Sitting of 23 July 1918

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills (Standing Orders not previously inquired into 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, referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:
South Metropolitan Gas Bill.
Ordered, That the Bill be committed.
Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into 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:
Ipswich Dock Bill [Lords].
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
Provisional Order Bills (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 Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 7) Bill.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 8) Bill.
Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time To-morrow.
Sligo Corporation Bill [Lords] (by Order),
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Brentford Gas Bill (by Order),
Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [20th March], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
Question again proposed.
The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. Whitley): The promoters of this Bill have, as I announced a little while ago, decided to withdraw the proposal of the Bill relating to the acquisition of a new site at Chiswick, and they also propose to accept the Instruction which stands in my name, to strike out the provision of the Bill relating to increased prices. I hope in these circumstances the House will see fit now to send this Bill to a Committee.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee to which the Bill may be referred to strike out the provisions whereby it is proposed to increase any statutory maximum price or to modify existing statutory provisions as to the relation of price to dividend.—[Mr. Whitley.]
Cannock Gas Bill (by Order), Hampton Court Gas Bill (by Order), Liverpool Gas Bill (by Order), Longwood and Slaithwaite Gas Bill (by Order), Yeadon and Guiseley Gas Bill (by Order), Cardiff Gas Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Tuesday, 6th August.
Commercial Gas Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
Gas Light and Coke Company Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.
Hastings and St. Leonard's Gas Bill (by Order), Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Gateshead Gas Bill (by Order), Plymouth and Stonehouse Gas Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred until Tuesday, 6th August.
Portsea Island Gas Light Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
Richmond Gas Bill (by Order), Southampton Gas Bill (by Order), Swansea Gas Bill (by Order), York Gas Bill (by Order), Basingstoke Gas Bill (by Order), Rhymney and Aber Valleys Gas and Water Bill (by Order), Alliance and Dublin Gas Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Tuesday, 6th August.

Copy presented of Report of the Progress of the Ordnance Survey to 31st March, 1918 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
BOARD OF EDUCATION.
Copy presented of Notes on Medical Education in England, being a Memorandum addressed to the President of the Board by Sir George Newman, K.C.B., M.D., F.R.C.P., Chief Medical Officer and a Principal Assistant Secretary of the Board of Education, and Medical Assessor to the Universities' Branch of the Board [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

ARKLOW HARBOUR.
Copy presented of Report of the Commissioners and Abstract Accounts for 1917 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
Papers laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:
1. Public Records: (Office of the Commissioners of His Majesty's Works and Public Buildings).—Copy of Second Schedule containing a List and Particulars of certain classes of Documents existing or accruing in the Office of the Commissioners of His Majesty's Works and Public Buildings which are not of sufficient public value to justify their preservation in the Public Record Office [by Act];
2. Lunacy.—Return to the Lord Chancellor of the number of Visits made and the number of Patients detained by the Commissioners during the six months ending on 30th June, 1918 [by Act].

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.
    BRITISH SUBJECTS IN ENEMY COUNTRIES.

      CLAIMS FOR COMPENSATION.
      Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any steps have been taken or are proposed to be taken to compensate British subjects who at the outbreak of war were resident and carrying on business in enemy countries or in countries that have been overrun by the enemy and who have had to abandon their businesses and have had their goods and properties seized by the Governments concerned; if, as regards Turkey, the Government have in hand funds belonging to the Ottoman Government; and, if so, whether these could be utilised for the purpose of compensating British interests in that country which have suffered as the result of the War?
      The ASSISTANT SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord R. Cecil): By the Proclamation of the 7th September, 1916, British subjects having claims against enemy Governments are required to make returns thereof to the Foreign Claims Office at the Foreign Office, with a view to such action as His Majesty's Government may think fit to take in the matter on the conclusion of hostilities. Such claims obviously cannot be settled before the end of the War. I will consider the suggestion in the last part of the question.
      Sir F. HALL: Is the Noble Lord aware that certain shipowners in Constantinople who were unable to get into communication by cable with this country did not have the facilities for insuring their steamers; and would the Government, in these circumstances, consider the advisability, instead of waiting till the cessation of hostilities, of saying whether they are prepared to accept responsibility in the special circumstances?
      Lord R. CECIL: Of course, I will consider any suggestion my hon. and gallant Friend makes, but there is evidently a great difficulty in treating one set of claims differently from another set of claims. However, I will consider it.

  MESOPOTAMIA OPERATIONS.

    STATEMENT BY LORD R. CECIL.
    Sir JOHN JARDINEasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is in a position to make a statement as to military and political matters on the coast of the Red Sea, the Hedjaz and adjoining Sultanates, and in Mesopotamia?
    Lord R. CECIL: The House will, I hope, pardon me if I answer may hon. Friend's question in some detail.
    General Marshall's operations on the Euphrates in March, and his subsequent operations in the neighbour of Kirkuk in April, resulted in inflicting on the Turks casualties amounting to about 10,000 men, of whom 7,500 are prisoners of war, the capture of 30 guns and much other war material.
    As regards the operations of the Mesopotamian Political Administration, very satisfactory progress is being made in redeeming the country from the state of ruin into which it had fallen under the Turks. Thirteen Government primary schools, four municipal State-aided schools, a teachers' training school, and a survey school have been opened. Extension classes in agriculture have also been started. The local demand for education is very insistent, and is being met as rapidly as the supply of teachers will permit. Large tracts of land hitherto unfilled have been brought under the plough through the combined efforts of the people and the Political Administration. Use has been made of mechanical tractors and artillery horses, which have supplemented the ordinary means of cultivation. The opening up of the country by road, rail, and improved water transport and the establishment of security on the highways have resulted in an increase of trade and a lowering of prices of commodities. The contrast between the improved condition of Mesopotamia and that of the neighbouring country occupied by the Turks, where disorder and famine are chronic, has not failed to impress the population and its leaders, the local notables and tribal chiefs. The relations between our troops and the people are excellent, and a spirit of harmony and co-operation prevails. The opinion is frequently expressed that the British people mean well by the Arab race.
    1616
    Turning to the operations of the forces of our Ally, the King of the Hedjaz, the casualties inflicted on the Turks by the Arab armies along the line between Dera'a and Ma'an number about 2,000, in addition to which two locomotives have been destroyed, 122 culverts and bridges demolished, and railway communication between those two points permanently interrupted. In the interior, five Turkish convoys, aggregating 1,500 camels, have been captured by the Sherif Ali, and a severe defeat has been inflicted on the Emir of Hail by the Sherif Abdulla.
    Sir J. D. REES: Is my Noble Friend aware what kind of education is being given? Is it an English education?
    Lord R. CECIL: I am afraid I do not know the details, but I am sure it is the best education.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Have any steps been taken to open the coal mines?
    Lord R. CECIL: I will inquire. I am afraid I cannot answer without notice.
    Colonel ASHLEY: Are any schemes of of irrigation under contemplation in Mesopotamia?
    Lord R. CECIL: The matter is, I know, being considered, but I cannot tell my hon. and gallant Friend the details.
    Mr. HOLT: Is there any immediate prospect of starting the pilgrimage to the Hedjaz?
    Lord R. CECIL: I do not think it has ever been interrupted.

  EAST AFRICA (MEDAL).
  Colonel YATEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the troops employed in the operations during the last four years in East Africa will be eligible for the medal that may be issued for the great War or will a separate medal be sanctioned?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): I am afraid I cannot at present make any definite statement on this subject, but the troops engaged in these operations will probably be considered eligible for any medal that may be sanctioned for the present War.

