too would like to support the suggestion. I have had the same sort of communication from the Burnley Council, which is moat interested in matters of this kind. They strongly feel it may be unnecessary to co-opt members if they have women members on the council. I think we should be going too far in declaring that whatever may be the composition of a council in every case women must be co-opted from outside to serve on these committees.
  Mr. FISHER: I have given most careful consideration to the suggestion, but I would remind my right hon. Friend there are still a good many of these authorities that have not properly constituted public health committees. They have some kind of sanitary committees, and that is all. However, that is a matter we will look into between now and the Report stage. I cannot think there is much in the suggestion as regards "may" and "shall." After all, the proposal is that the council shall be compelled to appoint a certain number of persons, specially qualified by training and experience, on committees dealing with health and maternity, and if they already have women upon their boards they can be put on these committees. The great thing is that the council will be obliged where they have no women members to co-opt women on these committees.
  Mr. SAMUEL: Suppose it is so. Very well.
  Mr. FISHER: Supposing there are women already on the council whom the council could appoint and put upon the committee; then the matter will be in accordance with the Act of Parliament, which says that qualified women shall be so appointed.
  Mr. SAMUEL: I have not made myself clear, I think. Supposing there are such women, then the Bill nevertheless would compel the authority to co-opt other outsiders. Am I right in understanding that?
  Colonel THORNE: They will have to be elected.
  Mr. FISHER: It is quite easy. With these qualified women on the council the council can place them upon the committee.
  242
  Undoubtedly the Bill empowers the council to appoint as members of the committee other persons not on the council specially qualified by training, and so on, for these peculiar duties. There are citizens whom it might be very desirable indeed to have upon these committees, whom up to the present the local authorities have not shown any desire to appoint on these committees. They have not shown themselves very desirous of availing themselves of the great experience and zeal of persons who are particularly qualified for this class of work, but who, for one reason or other, which perhaps we all understand, have not cared to face an election. They will possibly be less likely to face an election in the future with the largely increased duties put upon local authorities.
  Mr. BOOTH: I am sorry to hear what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman—and I think many Members will agree with me—because we have not hitherto in this country had compulsion to co-opt men on bodies dealing with such questions as maternity questions. The position will be that, supposing there are a number of women and you are obliged to co-opt some men, you will give as a reason for doing so that they are specially qualified in maternity and child welfare; the result will be that you will compel the local authority to co-opt people that it does not want to co-opt, or, after it has got the leading men and the leading women of the district who are really very diligent in these matters you will still compel the local authority, whether they like it or not, to go outside and find somebody else to put upon the committee. Representations have been made to me on this subject, and I feel sure that if it were optional it would be better. I quite understand my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham. We shall certainly get women on. I think the electorate will see to that. There is a case for making it compulsory that there shall be some women on a committee of this kind; but I cannot but think that the working will be very unfortunate of a Clause which compels you to go outside and elect some men. Can you say that any man is specially qualified to put on a committee because of his special experience? You can say that about every married man. There is nothing in the work that tells against that suggestion. It is quite clear that you are selecting certain women. We know exactly what the

  243
  paragraph means in relation to them, and it will be loyally observed. These women will be most welcome. If the authority had to co-opt women we all know some women who would be put on the committee, but if it has to co-opt men, where would it find them? I support the middle suggestion put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cleveland.
  Sir W. MIDDLEBROOK: We have heard what the President of the Local Government Board has said and also the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cleveland. I am sure the suggestion will receive the support of municipal corporations, urban district councils, and others, that the word "shall," in the second line of the Subsection, shall be altered into "may," and that "shall," in the penultimate line of the Sub-section, shall be retained. The effect of that will be that there must be women upon these committees, and that if there are women members of the council appointed to the committee it is then not essential to select other women from outside to add to the body.
  Mr. FISHER: I do not know about the words making it obligatory on the council to appoint as members of the committee persons specially qualified by training unless the Local Government Board is satisfied that the committee already has appointed persons specially qualified to do this kind of work. I will consider the position from that point of view between now and the Report Stage. I believe that, after all, we all want the same thing. We want to be absolutely satisfied that this committee will appoint persons specially qualified to carry out this very work. You do not want to make that obligatory if the council will do it of its own accord.
  Mr. SAMUEL: I am glad the right hon. Gentleman is going to consider the matter again. It would be throwing a very invidious duty upon the Local Government Board to go into the qualifications of members of a committee of this kind. I rather suspect the local authorities would not like it that someone in Whitehall should have the power to say that Mr. So-and-so is specially qualified for co-optation, and also that the local authority must co-opt somebody from outside. Perhaps he will confine his reconsideration to requiring them to appoint women in all cases, and will make the
  244
  co-option at the discretion of the local authorities. However, the matter cam well be left over until the Report stage.
  Amendment negatived.
  The following Amendment stood on the Paper in the name of Major HILLS: In Sub-section. (2) to leave out the words "and members of the insurance committees concerned."
  Major HILLS: I do not intend to move this Amendment.
  Mr. BOOTH: I think the Amendment should be moved, and I desire to move it unless the hon. and gallant Member is prepared to do so himself. Insurance committees are county committees, and when you say "the insurance committees concerned," what is the insurance committee for a given urban district or even a given borough? In London the case is different to the country. Take the West Riding of Yorkshire. I represent Pontefract, and included in my Constituency is the urban district of Knottingley. The latter would be the authority under this Bill. The insurance committee for the West Riding sits at Wakefield. It includes our district. I submit that you could not elect members of the county committees to these smaller authorities.
  Mr. FISHER: I am prepared to accept the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Sir J. SPEAR: I beg to move, in Subsection (2), after the word "committees" ["the insurance committees concerned"], to insert the words "and public assistance authorities."
  I do this because it is the fact that Poor Law authorities, in the fulfilment of the duties as guardians of the poor, have the care of and the providing for many women and children such as this Bill is intended to benefit. That being so, it is appropriate and necessary, as proposed by the Amendment, that these bodies should be represented on the committee of management. The fact that guardians are directly intended for the care of the poor altogether, and the experience and personal knowledge of the feelings and wishes of the poor of the members, in my opinion, specially qualifies such men and women for work on these committees. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to accept the Amendment. I need hardly say that Poor Law guardians have, especially of recent years, shown

  245
  great solicitude for the welfare of the children. Yesterday the right hon. Gentleman gave figures to the House which showed that a very large number of children have been put into cottage homes and boarded out by Poor Law authorities. The progressive spirit shown by these bodies in recent years in their care of the children and their knowledge of the poorest women and children who have to be dealt with under this Bill eminently qualifies them for the work. It may be said that boards of guardians as bodies are quite separate from the council that will administer the Bill. I still, however, think it is necessary that on the committee elected by the council representatives of the Poor Law authorities should be able to deal closely with matters connected with the children designed to be benefited by this Bill. It is most important that their help and their opinion should be forthcoming in any of the decisions of the committee. By the acceptance of the Amendment I believe the right hon. Gentleman will secure a better provision and more suitable treatment for the very poorest mothers and children whom he, and we all, wish to benefit.
  Mr. FISHER: The last Amendment struck out the words "and members of the insurance committees concerned"; therefore, they must put women on these committees and women only. Now, my hon. Friend, who is always the champion of Poor Law authorities and Poor Law guardians, seeks to put on representatives of the Poor Law authorities. I think that would be a mistake, just as it would be a mistake to accept the next Amendment, which would compel them to put on a certified midwife and a representative of the district nursing association. I think we should leave them full scope in regard to this matter, and I am afraid the local authority would rather resent this proposal. I do not propose to accept any Amendment which compels the authority to put any representative on these committees except with regard to sex.
  Sir J. AINSWORTH: I wish to say a word in support of what has been said by the hon. Member for Tavistock, who has paid a great deal of attention to what has been done by local authorities, and who has had enough experience to induce the House to pay serious attention to his suggestion. By far the best authorities
  246
  for dealing with these cases are the Poor Law authorities, and no public authority throughout the country has done so much as boards of guardians to provide for these very cases. I can speak with regard to boards of guardians in my own district. I dare say that the House is aware that all boards are considerably alarmed at the proposal from another quarter to scrap the boards of guardians and throw the whole of their work——
  The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that is not in order upon this Amendment.
  Sir J. SPEAR: I am extremely sorry the right hon. Gentleman cannot accept my Amendment. The Poor Law authorities already have charge of a very large number of child cases, and by this Bill you are really dispossessing them of the work they have hitherto done. I am quite willing that they should co-operate with the local authorities, and help them by giving them the benefit of their experience, which is absolutely necessary in order to secure successful administration of the Bill. With great reluctance, I feel so strongly on this question that I shall have to divide the Committee on it.
  Mr. BOOTH: I hope my hon. Friend will not do that. I have never given a vote against the guardians, and I want to join with him in making an appeal on their behalf. This Amendment was put down to a rather different Bill to what it is now. The smaller authorities have now been admitted under the Bill, and if the county had been retained as the area, and if the members of insurance committees had been left in, there was a case also for putting some guardians on these committees, but now every urban district is a separate authority. Take my own union of Pontefract, for example, where I sat on the guardians for many years. In that union there may be twenty or thirty authorities dealing with these cases. If a district council, in setting up a certain committee, must co-opt some guardians, what is the answer if the authority says, "You co-opt some of our members on the committee dealing with the workhouse"? Seeing that all the local authorities are brought in, you cannot expect that all the district councils should co-opt guardians on these committees, and this Amendment, I am sure, will not lead to pleasant relations. If the Amendment

  247
  had been in a certain form I would have supported it, but I appeal to my hon. Friend, owing to the alteration which has created a larger number of authorities, not to press this Amendment.
  Sir J. SPEAR: The hon. Member who has just sat down has used an argument which holds good in regard to a rural district, but not in the case of an urban district, because there the council and the board of guardians are two separate bodies. Therefore, unless a member of the board of guardians has representation on the committee, the work will be taken away from that body which they have hitherto performed to the great benefit of the poorer classes of the community. I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is inclined to consider the matter on Report, and see if he cannot meet the case of guardians having representation in the case of the larger areas. I admit that the rural district is met by the alteration made in the Bill, but that does not touch the position of guardians in the larger towns. Further, the council will have none of the experience which the guardians will have gathered after doing this work for years. Unless my Amendment is accepted, the council will be deprived of the valuable experience of those who have been doing this class of work, which is essential and necessary for the proper carrying out of this measure. Would the right hon. Gentleman keep his mind open on this point until the Report stage?
  Sir J. AINSWORTH: If the right hon. Gentleman would only undertake to take this into consideration on Report that might meet the difficulty. He might allow the committee to add to their number, and so far as the drafting is concerned, this could be easily done. The Clause reads, "Maternity and child-welfare committees shall include women and members of the insurance committees concerned." Now, if you are going to include the members of the insurance committees——
  The CHAIRMAN: We have already decided that point, and we have left out of the Clause the words "and members of the insurance committees concerned."
  Mr. H. SAMUEL: As my hon. Friend says he is going to press this Amendment to a Division. I should like to raise a point of Order. He proposes to add the
  248
  words "and public assistance authorities." There is no definition he has put down as to what public assistance authorities means. It is not a term of art. I would like to ask does it include the education authorities which provide free meals for children, the old age pension committees which have a share in distributing pensions, and, if not, why not? My hon. Friend spoke as though it included boards of guardians. If so, he ought to have used the term boards of guardians. I do not think the Committee can be reasonably asked to vote upon an Amendment the meaning of which has not been defined.
  The CHAIRMAN: I think the right hon. Gentleman has taken up a sound point, which I confess had escaped my notice. This term is at present quite hypothetical, and I should like to ask the hon. Member if he can refer me to any Statute which defines public assistance authorities?
  Sir J. SPEAR: The Poor Law Authorities Association have decided that in future boards of guardians shall be called public assistance authorities.
  The CHAIRMAN: When that body becomes the House of Commons the hon. Member will be in order, but at present I am afraid the objection is fatal.
  Major HILLS: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2), to insert the words "and also a certified midwife and a representative of the district nursing association."
  I gather from what my right hon. Friend has already said that he cannot see his way to accept this Amendment. This measure has been substantially changed in Committee by the inclusion of the smaller local authorities, and I would like to ask if he does not think the smaller authorities would be greatly assisted if they had added to them a certified midwife and a representative of the district nursing association. I am afraid these committees will be deficient in personnel and in persons with special experience of maternity work, and for these reasons I think it is extremely important that they should be strengthened. The case might not be so strong where you are dealing with a county council or a larger authority, but where you are dealing with small local authorities I think it is important that they should be

  249
  strengthened, and I hope my right hon. Friend will change his mind and accept my Amendment.
  Mr. FISHER: I do not desire to bind the councils more than I can possibly help, and I think the only obligation that ought to be put upon them is to place some women on these committees. I do not think that they can be bound to put a certified midwife upon the committee, although if there were one likely to give good advice and who could attend and be a source of strength to the committee, I think very likely the council would co-opt her. It is the same with regard to representatives of district nursing associations, though that, again, is not exactly a term of art. There may not be a district nursing association. I do not think it would be wise to tell the council to choose certain numbers of district nursing associations. It would be better to leave those who make their name in connection with district nursing associations, and who show a great deal of tact and zeal, to find their way, as they probably would do, on to these committees. I should not like to make it an obligation upon the council to put them on the committee.
  Amendment negatived.
  Major HILLS: I beg to move, after Subsection (3), to insert,
  "(4) Provided that, notwithstanding anything contained in this Section, any county council to which this Act applies may, in lieu of establishing a maternity and child welfare committee, resolve that the public health and housing committee of the county council shall act in relation to the powers of the county council under this Act or under Section two of the Notification of Births (Extension) Act, 1915, and in such case the county council shall appoint as members of the public health and housing committee persons (not being members of the county council, and including at least one certified midwife, and one member of a nursing association, and one member of the insurance committee concerned) specially qualified as aforesaid, and the provisions of this Section shall apply as if the committee so constituted were a maternity and child welfare committee established under this Section."
  This proviso gives the county council the option of performing the duties under the present Bill by means of the health and housing committee which at present exists. All county councils are compelled to establish a health and housing committee. That obligation was laid upon them by the Housing and Town Planning Act, 1909, and since the committee is in existence there is a strong case for giving the county council the option of doing this maternity
  250
  work by means of such committee. I agree that for this purpose the committee should be strengthened, because under the Act of 1909 it is a committee of the county council and nothing more, and I suggest that there should be added to it co-opted members, including at least one certified midwife, one member of the district nursing association, and one member of the insurance committee. I take it, in view of what my right hon. Friend said on the last Amendment, that he cannot accept these words, but it would meet my case equally well if general co-option were allowed. At the same time, my Amendment suggests that the powers of the Notification of Births Act should also be transferred to this committee. I appeal to the Committee to support this Amendment. We have these committees existing, and if the county councils wish to carry out the present Bill by means of these committees my Amendment gives them power to do so. If they do not, they need not. If they wish to transfer the duties of the Notification of Births Act to these committees they can do so; and if they do not, they need not. If they do, the committee ought to be strengthened by co-opted members. I may perhaps say that this Amendment was sent to me on behalf of one of our important counties, and I am told that it represents the view of a large number of members of county councils.
  Mr. FISHER: There is a good deal of weighty argument that might be used, at all events, for the substantial portion of this Amendment. My hon. and gallant Friend heard me just now say that I would consider between now and the Report stage the question of the machinery for carrying out these duties, and particularly the question of forming a sub-committee. If my hon. and gallant Friend will allow me, I will also consider his Amendment at the same time. It may be possible that I may be able to draft some considered Amendment which will set up machinery rather better than that in the Act which applies to Scotland and Ireland. I will consider this Amendment carefully when considering the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Cleveland Division (Mr. H. Samuel).
  Sir J. BUTCHER: The Amendment only deals with county councils. I think it should also apply to councils of county