  PRISONERS OF WAR (TURKEY).
  Mr. PETOasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the dispatch

  1617
  of blankets and candles to prisoners in Turkey is prohibited and the despatch of soap limited to 1 lb. per month; and whether, in view of the comparatively small number of these prisoners and the difficulty of obtaining these articles in Turkey, he will arrange for these restrictions to be modified?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: The dispatch of blankets and candles to prisoners of war in Turkey is at present prohibited. The amount of soap which may be sent to officers is 16 ozs. per four weeks, and to other ranks 12 ozs. per four weeks. In addition, one stick of shaving soap is allowed per quarter and 18 tablets of anti-lice soap are included in each "standard parcel" sent by the Invalid Comforts Fund. So far as soap is concerned, the quantity authorised is considered adequate, but the question of modifying the restrictions as to candles and blankets is now being further considered.

  RUSSIAN OFFICERS.
  Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Russians who were officers in the ex-Czar's Army and are tried soldiers are being allowed to deliver speeches to the Russians from the East End who are in a Labour Battalion at Wilderness Camp, Sevenoaks; why are these officers not conscripted as their compatriots; and will he say how many of this battalion have been during the last month, or are now, in hospital or guard room?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: Certain Russian officers are attached for liaison duty to the headquarters of the Labour Battalion referred to, and no doubt address the men in the course of their duties. The figures asked for in the last part of the question are eighty-four and nine, respectively. The second part of the question should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of National Service.

  IRELAND.

    DISTURBANCE AT GLENBEIGH.
    Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that on 14th July the annual aeridhacht at Glenbeigh, county Kerry, was cancelled
    1618
    owing to the Proclamation, but that a number of visitors arriving, unaware of this, went to picnic on the seashore and about three dozen there engaged in singing well-known Gaelic songs, but the police quickly brought fifty soldiers who drove the whole party from the seashore, prevented any further singing, and struck persons with their rifles; whether these soldiers acted under military command; and, if not, whether commanding officers in Ireland will be instructed not to assist the police on trivial occasions or without real necessity?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: A meeting was advertised to take place at Glenbeigh, county Kerry, on the 14th instant. This was forbidden, and no meeting took place at Glenbeigh, but certain persons attempted to hold one at Rossbeigh about one and a-half miles distant. This was dispersed without any force being used. Subsequently further crowds collected, and, as they did not disperse after being warned by the police, the police and military dispersed them. There was no charge of any kind, but in certain cases the men who refused to move were pushed with the butt ends of rifles, but this was the only instance. No songs were heard. The military present were under their own commanding officer.

    MRS. SHEEHY-SKEFFINGTON.
    Mr. KINGasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that Mrs. Sheehy-Skeffington, now detained in Liverpool and prevented from returning to Ireland, is a widow whose husband was murdered by a British officer but who has received no compensation, that she desires to return to Dublin, where she has earned her living as a teacher; and that her son, aged nine years, has gone to Dublin; and whether he will state the conditions on which she will be allowed to live at her home?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir G. Cave): I have nothing to add to the replies with reference to this case which were given to similar questions on the 18th instant by the Attorney-General for Ireland and myself.
    Mr. MORRELL: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman ascertain what is the charge against this lady, and why she should be subjected to this special penalty after having been allowed to come to Liverpool and go no further?
    Sir G. CAVE: She was warned before she left the United States that she would not be allowed to go to Ireland.
    Mr. MORRELL: Is it not a fact that her passport was a passport to return home?
    Sir G. CAVE: I dare say it was in the ordinary form, but she knew very well that she would not be allowed to proceed.

    CAPTAIN BOWEN-COULTHURST.
    Mr. KINGasked the Home Secretary on what date was Captain Bowen-Coulthurst released from Broadmoor; how long had he been then an inmate of Broadmoor; whether a special mental inquiry was made into his case; if so, whether he is now considered to be sane and free from all danger of any relapse; how many persons have been liberated from Broadmoor during the last ten years; and what was the average term of detention in these cases before they left Broadmoor?
    Sir G. CAVE: Captain Bowen-Coulthurst was received in Broadmoor Asylum on the 5th July, 1916, and conditionally discharged on the 26th January last. I was advised in the matter by the medical staff of Broadmoor, who are specially skilled in all questions of insanity, and who had him under constant observation during the whole period of his detention. Captain Bowen-Coulthurst is not regarded as free from all danger of relapse, and for that reason conditions as to residence and supervision were attached to his discharge. During the last ten years 185 inmates of Broadmoor Asylum have been discharged from the asylum. Of these 169 have been discharged on conditions designed to protect themselves and the public from the risks arising from a relapse into insanity. I cannot say what was the average term of their detention. It varies very greatly according to the circumstances of the individual case.
    Mr. MORRELL: May we take it that this officer is now at liberty to live in Ireland, although the widow of the man whose death he caused, and against whom no charge is made, is not allowed to go there?
    Sir G. CAVE: No, Sir, that is not the case. One of the conditions of his release is that he shall reside in a fit place, in England.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is his intention
    1620
    to recommend that Captain Bowen-Coulthurst be now placed upon the military staff in Dublin?
    Mr. PRINGLE: For recruiting purposes.

    INTERNED PERSONS (CENSORSHIP OF LETTERS).
    Mr. KINGasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that delays occur in letters from interned Irishmen in English prisons reaching their friends; whether it is on his instructions that for three weeks past no news from Irish prisoners in Lincoln prison have reached their friends; why are letters from Holloway so detained that in one case two letters, written at an interval of two weeks, arrived on the same day; and whether, in view of the anxiety, distress, and false notions engendered by such irregular correspondence, he will give orders to ensure that the prisoners' friends have regular news from the prisons?
    Sir G. CAVE: I am aware that letters written by these interned prisoners to their friends are sometimes delayed. They are allowed to write for the purpose of communicating with their relations and friends on domestic matters and matters of business in which they are personally interested, and unless their letters are confined to such matters they are liable to be delayed or stopped. Such delays as are suggested in the question, if they have occurred, can only be in cases where these limits have not been observed. The prisoners have been specially reminded of this rule, and if it is observed their letters will not be held longer than is necessary for their proper examination by the Censor, which, in ordinary circumstances, does not delay them for more than twenty-four hours.

  MILITARY WORKS, CIPPENHAM.
  Captain CARR-GOMMasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether any other Departments are concerned in the erection of the new military works at Cippenham, in South Bucks; and, if so, will he say which they are?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: The answer is in the negative.
  Captain CARR-GOMMasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the special plant which is being erected at the new military works at Cippenham, in

  1621
  South Bucks, for the purpose of washing the gravel was found necessary only after the further examination of the soil, or whether its use was originally contemplated when the site was chosen; and will he say what is the estimated expenditure on this machinery and the cost of working it during the preparation of the site?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: It was never contemplated to use the gravel at Cippenham for ferro-concrete work without washing the gravel. The gravel-washer will cost about £150, and the cost of washing and grading the gravel is estimated at 9d. per cubic yard.
  Captain CARR-GOMMasked whether it was originally intended to supply a system of water transport in connection with the new military works at Cippenham, in South Bucks; whether it has been found impossible to extend the waterway of the neighbouring canal so as to serve the new site; and, if so, whether, in consequence, the whole idea of securing water transport for these new works has now been definitely abandoned?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the last two parts in the negative.

  GRAND CENTRAL HOTEL, BELFAST.
  Colonel McCALMONTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War (1) whether, before it was decided to take over the Grand Central Hotel, Belfast, the responsible Department of the War Office was aware that it was the largest hotel in the city; whether he will give the date of taking over and the number of weeks that elapsed before use was made of the accommodation; whether the accommodation has yet been fully used, and, if so, for how many nights; whether any ground for drill or training has been found near the building, and, if so, at what distance; whether he is satisfied that the whole transaction has proved a satisfactory one in the public interest; (2) whether he will state the monthly cost to the public of the taking over of the Grand Central Hotel, Belfast; from what date is payment due; and how much has been paid to the proprietors up to date?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I regret that the inquiries which are necessary to enable me to answer these questions are not yet complete, but I will write to my hon. and gallant Friend as soon as possible.

  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (ARMY LEAVE).
  Sir JAMES BOYTONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether there are any special privileges for leave granted to Members of Parliament who hold commissions in the Army?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: A Member of Parliament who holds a commission in the Army occupies no privileged position in regard to leave except that he is able to plead the necessity of attending from time to time to Parliamentary duties. As to this, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by the late Prime Minister to the hon. and gallant Member for Wednesbury on 1st November, 1916.
  Sir J. BOYTON: I am not quite clear whether a Member of Parliament is entitled to leave to attend to his business or profession other than his Parliamentary duties. Is he entitled to return for private or business affairs?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: The whole question of leave is, of course, under the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief in any theatre of war, and if anyone, whether a Member of Parliament or not, puts forward a good case that he should have leave for urgent private affairs, the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief is always sympathetic.
  Mr. THOMAS: Are we to understand that a private anxious to conduct his own private business is entitled to have special facilities to do it?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: It all depends what "his own private business" means. I have said that if a case is put forward by a private or by a Member of Parliament, or any soldier, in which it is a clear case of urgent private affairs in an emergency such a claim is always sympathetically considered.
  Mr. THOMAS: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman see what the effect in the country is of special facilities being given to officers which are denied to privates?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I have never said that, and I deny that it is true. I think each General Officer Commanding-in-Chief in any theatre of war is most careful in the way he administers leave. After all leave is not a right, but a privilege.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Does not the question of giving leave depend on the importance of the duties that the soldier has to perform?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: Very likely. That is a consideration which must arise.
  Mr. DENMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Simon) home on ordinary or special leave?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I cannot answer that question offhand.

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    OFFICERS RECALLED FOR SERVICE.
    Colonel ASHLEYasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if an officer or non-commissioned officer recalled for service under the Military Service Act, who has previously left or been discharged from the Service, will, irrespective of his medical grade, be entitled to be restored to his former rank?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The case of each officer is fully considered. As regards non-commissioned officers, the question is still under consideration, and it is hoped to issue instructions very shortly.
    Colonel ASHLEY: In what sense?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The instruction will be issued.

    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
    Mr. KINGasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that Herbert Wilson, a conscientious objector, now court-martialled for the fourth time, has always been ready to do work of national importance; and whether he will be allowed to do work under the Home Office scheme?
    Sir G. CAVE: The Central Tribunal, before whom this man appeared in September, 1917, reported that he could not be said to have any real conscientious objection to military service. The answer to the last part of the question is therefore in the negative.
    Mr. WATT: Is it not the case that these conscientious objectors are permitted to leave prison if they will pledge themselves to do work of national importance?
    Sir G. CAVE: Yes, generally speaking, that is true.
    Mr. MORRELL: Is there any right of revision in a case of this sort where a man professes himself to be anxious to do work of national importance?
    Sir G. CAVE: No; if he has not satisfied the Central Tribunal he is not examined again.

    OLD SOLDIERS (RELEASE).
    Colonel ASHLEYasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that the war bounty is now limited to men who are not above the age of fifty-one years, he will again consider whether men of that age who have completed thirteen years' service may be released from the Army in the same way that the limitation of the bounty awarded under Army Order 209 of 1916 to men under the age of forty-one carried with it the compensating advantages for men of the age of forty-one and upwards, that they could claim their discharge if they had completed thirteen years' service?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): My hon. and gallant Friend appears to be under a misapprehension. Any soldier who was serving on an Army engagement entered into before the outbreak of war which expires during the War, and who is retained under the Military Service Acts, is eligible for the bounty irrespective of his age at the date of being retained.
    Colonel ASHLEY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that is not the question I asked. The question I asked is whether a man of fifty-one can be released.
    Mr. FORSTER: My hon. and gallant Friend says "in view of the fact that the war bounty is now limited to men who are not above the age of fifty-one." None of us was quite clear what he had in mind.

  PRISONER'S DEATH (WORMWOOD SCRUBS).
  Mr. WHITEHOUSEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether J. G. Winter, a Durham miner,

  1625
  has died in Wormwood Scrubs; when was he admitted to hospital; when did death occur; and whether any inquiry, apart from reports from prison officials, has been, or will be, made?
  Sir G. CAVE: Winter was received into prison on the 10th instant, and was at once admitted to hospital, as he was suffering from a sharp attack of influenza. Next day an attack of pneumonia supervened, and he died on the 13th instant. An inquest was held, as the law requires, and the jury returned a verdict of death from natural causes. The evidence given at the inquest showed that while the deceased was in military custody he made no complaint of illness, and refused to allow a medical examination.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    CIVILIAN EMPLOYE PENSIONERS.
    Mr. T. WILSONasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that under War Office Letter, 27th April, 1914, paragraph 4, instructions have been issued to civilian employé pensioners employed at Colewart Barracks, Portsmouth, and to the pensioners similarly employed under the Royal Engineers, Hillsea lines, that in future their rate of pay is to be reduced by 2s. per week; and whether he will make inquiries with a view to the withdrawal of the paragraph in question, as no man who has fought for his country and earned a pension should be placed in civilian employment at a disadvantage as compared with other workmen?
    Mr. FORSTER: I will make inquiries, and inform my hon. Friend of the result.
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether it has yet been decided to render financial assistance to the widow and children of the late Bertrand Samuel Goater, S/14576, staff sergeant, Army Service Corps, who died on the 30th October, 1917; whether he is aware that this soldier served through the whole of the South African War, being invalided from the Army about two months before the, outbreak of the present War with tubercular lung, the disease being accelerated by foreign service; that, after three months' sanatorium treatment, the
    1626
    soldier resumed his former duties at the Army Service Corps Office at Netley, and was afterwards engaged at Romsey and Winchester as barrack warden; that his widow has received no financial assistance, though left with three children, their ages ranging from one to four years; and that one child falling ill was unable to obtain the necessary nourishment, and died in consequence; and what action it is proposed to take?
    Mr. FORSTER: This man was a discharged soldier, employed as a civilian subordinate. His widow is not entitled to a soldier's widow's pension, and his civilian service was too short to entitle her to a gratuity under the Superannuation Act. A small Grant has been made to Mrs. Goater from the Civil Compassionate Fund.