  251
  boroughs. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will also consider it in relation to councils of county boroughs.
  Mr. FISHER: As my hon. and learned Friend knows, there is no statutory obligation upon the councils of county boroughs, whereas there is upon county councils. That may create a difficulty, but I will look into the whole question between now and the Report stage.
  Mr. BOOTH: I hope, in doing so, my right hon. Friend will pay considerable attention to that part of the Amendment referring to insurance committees. The county authority, I think, is the suitable place for members of these committees to serve, and I would like to ask for more than one member. There is a neglected provision in the Insurance Act which enables the funds of approved societies to be specially invested in housing for the members. If members of insurance committees are coupled up to the housing committee of the county council, they may be the means of suggesting the investment of insurance funds in some housing schemes, and thus making available a larger amount of money which is at present invested in London and is not used for the purpose designed by the Act. I hope my right hon. Friend will, if possible, strengthen the connection of the insurance committees with this proposal.
  Major HILLS: I thank my right hon. Friend for what he has said, and, in view of his assurance, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Sir C. HOBHOUSE: I notice that in the Bill as at present drawn, and from what I have heard of the discussion, that great care has been taken to include women upon these maternity and child welfare committees. Is there any provision anywhere in the Bill which makes it compulsory to have men upon them, because I think my right hon. Friend has rather forgotten the present electoral position? I am not at all sure that there will not be a majority of women voters on the next register.
  Mr. BOOTH: There is a majority in many places now.
  Sir C. HOBHOUSE: You mistrust the men to put women upon these committees. Why should you trust women to put men upon them? Are you going to argue that it is not necessary to have men upon maternity and child welfare committees? I can understand that line of argument, but if you do not say that, surely your Bill must have words providing that both men and women shall be members of the committee? If you look at the Bill, you will see that it says, "The maternity and child welfare committees shall include women." If you alter those words and say "shall consist of both men and women," you will provide against this contingency, which is by no means so remote as the present House of Commons seems to consider. I understand that women propose to stand for this House. I am not sure that they are not legally qualified to do so, and it may be that at no distant date my right hon. Friend will be supplanted by a lady as President of the Local Government Board. The question may then arise whether she will be disposed to put men upon these committees in the same accommodating way as my right hon. Friend proposes to compel men to put women upon them. Therefore, with a view of having perfect equality between the sexes which the women have always advocated, I shall upon the Report stage move some such words which I hope my right hon. Friend will be able to accept.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  CLAUSE 3.—(Expenses.)
  The expenses of any council in England and Wales under this Act shall be defrayed in the same manner as expenses under the Notification of Births Acts, 1907 and 1915:
  Provided that a county council may, if they think fit, charge all expenses under this Act or those Acts as general county expenses subject to the condition that if any district council within the county has provided for its district a similar service to that provided by the county council for other parts of the county, the county council shall pay to the district council the amount raised by them in the district in respect of such service.
  Mr. FISHER: I beg to move, after "1915," to insert the words, "and the purposes of this Act shall be purposes for which a sanitary authority in London may borrow under Sub-section (2) of Section one hundred and five of the Public Health (London) Act, 1891."
  This Amendment is moved in order that the sanitary authorities in London may

  253
  have the power of borrowing with the sanction of the Local Government Board.
  Amendment agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN: Is the next Amendment—[to leave out the proviso]—consequential?
  Sir W. MIDDLEBROOK: May I just say that it was put down because these words appeared to raise unnecessary complications and may not unlikely lead to disputes as to what is meant by "similar service." The safe course would be to rely upon the words of the Acts of 1907 and 1915. I think something may be said for regarding the Amendment as consequential upon the alteration made, but I am quite prepared not to move it now, relying upon the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman, which I am sure he will give me, that he will consider whether it should be dealt with as a consequential Amendment upon the Report stage. May I also express my thanks to the right hon. Gentleman for the readiness which he has shown to meet every reasonable Amendment for securing the better working of this Act?
  Mr. FISHER: The object was to legalise a certain procedure that had been adopted in a few localities and for which there was not proper legal sanction.
  Mr. BOOTH: On a point of Order. What is there before the Committee?
  Sir W. MIDDLEBROOK: I beg formally to leave out the words,
  "Provided that a county council may, if they think fit, charge all expenses under this Act or those Acts as general county expenses subject to the condition that if any district council within the county has provided for its district a similar service to that provided by the county council for other parts of the county, the county council shall pay to the district council the amount raised by them in the district in respect of such service."
  Mr. FISHER: I am not sure that the Amendment will be necessary now that we have made certain alterations in the Bill, but I will look into it and see whether it is necessary.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. FISHER: I beg to move to leave out the word "them" ["raised by them in the district of such service"], and to insert instead thereof the words "the county council."
  Question, "That the word 'them' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  Question proposed, "That the words 'the county council' be there inserted."
  Major HILLS: It is quite clear, if we pass these words, that the county council cannot be compelled to pay to the district council more than such proportion of the general rate as is raised in that district. As the Clause was drawn, it looked as though the district council could spend what it liked and call upon the county council to refund it the money. I was quite sure that was not the intention, and so I put down an Amendment to make it clear that what the county council could be compelled to pay to the district council was the proportion of the general rate which was attributable to that district.
  Mr. FISHER: My hon. and gallant Friend may rely upon it that that is so.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 4 (Amendment of s. 3 of 5 and 6 Geo. 5, c. 64) and 5 (Short Title and Application) ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  8.0 P.M.
  The CHAIRMAN: The new Clause (Transfer of Duties to Minister of Public Health) standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Durham (Major Hills) is not in order.
  Major HILLS: On a point of Order. I do not venture to dispute your ruling, Mr. Whitley, but may I respectfully point out that we have increased the health activities of the Local Government Board to a very great extent, and would it not be in order to suggest that, if the House sees fit to grant those powers, they should be transferred to a new Minister, if and when appointed, of Public Health?
  Mr. BOOTH: On the point of Order. I submit that this will be legislation in advance, and that it will be practically an attempt to govern the House in regard to subsequent legislation; also that it would practically be a direction to this House as to how it should frame a subsequent Bill. I submit we cannot do that.
  The CHAIRMAN: It might also be a direction to another House too. It is what we call an "if and when" suggestion. Certainly I cannot entertain that.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Thursday.

FLAX COMPANIES (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
[Sir DONALD MACLEAN, Deputy-Chairman, in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Power for Companies, etc., to give Financial Assistance to Flax Companies and to Borrow for that Purpose.)
Any company, association, or body of persons, notwithstanding anything contained in any Act, Order, or instrument by or under which it is constituted or regulated, shall have power—

(i) during the continuance of the present War, and a period of twelve months thereafter—

(a) To subscribe for, take, purchase, or otherwise acquire, hold, sell, and dispose of shares, stock, or other securities of any limited liability company formed or to be formed, and having for its principal object the cultivation of flax or the provision of supplies thereof, or the promotion of such cultivation or provision:

(b) to lend money to any such company:

(c) to guarantee, or join with others in guaranteeing, any debts, obligations, or liabilities, present or future of any such company:

(d) to give financial assistance in any other form to any such company:

(e) to apply any of their funds or to borrow for the purpose of any such acquisition of shares, stock, or other securities, loan of money, guarantee, or financial assistance as aforesaid; and

(ii) after the expiration of the said period of twelve months to hold, sell, or dispose of any such shares, stock, or other securities, and continue or renew any such loan, guarantee, or other financial assistance, or any such borrowing as aforesaid.

Mr. SHERWELL: I beg to move, after the word "persons" ["Any company, association, or body of persons"], to insert the words "carrying on a bank or other institution which has for its principal object the lending of money."
I move this Amendment on behalf and at the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Holt). It is simply intended to make a little more precise and definite a phrase in the Clause which, at present, is extremely vague. The Clause says
"or body of persons"
It is assumed that the intention of the Government is only to sanction the operation in the case of such responsible bodies as I have mentioned, and I move the Amendment in order to make the definition a little more precise.
The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): I hope that my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Sherwell)
256
will not press this Amendment. The effect of it will be very narrowly to restrict the area from which we can hope to derive financial assistance. What we are anxious to do is to open as wide as possible the gates of financial assistance. If my hon. and learned Friend has doubts as to the Bill being too wide, or as to the interests of shareholders being placed in jeopardy by any operations under this Bill, I hope that, as a result of Amendments which I am prepared to accept later on, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Holt)—I am prepared to accept them in substance—those doubts may be removed, but I am afraid I cannot see my way to accept the Amendment he has moved.
Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS: Might we not know what particular Amendments the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to accept? As I understand it, the contingent guarantee that we are going to give is to be given through the agency of institutions of some character other than that of a bank or that of an institution which has for its principal object the lending of money. I should have thought that those words were wide enough. I do not know what kind of institutions the Financial Secretary has in his mind. If he can explain to us the kind of Amendments he is going to accept, it will save time.
Mr. WATT: The suggestion made by the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. C. Roberts) is a wise one. If it were adopted, we should get some indication at the present stage of what Amendments the right hon. Gentleman proposes to suggest to the Committee. The phrase
"or body of persons"
is much too wide. It would enable any association of individuals to act as the measure allows, that is
"To subscribe for, take, purchase, or otherwise acquire, hold, sell, and dispose of shares, stock, or other securities of any limited liability company formed or to be formed, and having for its principal object the cultivation of flax or the provision of supplies thereof, or the promotion of such cultivation or provision."
The limitation proposed by the Amendment is a good one. It is that the advancing of the money and the taking of shares should be limited to some particular institution, such as one carrying on the business of a bank or which has for its principal object the lending of money. This Amendment ought to be accepted by

257
the Government, but if anything is to be proposed by the right hon. Gentleman in substitution for it, he should adumbrate it to the Committee and let us know what the line of the Government will be.
Mr. FORSTER: I am very anxious to meet the convenience of the Committee in any way I can, and if you, Sir Donald Maclean, will allow a more or less general discussion on this Amendment, it would clear the air for subsequent Amendments. One reason why I cannot accept the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sherwell) is that, as I explained on the Second Reading, part of the guarantee is to be undertaken by the linen industry, which desires to come to the assistance of the country and of the Government in the matter that I then described. If the Amendment were to be accepted in the terms in which it is moved, it would prevent the linen industry from taking part in this operation in which they are anxious to engage. The anxiety of the linen industry to assist in the production of flax is very readily intelligible to anyone who thinks for a moment of the situation with which it is faced. Owing to the threatened shortage of the supply of raw material, they have to look forward to a prospect in the coming twelve months of standing machinery, and to a period of severe unemployment. That is a situation which, naturally, in the interests of their own workpeople, of their own shareholders, and of the country, they are very anxious to avoid as far as they can. If we are to produce the amount of flax that we require, if we are to produce the amount of flax that the linen industry requires to keep its machinery running, we shall have to treble the production in the United Kingdom. That cannot be done in a few minutes. It is a thing which, undoubtedly, will take a considerable time to accomplish. But there is absolutely no time to lose in setting about the business. I think I have said enough to show why I cannot accept the Amendment. As I indicated on the Second Reading, I am anxious to meet the views of those who consider that this Bill is drawn too widely—my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. C. Roberts) was one of them—but it would be better to make it read
"Any company, association or body of persons."
I am really anxious to give the freest opportunity to anyone who will come to
258
help, but I am very anxious that there shall be some kind of guarantee of bona fides and of standing. Therefore I should be prepared to move an Amendment to Clause 1 making the consent of the Board of Trade necessary for any association or body of persons or limited company to exercise the powers which are given by this Bill. That was an Amendment which was suggested by the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) on the Second Reading. I have considered it, and that I am prepared to move later on. Then we come to the question whether or not the shareholders in limited companies and persons who form an association or a body of persons should be committed, without their knowledge, by those who are in charge of the direction of their undertakings. There is a great force in the contention of those—I have discussed this with the hon. Member for Hexham—who think that shareholders should retain their right to govern the fortunes of the undertakings to which they have subscribed, so far as that can be secured. It may be necessary, in times of emergency, to clothe the directors of public companies with powers without consulting their shareholders. It was done, for instance, in the case of munitions. Companies that were empowered to undertake munition work did so without consulting their shareholders. Again, it was done, I think, in the case of companies who had no power to subscribe to national loans. In this case I do not think the pressure of time is so great as to prevent shareholders from being consulted. I therefore propose to accept the substance, although not the words, of the second Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Hexham.
There is another Amendment I propose to move myself in order to remove any doubt or misunderstanding as to what the position will be after this Bill becomes law. Some people seem to think that, when this Bill becomes law, it will no longer be necessary for those who wish to lend or borrow to consult the Treasury. That is not so. After the Bill has become law, it will still be necessary to consult the Treasury and to obtain their sanction for the raising of new money and so forth. I propose to make that clear by putting an Amendment in the later part of the Clause so as to make it plain that where people borrow money they can only do with the consent of the Treasury. I come to the last Amendment, standing in the name of

259
the hon. Member for Hexham, which, I agree, is desirable, and that again I am prepared to accept. There remains the new Clause [Limited Liability Companies' New Shares], standing in the name of the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir C. Hobhouse). That I am afraid I cannot accept. Ever since 1915 it has been found necessary, in the public interest, to require that all fresh issues of capital or shares shall be approved by the Treasury before they are made. In pursuance of this policy it has been the regular practice to insert in Bills or Acts which confer fresh borrowing powers, whether on local authorities, companies, or others, words to the effect that the exercise of such powers during the continuance of the War and twelve months thereafter shall be subject to the consent of the Treasury. My right hon. Friend by his Clause would seek to give a special power to companies coming under the provisions of this Bill which would be subversive to the whole policy applied to other companies throughout the country. He will see that that is going further than we could go, but I am quite sure—at any rate, I greatly hope—that flax-producing companies will take the opportunity to exercise such powers as they have to enlarge their undertakings and increase the rate of production, and I am quite confident that the Treasury would look with a very favourable eye upon any application for an increase of capital for that purpose. I hope that what I have said shows that I am willing to meet criticism in a reasonable spirit, and I hope it will obviate the necessity of prolonging the Debate.
Sir C. HOBHOUSE: We who have listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman opposite will acknowledge most freely the spirit with which he has met us. We do not want either to prolong this Debate unnecessarily or to contest the spirit of the Bill. But, as I have pointed out to him outside the doors of this House, there is one little difficulty which has been raised by something which was said both on the Second Reading of the Bill and in a reference he made a moment or two ago. He spoke of being very desirous of drawing into the increased production of flax all possible agencies for that end, and then he went on to say that the particular persons who are most interested in the extension of the growth of flax are the linen companies. The linen industry is centred practically in one
260
place in the United Kingdom, and that is in Belfast. There is, of course, a Scottish industry as well in Dundee, but practically the great linen industry is centred in Belfast, and it consists of three classes of persons—the flax grower, the flax spinner, and the flax weaver—and the person whom I understand my right hon. Friend and the War Office think ought to be more particularly helped and utilised in this connection as an agency for increasing the production of flax is the spinning company.
Mr. FORSTER: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me. They are not more deserving than anybody else. I am only most anxious to help a great many other people.
Sir C. HOBHOUSE: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will use every agency, but I think his speech—he will correct me if I am wrong—had reference to the great spinning companies. Let me say frankly to the House that what I am afraid of is that these spinning companies will utilise the powers which are going to be put at their disposal by the War Office in this way: they will be able to go to the grower of flax and say, "We can find you money to finance your growth of flax, but we will only do it on terms, and those terms are that you should bring your flax to us after it has been treated, and that you shall give it to us at such-and-such a price." That is the danger I see and that is the reason which made me put down the Clause which I have on the Paper. My right hon. Friend desires that such a position should not arise, that such advantage should not be taken of the grower, and that he will give his good word and that of the Treasury to any person who will show their ability to produce flax whether a private grower or a limited company.
I confess that statement satisfies me to a very great extent, but I do not see in this Bill as it is presented now—we have not got the Amendments, which are only promised for a later stage—how the power which will be exercised by these great spinning companies in Belfast is to be prevented unless you throw open on a wider scale and in an easier manner than my right hon. Friend has adumbrated the powers which he proposes to give to the spinning industry. I recognise the great difficulty of putting it into legislative words, but I do see this great danger which hangs round the tying of the grower of

261
flax to the person who makes use of this produce, because the spinning company will be able to say to the grower, "You must give me your flax," and to the weaver, on the other hand, "I will only give you my product on such-and-such terms." Therefore, I want to see this power which is going to be put in practice, and which is not mentioned specifically in the Bill, extended in the way my right hon. Friend has said, and an open door provided for every person, large or small, company or individual, to obtain the assistance which he orginally proposed to give only to the linen companies.
Mr. FORSTER: I hope my right hon. Friend will not fasten that statement upon me.
Sir C. HOBHOUSE: Very well; I withdraw it, and say which I thought he was going to do. There is only one practical suggestion I would like to make to my right hon. Friend. He is going to accept these Amendments of my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham, and he is going to put down, I think, some Amendments of his own or some words of his own. Would it not save everybody's time and trouble if he took the Committee stage of the Bill to-morrow, put down his Amendments, and then there would be no discussion on Report stage at all? It would go through just as quickly. The difficulty is we have not got the words on the Paper, and you will have to have a Report stage if you accepted any of our Amendments or put down your own. If we postpone this stage and the Amendments were put upon the Paper we could then pass the Committee stage and the Report stage in one sitting, and no time would be lost. I do not suggest this as a dilatory measure, but only as a way of letting us see what the right hon. Gentleman is going to propose and what we are going to accept.
Mr. FORSTER: The Amendments I propose are so exceedingly simple and the substance has been upon the Paper and is supported by the hon. Member for Hexham, that I do not see there is any real case for postponing this stage, as my right hon. Friend suggested. If it would save time, I will read the Amendments. I think they are so simple that I could read them seriatim. In Clause 1, I propose that, after the word "shall" ["shall have power"], to insert the words "subject to the consent of the Board of Trade." That is to say, the consent of the Board
262
of Trade will be necessary before any company or others can exercise powers under the Bill. Then I propose, after the word "power," in the same Clause—and this is the substance of the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham—to insert the words "if so determined by a resolution passed at a general meeting of the company, association, or body of persons." That gives the shareholders a right of settling for themselves. Then on page 2, line 3, after "or," insert "with the consent of the Treasury"—"to apply any of their funds with the consent of the Treasury or to borrow for the purpose of any such acquisition of shares." That is merely to make plain that the Treasury sanction has to be obtained. The effect is the same whether the words are there or not. Then I take the last Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Holt), and it is the form of words which he has on the Paper. These are really, I think, plain, intelligible Amendments, and I hope my right hon. Friend will let us have them now.
Sir C. HOBHOUSE: That does not meet my point. It says they may borrow with the consent of the Treasury. What it does not say is that they may issue their shares to the public with the consent of the Treasury.
Mr. FORSTER: No one may issue shares to the public without the consent of the Treasury.
Mr. BOOTH: Yes, they can.
Sir C. HOBHOUSE: That is not the position. You cannot, in practice, deal in such shares on the Stock Exchange, but there is nothing in the present regulations to prevent you issuing the shares. That is really so. The right hon. Gentleman must accept that from me. It is a matter not of law, but of practice.
Mr. SHERWELL: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the exceedingly broad way in which he has met the Amendments in the name of my hon. Friend, and, in order to simplify procedure, I am so satisfied with the security he has given in connection with them that I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Mr. WATT: May I also associate myself with the last two speakers in appreciating the courtesy of the right hon. Gentleman and the way he has met us, which I

263
think has hastened the passage of his Bill. I think he indicated that he would introduce the words "or limited company" after "body of persons," but if that is put in there still remains this expression to which I take exception, "body of persons" who are to do the various things enacted in the measure. He indicated that by "body of persons" he meant the various branches of the linen trade. I should have thought the various branches of the linen trade would have been brought in under the expression "company" or, if not company, "association," and that there was no need for this wide expression "body of persons." Again, he indicated that he intended to accept one of the Amendments of my hon. Friend (Mr. Holt), and, as far as I gathered, it was the second, but he indicated that he would reject the first.
Mr. FORSTER: The hon. Member is wrong. I said I accepted it in substance, and that, I think, satisfies the right hon. Gentleman (Sir C. Hobhouse). Instead of the words of the hon. Member (Mr. Holt), I propose to insert "if so determined by a resolution passed at a general meeting of the company, association, or body of persons."
Mr. WATT: That meets my point in that direction entirely, and the only objection I have to this part of the Bill is the expression "body of persons."
Mr. BOOTH: On the Second Beading I suggested that a further direction should be given in this matter, and I understood the Minister in charge to say he would consider my words in Committee. I do not gather from what has been read out that he has met my point. We suggested some Government Department, such as the Board of Trade. Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman thinks that is sufficiently met by the point of Treasury sanction?
Mr. FORSTER: I said I was going to put in words which made the consent of the Board of Trade necessary before anyone could exercise any of the powers given in this Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments made:
After the word "shall" ["shall have power"] insert the words "subject to the consent of the Board of Trade."
After the word "power," insert the words "if so determined by a resolution passed at a general meeting of the company, association, or body of persons."—[Mr. Forster.]
In paragraph (e), after the word "or" ["to apply any of their funds or"], insert the words "with the consent of the Treasury."
After the word "aforesaid" ["or financial assistance as aforesaid"], insert the words, "Provided always that the power to borrow money conferred by this Act shall not operate so as to increase the total amount of money which such company, association, or body of persons is authorised to borrow.—[Mr. Sherwell.]
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2 (Short Title) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Limited Liability Companies' New Shares.)
Notwithstanding anything contained in any Act, Order, or Regulation, it shall be lawful for any liability company, formed or to be formed, and having for its principal object the cultivation in the United Kingdom of flax or the provision of the supplies thereof, to make an issue of shares to the public without reference to the Treasury Committee on Issues.—[Sir C. Hobhouse.]
Brought up, and read the first time.
Sir C. HOBHOUSE: I beg to move. "That the Clause be read a second time."
I quite recognise the force of what the right hon. Gentleman says that it would be impossible to give to one set of persons powers not generally enjoyed, but I ask him, how is he going to get over the point of the control of the price of the article produced when the only persons who can come to the financial assistance of the grower are a certain small number of people, powerful financially and from the point of view of manufacture, in one particular centre? Belfast is the centre of the linen trade. It is interested in the growth of flax in the North of Ireland. It is not interested at present in the growth of flax in the South of Ireland, and I am very much afraid that Belfast will not be in favour at any time of the growth of flax in a part of Ireland where a rival linen industry can be created. That is the danger I feel, and which I know persons who are interested in the growth of flax in the South of Ireland also feel. Is there no way by which the

265
right hon. Gentleman can, by fixing the minimum price at which the grower shall sell to any persons taking advantage of this guarantee, protect the grower against a monopolist bargain? If the right hon. Gentleman can meet me in this matter I have nothing more to say either at this stage or any other stage of the Bill. It is a real danger, and a danger that will not expand the growing of flax in the South of Ireland or different parts of England, such as Dorsetshire and Somersetshire, in the way that we want flax to be grown.
Mr. FORSTER: If the proposals in this Bill were really confined to the linen trade and if we were giving to the powerful bodies to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred powers which we were not giving to anybody else, I think there would to a great deal of force in the view which he has expressed. But these powers are not in any way confined to the linen trade. I should be very sorry if, there are no other persons outside the linen trade who are prepared to render assistance in flax production. There are important companies working in Ireland which I hope will take advantage of the powers that are given to them. My right hon. Friend referred to the powers of companies to issue shares without Treasury sanction, even although their shares could not be dealt with on the Stock Exchange. If they have those powers and wish to make use of them this Bill does not deprive them of the powers to make such of them. I hope it may be found that such companies will feel it to be to their interest to borrow money for the purpose of assisting the flax producers. I think the very natural fears which my right hon. Friend has expressed are really, to a large extent, groundless. He asked me whether we can fix a price at which the producer can sell the flax to the consumer. My impression is that a price is fixed already, and it is fixed at such a high figure, as to make it extremely profitable.
Sir C. HOBHOUSE: For flax, but not flax straw.
Mr. FORSTER: My impression is that that point is covered. However, I will look into it and make sure. I do think that the fears expressed by my right hon. Friend are to a large extent groundless.
Mr. WATT: I think there is some substance in the observations of my right hon.
266
Friend (Sir C. Hobhouse) that something ought to be done to regulate the price at which the flax will be sold. This measure is to encourage the growth of flax, and it is hoped to have the assistance of the flax trade in the North of Ireland. We take it that the North of Ireland will control this scheme. As the right hon. Gentleman has said, the North of Ireland linen industry will not want other districts to be encouraged in the growth of flax, because they will think that that will be to their detriment. They will not want flax to be grown largely in other districts and other branches of the linen trade to be encouraged in those districts. The possibility would be that the North of Ireland linen trade, controlling this industry, will be inclined to sell the flax at a very low price, which will be unremunerative to other districts. The North of Ireland have the advantage of getting a good return in the other branches of the linen trade and it does not matter to them whether the flax-growing trade is remunerative or not, because they will get all they want from the other branches of their trade. That does not apply to the other districts which are to be encouraged, and the low price controlled by the North of Ireland will seriously affect the other districts. That is a matter which requires consideration, and I think the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Forster) ought to consider it and to see that a proper remunerative price is given for the flax when it has been grown, so that other districts in the North of Ireland may be encouraged to grow flax in the large way which it is hoped will be brought about by this Bill.
Question put, and negatived.
Bill reported.
As amended, considered.
Mr. FORSTER: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the third time." May I appeal to the House to let me have the further stage of the Bill now?
Sir C. HOBHOUSE: I shall offer no objection to that course as far as I am concerned, but I would only ask my right hon. Friend, if he finds that I am right and that there is a danger of the price being kept down in the way I suggested, that he will secure Regulations which will secure for the grower a fair price. I am only concerned for the grower. If he will do that, I shall be perfectly satisfied.
Mr. BOOTH: There are some Amendments of the Government which have never been on the Paper. They were not on the Paper when they were moved, and I object to this Motion.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (SILICOSIS) BILL.
Considered in Committee.—[Progress, 24 th June.]
[Sir DONALD MACLEAN, Deputy-Chairman, in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Scheme for Compensation to Workmen.)
(1) The Secretary of State may by scheme provide for the payment of compensation by the employers of workmen in any specified industry or process or group of industries or processes involving exposure to silica dust—

(a) who are certified in such manner as may be prescribed by the scheme to have suffered death or total disablement from the disease known as fibroid phthisis or silicosis of the lungs (in this Act referred to as silicosis) or from that disease accompanied by tuberculosis; or

(b) who, though not totally disabled, are found on medical examination to be suffering from silicosis, or from silicosis accompanied by tuberculosis, to such a degree as to make it dangerous to continue work in the industry or process, and are for that reason suspended from employment:

Amendment proposed (24 th June), leave out the words "involving exposure to silica dust."—[Mr. Ellis Davies.]
Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: When the discussion was adjourned the question was raised as to the number of workmen affected by this Bill. I do not know whether the hon. Member is in a position now to tell us what the number is. Another question arose as to the increased number of workmen who would come within the scope of the Bill if my Amendment were accepted. I have already referred to the Report of the Committee which was appointed by the Home Office and sat ten years ago to consider the question of industrial disease. After ten years' consideration of that Report the Government should now be in a position to bring in a general Bill
268
dealing with the recommendations of the Committee. The recommendation of that Committee was that fibroid phthisis was a disease in respect of which the workman contracting it should be able to obtain compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Instead, however, of dealing with the disease generally, what it is proposed to do is to give compensation only to those workmen who contract the disease in a particular manner. The only industries to which it has been applied are those which involve exposure to silica dust. This is too narrow, because there are plenty of other industries which involve danger of this disease and to which this right for compensation should apply, if this measure is to be of much use. We are not asking the Home Office to include more workmen, but merely to take powers to apply the Bill to other workmen later on if they see fit. Of course, I say quite frankly that my object in bringing this before the Committee is to enable the Home Office to include within the provisions of the Bill, and their advantages, the men in the slate quarries of North Wales. Ten years ago we submitted to the Home Office Committee medical evidence on this question and established the case of these men to be included. Therefore, I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, if he cannot now see his way to include these men, that he should obtain powers to do so later on if desired. I am quite at a loss to understand what possible objection there can be to the course that is suggested. If he refuses to do what is asked, and the question has to be dealt with later on, it can only be dealt with by a separate Bill, and, in face of the admission that the disease does exist, and has been known by the Home Office for the last ten years to exist, the recommendations of the Committee should be carried out, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to accept this Amendment.
Mr. WATT: I think that the demand made by my hon. Friend is in no way an extravagant one. He asks that power should be taken to include these quarrymen to whom he refers. The Committee which reported ten years ago recommended that the whole of this disease should be dealt with, and after the lapse of ten years the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the measure brings in a Bill dealing with only half of those who are affected by the disease. What my hon. Friend desires the right hon. Gentleman to do is

269
not to bring in the other half of the men on this occasion, but simply to take power that the Home Office, if it suits them, on a future occasion shall be able to deal with the other half of the men affected by this disease. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman between the last discussion and this evening has seen his way to deal with the whole of the disease.
Mr. BOOTH: I may point out to my right hon. Friend that I have been making inquiries among the insurance societies, who are becoming very familiar now with the various diseases, as to their views upon this Bill. The medical view is that it would be exceedingly difficult ever to make use of it. They consider it almost impossible to prove that silicosis exists, and that being the case, as it is a thing that could be very rarely applied, there can be no harm in widening the words as proposed in the Amendment. I did not on the last occasion think that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Carnarvon had quite such a strong case as I now find he has. The fact that it would be very difficult to establish medically this disease constitutes an additional reason why the governing words should be as wide as possible, and as the Amendment is one only giving wider powers to the Secretary of State, I hope that my right hon. Friend will consent to take these larger powers.
The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Brace): I much regret that I do not find myself in a position to agree to the proposal made by my hon. Friend, not because of any want of sympathy, but because if I accept the Amendment it would alter entirely the whole scheme of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon dwells wholly upon the Report of a Committee which inquired into this matter about ten years ago. He has forgotten entirely to investigate the Report of a Committee which reported as late as the year 1914. I think it is true that one of the witnesses, and only one of the witnesses, before the Industrial Diseases Committee in 1907 did declare that fibroid phthisis was to be found among the slate quarrymen of North Wales, but if my hon. Friend will look at the statistics in this Report signed by Dr. Haldane, the greatest expert in this matter, and signed also by the workmen's representative of the North Wales quarrymen, wherein they
270
declare that no case is made out for dealing other than with the disease of silicosis, he will at once realise how difficult it is for me to accept a proposal to enlarge this measure. These are the actual facts. When my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow declares that a very strong case has been made out, I would have him appreciate the significance of the figures which I have taken from the Second Report of the Royal Commission on metalliferous mines and quarries which reported in 1914, and it is upon this Report that I am founding this Bill. Their findings are confirmed by the following figures. The yearly death-rate from phthisis for all males of every occupation is given as 2.1 per 1,000. I think that in the silica industries we get for workmen employed in granite quarries 5.7 and 15.2 for grinders. Then we have 16.7 for stonemasons working on sandstone, 17.6 in the tin mines at Cornwall, and 22.3 for ganister mining. I would urge the Committee to recognise the significance of these figures, which show an incidence tremendously in excess of the average figures, and it will be seen at once that to ask me to enlarge the Bill is to ask me to depart from the recommendations of the Commission, and to accept a widening of it which I am sure would considerably increase the difficulty in passing it. We are founding ourselves on this Report of 1914, and we take power to bring in schemes of compensation for the various industries the figures of which I have given. We have to set up schemes for every one of these industries, and when my hon. Friend asks me for the number of men in the scheme and the number left out I am unable to give the figures. The Home Office has not all these details, because we do not know the number of industries that may be able to establish the fact that those employed are suffering from this disease.
9.0 P.M.
We are taking powers to include in the scheme compensation in every industry where the workers suffer from silicosis, and I think my hon. Friend ought to co-operate with us in giving this measure a start. My hon. Friend says the Home Office have been waiting ten years with a Report of this kind before us, and that we have waited until now before taking any steps. The Home Office have waited from 1914, and it is upon the Report of that year that we are founding our Bill. When the experts told us that we ought to do something in the prevention of this