    RE-EMPLOYED PENSIONS (DEDUCTIONS).
    Colonel YATEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether Section 4 of the Superannuation Act of 1887, requiring that officers who have been retired with a pension or gratuity must have at least 10 per cent. deducted from any civil emoluments they may be able to earn in a Government Department, is held to apply to officers who have been retired from the Service owing to wounds or disablement incurred during the present or any previous War?
    Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether an officer in Government employment who is in receipt of a disability pension is in any case subject to any deduction from his salary on the ground that he is in receipt of a disability pension; and, if so, will he state what percentage of the salary earned is deducted on such grounds, and what justfication there is for such deduction?
    Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): The Treasury is advised that an officer who is in receipt of retired pay granted on account of disability owing to service in His Majesty's Forces, and who accepts any civil employment of profit under any public Department, is liable under No. 4 of the Rules made under Section 6 of the Superannuation Act, 1887, to a deduction of not less than 10 per cent. from the profits of his civil employment, provided that his salary and retired pay together exceeded £400 per annum. The deduction is prescribed by Statute.
    Colonel YATE: Then a soldier, officer, or man, wounded in this War is to have 10 per cent. deducted from any employment he gets? Will the hon. Gentleman have that Warrant cancelled?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I used the word "disability" advisedly. The wounds pension alone is exempted under Rule No. 1 (a) from that action. It would require alteration by Statute.
    Colonel YATE: Will the hon. Gentleman include disability in that, and get the Statute altered?

    PARTIAL DISABLEMENT.
    Colonel ASHLEYasked the Pensions Minister (1) whether he is now in a position to state whether a man who was partially disabled by wounds or injuries received in former wars will be put in a position corresponding to that of a man who was totally disabled in such wars and receive the scale of pensions as laid down for the present War; (2) whether he is now in a position to state whether a man who was partially disabled by wounds or injuries received in former wars shall be put in a position corresponding to that of a man who was totally disabled in such wars and receive the scale of pensions as laid down for the present War?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTER of PENSIONS (Sir Arthur Griffith-Boscawen): I regret that I cannot yet announce a settlement of this matter.
    Colonel ASHLEY: Are we to understand that the statement made by the Minister of Pensions last Friday week was unauthorised and inaccurate?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I cannot admit it was either unauthorised or inaccurate. I think what he said was perfectly true. He said he hoped to be able to make an announcement shortly.
    Colonel ASHLEY: Did he not make a definite statement that it had been decided?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I have no knowledge of that statement.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us when an official announcement will be made, apart from that form of announcement?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: This is a matter which concerns not only the
    1628
    Pensions Ministry, but other Departments. It is before the Government. The Committee are considering it, and I believe an announcement will be made very shortly.
    Mr. ROCH: Will the announcement be made in the House or on the platform?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I believe it will be made in the House.

    ENLISTED APPRENTICES (DEPENDANTS).
    Sir JOHN BARRANasked the Pensions Minister whether he continues to receive complaints about the practical effect upon the dependants of enlisted apprentices of the present Regulations governing such cases; and whether, in the light of the experience latterly obtained on this matter, he is proposing further modifications in favour of this class of case?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and as regards the latter, it is being considered whether farther modifications can be made in the Regulations in favour of the class of case to which the hon. Member is referring.

    PENSION TO RIFLEMAN'S WIDOW.
    Mr. SWIFTasked the Pensions Minister whether his attention has been called to the case of Mrs. Cavill, of 222, Nutgrove Road, Brown Edge, St. Helens; whether he is aware that her husband was wounded in October, 1914, discharged from the Army, and died from tuberculosis on 24th February, 1917; whether he is aware that Mrs. Cavill has only been granted a pension of 10s. for herself and three children, and that the pension authorities have refused to increase the amount, on the ground that Rifleman Cavill's tuberculosis was not connected with the wounds he received in action; whether he will state the reason the Ministry of Pensions have for making this assertion, the names of the doctors upon whose certificates they rely, the dates of those certificates, and their nature; and, seeing that the attitude of the Ministry of Pensions towards Rifleman Cavill's family has created indignation in the neighbourhood, will he say what action he proposes to take?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: This case has recently been carefully considered by the Medical Advisers to the Ministry, who are of opinion that Rifleman Cavill's death cannot be regarded as attributable

    1629
    to, or aggravated by, service, nor as connected with the disability fox which he was discharged. In these circumstances Mrs. Cavill is only eligible for a reduced pension under Article 17 of the Royal Warrant, which gives no additional allowance for children. I regret that I cannot give the information for which the hon. and learned Member asks in the third part of his question. My right hon. Friend cannot be called upon to disclose the source of the advice which is tendered to him, and the responsibility for which he accepts.

  PRISONERS OF WAR.

    EXCHANGE.
    Sir F. HALLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will consider as to taking steps to arrange for the periodical publication in the Press of particulars regarding the exchange of prisoners of war for the information of the relatives of prisoners in Germany and other enemy countries; and what steps are taken to ensure that British prisoners of war shall be acquainted with the arrangements that exist with respect to the exchange of prisoners.
    Mr. HOPE (Lord of the Treasury): Agreements respecting the exchange of prisoners of war are published in the form of White Papers. Copies of the Hague and Berne Agreements have been sent to the protecting missions at Berlin and Constantinople respectively, so that prisoners of war may be kept informed of their provisions. The Agreement recently come to at The Hague contains provisions for its circulation when ratified in all prisoners of war camps, and for its publication in the British and German Press.

    WORK IN MINES.
    Sir J. BUTCHERasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that our prisoners of war in Germany are forced by the German Government to work in the mines, and that many of them are totally unused to this kind of work and are suffering hardship; whether any protests have been made through the Netherlands Embassy against this ill-treatment of our prisoners; and whether, in case the German Government refuse to abandon these practices, steps will be taken to compel German prisoners in this country to work in the mines here?
    Mr. HOPE: The Agreement concluded at The Hague contains an Article (No. 33), which it is hoped will provide a satisfactory solution of the question of the employment of British prisoners of war in mines, which has long caused anxiety to His Majesty's Government. The Agreement, however, has not yet been ratified.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: Can the hon. Gentleman give us any idea when the Agreement made at The Hague will be ratified and the terms of the Agreement made public?
    Mr. HOPE: I cannot say that; of course it has to be ratified, not only by this Government, but by the German Government. It might be very inexpedient to publish the text before it was ratified.
    Mr. WING: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the adoption of the suggestion that German prisoners should work in British mines would mean trouble for the Government?
    Mr. HOPE: I have heard that suggestion.

    TURKISH CAMPS (DEATHS).
    Colonel Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the hon. Member for Sheffield (Central Division) how many British and Indian officers and rank and file, including followers, are known or believed to have died in each prisoners' camp in Turkey in each month since 1st January, 1917?
    Mr. HOPE: I am informed by the military authorities that the following deaths have taken place in prisoners' camps in Turkey since 1st January, 1917: 3 British officers and 518 other ranks, including Colonials; 1 British naval officer and 8 naval ratings; 6 Indian officers and 732 other ranks.
    I am sorry that I cannot state the number of deaths in each camp in each month without throwing undue labour on the officials concerned.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Can the hon. Gentleman inform me whether the figures are derived from the Turkish Government—are they official?
    Mr. HOPE: No; I think the figures come from neutral sources, but they are military figures and come from the Casualties Branch of the War Office. I shall be glad to make further inquiries on that point, if the Noble Lord wishes.
    Sir F. HALL: As these figures are as and from 1st January, 1917, will the hon. Gentleman say up to what date they apply, so that we can have some idea as to when it is possible to get the last information from Turkey?
    Mr. HOPE: They are eighteen months' figures.