271
disease, and compensation for men suffering from it, we at once began to take steps to that end. We have not been more than a year in framing a scheme of mutual insurance between the employers of the ganister-mining industry, and having got through that scheme we shall have to arrange schemes for other industries—tin-mining in Cornwall, the granite-cutting industry, and other industries. In view of the provisions of this Bill, I think my hon. Friend, instead of complaining of the Home Office, ought to compliment them on the real desire they have shown to deal with this very difficult problem. I am not unmindful of the fact, as pointed out by the hon. Member for Pontefract, that it may not be easy to say whether a man is suffering from silicosis or not, but we are going to set up a great medical department, and a great medical scheme, under which we shall be able, by more scientific methods, not only to pay compensation, but to ascertain whether men are suffering from silicosis, so that they may be dealt with at once by getting them into another industry for their protection and the protection of their wives and families. I hope the Committee will accept this Bill as a real scheme of social reform. I am unable to accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend. We have founded the Bill on the recommendations of the Report to which I have referred, and the Home Office is persuaded that there is a good case made out for dealing with this terrible disease in a more scientific manner than it has been dealt with hitherto. I venture to hope that the Committee will not only give us the Committee stage, but the other stages of the Bill.
Mr. E. DAVIES: The right hon. Gentleman states that this Bill is founded on the Report of the Commission of 1914, but the Report to which I referred was issued ten years ago, and it was the Report of the Commission which sat in 1907 and 1908. They reported how this disease was affecting various industries, and on the question of compensation. The Home Office have waited for ten years since that Report before dealing with the matter. As a matter of fact, we have not been asking the right hon. Gentleman to-night to change in any shape or form the provisions contained in the Bill; all we have asked him to do is merely to leave the words with reference to silica out of the Bill. The effect of that would be, if the right
272
hon. Gentleman came to the conclusion that there was some other industry in which this disease of silicosis occurred among the workpeople, then he could come to this House and draft a scheme and provide for compensation. The right hon. Gentleman seems to assume that we are opposing the Bill, but we are supporting it. He tells us that we are apparently going to change the whole order of the Bill by merely asking the Home Office to take extending powers. Unfortunately, the method of the Home Office in dealing with slate quarries in North Wales is quite in keeping with the speech of the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. HAYDN JONES: May I join in the appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to extend the provisions of this Bill? I have been connected with the slate quarrying industry for some time, and from what I hear from medical men I have not the slightest doubt that this form of disease with which the Bill deals is rife among the quarrymen. It appears to me that the Bill is capable of being extended in such a way that, without including them definitely, the right hon. Gentleman may say that he will in the Regulations include the quarrymen. That is all we are asking. We do not want to limit or to block the Bill, but if the quarrymen suffer from this disease why should they be left out?
Mr. BRACE: They will not be left out.
Mr. JONES: That is the matter in dispute. If they are not to be left out, why not make the measure so clear that they will be included?
Mr. BRACE: If the quarrymen suffer from fibroid phthisis, the disease known as silicosis, then they will come within the provisions of this Bill.
Mr. JONES: The whole of the difference appears to be on the question of silica being the cause or not, but there is no question about this, that phthisis is very prevalent in quarries, and I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should take power in this Bill to deal with that disease. Why the Home Office should object to taking extended powers puzzles me, because it appears to me that the greater the power they hold the better for everybody concerned. I earnestly appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to extend the Bill in that way.
Amendment negatived.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
Mr. BOOTH: I should be glad if my right hon. Friend could give me some assurance that this will come into operation and be effective. I was very much disquieted to hear medical views to the effect that it was very difficult to prove any cases when I inquired what effect the Bill would have on the insurance claims. Approved societies are more and more giving attention to the fact that sickness pay should not be substituted for the just burdens of a business in compensating those who are injured in the pursuit of that business. This seems to be such a case, and I welcomed the Bill because persons who up to now were drawing insurance money would under it be able to get something more substantial in the way of compensation. Incidentally, I would like to say that we all admire the spirit of the hon. Member who has spoken and who is a large quarry owner, because he will suffer in pocket, if anything, if the Bill passes. Can we understand from the Government that they have some definite hope that a fair number of cases will be proved? One does not want a Bill of this kind brought in to satisfy a little bit of agitation and to comply with a Report, and then to be a dead letter, and it is because I have received very disquieting information and was told that practically the cases would be so few that they would not affect the Insurance Act at all, that I hope my right hon. Friend will give us some more encouraging news.
Mr. BRACE: If I thought for one moment that there was substance in what my hon. Friend has said, I would not have wasted my own time nor that of the House in bringing in this measure. We have already arranged for schemes for the ganister mines in Yorkshire and for a number of workmen in other sections of the silica industry in other parts of the United Kingdom. We have arranged with the employers that they shall mutually insure, and that is the only way that we could deal in a compensatory sense with a disease of this kind. We are setting up committees for the administration of those schemes, and side by side with that we are setting up great medical schemes with scientific medical men, appointed by the Home Office but paid by the mutual insurance schemes, to conduct periodical investigations, and from what I know I am confident that this will be found in practice to be a great scheme of social reform. After we have got our scheme floated for this ganister mining we shall
274
go on to another, and if we find by further investigation that it is desirable or necessary to extend the provisions to other industries like the slate quarrying industry, we shall come to this House and found ourselves on the success of those schemes in asking for greater powers.
Mr. BOOTH: Why not take the powers now?
Mr. BRACE: We would rather take such powers as we see our way to accomplishing at the present time. We have the Royal Commission's Report, and I am assured that it can be taken in its dual sense of protection to health and life, and compensation, and I ask the House to believe, from the Home Office standpoint, that it is a very real measure of social reform.
Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 2 (Short Title) ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill reported, without Amendment.
Motion made, and Question, "That the Bill be now read the third time" [Mr. Brace], put, and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.

WAYS AND MEANS [8TH JULY].
Resolution reported,
"That the Treasury may borrow in such mariner as they think fit on the security of the Consolidated Fund any sums required for raising, the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and nineteen, and in addition a sum not exceeding two hundred and fifty million pounds, and that there shall be charged on the Consolidated Fund—

(a) any sums which may be required to be so charged in the exercise, in connection with any money to be so borrowed, of any powers which are given by the War Loan Acts, 1914 to 1917, or any other enactment, in connection with money borrowed under the War Loan Acts, 1914 to 1917, or, any other enactment; and

(b) any sums which may be required for the expenses of the redemption of any securities issued for the purpose of money to be so borrowed; and

(c) any sums which may be required for the remuneration of the Banks of England and Ireland in connection with the management of any securities issued for the purpose of money to be so borrowed.

And that it is expedient to amend the War Loan (Supplemental Provisions) Act, 1915."
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
Mr. BOOTH: I am sure we are obliged to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for his courtesy in coming, and if he would briefly explain the purpose of this I should feel obliged.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): Every year it is necessary to have a Loan Bill, because without it there is no power to borrow money expended by the House. This Resolution is precisely in the same terms as all others since the War started, and I do not think there is anything new to be explained. I would point out also to the hon. Member that there will be an opportunity for dealing with the Bill itself, as this is only a Resolution, and I hope the House will allow it to go through.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Bonar Law, and Mr. Baldwin.

WAR LOAN BILL,
"to make further provision for raising money for the present War, and to amend the War Loan (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1915," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 60.]

SUMMARY JURISDICTION (IRELAND) BILL.
Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
Mr. BOOTH: I notice the learned Attorney-General for Ireland in his place. I thank him for his explanation on a previous occasion, when he said this was a small measure extending the powers of the Court with regard to the district of Dublin, but might I ask him to give an assurance to the House that this is an Irish Bill which will be put into force? We are getting very much into the habit that when proposals are carried for Ireland they are never put into force. I take it this is a Bill which is intended to come into operation at once.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Arthur Samuels): Yes, Sir;
276
the Bill will come into operation at once, and when it comes into operation it will be put into force immediately.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
Read a second time.
Resolved, "That this House will immediately resolve itself into Committee on the Bill."—[Mr. J. Hope.]
Bill accordingly considered in Com-Committee.

CLAUSE 1.—(Continuance of Acts in Schedule.)
Mr. BOOTH: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
I spoke to the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury to-night, and asked him whether it was proposed to take the Committee stage of this Bill, and he said no; he wanted the Second Reading, but not the Committee stage. I think, under those circumstances, we ought to accept the Motion to report Progress.
Mr. HOPE (Lord of the Treasury): I was not aware of the undertaking my Noble Friend had given, but I entirely accept the statement of my hon. Friend, and will not persist.
Mr. BOOTH: It is unusual, too, is it not, to take all the stages of a Bill like this? I have never known it done.
Mr. HOPE: Only by general consent.
Question put, and agreed to.
Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Donald Maclean), pursuant to the Order of the House of the 13th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
Mr. BOOTH: I wish to say I have just received a copy of a Report for which I have been asking for four or five weeks,

277
but I find it much more voluminous than I thought, and I should like to know whether it is intended to take this to-morrow night or whether we might have another date. I understood we should have time to digest the Report. I want to go over it with one or two legal friends, but there really is not much chance if it is to be taken to-morrow, as I have only to-morrow morning in which to act. I would not object if it were taken on Thursday.
Mr. WATT: Will the hon. Gentleman also say whether the House is to sit on Friday and, if so, what business is to be taken?
Mr. HOPE: I am afraid I am in the position of not being able to give very definite answers. On the first question, I will communicate at once with my Noble Friend and let the hon. Member know. I should presume, from what he says, that there would be no objection to the Motion being taken on Thursday. With regard to the other point raised, I cannot speak with certainty, but I am rather afraid it will be necessary to sit on Friday, in order to take the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Bill.
Question put, and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-four minutes after Nine o'clock.

WAR.
  PROPERTY SALE, WOLDINGHAM.
  PROPERTY SALE, WOLDINGHAM.
  FOOD SUPPLIES.
  FOOD SUPPLIES.
  FUEL SUPPLIES, IRELAND.
  FUEL SUPPLIES, IRELAND.
MILITARY SERVICE.
  CYCLIST BRIGADES SIGNAL SECTIONS.
  CYCLIST BRIGADES SIGNAL SECTIONS.
  SPECIAL CONSTABULARY (AGE LIMIT).
  SPECIAL CONSTABULARY (AGE LIMIT).
  SOLDIERS' LEAVE
  SOLDIERS' LEAVE
  EX-SERVICE MEN (BUSINESS LICENCES).
  EX-SERVICE MEN (BUSINESS LICENCES).
  ESSEX AERODROME.
  ESSEX AERODROME.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (POST OFFICE EMPLOYES).
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (POST OFFICE EMPLOYES).
  RIVER BEULT.
  RIVER BEULT.
  RUSSIA AND POLAND.
  RUSSIA AND POLAND.
  PRISONERS OF WAR (HOLLAND).
  PRISONERS OF WAR (HOLLAND).
  National Schools Inspector, Ireland.
  National Schools Inspector, Ireland.
Preamble
The Earl of HARRINGTON—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his brother.
LORD WEIR OF EASTWOOD.
The Right Hon. Sir William Douglas Weir, Knight, Secretary of State for the Royal Air Force, having been created Baron Weir of Eastwood in the County of Renfrew—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

TITHE RENT CHARGE REDEMPTION BILL. [H.L.]
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to the payment and redemption of tithe rent charge.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Load Parmoor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

MIDWIVES BILL. [H.L.]
Report of Amendments received (according to Order).
Clause 12:
Repeal of section nine of the principal Act.
12. Section nine of the principal Act (which enables county councils to delegate their powers and duties to district councils) shall be repealed.
The MARQUESS OF SALISBURY The MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved the insertion, at the end of Clause 12, of the following proviso, "Provided that where at the commencement of this Act any powers or duties have been delegated such delegation shall not be affected." The noble Marquess said: Your Lordships may remember that the Committee of your Lordships' House was good enough, upon my Motion, to insert an Amendment which had the effect of withdrawing the power of delegation that had existed under the principal Act, and that Amendment appears in the form of Clause 12 of the Bill now before you. It has since been brought to our notice that this leaves a little ambiguity as to the position of those cases where delegation is already in operation. There are, I think, only five such cases, and as the
696
clause stands there might be some doubt as to whether in those cases delegation was continued or whether it was ipso facto withdrawn, and it appeared to be necessary before the Bill left this House to clear up that ambiguity. I have been in conference with my friends on the subject, and we have come to the conclusion that it is no part of our wish to disturb existing arrangements. Of course, that might have been the view of your Lordships' House—to abolish delegation altogether, not merely in the future but in existing cases as well—but so far as we are concerned we have no desire to disturb existing arrangements. Therefore it is necessary to insert words to make that absolutely clear. Those are the words now upon the Paper which I desire to move.
Amendment moved—
Clause 12, page 4, line 36, at end insert (" Provided that where at the commencement of this Act any powers or duties have been delegated such delegation shall not be affected ").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
THE EARL OF LICHFIELD: My Lords, before my noble friend answers, I should like to say that it would rather appear from the wording of the noble Marquess's Amendment that the delegation which is in existence at the present moment would, under this new proviso, be permanent, and that there would be no possibility of getting it altered at any time. I would therefore ask whether it is not necessary to put in some such words as these, "unless upon the representation of the county council the Local Government Board otherwise order." Perhaps my noble friend will be good enough to tell us whether he thinks I am at all right in my fears, that under the words of the Amendment these delegations could not be rescinded at any time but would remain for always unless some such words as I have suggested were adopted.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I think that the point as to whether or not existing delegation was saved or whether it came to an end immediately after the passing of this Bill was left in some kind of ambiguity, and therefore it is necessary, perhaps, that some such Amendment as the noble Marquess has been good enough to move should be inserted in the Bill. I am advised that there is an ambiguity—not more than an ambiguity—and I think it is just as well that these words should be definitely inserted. I am therefore prepared to accept the Amendment.

697
With reference to the point which the noble Earl has made, he fears, I think, if the clause is passed exactly as it stands with the Amendment of the noble Marquess, that in that event the existing cases of delegation, of which there are only four, might be permanently stereotyped. I have not had very much time to consider the point, but so far as I have been able to go into it I understand that this will not be the case—that it will merely leave the existing cases of delegation exactly where they are, as if this new Act had not been passed. The noble Earl is well aware that delegation is not permanent in any sense. As he knows, there has been during the last six or seven years much more delegation than there is how, and there were many more than the four cases which are all that remain of the original delegations. Therefore I think there is no fear that the position would be stereotyped as the noble Earl suggests. But I certainly will undertake to look further into the point before the Third Reading, and if there is any fear of stereotyping I will take care that the danger is removed.
THE EARL OF LICHFIELD: I am much obliged to the noble Viscount.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I need hardly assure your Lordships that if any such arrangement is suggested I will at once agree to it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LOANS (INCUMBENTS OF BENEFICES) AMENDMENT BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, if I had supposed that this Bill would occupy much of your time or give rise to anything in the nature of debate, I should not have brought it before your Lordships' House. It is purely an administrative Bill. It has nothing to do with any question of Church policy or discipline or really any matter of public interest. I need not describe to your Lordships what Queen Anne's Bounty is, although certainly there are many people who have very quaint ideas about it. It is enough to say that the general business of Queen Anne's Bounty is to assist the smallest livings. When I say "livings," I refer to livings as
698
to which I am sure no working man nowadays would accept such a description.
If any of your Lordships have been good enough to read this Bill, you will be surprised probably that it should be necessary to deal in an Act of Parliament with such minutiœ, but it used formerly to be tier case, as your Lordships know, not only in the time of the good Queen Anne, to whom this Bounty is due, but for many years later, to insert in Bills the very most minute provisions as to administration. And so it has been with this Act. It is a most unfortunate thing, because it makes it almost impossible to reform in small things, as experience arises, the practice in an office. In fact, it really stereotypes red tape, and, even if the office itself is desirous of being reformed, the office feels unwilling to trouble Parliament with these very small affairs. That has been the case at Queen Anne's Bounty. I have taken part in Queen Anne's Bounty for about thirty years, and now I have ventured to bring forward these things which have been long desired in the office in the hope that an Act of Parliament may be passed to enable them to be attended to.
There is a short Memorandum prefixed to the Bill which is in your Lordships' hands, and, if you will allow me, I will read it. It says—
" This Bill is intended to simplify the formalities in connection with the granting of loans to the clergy under the Gilbert Acts—"
I dare say some of your Lordships do not know who Gilbert was. Thomas Gilbert was for about twenty-five years, I think, a member of the House of Commons. He was first of all Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme. Then he was Member for Lichfield, and he became Chairman of Ways and Means. He was a man of great authority on local affairs in his time, and I believe he really was the author of the Grand Junction Canal. Roads and canals were things in which he took great interest. He brought in the first measure that deals with this particular part of the functions of Queen Anne's Bounty, and that Act has be enfollowed by various amending Acts. They have always been known by Queen Anne's Bounty and by the clergy as the Gilbert Acts. I will go on with the Memorandum—
"by the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty, who have had many years experience of the difficulties caused by the unnecessarily cumbrous formalities prescribed by an Act of the eighteenth century.

699
The proposed amendments of the law will effect a considerable saving of work, not only in the office of the Governors, but also on the part of the clergy, architects, solicitors, and others concerned."
Your Lordships will observe that these are just the sort of things which are aggravated by the conditions now arising out of the war. The Bounty Office has suffered along with other Public Departments in that respect. They are carrying on the business as best they can in the absence of their colleagues and they have a record as patriotic, and I may say as sad, as that of the staff of any of the other Public Departments who on Thursday next will mourn their dead in a Service at the Abbey.
The object of this Bill is simply to allow Queen Anne's Bounty to manage its affairs in its own way. No doubt it might have been sufficient to say so, but it was thought that it would be better to set out in a Schedule the Regulations which it is proposed to make, so that your Lordships may see exactly what is proposed to take the place of the Statute, to give power under the Royal Sign Manual—which is the authority that has always been used in Queen Anne's Bounty—as occasion may arise, to amend these Regulations from time to time. I think it is quite sufficient to mention this much about the Bill to your Lordships. It is true that there are two or three other clauses, but I do not think that they raise questions of any different kind from those I have described, and if your Lordships wish to know any particulars about the clauses themselves I would suggest that any question might be asked in Committee, when I should be very happy to give your Lordships any information that can be desired. I beg leave to move that the Bill be now read a second time
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I am not going to detain your Lordships on this matter. The noble and learned Lord who has moved the Second Reading of the Bill has behind hint all the episcopal authority. We are all in agreement in desiring to see these very simple business changes made, and we believe that it will be to the general advantage, most of all because of the difficulties which now arise when a benefice
700
is vacant. I hope your Lordships will agree to the Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

CORN PRODUCTION (AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (LORD CLINTON): My Lords, this is a very short measure, but I understand that it raises issues quite out of proportion to its length. I am sorry to have to admit, in the first instance, that the introduction of this measure really breaks a bargain which was arrived at last year, and on that account I regret very much indeed to be in the position of bringing it in. It is no doubt perfectly clear that it was an understanding that the Act which we propose to amend—the Corn Production Act, 917—should come into operation within one year. Subsection (3) of Section 11 of that Act, which is now to be repealed, says—
"The powers under the Defence of the Realm Regulations exercise able by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries with a view to maintaining the food supply of the country with respect to the matters dealt with in this Part of this Act shall cease to operate at the expiration of one year from the passing of this Act, or at the termination of the present war, whichever is the earlier, and thereupon this Part of this Act shall come into operation."
It was clear, then, that it was made certain that the Bill should come into force at the end of one year.
I do not think it need be suggested that any Government or Department brings in a Motion, or a Bill, or makes a promise with the deliberate intention of retiring from that promise supposing it is found to be inconvenient to act up to it; and the excuse for breaking this bargain—if any excuse is possible—is that the conditions, as they at present exist, are totally different from those which it was contemplated would exist when the measure was passed. The hopes which we entertained last year that it would be possible at this time to return to methods of legislation less abnormal than those under which we were then working have, I am sorry to say, been disappointed, and we find ourselves in much the same position as we were at that time inasmuch as we have to look forward to

701
a further period of war conditions. At the same time we are confronted with the same, or somewhat the same, exceptional difficulties for food production in the country. Consequently it is essential that I should ask your Lordships to renew the powers which were granted in the Bill of last year.
The speeding up of food production is one of the greatest of war efforts. The feeding of the people must always be a predominant factor in war. At the moment we may say, we have reached a point of success in carrying out our food production which we could not have obtained without the exceptional powers which the Defence of the Realm Regulations gave us in the way of entering upon land and rapidity of action. We could not maintain production unless, under these same powers, we are allowed to retain the land on which we have entered. Whilst those powers are very great they would, I know, have been of very little avail had they not been fully supported by the agricultural community. Their energies and the efforts they have made, the enterprise they have put into their work, and their loyal obedience to constantly distasteful Regulations, have been beyond all praise. The country owes the farming community generally a debt of gratitude which I hope they may not forget. No doubt most industries have been called upon to work under new and sometimes, no doubt, to them objectionable Regulations. I know they have done their part well, but I do not believe any industry other than agriculture has had forced upon it such Regulations, necessary in themselves, the carrying out of which opened to agriculturists the serious risks of a very heavy loss, and on that account the powers which we took to carry on the food supply of the country certainly would not have availed us unless we had the hearty support of all concerned. I wish to make it clear that in order to carry out the tremendous undertaking of supplying this country with food, so far as it can be produced at home, we cannot expect to manage it under the ordinary law; consequently we must have recourse to this admittedly abnormal method, and this, again, represents the excuse for bringing the measure forward. That is, generally speaking, the object of the Bill.
There is, perhaps, one particular object upon which I would say a word or two—namely, the taking of land for allotments. It is only under Regulations that we are
702
able to take and maintain this land. Allotments have become, fortunately, quite the fashion, and there has been added through them a very large production of food. They employ not a great amount of land considering their number—I think allotment gardens are about ten poles each, or sixteen to the acre—and they employ a very great deal of part-time labour, labour of men who all day are occupied in some other calling but who give up a certain amount of spare time to the cultivation of these allotments, and the cultivation of food. That has been a very real advantage, and I do not know in what other way it could be so well utilised except by means of these allotments. There have been applications for over 300,000 allotments, all of which have been supplied with the exception of about 20,000. These are being supplied almost daily. Applications are coming in daily, and they are applications which it is almost necessary to meet directly they come in. if they are not met, if they are delayed, it raises a perfect storm of objection and criticism out of all proportion to the interests involved, but at the same time objections which may become almost dangerous to the State. For these reasons, in addition to the main reasons of which I have spoken, it is necessary to obtain the powers which this Bill gives us.
But there are, I must say, hidden in this measure certain details of Part 4 of the Corn Production Act, no doubt very important in themselves, but I think less important than the major question. I understand it is the case that the point to which noble Lords attach the most importance is that of appeal. Under the Defence of the Realm Regulations there is no appeal, and the effect of repealing subsection (3) will be that the Regulations for appeal, as they appear in Part 4, will not come into force until the end of the war. Certain noble Lords have pressed this very strongly upon the attention of the Board of Agriculture, and it is admitted that they have made out a very strong case. I will deal with it more particularly in a minute or two, but I should like to say at once that the Board have recognised that there is a case for appeal; they have recognised the principle of an appeal, and have issued certain Regulations dealing with it. I believe the appeal that is required is mainly, if not entirely, connected with the Ploughing-up Orders.

703
I want to draw your Lordships' attention to those Orders for a few moments. The result of the effort which has been made to get additional land ploughed up is that the present acreage under corn has increased by 2,000,000 acres. I think it is a magnificent effort, but we have to realise that owing to the very strenuous cultivation of the last two or three years a good deal of this land is getting worked out. It is becoming foul and choked with weeds. It has had no rest for so long, and owing to the difficulty in getting a full supply of artificial manures its fertility, and consequently its production, is likely to suffer. The question which is of vast importance at this moment is how that production is to he maintained. It appears to us that it can be maintained partly by a greater concentration on the existing lands, and by the endeavour to increase them to a higher standard of cultivation, and at the same time—I think this is a necessary part of it—to provide a certain number of relief lands, a certain additional acreage, to be ploughed up in order that those lands which have been cultivated so long may be given a rest. The actual amount required I am not prepared to state at this moment, because I do not as a matter of fact know it.
Many objections are raised to the ploughing-up of additional land, but unless we get this increased concentration upon our old land, plus a certain amount of additional land to relieve that which most urgently requires a rest, then we must face a lessened production, and I presume, if it be possible, an increased importation from abroad. That is a thing which we have to avoid at all hazards. The safety of the nation demands it. An increased importation raises questions of tonnage and finance, which ought not to be raised at this time. The ploughing up of relief land is certainly away out, but at the present moment it can only be regarded as an ideal, since the pivot of the whole thing turns upon the possibility of a labour supply. Agriculture has undoubtedly been most seriously hit by recent Orders, and the loss of the last 30,000 men cannot be reckoned merely in terms of men. It is a loss that may be reckoned in terms of skilled men—men who have all along been regarded as indispensable on a farm, and who have been exempted by former Tribunals on account of the fact that they could not possibly be spared. We are not entitled
704
to make a complaint in any way about this. It has been decided by authorities who are able to recognise the demand for men, and we have to obey: in fact, we have obeyed as cheerfully as we could do in the circumstances.
As against this loss of man-power there are a few—I am afraid not very many—increased resources. During the last year we have had large experience of motor ploughing and other mechanical power on the land, and as a result we have advanced. First of all, we have a much better acquaintance with the particular class of machinery which is suitable to the land of this kingdom, and also—what is equally important—we shall have a much larger amount of machinery at our disposal. In addition, there is some reason to hope that we shall have a larger amount of phosphatic manure for use, and in addition to that there is a larger number of women and of other part-time labour on the land. But even with these slightly increased resources we cannot expect to undertake any large quantity of additional land. I do not want to create the impression that we have in any sense ruled out the possibility or even the probability of getting additional land. A good deal of it will be obtained, I hope, from land which may be available under the land drainage scheme, and evidence is accumulating to show that there will be a considerable amount of land for the purpose, but the actual amount that can be utilised hinges entirely upon the possibility of an improved labour supply.
Complaints have been made at different times—I have no doubt that your Lordships I have received letters, as I have myself—about the Ploughing-up Orders. I do not think that these complaints extend over any great area. Something like 100,000 Orders have been issued, and it would be surprising indeed if some complaints did not arise, but the reports which we have had recently as to the result of these Ploughing-up Orders are, I am afraid, not so satisfactory as was the case a few weeks ago. Of course, the very dry season must have operated against us. But the reports generally show that even on the newest ploughed up land, and land that was worked in the spring, the condition of the crop is not unsatisfactory. The complaint that one hears at times is that the crop of these new lands is very much below the average. I do not know what average any one would be inclined to put upon land which has

705
been broken up from turf and cropped the first year. I do not think that under ordinary circumstances our farming experience would lead us to believe that from that particular land we should get a very heavy crop the first year. It is in the second and later years, when the turf has been properly broken up and its fertility is becoming available that we expect to get a full crop, and I have not the slightest doubt that, though in cases heavy turf land will not yield to its fullest this year, we shall nevertheless get a very considerable advantage from it in subsequent. years.
The work of issuing these Ploughing-up Orders has been carried out remarkably well by our war agricultural committees. They have had a work of immense difficulty of a kind which is ungrateful and invidious in many ways, and out of which they can by no chance earn any popularity, but they have stuck to their Orders exceedingly well. They have expended a great amount of most useful labour in this work, and generally speaking, their judgment has been excellent, and there has been very little difficulty in getting farmers to carry out their Orders. One does hear complaints against the action of these agricultural committees, but I do not believe for a moment that the complaints are well founded. On the contrary, I think that these committees have carried out their difficult task exceedingly well, and that they deserve very great praise from the country.
It may be, of course, that mistakes have been made and failures have occurred, and upon that I want to say a word regarding the appeal. The appeal, I presume, is founded not so much on account of any failures or mistakes that may have occurred, but on account generally of the abnormal legislation. The legislation of this particular Bill, however, is less abnormal than was that of the Bill which your Lordships passed last year, but it seems to me, as it does also to the President of the Board, who issued his Regulations as to appeal, that noble Lords are on very strong ground when they say that an appeal should be granted. The Regulations for the appeal provide that it shall be to referees, with an arbitrator appointed by the Board of Agriculture. In this we are following precedents of former legislation. It seemed good to the noble Marquess, Lord Lincoln-shire, in passing his somewhat unconventional legislation in the year 1908—his
706
Agricultural Holdings Act and his Small Holdings Act—to adopt the principle of the Department appointing the arbitrator. I know that Ire was exceedingly keen on the matter at the time—I have a very distinct recollection of it—and if he would be good enough now to take the defence of that proposal out of my hands I should be very grateful to him.
I admit that there is obviously a very strong theoretical objection to the appointment of an arbitrator by the Department, which presumably has a referee acting for it. There is, of course, the idea—I think, perhaps, it is only a theoretical idea—that the Board would necessarily appoint some one favourable to its own opinion. While I admit at once the objection, I think that as a matter of practice the appointments by the Board under the arbitrations of both those Acts have hardly ever been contested on the ground of partiality in the appointments. As a matter of fact, a Department, or any one into whose hands you may put the matter, would probably appoint somewhat the saline man—that is the best man they could find for the particular job. At the same time, I believe the principle is entirely wrong. I should not be sorry personally, at all events, if I could see the precedent established bathe noble Marquess broken here, and if noble Lords opposite are going to consider this matter when Lord Desborough brings forward this Amendment, I have no doubt, if they can put forward any concrete proposal and it seems to us suitable and justifiable, we shall have no difficulty in coming to an arrangement about it.
I think those are the principal matters I have to deal with. I have admitted at the very beginning that this Bill is a breach of faith, which I regret to bring forward. I have claimed that, successful as our efforts in the cause of food production have been, it is necessary to maintain them at the highest pitch, and that to do this we require the Defence of the Realm Regulations. I have told your Lordships, and I will say again, that if there are any details of this food production measure which can be continued without abolishing any part of the Regulations under which we are working, I have very little doubt, if they are put forward, that the Government will do their utmost to meet them. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Clinton.)
LORD DESBOROUGH: My Lords, I rise to move that this Bill be read a second time this day six months. In doing so, I will at once admit the extreme fairness—I almost say the mildness—with which the mover of this Bill has spoken of his measure. He calls the Bill a very little one, and I fully adroit that it is. It consists of only sixteen words, but those sixteen words constitute a breach of agreement, and that is the great objection which I have to the Bill. The noble Lord himself used the words, and used them no less than four times as if that was rather a recommendation to the Bill, but that is the one reason why I am asking your Lordships not to give this Bill a Second Reading.
My noble friend has made an appeal which all of us will endorse from the bottom of our hearts—namely, that it is in the interest of this country that every man, woman, and child should do their utmost to increase the food supply. But I venture very seriously to dispute his thesis that if this Bill is passed the production of food in the country will be in any way increased. He also made a suggestion to me that I should suggest some form of appeal. He seems to think that there are members scattered about the House who do not see eye to eye with him on this great blot on the Corn Production Act. It is rather difficult on the spur of the moment to formulate for the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries a method of appeal, as they do not at the present time apparently approve of the form of appeal which was passed by your Lordships' House only a year ago. But I will go as far as to say this, that if he would promise absolutely to agree in the four points, and all of them—though I must say that after my late experience I should like the agreement in writing—if he would give an absolute agreement to meet those who feel with me on this matter, and feel rather strongly, on those four points, I think one might possibly consent to this Bill being read a second time. But I should like these four points to be absolutely and definitely agreed to, and we have not had much encouragement in this.
What happened with the Corn Production Bill? That Bill consisted of five parts. Four of those parts were agreed to by your Lordships' House on the condition, and with a definite agreement, not in writing but sanctioned by both Houses of Parliament, that Part IV, which the Board of Agriculture is now trying to repeal, should
708
be part of the Act. I do not know whether you are quite aware of what exactly happened a year ago with regard to the Corn Production Act. Part IV of the Act, which gives us very valuable powers, comes into operation, according to the Act, on August 21 next. The other parts were agreed to at once; they became the law of the land, and were acted upon. Part IV gave us something; it gave us the right of appeal on a good many points of the highest importance, not only to the landowner, but to the cultivators, and to the poor farmers who have been so praised by the noble Lord; it gave us a right of appeal on matters of cultivation and various other things. The Bill was agreed to on the condition that, war or no war, Part IV should come into operation on August 21, 1918. That was all that we got from our hard labours last year on the Corn Production Act. We improved the Bill in its progress, and at the last moment we were told that if we would agree to the other parts the Government would agree, and did agree, to Part IV, which they now seek to repeal. I think that to call this a breach of agreement, far from making it any better, is adding insult to injury.
LORD CLINTON: There is no question now of repealing Part IV.
LORD DESBOROUGH: It does not come into operation, and that is the difference.
LORD CLINTON: There is no question of repealing, it is a further postponement.
LORD DESBOROUGH: You do not repeal, but it is not to come into operation. That is the thing to which we object. The agreement was that it should come into operation on August 21; your amending Bill says it is not to come into operation then, but at some future date. Now, Part IV affects the whole Bill—namely, this right of appeal; and as we obtained Part IV we agreed to the rest. Take the minimum prices. The minimum prices are not very generous; as I said at the time, they were obviously brought in by the Humorist of the Department. The prices fixed for wheat for 1918 were 55 s., and the prices at the present time are 77 s. 9d.; in fact, over 80 s. in some places. On the giving of these minimum prices, which were never likely to be obtained, was founded Part II—minimum wages. Your