  WAR BOUNTY.
  Colonel ASHLEYasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he is aware that men who have qualified for the war bounty under Army Order 209, of 1916, and the amending Order of the 8th July, and who have received one-third of the bounty in cash, are now being made to refund that one-third if, subsequent to the alteration in their term of service which qualified them for the bounty, they have been discharged on account of wounds or illness due to active service in the field; and whether he proposes to reconsider the position of these men?
  Mr. FORSTER: If my hon. and gallant Friend will give me particulars of any case, I will have inquiry made and let him know the result.

  ARMY STORES DEPOT, DUBLIN.
  Mr. FIELDasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he can state particulars of the progress made in the examining and receiving depot, Dublin; and when it is expected that the testing will be commenced?
  Mr. FORSTER: Some additional accommodation has been taken over since my reply on the 30th May last to a question by the hon. Member. I regret it is not yet possible to state when it is expected that the testing will commence.

  RATION ALLOWANCE.
  Mr. PETOasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, in view of the increased cost of foodstuffs, it is intended to increase the allowance in lieu of rations from the present equivalent of £27 a year; and, if so, when the increased rate will come into operation?
  Mr. FORSTER: The rates of allowance in lieu of rations were revised as recently as May last, and I am not aware of any
  1632
  reason for a further revision. The normal allowance is now 2s. 1d. a day, which is equivalent to £38 a year.

  SECRET TREATIES (PAMPHLET).
  Mr. KINGasked the Home Secretary whether he has now received any reply from the publisher of a pamphlet called "The Truth about the Secret Treaties"; and what action he proposes to take.
  Sir G. CAVE: I am informed that this pamphlet was issued at the instance of the Minister for Propaganda, and consequently does not come within No. 27-C of the Defence of the Realm Regulations.

  INTOXICATING LIQUORS (SALE TO YOUNG PERSONS).
  Colonel YATEasked the Home Secretary whether, as it is not possible under present conditions to introduce the legislation which would be necessary to enforce a general regulation against serving intoxicating liquors in licensed houses to persons under the age of eighteen years, he will consider the question of the provision of tables and chairs and refreshments other than intoxicating liquors in licensed houses, so that young persons can find accommodation there without being compelled to stand at a drinking bar?
  Sir G. CAVE: Though I agree in principle with the suggestion in the latter part of this question, I fear that there are no steps which I can take in the matter at present.

  TEACHERS (LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL).
  Captain BARNETTasked the Prime Minister if he is aware that the women teachers in the service of the London County Council Education Committee have asked for arbitration of the questions of commencing salary for fully trained certified women teachers and the immediate improvement of the financial position of all women teachers, and that such arbitration has been refused; and, if so, whether he will take steps to introduce the necessary legislation to enable them to claim arbitration in such matters as of right?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): The Prime Minister has asked me to answer this question. I am aware that on the 11th June women teachers in the employment of the London County Council asked the Council to submit the two questions referred to to arbitration, and I understand that the council are considering the Report of their Education Committee on the matter to-day. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer given yesterday to the hon. Member for East St. Pancras.
  Captain BARNETT: May I ask the Leader of the House to answer the last part of that question?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): No, Sir. I am not prepared at present to say that we can introduce this legislation.
  Mr. ALDEN: Would it not be possible to make representations to the Education Department to introduce legislation? Have representations been made?
  Mr. CHANCELLOR: Could it not be done by Regulation under the Defence of the Realm Act?
  Mr. WILESasked the President of the Board of Education if his attention has been called to the fact that the increased scale of salaries recently granted by the London County Council to women teachers in its schools has resulted in many cases in an actual decrease in money payments owing to the withdrawal by the Council of the original war bonus; and whether, in order to remedy this state of affairs as well as to prevent the depletion of the teaching staff, he will state whether he will intervene in the matter?
  Mr. FISHER: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Members for West Ham and North Somerset on the 10th June, a copy of which I am sending him. I am watching the situation very carefully, but I do not think that a favourable opportunity for my intervention has at present arisen.
  Sir F. HALL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if these teachers have not asked for arbitration, and whether, in the, case of a dispute, it is only a reasonable proposition that both sides should agree to arbitration, provided that they are desirous of doing what is fair one towards another?
  Mr. FISHER: I cannot judge whether the course indicated by the hon. and gallant Member is reasonable or not. I have not been invited up to the present moment by either party to intervene.
  Sir F. HALL: But may I ask if, in the general course of events, arbitration, where there is a difference of opinion, is not the most favourable for both sides?
  Captain BARNETT: Does my right hon. Friend realise that these ladies are denied a right which is given to telegraph girls and boy messengers?

  CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER.
  Mr. BOOTHasked what member of the Government will answer in this House for the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton.

  RAILWAY AND POLICE PENSIONERS.
  Colonel Sir CHARLES SEELYasked the Prime Minister whether he will appoint a small Committee to inquire into the position of persons in receipt of railway superannuation allowances and police pensioners who are suffering serious hardship owing to the rise in the cost of living?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: As at present advised, the Government is not prepared to appoint such a Committee.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise the very great hardship suffered by numbers of these people who have subscribed to these funds, and that nearly all the other pensioners have been dealt with?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes; but the funds referred to do not come under the Government. I do not think that at present there is any necessity for appointing such a Committee.
  Sir C. SEELY: Does not the Government take the extra profits on the railways, and were we not told yesterday by the President of the Board of Trade that they were considerable? Therefore, the funds from which they can be assisted

  1635
  really do come under the Government. Another point is that these funds are now controlled by the Government and the Government are using them.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is making a speech.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman not consider the case of war pensioners, and that they are as of great importance as the shareholders in statutory companies?

  GOVERNMENT (NUMBER OF MINISTERS).
  Mr. CHARLES ROBERTSasked the Prime Minister whether the Ministerial changes announced last week involve the addition of a new Minister to the total number of Ministers in the Government; and what is now the total number of Ministers composing the Government?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the second part 91, which includes appointments in the Royal Household which are always made when a Government is formed.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that out of those ninety-one Gentlemen no fewer than sixty-seven are Members of the House of Commons—10 per cent. There has been nothing like it for a long time.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not know the exact number. Perhaps the hon. Member is not aware that even before the War the number of members of the Government appointed in the same way was upwards of sixty. As regards the last part of the question, I have a better opinion of the House of Commons and their competence than the hon. Member.
  Mr. MacNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the habit of increasing Ministers has grown despite the War in an almost extreme proportion to the necessity, and is he aware that in Lord Salisbury's last Ministry there were only forty-four members, including the large contingent of the Cecil and Ceciloid family?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Before the War there was a tendency to increase, and pressure has nearly always come from the House of Commons.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many members, in addition to the sixty-seven members of the Government, are drawing subsistence allowance from the Government?
  Mr. FLAVIN: Will the Government consider the advisability of increasing the present number of the Ministry?

  ALIENS.

    GERMAN BANKS (WINDING UP).
    Mr. STEWARTasked whether, in winding up the German banks, care will be taken that any claims now pending against them by British subjects will be allowed to proceed and will not be prejudiced by any action that may be taken on this subject in the immediate future?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Wardle): I have no reason to think that any claim pending against German banks by British subjects will be prejudiced by the Orders which have been made for the winding up of the businesses of these banks.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Why have they not been wound up before?