709
Lordships will remember that we had many discussions about the able-bodied men, the non-able-bodied men, and "workmen" generally, which last term included women, boys, and girls. We agreed to that; but many of us had very grave doubts whether it was an economic method of getting the best out of the land to set up Wages Boards. The wage then quoted was 25 s. a week, but this, has been largely exceeded. The worst of these minimum wages is this. Prices were rising and wages were gradually settling themselves down to the new scale of living, or new prices; but now wages are fixed by a Board. That is a most uneconomical arrangement, and I am afraid you are not getting the best work out of the workmen. Since they have had the rises they have done much less work, and they say to their employers, "You do not settle my wages, they are settled by Mr. So-and-So; I don't care about you; I shall only do a certain amount of work, and you must give me the wages whether I work or not." They do not all say that, of course; but I think I can assert without much fear of contradiction that the general effect of the higher wages has been to get less work done. I admit that wages were too low before; but my point is this—and I do not want to be misrepresented—that wages and prices and expenses of living were gradually adjusting themselves according to the laws of political economy, but you stepped in and upset matters, and in years to come you will reap the result of the mistake you then made. However, we agreed to minimum wages at the time.
We also agreed to the restriction on raising rents notwithstanding that the landowner, as everybody knows, has to pay enormously more in the way of interest on his mortgages—lots of mortgages have been called in, and a higher rate of interest is being asked for—the expenses of repairs have gone up enormously, as have the whole of the outgoings of an estate; and the tithe rent charge has enormously increased as well. Nevertheless the landlords in this House agreed on the condition that they obtained Part IV, which you are now trying to repeal. I think it was wrong that at the time the great expenses of landowners were not met to some degree in the Corn Production Bill. Part V contained a great many miscellaneous provisions which were all agreed to on the condition that Part IV was part of the Bill.
I should now like for a moment to say what Part IV is. It gives an appeal; first
710
of all, on good husbandry; that is to say, if the Board of Agriculture come in and say a farm is not being cultivated according to good husbandry there is a right of appeal to an independent authority under the Agricultural Holdings Act, and, in default of agreement, to an arbitrator to be appointed by the President of the Surveyors Institute. That is a very important point. If the Board say, "We want you to plough up this land and to grow carrots or beetroot, there is a right of appeal to an independent arbitrator. The farmer can also appeal on the question of whether the particular land which the Board want ploughed up is suitable or unsuitable for the purpose. The arbitrator appointed by the President of the Surveyors Institute—an outside body—can say that it may be a good thing to change the method of cultivation, but that this particular land is unsuitable for it.
But there is a much greater point than all this—namely, the question of compensation. This is a vital matter to the poor farmer, who is so much praised by the noble Lord. Suppose the Board come down on a farm and upset the tenant and all his arrangements, and take possession. Very well; under Part IV—the operation of which is going to be postponed—the farmer and the landlord would both have a right to compensation; but under "D.O.R.A."—the Defence of the Realm Act—they have not. It is only that "compensation may be given" to them, as an act of grace, a long time hence, and not by definite arrangement. But under Part IV there would be an absolute right to compensation by Act of Parliament. Now, what sort of appeal does the noble Lord offer? The Board of Agriculture appoint one man; I understand that the person whose judgment is being arraigned appoints, by the direction of the Board of Agriculture, another man; and the poor aggrieved farmer appoints somebody else, if he can; he goes into court at a disadvantage of two to one. I do not think that such an appeal is of any use at all. We want an appeal to an independent arbitrator under the Agricultural Holdings Act, and not to an arbitrator appointed by the Board of Agriculture.
LORD CLINTON: Is not the appeal under the Agricultural Holdings Act to an arbitrator appointed by the Board?
LORD DESBOROUGH: I have no objection to the Board of Agriculture appointing an arbitrator in cases in which they are not interested. There are many cases of dispute between landlord and tenant in which the Board of Agriculture has in times gone past made an excellent arbitrator; but the Board of Agriculture in this connection are the prime movers of the trouble. They have sent round Orders to plough up certain land, knowing nothing about the land in question. If I may say so, the mistake which the Board of Agriculture have made all through is in thinking that the thing which matters is to plough up land, whereas the thing that matters is what you grow on the land after it has been ploughed up, and also the amount of energy, labour, and so on, that you have taken away from other land which has suffered very much indeed because of the Ploughing up Orders. All that the noble Lord has to offer, therefore, is three referees, one of whom is to be appointed by the Board of Agriculture and another by the county committee.
LORD CLINTON: That was not the terms of the reference.
LORD DESBOROUGH: There has been no explanation given, and this Bill is introduced "to repeal subsection (3) of Section 11 of the Corn Production Act." I really do not know what is in the minds of the Government. I cannot conceive that the Government, merely in the interests of ploughing up land, could possibly object to an independent arbitrator, as they agreed last year, being appointed in cases of doubt and difficulty by an independent authority—namely, the President of the Surveyors Institute. After having solemnly agreed to this, and getting the Bill passed through both Houses last year, the Government come—rather surreptitiously, I think, and without a memorandum; I know a great many noble Lords who had no knowledge of what the fact was—and ask us to repeal subsection (3) of Section 11 of the Corn Production Act.
I hope that those who speak for the Government afterwards will say why the Government object to an independent referee in matters of ploughing-up. Is there much more land going to be ploughed up? Will they plough it up? I rather doubt it. Those farmers with whom I work have been very much put out, and we have pacified them by saying that they will have a right of appeal if
712
they keep quiet. But if this solemn engagement is now repealed, I am sure that the Government will cause a great deal of uneasiness in the agricultural mind of the country, which is very much upset already. The noble Lord gave me to understand that all this ploughing-up had been a very great success. I saw in the papers the other day that a gentleman who obviously was in favour of the action of the Government boasted that 75 per cent. had been a conspicuous success. Now supposing that 4,000,000 acres had been ploughed up, 75 per cent. is 3,000,000 and this leaves 1,000,000 acres of failure. I do not know whether those figures are right, but, if they are, I do not know that there is very much to boast of. Then take the produce, which the noble lord said is going to be very small on this newly-ploughed land. You also have to take into account the destruction of good pasture land which you could let for £7 or £8 per acre, or even £11, and which was producing food and is now producing nothing. When you add the food that you have thus lost, and the labour and time lost, and the extra demands made upon labour, now producing nothing, I doubt very much whether the net result of this ploughing-up of land has very much assisted the production of food for the people.
I see that in one instance the Department themselves thought they would do a little ploughing-up. I take this from a newspaper, and it is headed "Sowing the oats." They sowed some oats in Bushey Park; 79 acres were ploughed and 270 quarters of oats were produced, or about three and a half quarters to the acre. Including the cost of the seed there was a net loss of £11, a very good result from a Departmental experiment and infinitely better than I should have expected. With rent at £1 an acre the net loss was £90. I do not know how much of the wages and the time of the Chief Commissioner of Works, which is very valuable, was included, but those are the figures, and the Department was so much encouraged by the result that they went on and ploughed up seventy-five acres of grass land in Richmond Park. This also was sown with oats, and they produced seventy-nine quarters or about one quarter to the acre. The cost, including seed and allowing one-tenth cost of fencing and one-twentieth cost of reaping machines, was £744 0s. 1d., and the value of the oats and straw £247 5s., a net loss of £496 15 s. And this is the Department

713
which tells us how to do things! No rent had been charged, but allowing £1 an acre this would increase the loss to £571 15 s. One does not know what to do with these cases. They are fair samples of Departmental management. I have seen the Returns from certain counties and they are not very encouraging reading, but I hope the Government will let us have a fair, businesslike, and accurate statement of what has happened. The efforts of the Commissioner of Works were heroic but apparently were unequal to the struggle against nature. My Lords, you must remember that the cost of production enters into this matter, and that you have also to take into consideration the value of the food produced. I know that if any one ever says anything against the Government he is regarded as a pro-German, or something of that sort, but I cannot help having a feeling in my mind that this war is not going to be won by wasting money. If it were, we should have bad greater victories than were ever won by Philip of Macedon or Alexander.
It is rather difficult now to persuade, the farmers of South Bucks to plough up their grass. Why? Because they have seen the Government take 600 acres of the famous corn land of Bucks in order to build motor works. They have seen the Government take this land at a time when it is important to produce food. I do not understand it, and I do not suppose it is the noble Lord's duty to explain it, but I think the Board of Agriculture must be interested in oats and wheat which are destroyed in that way. It is really rather difficult to persuade the farmers to give up grass in South Bucks. They say in South Bucks, "We cannot believe, and we don't believe, in this food shortage. If food is short, why do the Government take 600 acres of the best w heat-growing land in this country?" The growing crops are there now, and you can see the wagons cooling in and everything going on.
If I thought that in passing this Bill we should do any good to agriculture I would certainly vote for it. If I thought it would conduce to economy, after what we have heard about Loch Doon and the national shipyards, I should certainly vote for it. But I do not think it will do either of these things. And I must venture to ask your Lordships again, Why are the Board of Agriculture afraid of an independent arbitrator, and why do they want to repeal
714
during the war all that we got in the long discussion which we had on the Corn Production Bill? I did not hear a single word from the noble Lord who introduced this Bill which would induce me to think that the Government would get any more food as a result of this Bill than they can at present. What we shall get is more care in the ploughing up of land. What we should get under this subsection which you want for the moment to repeal is compensation for the farmer if his tillages and everything are interfered with. What we shall not now get is the right of every one to be heard when he is asked to do things which very often are not—I do not like to use the expression—very wise.
I have detained your Lordships a great deal too long. I ask you to vote against the Bill. It is impossible to amend it. If I had in writing an undertaking—I do not suppose I shall get it—conceding the four stipulations I have made, under which there would be the right of appeal, there is nothing left of the Bill. There are only sixteen words in the Bill, and it cannot be amended. The only thing to do is to take a decision at once. If you want to bring in an Allotments and Small Holding Bill, bring in an Allotments and Small Holdings Bill. Do not repeal subsection (3) of Section 11. Bring the Bill in, and let us discuss it, and if this part is continued the Regulations will have to be laid on the Table of both Houses of Parliament and we shall see what the Board of Agriculture is doing. For these and many other reasons which I could give, I venture humbly to ask your Lordships not to give a Second Reading to this Bill.
Amendment moved—
Leave out ('now") and insert at the end of the Motion ("this day six months").—(Lord Desborough.)
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I desire to say a word upon this Bill, because the subsection which it is proposed to repeal was introduced on an Amendment moved by me in Committee. Lord Milner, who was in charge of the Bill, said—it is Column 593 of Hansard, if the noble Lord has the OFFICIAL REPORT—that "these words "—which are the words I proposed—" appear exactly to express what we want to get at." Subsequently he asked that there should be an opportunity to make a verbal Amendment on the Report stage, and after further consideration these verbal Amend-

715
ments were introduced by him, and of course I assented to them. This is not a subsection of the Bill that was introduced without consideration. Not only did Lord Milner say in the first instance that it was what the Government desired, but after fuller consideration he himself introduced amending words which the Government draftsman designed.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Will you quote the words?
LORD PARMOOR: You will find them on the Report stage, in Column 644, I think. I have not the reference here. The words "under the Defence of the Realm Regulations," which are quite proper, are introduced in two places, and "with respect to the matters dealt with in this part of this Act cease to operate." These were the additional words introduced by Lord Milner to make the Amendment perfectly clear, and it stands in that form at present.
I only want to say one other word, because the matter has been so fully dealt with by the noble Lord who opposed the Second Reading. I do not think the noble Lord who proposed the Bill believes in it at all. He did not profess that it was a Bill he cared to introduce, because, as he put it quite frankly, it involved a breach of faith, and he did not desire to associate himself with a Bill that involved a breach of faith in regard to so recent a provision as one inserted by the Government less than twelve months ago. I should like to say a word in reference to what he said. He talked about the question of appeal, and, as I understood, the view of the noble Lord was that the principle of appeal was right.
LORD CLINTON: There should be an appeal.
LORD PARMOOR: Yes. What I want to put to the noble Lord is this, that an appeal is perfectly valueless unless you have an impartial authority whose report and decision are likely to command respect and assent from the parties concerned. If he will kindly look at the matter, the noble Lord will see that the very point that he raised was discussed and settled in this House during the debate on the Corn Production Bill. I hope the noble Lord will pay attention to this. The form of appeal which he now thinks would be satisfactory was discarded last year, be-
716
cause it was felt that to appeal from Cæsar to Cæsar, from the Board of Agriculture to itself, would be futile under a Bill of this kind. I think it is worse than futile, because you give an appearance of power of appeal whereas you really give fresh authority to the bureaucratic body, which is, as I understand it, the whole meaning of the amendment of this measure. For that reason these words were introduced—I beg the noble Lord to look at this, and also the noble Earl beside him who will probably reply—
"Provided that the arbitrator shall be nominated, in default of agreement, by the President of the Surveyors Institution."
The object of this was to alter the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908, as regards the arbitrator. It was felt that those provisions were not applicable where the Board was the party on one side and the farmer or the landowner on the other. Therefore, this impartial outside authority was introduced.
What possible reason is there—whatever the noble Lord may say as regards the Bill generally—for altering an appeal which under the provisions of last year, and after much discussion, was committed to the hands of an independent body appointed by the President of the Surveyors Institution? I cannot argue with the noble Lord, because he said himself that in his view appointment by the Board could not be sustained. The noble Marquess begged him to produce some arguments in favour of the proposal. It is quite clear that this is very important. If you are to have impartiality in a case of this kind, which is all that we want, you must have an appeal Court constituted by an independent body such as the President of the Surveyors Institution. What was there in the noble Lord's argument which in any way interfered with having an appeal that is impartial, instead of such an appeal as he suggested, which would be worse than none at all in my opinion, because it would be a fictitious Court of appeal which would have no value? The dice would be loaded against the farmer and against the agricultural interest.
I admit that my own experience has been a rather stormy one as regards my agricultural committee. I have not desired to assent to certain Orders they have made, because I knew that the result would be a diminished farm production. The only object any one has in these days is to get

717
the maximum production, and I felt quite certain, as events have shown, that their Regulations would result in diminished production. Of course, one had to assent. A hundred acres of grass land, in admirable conditions and on which large sums have been spent for water, fencing, and artificial manure, has been ploughed up, and the result has been wire worm. I hear that it will produce about one quarter to the acre, and that a good deal of it will not produce one quarter to the acre. It cost about £15 an acre to plough up and get into order, and it will not, I think, produce the seed which was sown. That is an additional loss; I am not talking about the fee simple loss.
I admit that the year in some respects has been a bad year, but there is also this indirect result (which was present in the mind of the noble Lord when he talked about concentration) that having to deal with additional work of this kind prevents concentration on work already in cultivation. I entirely agree with him that the best plan is not to plough up fresh lands but to concentrate on the cultivation of land which already may be called arable land. That is a most important point. Therefore, not only was there the direct loss which I have indicated, but, in addition, a considerable quantity of arable land was not properly treated and prepared, which could have been properly treated and prepared if this additional 100 acres had not been thrown on my hands at a comparatively late stage. I do not quote that as a complaint. One has to take one's chance with the rest, but I quote it to show that in matters of this kind, requiring the most careful consideration—where there is a question of doubt—the principle of the Corn Production Act, 1917, is right, and you ought to have an appeal before an impartial agriculturist. I do not put it altogether from the point of view of the owner or the agriculturist, but from the point of view of obtaining, what is the main purpose in everyone's mind, the maximum production under existing conditions during this and subsequent years. The noble Lord referred to other matters which were quite incidental. This is not an Allotment Bill, and has nothing to do with allotments except in the most incidental way.
LORD CLINTON: It has largely to do with allotments, although you will not find it in the Bill. If the Regulations are withdrawn we have no power to proceed with allotments at all.
LORD PARMOOD:If what is wanted is to enable Regulations to be kept alive as regards allotments, let that be done. It is not the matter that we are discussing here. We are discussing a measure which dealt with wages, prices, compensation, and proper cultivation, and it is in reference to them that these special provisions were introduced, and it is in reference to them that, at any rate, I desire to see maintained this impartial arbitrator who was instituted by the Corn Production Act itself. The other matters—such as the want of agricultural labour—are notorious. It is very important, but I am sure the noble Lord will see that if you are ploughing up land it should only be done under which I may call conditions best suited for agriculture itself. It ought not to be ploughed up one owner or farmer against another owner or farmer. The one dominating condition should be better production of agricultural produce on the farms concerned. That ought to be decided by an independent arbitrator, and therefore I entirely support the Motion of my noble friend Lord Desborough.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: My Lords, I should be the very last to give a vote in this House which at the present moment would interfere with the production of food in this country, and I can speak with a perfectly clear conscience myself, because I do not believe there is a person in the country who has ploughed up more grass land than I have. I have also attempted to grow as much as possible on the ploughed land. I confess when I heard the opening remark of the noble Lord who introduced the Bill and the great point he made of the breach of faith which was being committed by repealing this section of the Corn Production Act, I fully expected to hear that he would have some strong arguments indeed to induce this House to go back on the Corn Production Act and the agreement which was arrived at only a year ago. I do not know whether any other noble Lord will speak from the Government Bench, but I should like to hear still further arguments why this breach of faith should he committed.
I listened very attentively to the noble Lord's speech, and his arguments in favour—or, rather, I will say on the need—of this Bill were set out practically in two propositions. One was that there had been an enormous number of allotments and garden plots started all over the country; there was still a large demand for these plots unsatisfied, and unless the Bill was

719
passed the applicants, who had not yet received their plots, would have to wait a long time, and there would arise a very dangerous feeling in many parts of the country. With that I cordially agree. I am entirely in favour of these people, especially at this time, obtaining these garden plots and allotments as easily and as quickly as possible. But, as it has been said by the noble and learned Lord, there is no single word in the Corn Production Act, from start to finish, about allotments, and it came on me as a perfect bombshell when I was told that this breach of faith was to be committed in order to supply allotments. It appears to me, if allotments are needed, that it is not unreasonable to suppose, even if the Defence of the Realm Regulations which give war agricultural committees power to take land with very little formality in order to provide these allotments cease, that new Defence of the Realm Regulations might be issued. If that was impossible, I do not think a short Bill empowering war agricultural committees to obtain these allotments in as speedy a manner as possible would take many hours to pass through this House or the House of Commons. That was the first reason the noble Lord gave.
The second reason given was more incomprehensible than the first. Then we got to the vexed question of the ploughing-up of grass land. I have issued Orders, in the committee to which I belong, for the ploughing-up of a good many acres of grass land, and I consider that at the present time, having regard to the large reduction in the numbers of the most useful men on the farm, it would be absolute folly to continue to issue Orders for breaking up more grass land. I will deal with the argument which the noble Lord used, and which was really the only substantial one that he did use, in favour of this Bill. What was it? He told us that of all the land broken up 75 per cent.—I forget his actual percentage—had been a success, but that 25 per cent.—
LORD CLINTON: I did not use any figures.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I beg the noble Lord's pardon. We will take a vague figure. He told us that a great portion of the land which had been broken up had yielded good crops, but that a certain portion had been a failure, or had yielded small crops, and he went on to
720
point out that because a certain small portion of this land had not yielded good crops this year it was much too early to say that the agricultural committees were wrong in ordering the land to be broken up, for the probability was—as any one who knows anything about farming will admit—that in the second or third years good results would be obtained. I do not think that I am misrepresenting the noble Lord in saying this. At the same time he told us, "I think more acres of land ought to be broken up, but we cannot come by our rights for the breaking up of more land for the reason that a great deal of the old ploughed land has become worn out and is choked with weeds and wants manuring." It requires, in fact, what every farmer knows it requires—well cultivating, fallowing, and manuring. Let us work this argument out. Some of this land which is to be broken up will not, the noble Lord says, grow crops for 1919. When you have old ploughed land which requires only fallowing, clearing, and manuring, and when there is a great shortage of labour, why not put the available labour on this old land and thoroughly clean, fallow, and manure it, and so grow crops upon it instead of wasting time upon land which will not yield anything for two years, or at least a portion of which will not grow anything for two years? The argument of the noble Lord is no argument at all in favour of committing a breach of faith.
I should not hesitate for a moment to support the Government in this matter if they could plainly show in the interests of food production that it was absolutely essential. As I understand the matter—my knowledge is not so good on the subject as that of many noble Lords—under the Defence of the Realm Regulations, if a man's farm is in a bad state, the war agricultural committee can issue an Order telling him what he must do to his land. It is a good thing, no doubt, under the Corn Production Act, that the war agricultural committees have issued these Orders saying; "You must clean such and such a field; you must fallow such and such a field; and you must grow such and such a crop upon such and such land." The farmer, as I understand, will now be able to refuse to do it. But even in the few cases where the farmer would refuse would it be a very long business if there was an appeal by the farmer against the war agricultural committee? It appears to me to be a matter of no particular

721
urgency at the present moment. The fight that we have at this moment in the country is to obtain labour. I cannot conceive, on the arguments that have been placed before us so far, that there is any justification whatsoever for going back on the most solemn and binding agreement arrived at only a year ago.
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE: My Lords, I did not intend to trouble your Lordships' House with any remarks, but as my name has been twice brought forward perhaps you will pardon me if I say two or three words on the subject with which it was associated. The noble Lord who introduced the Second Reading of this Bill so well, alluded to the number of allotments. May I say one word to congratulate him. He told us that there would be 2,000,000 more allotments this year, and he said what a benefit they were to the community. May I congratulate him upon this, and express the great pleasure it affords us to hear the policy which we have advocated for so many years has had such brilliant and satisfactory results.
Then the noble Lord spoke of the theoretical objections to the arbitrators who were appointed by the Board of Agriculture under the Bill of 1907, and he wished to know if there could be given any instances of their having been successful. He repudiated these arbitrators, and wished that he could rid himself of them. I think that I can give him an instance, and a very good one, of the fairness of the proposal in having an arbitrator appointed by the Board of Agriculture. There is a village in the North of the County of Bucks called Drayton Parslow, which is seven miles from any big town, and which lies between Bletchley and Wolverton, two great railway centres. The whole of that village is entirely in small holdings and allotments with the exception of one farm, which will be handed over to the village community when the old tenant dies. There being no more land, and land being very much required in the neighbourhood, an attempt was made to get some in a neighbouring parish, and that land belonged to a lady of whom it is impossible to speak too highly. She is a very wealthy lady, and her kindness and her benevolence are unparalleled. She was asked to give this land over to the poor men who wanted some land to cultivate, but unfortunately the agent got hold of her. There was a farmer in the district who desired the land, and it was refused to the men who wanted
722
it. Under the Act we took it by compulsion, and the rent was arranged by people in the neighbourhood who perfectly understood the customs of the country and the rent of the neighbouring land. An arrangement was effected by which the tenants could have made a most comfortable and happy living. This lady was advised to appeal and go to arbitration. We sent down an arbitrator from the Board of Agriculture who valued time land at so high a figure that it was impossible for the Board to sanction the scheme, because under the rent that would have had to be charged to these unfortunate men it would have been impossible for them to make a decent living. The objection is very simple. The landlords thought that they would not get a fair or sufficient price or rent for their land. I think that the example which I have given—a fair one—shows that the plan worked very well, and that there really could be no great objection to it.
I have only one more word to say, and that is with reference to some remarks made by my noble friend Lord Parmoor, who, I am sorry to say, has just left the House. Lord Parmoor called attention to some hardships, and to a sort of conflict that he had had with the Bucks War Agricultural Committee on account of having to plough up land which was alter-wards unfortunately attacked by wire worm and was practically a failure. I may say in justice to the war agriculture committee, of which I am a member, that this was not the only difficulty that we had with the noble Lord. The noble Lord farms about a thousand acres of hill land, and 350 acres of his land was in such a condition—I will not use any adjectives or epithets—that we had to draw his Lordship's attention to it. We sent our expert to look over the land, and he reported that it was in a very, very unsatisfactory condition, and as the war agricultural committee do not discriminate between the rich and the poor, though my noble friend was Chairman of Quarter Sessions we had to treat him in exactly the same way as we should have done any small or big farmer in the district. Naturally, he was not very much pleased at this, and we had some letters from him, but I am glad to be able to say that the hint was taken, and the 350 acres of the noble Lord's land are now in excellent condition, and growing most excellent crops. I have to thank the House for allowing me to say these few words in support of what we did in the Bill for which I was responsible in

723
bringing in men who were appointed by the Board of Agriculture as the Court of final appeal in agricultural matters.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: My Lords, the noble Lord began his very moderate statement in moving the Second Reading of this Bill with the frank admission, at which I think no one could have been surprised, that it was by a breach of agreement that we are asked to read this Bill a second time to-day. But quite apart from the fact of its being a breach of agreement, the noble Lord admitted also that the gravest possible issues depended upon it. There, again, I think the noble Lord was perfectly right. We are bound in this House to consider most carefully what our position was under the Corn Production Act when it last left the House, and what it will be in comparison unless this Amendment is carried to-day, or unless the Bill is altered in Committee to such an extent as I believe would be impossible without making practically a new Bill of it, which it is not our business, at all events on this side of the House, to do.
The effect of this Bill will be simply to place the whole agricultural community under the ruthless rule of the Defence of the Realm Act again, and to deprive us of the power of appeal which was given under the Corn Production Act as it left this House and as it was passed into law. I cannot imagine a graver position than that. When I ask myself what are the arguments in support of this change which the noble Lord has addressed to the House, I am really unable to find one. He said that the hopes that were entertained at the time of the passing of the agreement as to a right of appeal could no longer be maintained. Can the noble Lord tell me one single condition under which, so far as the increased production of food is concerned, woe are worse off to-day than we were at the time when the right of appeal was granted? On the contrary, on his own admission we are infinitely better off upon that ground to-day than we were then. He told us, with regard to the millions of acres that have been broken up for the purpose, that the result, generally speaking, was satisfactory. How can it be satisfactory if we are worse off than at the time when the appeal was granted?
The noble Lord spoke of the necessity for maintaining the increased production of food. Nobody agrees with him more
724
cordially than I do. I have preached that doctrine not only during the present. Parliament but for years before; it is absolutely vital to our existence as a nation. But there is a right way and a wrong way of doing everything, and it is not the right way to increase the production of food to plough up grass land which is producing something now, and to adopt a policy by which you are going to put nothing whatever in its place. For that is the position at which we have arrived with regard to a great deal of this grass land of which we hear. From what the noble Lord tells me this afternoon, it is to lie fallow. For how long? I am told that there is a good deal of newly ploughed-up land at the present time growing nothing but weeds in the greatest possible profusion in various parts of the country. I believe there is no answer to what was said with so much force by the noble Earl, Lord Ancaster, just now, and he has had larger experience of farming, I believe, than any man in this House, for not many years ago eight or ten thousand acres of the Ancaster estates were cultivated by himself and his father, and no one is entitled to speak with greater knowledge on this subject than he is.
The noble Lord said something about allotments—that the Bill was necessary on the ground of allotments, which, happily, have become more fashionable to-day than they were not long ago. So they are, and they were fashionable at one time before; but what was the result of the fashion in allotments in those days? Has the noble Lord ever seen, or does he remember, a Report that was called for by the noble Marquess, Lord Lincolnshire, when he was President of the Board of Agriculture? If he has not seen it, I would commend it to his most careful attention—it must be in existence at the Board of Agriculture, and he will easily get access to it. He will find that allotments at that time were being given up all over the country. The allotments were lying waste, and were given back to the farms from which they were taken in the most foul and useless condition. There was no demand for them whatsoever. Land for allotments could be had almost for the asking, if it was wanted, but there was no one at that time who seemed to want them again. It was a different thing altogether from small holdings.
Now there is a demand, and on whose part is it mostly? I believe it to be on the

725
part of the dwellers in towns. I shall be greatly surprised if they want to continue them, except where they are in the form of gardens immediately adjacent to their houses, and then I think nothing can be better than an increase of allotments of that kind. This can easily be accomplished—without taking away the right of appeal—by a very short and simple measure to which no objection, I believe, would be offered in either House of Parliament. If that is the noble Lord's argument—it seemed to me to be the only argument that had anything in it—then I think he might find a very easy way out of the difficulty without doing something to which I personally should take the strongest objection, that is, placing the whole agricultural community again under the Defence of the Realm Act, from which they were freed not only by an Act of Parliament but by agreement under the Corn Production Act as it now stands.
The noble Lord told us in the course of his speech that some 100,000 Orders had been issued to agriculturists in this country in connection with the increased production of food. All I can say is, God help the agriculturists who received them! But that is not the way to increase the production of food. The multiplying of Orders of every sort and kind only confuses and disheartens and disgusts the people who receive them. The noble Lord spoke very warmly and kindly of the farmers, and I was glad to hear him. Believe me, there is no more loyal body in this country than the farmers. I have lived among them and have known them for the greater part of my life, and I think nobody speaks with more experience of this subject than I speak. They are the best people in the world if led by men who give them good advice, but they are the most difficult people in the world to attempt to drive, especially when they know, as has happened over and over again in hundreds of cases—although they have submitted to them—that the Orders given to them are issued by people who do not understand their business one-tenth as well as they understand it themselves. In the interests of increasing and of maintaining the production of food, if my noble friend Lord Desborough goes to a Division I shall most heartily support him, and support him on that ground alone if there is no other ground.
LORD HARRIS: My Lords, I sincerely hope that the noble Lord in charge of this Bill will endeavour to meet my noble friend
726
Lord Desborough on the point of a referee. It is a lamentable fact that the longer this war lasts the more the Government Departments indicate a preference for tyranny over law—and that is the effect of this Bill. The Government last year, in a moment of tenderness and honesty, consented to the part of the Corn Production Act which secured to the persons who might be dispossessed of their land for farming purposes the reference to an expert arbitrator. This is proposed to be taken away. I rather gathered from what the noble Lord said that the Department recognised that there was some justification for Lord Desborough's request that an appeal should be granted; and, as I understand at thin moment, the only difference between them is whether the referee should be appointed by the Board of Agriculture or under the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Act.
I ask my noble friend, Is it worth the while of the Government Department to endeavour to force upon Parliament a Bill which they themselves acknowledge is a breach of agreement? Is it worth the while of the Government to force this Bill upon Parliament when they are so near in agreement to my noble friend? Surely it is rather undignified. When a way out of the difficulty is offered to them—and the point is really a minor one as to who shall be the official to nominate the referee—surely it is worth the while of the Government, sooner than force this Bill upon Parliament, to meet my noble friend in order to secure unanimity, and not place themselves in the position of having to acknowledge that they are forcing a breach of agreement upon the country.
As far as I could understand—not from any want of clarity in the noble Lord's explanation, but from my own incapacity—what the Department are aiming at is this. They think that there are certain lands which have been cultivated for years that ought to be left fallow, and that upon other land, for which labour, and artificial manures, and machinery are required, should be concentrated all the assistance that the Government can render: that a certain acreage of the old lands under cultivation should be left fallow and that new land should be taken up and cultivated. And they are going to commit themselves to this promise, this prophesy, that the produce of the lands which they are going to acquire is going to be greater than that which would have been obtained from the

727
lands which are to lie fallow. It is impossible for them to say with any certainty that what they hope for is going to result. I do not think that anybody at this moment can say what is going to be the effect of the ploughings that have been done; it depends very much upon the season, as all farming operations depend; and if we have a much longer drought it will be very questionable indeed whether some of the crops which are going to be produced on the newly-ploughed-up land will produce as much food as the old land would have produced if left under its previous cultivation.
Is it worth the while of my noble friend's Department to force this measure upon Parliament simply upon the basis of a prophesy, of a conjecture, of a hope, which may be absolutely disappointed? Surely this is an occasion on which the Government might accept the advice which has been offered to them in this House, and endeavour to come to terms with my noble friend.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I confess that I have listened to this debate with growing anxiety. I have the greatest reluctance, not only to voting against my noble friend Lord Clinton, who always addresses your Lordships in a manner which attracts universal approval, but also to voting against the Government upon a Bill which they submit to Parliament as being necesssary in the interests of food production and of the war. But I feel that, as the debate has gone on, and as noble Lord after noble Lord has arisen and addressed Your Lordships, there really is no choice left to us than to vote against the Bill, unless the Government have something further to add.
What has been the course of this debate? The arguments which my noble friend put forward at the beginning have not stood fire. There was a long argument about allotments; my noble and learned friend below the Gangway dealt with that. There is nothing about allotments in Part IV. Then there was an argument about appeal. The noble Lord himself gave away the case for appeal. He said that my noble friend Lord Desborough was right in thinking that there ought to be an appeal, and he indicated that the Government were prepared to grant an appeal of some kind. Now, my Lords, if the ease of appeal is admitted, the whole argument against Part IV of the Bill upon appeal disappears.
728
What is left? I do not think my noble friend will contend that these poor farmers are not entitled to compensation if they suffer injury or loss by the operation of these Emergency Acts. Your Lordships would fail in your duty if you did not see that they got compensation. We are here to see justice done, and we cannot sit by and see poor farmers in all parts of England done out of compensation unless there is strong argument for it.
Upon appeal and compensation the case of the Government disappears. What is there left? Why do they want the Bill? I confess I am left in doubt at the end of the debate upon what possible grounds the Government want the Bill. The noble Lord said that they would require to break up more grass land in the ensuing season. I am not going into the question whether it is good or bad to break up grass land. Many noble Lords who are great authorities on the subject have advanced arguments to show that in many cases it is rather a doubtful policy. But you can break up grass land under Part IV.
LORD CLINTON: You can break up grass land, but you cannot get your entry quick enough to break it up except under the Defence of the Realm Regulations.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If you can satisfy their Lordships' House upon that, it would be something; but there was no argument of that kind addressed to us.
LORD CLINTON: I used the words "rapidity of action."
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Although the noble Lord is well known to be a great authority on agriculture, I think we should expect from the representative of the Government something more than mere ipse dixit. We want to be shown that that cannot be done under Part IV which it is necessary should be done, and I see nothing in Part IV which would not enable the Government to do everything that is required without undue delay. Unless we are shown that it is not so, the case breaks down.
I confess I am rather suspicious of the case of my noble friend, because there was little in his speech which had direct reference to the Bill. He spoke in very high terms of the great work done by the far-