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH.
  Sir W. COLLINSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the announcement on behalf of the Government, on 17th July, in regard to the question of a Ministry of Health, he will further consider his reply of the 30th October, 1917; and, in view of the conflicting and varied interests involved and the number of Government Departments concerned, he will now consider the desirability of setting up some form of public inquiry by Royal Commission or otherwise into the desirability and practicability of instituting a Ministry of Health?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: This question is being actively considered by the Committee of Home Affairs, who hope shortly to settle a satisfactory scheme. The Government still consider the appointment of a Royal Commission unnecessary.
  Sir W. COLLINS: Have the difficulties and doubts surrounding this question, on which the Noble Lord, speaking on Wednesday last on behalf of the Government, in another place, dilated, disappeared?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am aware that there are difficulties. The Cabinet Committee is considering them, and we hope to be able to arrange to meet them.
  Colonel GREIG: Will not this proposition add one to the number of Ministers?
  Mr. PRINGLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that unless a separate Bill is introduced for Scotland there will be serious opposition to it?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not aware of that.
  Mr. PRINGLE: It is a fact.

  INCOME TAX (NAVAL AND MILITARY OFFICERS).
  Mr. PETOasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the fact that naval and military officers' consolidated allowances in lieu of rations and lodging are chargeable to Income Tax although field allowances are not taxable; and whether, in view of the fact that rations when drawn in kind are not taxed, he will give instructions that the allowance supposed to be equivalent to the cost of the ration is equally exempt from taxation?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: As I promised in connection with the Finance Bill, careful inquiry is being made into the subject of the taxability of certain allowances of this nature, but I am not yet in a position to make any statement.

  AMERICAN TROOPS (TRANSPORT).
  Mr. ALDENasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller, with reference to his statement that British ships are bringing an army of American troops to Europe every month, whether this transportation has been made at the cost of depriving the United Kingdom or our Allies of essential supplies, either of food or of materials of war?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING CONTROL (Sir Leo Chiozza Money): The organisation of the transport of American troops across the Atlantic—which has been so successful that it is now proceeding at the rate of about 200,000 men per month in British-controlled ships alone, in addition
  1638
  to about 100,000 per month carried in American ships—has necessarily deprived the United Kingdom and her Allies of imports which otherwise they might have had, but shipping organisation as a whole has been such that food and the materials of war have continued to be carried in adequate quantities, both for ourselves and for our Allies.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    DIRECTOR OF CULTIVATION (SCOTLAND).
    Colonel STIRLINGasked the Secretary for Scotland whether Mr. C. J. N. Fleming, inspector of schools, Scottish Education Department, has been appointed Director of Cultivation under the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, in place of Mr. William Barber; and, if so, what are the practical qualifications of Mr. Fleming for this appointment?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): Mr. Fleming is a Civil servant of long experience and high capacity, with a good general knowledge of agriculture. As secretary to the district agricultural committees of Berwick and Selkirk he was extremely successful in extending cultivation in these counties. From this work he was selected by the Ministry of Food as Deputy-Commissioner for the East of Scotland. His present appointment is to undertake temporary duty as Director of Cultivation in Scotland. For such a position administrative capacity and experience are of the first importance. Mr. Fleming will act under the general supervision of the Board and in association with officers of wide agricultural knowledge. The appointment, I may add, had Mr. Barber's warm approval, and, so far as I can judge, any criticism proceeds from quarters in which Mr. Fleming is not known. I have every confidence that the appointment will justify the Board's expectations.
    Colonel STIRLING: Is Mr. Fleming a practical farmer or has he any practical knowledge of farming?
    Mr. MUNRO: I have already stated the practical knowledge which he possesses, and that he has the full confidence of the Board and of the agricultural community.
    Mr. GULLAND: Has he retained his position as inspector of schools?
    Mr. MUNRO: I think not.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the appointment of a school inspector to this post has caused serious disquiet and mistrust among the agriculturists in Scotland?
    Mr. MUNRO: I have no such information, and I am satisfied that when Mr. Fleming has filled the position for a very short time any such feeling as may exist will disappear.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is it the policy of the Scottish Office to appoint people to offices for which their capacity is unknown?
    Mr. MUNRO: Certainly not.

    ALLOTMENT-HOLDERS (SECURITY OF TENURE).
    Mr. ALDENasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he proposes to bring in a Bill this Session to give security of tenure to the allotment-holders?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir R. Winfrey): The Corn Production (Amendment) Bill, which has just reached this House, deals with this matter.
    Mr. ALDEN: Does the Corn Production Bill give security of tenure to allotment-holders, and, if not, will a new Bill be introduced next Session?
    Sir R. WINFREY: This Bill does deal with the matter, and I think that my hon. Friend had better wait and see.

    CHERRY AND PLUM CROP.
    Colonel WHELERasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that the failure of this season's cherry and plum crop in Kent was largely due to an attack of a fungus commonly known as brown rot, Sclerotinia fructigena, and not due to frost; whether he will take every possible step to prevent the recurrence of this fungus this autumn and next spring; and will he see that fruit growers can get an adequate amount of sulphate of copper spray to syringe the fruit trees?
    Sir R. WINFREY: The failure of the Kent plum and cherry crop in the present season cannot be attributed to a single cause. The inclement weather during flowering, the normal alternation between years of large and small yield, and the fungus mentioned by the hon. Member, which was encouraged by the quantity of
    1640
    fruit left to rot on the trees last year, were all contributing factors. Brown rot is an endemic disease, and the means for combating it are described in the Board of Agriculture's Leaflets Nos. 86 and 312. Supplies of copper sulphate are available for the spraying of fruit trees as a preventive against brown rot. Further investigation into the diseases of fruit trees is under the consideration of the Horticultural Advisory Committee, recently established by the Board of Agriculture.

    WOOD CUTTERS' WAGES.
    Sir J. BUTCHERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the terms of a contract entered into by a Department of the Board of Trade for the cutting of a large wood in a certain district in Yorkshire, the name of which has been given to him privately; whether he is aware that the contractors are in connection with this contract temporarily paying to unskilled workmen wages so high as to attract agricultural labourers away from the land to the great detriment of the farmers in the neighbourhood, especially at harvest time; and whether he can state why the contract price was fixed so high as to allow of the contractors paying these unduly high wages to unskilled workmen?
    Mr. WARDLE: The wood referred to was bought by the Yorkshire Pitwood Association, and the Board of Trade do not control the wages paid by that body for working it. I am, however, drawing the association's attention to the points raised.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the latter part of the question?
    Mr. WARDLE: I cannot admit the statement which is made.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is it not the case that the timber people escape the high Income Tax and the Excess Profits Duty, and is not that the reason why they can pay such high wages?
    Mr. WARDLE: No.
    Mr. PRINGLE: That is so.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the importance of preventing the abstraction of agricultural labourers from the land for these and other purposes?
    Mr. WARDLE: That is a question which, I think, I ought not to answer.

    JAM AND CHEESE.
    Sir GEORGE TOULMINasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether his attention has been called to the unequal distribution of jam and of cheese; and whether it is proposed to secure a more equal division of such supplies as exist, so as to avoid an absolute famine in these articles in some industrial districts?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD (Major Astor): The distribution of jam will improve as soon as the new stocks of this season are available. The Food Controller is considering whether any further measures are necessary in order to secure a more equal division. So far as cheese is concerned, a fresh scheme has been devised for including home cheese in the arrangements for distribution, which have hitherto merely covered imported cheese. In settling this scheme special attention will be paid to the occupations and needs of industrial and agricultural districts, where the present scarcity is most acutely felt.