729
mers and of the patriotism of the agricultural community, but I felt all the time that this was in the nature of sugar which was intended to conceal something that was not very pleasant. I do not think your Lordships ought to shrink from the pill if the pill ought to be swallowed, but let us have some argument in favour of the Bill, and I confess that mere sugar left me in doubt whether there was really any case behind the Bill. Let me, therefore, invite the Government to make a much stronger case than they have done in favour of the postponement of Part IV of the Act; or, if not, let them reconsider their position and not press upon an unwilling House that which they cannot defend. By all means if it will help the noble Lord let us consent to adjourn discussion, so that the Government may think the matter over. I apologise if I misinterpret the mind of your Lordships. Personally I should have been willing to do that. I cannot vote for the Bill and must vote against it unless the Government make out a stronger case in its favour.
LORD CLINTON: My Lords, perhaps it will be convenient if I make some reply to my critics at this moment. I am sorry it has been considered that I did not go into sufficient detail in my opening speech in support of the measure. To do so would entail my reading to you the greater part of the Defence of the Realm Regulations, with which I presume your Lordships would be very largely acquainted. Those Regulations give us power to enter upon land without notice. The Corn Production Act requires notice to be given. The Defence of the Realm Regulations enable us to take possession of land immediately, which cannot be done under the Corn Production Act. The Regulations give us numberless powers which, if your Lordships have looked them up, you will see are very great powers, and which we consider of enormous importance to food production at this moment—powers which cannot be exercised under Part IV of the Corn Production Act. I believe that there is an exceedingly strong case for maintaining food production at the present high standard, and for using the powers under the Defence of the Realm Regulations rather than the powers given under the Food Production Act; and when the noble Marquess who spoke last says that the main points are these of appeal and compensation, I, without wishing to contradict him, although I am bound to do
730
so, say that those are minor points. They are points of immense importance to certain interests and to certain people, but from the point of view of the country's interests they are of minor importance.
The general trend of the debate seems to me to be an endeavour to show that the whole system of corn production in this country has been unsuccessful, and the noble Lord, Lord Desborough, told us what gloomy ideas he had of the possibility of production from corn now under cultivation. It is most unsatisfactory, I think, in any case to estimate production in the growing season. The only possible arbitrator—and I hope my noble friend will think him an impartial one—is the threshing machine, and when we get him, even though he be supplied by the Board, I am confident we shall find the result to be good.
LORD DESBOROUGH: I do not think I made any prophecy. I was quoting one of the noble Lord's friends—at any rate, one of his supporters.
LORD CLINTON: I have no reason to take a gloomy view of corn production at this moment, but I say that without these powers you cannot be certain of maintaining the high rate of production. The noble Viscount, Lord Chaplin, stood before us as the advocate and I think the apostle of increased food production, and we know what great success has attended his efforts through many years. He thought very little of allotments. He told us, perfectly correctly, that a great many allotments had failed in the past; but for the past year they have been a brilliant success.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: I said so.
LORD CLINTON: Then I misunderstood the noble Viscount. I thought he was doubting their value at the present moment. It is one of the reasons for passing this measure. The powers under the Defence of the Realm Act, which we say we wish and must retain for food production, are so important that I put them in the forefront, but I can deal with the suggestions which have been made that so much of this Part IV should come into operation immediately.
Now Lord Desborough told us that he was going to give us four points. I did not gather that he had four points. He gave us point number one, which was that of

731
appeal; and point number two, compensation. These are the only two points I recollect in his speech.
LORD DESBOROUGH: There were two points under cultivation; the third was as to compensation fully, as given already; the other was that all Regulations are to be laid on the Table of both Houses of Parliament.
LORD CLINTON: What are the Regulations?
LORD DESBOROUGH: The new Regulation which may be issued. The provision is in the Act now, and comes into operation on August 21.
LORD CLINTON: They are to be laid on the Table of the House? Are they Regulations made under Part IV of the Act?
LORD DESBOROUGH: Of the Corn Production Act.
LORD CLINTON: What is the section? Can the noble Lord tell me?
LORD HARRIS: Section 12, subsection (2).
LORD CLINTON: For the moment probably I need not trouble about that. May I take the matters in what appear to me to be their order of importance? In the first case, with regard to the appeal, in the Regulations for appeal which the President of the Board has communicated to the noble Lord and other Peers it is stated that there shall be an appeal, so that the principle is already admitted. But it proposed a form of arbitration which is not satisfactory to the noble Lord, and which is not satisfactory, I think, to any noble Lord who spoke, except—I beg his pardon—the noble Marquess, Lord Lincolnshire. It is following the precedent of his two Acts. I am bound to say—I have already admitted—that I recognise the sound objection which is lodged to appointment by the Board, as it may quite truly be said that one of the other parties is on the same side as the Board itself. I do not admit for a moment that the Board would appoint a partial person. I am quite certain they would not. Consequently, I have described it before—I hope correctly described it—as a theoretical objection,
732
but still an objection which has so much point that I think it has to be met. I know as a matter of fact, that the Board would willingly meet the noble Lord by re-inserting—it will not be quite in that form—in the Bill the appeal as it now stands in Section II of the Corn Production Act. Therefore, so far as appeal is concerned, I presume that I have met the opposition. It will be the same appeal.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The same appeal as in the present Act in Part IV?
LORD CLINTON: Yes.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: And that will be put into a Bill and not into an Order?
LORD CLINTON: It will be put into writing, as my noble friend Lord Des-borough particularly desires it should be. It will be in the Bill which I am now putting before your Lordships.
LORD DESBOROUGH: When will it come into operation—on August 21 next?
LORD CLINTON: It will come into operation on August 21 next.
LORD DESBOROUGH: Exactly the same appeal? I do not want the same appeal, but rather different. Will it be the same appeal?
LORD CLINTON: I think the noble Lord is very suspicious. I dare say he has a right to be, but there is no necessity for him to be suspicious. Can I put it any stronger? The same appeal, relating to the same subjects, as has already been laid down in Section 11 of Part IV of the Corn Production Act. I will go even further and say that I hope, before the House rises to-night, actually to have on the Paper the wording of the clause which I shall submit in the list of Amendments.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What about compensation?
LORD CLINTON: Now I come to compensation. Compensation under the Defence of the Realm Act is an act of grace; under the Corn Production Act it is a right. As compensation is obviously admitted, as it is acknowledged that there is a claim

733
for compensation, we are of opinion that there is no objection to re-inserting it—that is the wrong phrase, but it is what I mean—in the same way as we are reinserting the right of appeal.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: In the Bill?
LORD CLINTON: In the Bill. It will come in the Amendments to the Bill that I will place before your Lordships.
LORD PARMOOR: Will the noble Lord put it in the same words as in the Corn Production Act?
LORD CLINTON: The same words, as far as it is possible to put them into an Amendment. The noble Lord will see it on the Table to-morrow. I have no doubt it can be completed to-night. On these two points I claim that I have fairly met the objections that are raised. On the matter of Regulations, I think there was another point. I am afraid it is a point. I do not understand. Is it a matter of pressing importance?
LORD DESBOROUGH: It is a matter of the very greatest importance.
LORD CLINTON: The Regulations clause is not in Part IV, is it? It is in Part V—I speak under correction—and I presume it is in force now. In any case I think it would be more convenient if the noble Lord would see my Amendment, and if he is not satisfied that it covers the question he can move to amend it. There is a Regulation clause in Part V which, speaking under correction, I presume is in force now.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I feel certain that the noble Lord opposite has done his best to meet the sense of the various speeches which have been made, all of which, except for one or two points in the speech of my noble friend Lord Lincolnshire, have been in direct opposition to the proposals of the Bill as introduced. What I am not quite certain about, and I am not sure that any of us on this side are even after the very clear explanation given by the noble Lord, is this. What precisely will be the difference in the law if the Bill were to be passed in the shape which it would assume after the concessions recently announced by the noble Lord? What would be the difference
734
then from the law as at present under the Corn Production Act? It is clear, of course, that to a certain extent the Board of Agriculture would be able to work under the Defence of the Realm Act instead of under Section 11, subsection (2), of the Corn Production Act, What advantage to them would it be to be able to act in that manner? As one understood from the speech of the noble Lord, the advantage which the Board of Agriculture were looking forward to gain from this Bill was the obtaining of land which was required as the noble Lord endeavoured to show, for the purposes of increased production of food by ploughing up fresh grass lands; and obtaining it without the right of appeal, and without the scale of compensation which would be claimed under arbitration under the Act. The noble Lord, in deference to time opinions expressed, apparently abandons both those claims, and is prepared to admit precisely the same methods of arbitration, and the same scale of compensation, as those which exist under the Act as it stands. What I am not quite clear about is this. Having given up these two crucial points, why it is worth his while to proceed with the Bill at all. I am not sufficiently acquainted with all the circumstances to be able to follow what just now he is driving at, and what it is he hopes to get.
LORD CLINTON: I will endeavour to answer time specific question. The two points on which we have given way, and which I have acknowledged are in themselves of great importance to certain interests, are not of the same importance to the food supply of the nation as the Defence of the Realm Regulations, which I am endeavouring to retain under this measure. I hope not to go into a long explanation, but it may be necessary to say this. When your Lordships passed the Act of last year you gave certain powers, but you then withdrew them and placed instead of them the Regulations under the Defence of the Realm Act. All those powers we have been acting on ever since, but as there was no appeal and no definite right to compensation these were not included. We still have now, or I am asking your Lordships to give us, the powers under the Regulations. What are the powers that we want under the Regulations? The powers that we had last year, the powers we wish to retain. They are powers for immediate entry into places, to alter or improve

735
methods of cultivation; they are powers to get immediate possession; powers for allotments, and powers in relation to cultivation and machinery; they are all powers of the first importance in regard to food production. They entail also powers for ordering the breaking up of land—that is part of altering the methods of cultivation. These are all powers of the first importance which we are retaining; we are giving up, in deference to the wishes of noble Lords, appeal and compensation. I hope I have made that clear.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I think I understand. The noble Lord proposes to exercise these powers, but to exercise them subject to appeal and subject to the right of compensation.
LORD DESBOROUGH: The noble Lord has appealed to me not to proceed with my Amendment, but I must say it would be much more satisfactory if, instead of making verbal arrangements across the floor of the House, he would say exactly what are the powers he wants, and introduce a Bill so that we could discuss them. To discuss "a Bill to amend subsection (3) of Section 11 of the Corn Production Act, 1917," is, I think, a most unsatisfactory way. I am not quite sure yet what it is the noble Lord wants, and I propose to go to a Division.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): My Lords, I trust that it may not be necessary to divide the House. Lord Desborough went into this matter very fully, and specified four points about which he desired information. Two of those points were very clear, notably about compensation and arbitration. There was the third point, which I do not think he made in his earlier remarks, about Regulations. I am not quite clear what his desire is in that respect. The Regulations in the principle Act are in Part V, and so far as I can make out this Bill chiefly applies to Part IV. I dare say he has a very good case, and on the fourth proposition, which I have not yet gathered from him, he may have a very good case as well, but I do suggest to your Lordships that it is a little unreasonable to say you will vote against the Second Reading of a Bill which the Board of Agriculture, with a great sense of responsibility, says is necessary for the maintenance of the food production of this country merely on the ground
736
that Acts of Parliament are in themselves obscure and apparently lend themselves to evasion or breaches of faith.
My noble friend Lord Clinton has promised, in a very specific way, to meet Lord Desborough upon the two points on which he insisted during his long speech—compensation and arbitration. Those were the two points on which Lord Des-borough and his supporters have insisted. The question of Regulations is quite subordinate and subsidiary. Lord Desborough never mentioned them in his original speech; and the fourth point, whatever it be, is also bound to be ancillary to the main argument about compensation and arbitration.
What is the Parliamentary position? Lord Clinton has promised, if your Lordships give the Bill a Second Reading, to hand in an Amendment, which will be in your Lordships' hands to-morrow morning. Part IV of the Act, as your Lordships remember, comes to an end during the month of August, and time therefore is really rather short. It is extremely desirable that we should take up these questions at the earliest possible moment, for everybody will admit their complexity and the necessity of giving them close examination. But having had an assurance so specific on the two points about which Lord Desborough insisted, and when an Amendment is now practically drafted (if it is not actually ready, it will be placed in the hands of the learned Clerks of the Table immediately the Second Reading is passed) and will be in your Lordships' hands to-morrow, and will be subject to consideration during the Committee stage, if necessary during the Report stage, and on Third Reading as well, I really think that this is a Parliamentary situation which does not justify the House in throwing out a Bill on Second Reading before the actual terms of the Amendment have been presented—an Amendment which, I assure your Lordships, has been drafted solely to meet the case put forward by Lord Desborough and his friends. I hope that the House will therefore concede the Second Reading of the Bill.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: My Lords, I have been listening with growing anxiety to this debate, because we appear to be rapidly approaching a deadlock in which it is impossible to give effect to the desires of my noble friends sitting on this

737
side without pronouncing a decision the irrevocability of which we should all regret. Of course, we should be throwing out a Bill which the Government say on their responsibility is one necessary for the production of food in this country, and we should be advertising the fact that not only was this House unwilling to proceed with such a Bill so described, but that it would be useless for it again to be initiated in another place.
The noble Lord in charge of the Bill has announced two very material concessions. My noble friend Lord Desborough says that he does not like to have them in a verbal form across the Table, but at this stage you cannot have them in any other. Lord Desborough, in refusing a Second Reading to this Bill, precludes our having an opportunity of ever seeing them again in any other form. I am an inexperienced member of this House, and I am actuated by the ordinary human passion of curiosity. I want to see the Amendments in type. There is another thing that I want to see. I want to see my noble friend Lord Des-borough's four points in type, because I am afraid not even his great powers of exposition have entirely succeeded in showing us, I will not say that "sable score of fingers four," but that clearly mathematical, definable, and distinguishable series of separate points which he said were four,
but which did not really materialise as much more than two. If we give this Bill a Second Reaching to-night we shall afford Lord Desborough an opportunity of placing his four points upon the Paper upon which our Amendments are printed. I do not know if I am wrong, but it seems to me, even though perhaps we do surrender certain of our rights by giving a Second Reading to this Bill, we have certain other rights which we may still be able to use in refusing to go into Committee, of negativing a Motion to proceed with the Report stage, and of opposing the Third Reading. And there is a further mysterious stage in the proceedings of this House which consists in saying "that this Bill do pass." So that we have more opportunities of maintaining and exercising control even than other bodies of the Legislature. I hope, my Lords, that my noble friends will not persist in this rather truculent determination to refuse a Second Reading to this Bill, and deny to the harmless curiosity of their fellow Peers the opportunity to see the proposals which are really being made to the Legislature.
On Question, whether the word "now," proposed to be left out, shall stand part of the Motion—
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 42; Not-Contents, 21.

CONTENTS.

Canterbury, L. Abp.

Stanhope, E.

Colchester, L.

Finlay, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Strafford, E.

Colobrooke, L.

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

Yarborough, E.

Digby, L.

Elphinstone, L.

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

Farquhar, V. (L. Steward.)

Harris, L.

Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

Hylton, L.

Devonport, V.

Kenyon, L.

Crewe, M.

Falmouth, V.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Salisbury, M.

Goschen, V.

Muir Mackenzie, L.

Knollys, V.

Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)

Ancaster, E.

Milner, V.

Queenborough, L.

Brassey, E.

Peel, V.

Ranksborough, L.

Eldon, E.

Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]

Lucan, E.

Annesley, L.

Southwark, L.

Lytton, E.

Blythswood, L.

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Sandwich, E.

Clinton, L.

Stuart of Wortley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Marlborough, D.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

Cholmondeley, M.

Desborough, L. [Teller.]

Oranmoro and Browne, L.

Faringdon, L.

Parmoor, L.

Abingdon, E.

Forester, L.

Sandys, L.

Scarbrough, E.

Gisborough, L.

Strachie, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Hindlip, L. [Teller.]

Sydenham, L.

Allendale, V.

Knaresborough, L.

Chaplin, V.

Lambourne, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Bill read 2a.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I have put down the Committee stage of this Bill for Thursday next, in order that Amendments may be considered at the earliest possible moment convenient to your Lordships.

PRIVATE BILLS.
[From Minutes of July 8.]
GLASGOW AND SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899), deemed to have been read 2a (The Lord Stanmore), and reported from the Committee.
SHEFFIELD CORPORATION (CONSOLIDATION) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
GLASGOW CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

IPSWICH DOCK BILL. [H.L.]
The King's consent signified, and Bill reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
House adjourned at ten minutes past seven o'clock.