    BACON AND HAM.
    Mr. ALDENasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether there is any prospect of a lower price being fixed for bacon and ham in the near future?
    Major ASTOR: The price of bacon and ham to the consumer in this country is largely governed by the cost of those commodities in North America. This is one of the matters now being discussed between the inter-Allied Food Controllers, and I cannot at the moment make any definite statement.

    RATION SCHEME (SUPPLEMENTARY).
    Colonel ASHLEYasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, in view of the improved food supply, he will consider whether disabled discharged men suffering from physical ailments, which call for special nourishment, may be included under the supplementary ration scheme?
    Major ASTOR: Food control committees have been instructed that all invalids suffering from certain specified diseases are entitled to the appropriate extra rations, and discharged soldiers and sailors are, of course, included in this
    1642
    concession. It is also within the discretion of food control committees to refer applications from invalids suffering from other diseases to the Ministry of Food for a grant of extra rations, and the committees have been specially instructed that they may adopt this procedure in the case of discharged soldiers and sailors. I hope that these arrangements will meet the cases to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers, and I am sending him the memoranda issued on the subject for the guidance of the local food control committees and of medical practitioners.

    POTATOES.
    Major NEWMANasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he will now state the scheme that has been prepared for the distribution of the potato crop which will be purchased by the State as and from the 1st November next; is the distribution to be in the hands of certain factors appointed by the Food Control Department to the exclusion of wholesale dealers and retailers; if so, how many of these factors are to be appointed; on what basis will they be remunerated; and has he received any resolutions from potato merchants and growers against this sale policy of the Potato Distribution Committee?
    Major ASTOR: As I informed the hon. Member for Perth yesterday, it is hoped that an announcement on this subject will be made very shortly.
    Major NEWMAN: Will this announcement be made before the rising of the House?
    Major ASTOR: I will ask the Food Controller about that.

  SOUTH-WEST AFRICA COMPANY.
  Major NEWMANasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the South-West Africa Company, which owns more than 40,000 square miles of mining rights in the territory formerly known as German South-West Africa, has for some time past been endeavouring to obtain leave to acquire for cash the holding in the company owned by enemy aliens; and can he say why the effort of the company to free itself of its enemy shareholders has been thus far without result?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Hewins): It is the case that His Majesty's Government were asked to agree to the German shareholders of this company being approached with a view to the acquisition of their shares in the company. It was, however, thought that there was not sufficient reason to justify permission being given for negotiations of this kind with the enemy during the War.

  GOVERNMENT OFFICES (ACCOMMODATION).
  Captain CARR-GOMMasked the First Commissioner of Works if there are any requests for new office accommodation now awaiting the decision of the Cabinet Committee on Office Accommodation; and, if so, which Government Departments are making these requests?
  The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir A. Mond): Yes, Sir; from the War Office, Ministry of Munitions, and Overseas Trade Department.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Has the right hon. Gentleman made any further provision of office accommodation for the Committee on Enemy Aliens?
  Sir A. MOND: I have not been asked to make any provision.
  Captain CARR-GOMM: Does the right hon. Gentlemen mean that only three new sets of buildings are being considered by his Department?

  RAILWAY SEASON TICKETS.
  Mr. RENDALLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, having regard to the fact that the sole reason lately advanced by him against the interavailability of railway season tickets being that greater facilities for travel would increase the number of passengers, he will propose to the Railway Executive that interavailability should be granted to season-ticket holders as between the first and final stations covered by their ticket if that distance exceeds 100 miles; and whether such a condition would reduce travel by allowing the holder to spend a longer time on one day at his destination, thus rendering the number of days on which he travelled fewer, and thereby reduce the mileage travelled?
  Mr. WARDLE: I cannot under present circumstances recommend an extension of the present arrangements as regards the interavailability of season tickets on railways. In the case which the hon. Member is understood to have specially in mind interavailability can be obtained, if required, on payment of the usual additional charge.

  GOODS TRAFFIC (MILEAGE RETURNS).
  Mr. RENDALLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that a large amount of clerical labour is spent by railway companies in ascertaining, dissecting, and booking the exact mileage that each passenger and consignment of goods covers on a journey where more than one company's line is used; whether this work has any useful object whilst the State guarantee of dividends to the railway companies exists; whether the impossibility of discovering the mileage travelled on railways by an interavailable season-ticket holder is the main objection of the railway companies to the interavailability of such tickets; and, if so, will he overrule such objection in the national interest?
  Mr. WARDLE: The first part of the hon. Member's question is based on incorrect assumptions, and the points raised in the latter part do not, therefore, arise.

  NEUTRAL SHIPPING (CLYDE).
  Sir F. HALLasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will consider as to arranging for the crews of neutral vessels entering the Clyde to leave their ships at Rothesay or some adjacent point, beyond which it is not desirable that they should proceed, having regard to the information that they might obtain with reference to shipping movements and naval and military matters, and for such crews to be accommodated in hulks fitted up for the purpose, or in some other way, and for the vessels to be manned temporarily by a crew of riggers and taken to the port of discharge and returned either light or loaded, and the neutral crews taken on board again; and, if this is done, whether he will consider as to charging the cost against the foreign owners, in view

  1645
  of the fact that the freights paid to them are higher than those paid to British owners, and that none of the profits made by them benefit British revenue in any way?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): I have been asked to answer this question. The existing procedure is that no one is allowed to land from any ship trading with a neutral European port—not even the master. The feasibility of similar schemes to the one now suggested has been frequently and is now under consideration, not only for the Clyde, but for other places. But the difficulties are the provision of the necessary personnel, and the delay which would be caused to the shipping concerned. However, I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that the matter is always before the proper authorities, and all that can be done to safeguard the public interest is being and will be done. I have answered the body of the question, but the last part would seem to be a matter for the Board of Trade.
  Sir F. HALL: Has not the right hon. Gentleman previously stated, in reply to my questions, that the subject is under consideration, and does he not think it advisable that the consideration should be something on the lines indicated in the question forthwith?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: My impression is that certain steps have been taken, but I will let my hon. and gallant Friend know.

  DOGS EXPORTED TO HOLLAND.
  Sir J. BUTCHERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any objection is raised on behalf of His Majesty's Government to the export of dogs from this country to Holland to be owned and kept by our officers or soldiers who are interned in that country; whether he is aware that no objection is made to such export on behalf of the Netherlands Government; and whether any permit has to be obtained for such export?
  Captain Viscount WOLMER (Assistant-Director War Trade Department): No licence is necessary for the export of dogs to Holland.

  PARLIAMENTARY GENERAL ELECTION.
  Sir CHARLES HENRYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of a probable General Election this year or early next and the change in many instances of the areas of constituencies, he will arrange for facilities to existing Members or prospective candidates to have an adequate supply of petrol in order to get round the constituencies in which they may be interested?
  Mr. WARDLE: No special facilities will be granted to Members, or to prospective candidates, for the purpose of enabling them to visit constituencies in which they may be interested, but it has been decided to grant special facilities, during the period of an election only, to bonâ-fide Parliamentary candidates and their election agents. The facilities will consist of a motor-spirit licence for a quantity of petrol depending upon the area of the constituency, and a special permit to use a motor car issued under the Motor Spirit (Consolidation) and Gas Restriction Order, 1918.
  Mr. GULLAND: Can the right hon. Gentleman define the period of the election? Is it to be from now onward or from the date of the nominations?
  Mr. WARDLE: That is a matter which is being considered.
  Mr. MORRELL: Seeing that the constituencies got on very well before the introduction of motor cars, will not this be a waste of petrol?

  COAL SUPPLIES.
  Brigadier-General McCALMONTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is the policy of the Controller of Coal Mines to ensure that all available coal shall flow through the same channels and to the same customers as heretofore; whether he is aware that several coal merchants in Ireland who do not own ships are losing customers, owing to their inability to obtain supplies; and whether instructions will be issued that will ensure an even distribution throughout the trade?
  Mr. WARDLE: Since September last the principle of continuing available coal supplies through the same channels as previously has been in force so far as possible.

  1647
  Whether the available supplies of coal should go to the same customers as heretofore depends entirely upon the importance of the work the consumers are doing. Work vital to the conduct of the War must have priority. The position, however, is affected in regard to quantities as a result of the release of miners for the Army, increased supplies to Allies, plus the effect of the influenza epidemic, which has largely affected the miners. The attention of the Coal Controller's representative in Ireland has again been drawn to this question.
  Mr. FLAVIN: Is the price of coal in Ireland controlled, and is the hon. Gentleman aware that in many poor agricultural districts of that country labouring men and workmen have to pay £3 10s. a ton for coal?
  Mr. WARDLE: The question does not refer to the price of coal.
  Mr. FLAVIN: I only want to know whether the price is controlled in Ireland. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] Why not?

  CROSS-CHANNEL STEAMERS.
  General McCALMONTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in February last, the seamen and firemen of cross-Channel steamers sailing under the direction of the Railway Control Committee were granted increases in pay, with effect from the previous October, amounting in all to an increase of over 100 per cent. on pre-war rates; whether the officers of these ships received any corresponding increase; whether he is aware that many mates have for some months been receiving less than deckhands and engineer officers less than greasers in the same ships; and whether he will take immediate steps to ensure that the claims of these officers shall be fully considered without further delay?
  Mr. WARDLE: The question of the pay of officers on steamers under the control of the Railway Executive Committee has been under consideration for some time, and the committee have agreed to pay the initial rates for each grade as recommended by the National Maritime Board, but desire to retain their own classification of railway steamers and their own system of seniority. The rates of pay will on the average, and on the whole, be equivalent to those laid down by the
  1648
  National Maritime Board, and the increases of pay will be retrospective and date back to the 6th October.
  General McCALMONT: Can the hon. Gentleman give any indication as to when the money will be paid to these officers, who have now been waiting nine or ten months?
  Mr. WARDLE: I am aware that they have waited some time, but I think that a decision will be arrived at very early.
  Mr. PETO: Was not a promise given by the Shipping Controller in November?
  Mr. WARDLE: I am not responsible for that Department.
  General McCALMONT: Did not my hon. Friend say that a decision had been arrived at?
  Mr. WARDLE: Yes; it has been arrived at, but I am unable to state anything of the actual facts.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    FREE POSTAGE DURING WAR.
    Sir JAMES BOYTONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will recommend His Majesty's Government to grant to the Navy the privilege of free postage during the War?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: This concession has already been made and is applicable to the officers and men of all sea-going ships, It has not been extended to the personnel of certain depot ships and shore establishments in order to preserve some analogy with the Army personnel serving at home.

    U-BOAT WARFARE (BRITISH SEAMEN).
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the story about the derelict U-boat has yet been reported on, and, if so, what conclusion has been come to; and whether the story was first told by a naval officer at a meeting at the Colston Hall about five weeks ago, at which the Parliamentary Secretary himself was present?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: We have endeavoured to trace this story to its origin. Fleet-Paymaster Collingwood Hughes appears to have heard it from more than one source. He should certainly have taken the opportunity afforded him in his official position to verify it. In our

    1649
    opinion the story is without foundation. As regards the second part of the question, Commander Sir Edward Nicholl, Royal Naval Reserve, certainly told the story in the course of a speech at a meeting at Bristol, at which I was present. I learn from him that he was present at an earlier meeting addressed by Mr. Collingwood Hughes in South Wales, and heard the story recited by him on that occasion.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: What steps have the Admiralty taken to stop inventions and tales like these, which do infinite harm in Germany and neutral countries?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: That is a question to come before the proper authorities.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Has the form of the fairy tale told by Sir Edward Nicholl been investigated?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not know what my hon. Friend means. Sir Edward Nicholl told what he had heard.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Why was action taken when an obscure paymaster tells the story and gets reported, and not when Sir Edward Nicholl told the story?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I assume that when it was told by an officer of the Intelligence Department it had a more official character.
    Mr. HOLT: Has Sir Edward Nicholl any official position in the Navy?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: No; I think he holds a commission as an officer of the Royal Naval Reserve, but nothing beyond that.

  CABLING FACILITIES (MR. LEVERTON HARRIS).
  General CROFTasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire was a director of the Trade Division of the Admiralty War Staff during the period when he asked for cabling facilities from the chief cable censor; if he was not a director, who was; and was the director cognisant of the application for facilities by his subordinate?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: No, Sir. The director was Captain Richard Webb, C.B., R.N. At the time in question my right hon. Friend was giving assistance
  1650
  to the director as a voluntary worker, and passed on to the chief cable censor at the War Office a communication from the firm of Harris and Dixon, which pointed out that the delay in the exchange of cables with their house in Spain was causing serious delay to Spanish vessels carrying iron ore and foodstuffs to this country and the Allies, and which asked that their cables might in future be expedited.
  As already stated in this House by my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for War, other firms had already been granted these facilities. The hon. and gallant Gentleman heard the statement of the right hon. Member for East Worcester on 24th June, to the effect that, in view of his connection with this firm, he considered that his correct course was not to put forward any recommendation officially. Therefore, the answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

  SANATORIUM ACCOMMODATION, LANCASHIRE.
  Sir H. MADENasked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the lack of accommodation for sanatorium treatment in certain Lancashire areas; whether there is a waiting list of military tuberculous patients who are given priority; whether civil patients have died whilst waiting for sanatorium treatment which has been ordered; and whether he proposes to take any steps to provide sufficient accommodation for military and civil sufferers?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. S. Walsh): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and an Interdepartmental Committee has been appointed with a view to securing the provision of such additional accommodation in Lancashire and other areas as may be practicable in the present circumstances. I understand that, so far as the administrative county of Lancashire is concerned, there is no waiting list of military tuberculous patients, but there is a deficiency of accommodation for civilian patients. Certain patients died whilst waiting for admission to institutions, but our information is that they were hopeless cases, and the probability is that death

  1651
  would have occurred at an early date even if they had been admitted to a hospital or sanatorium.
  Sir G. TOULMIN: Is it not a fact that the waiting list was caused by the preference given to the military tuberculous cases? Was not that the reason why there was a civilian waiting list?
  Mr. WALSH: The list has been increasing for some considerable time, and no special set of circumstances is definitely responsible, so far as I know. It is a matter that has been growing in gravity for some time.
  Sir G. TOULMIN: May I ask if that increasing gravity is not caused by the military tuberculous patients?
  Mr. WALSH: Undoubtedly they have substantially added to it, but it was growing before.

  MUNITIONS.

    ALLIANCE AEROPLANE FACTORY.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Minister of Munitions on what terms Messrs. Waring and Gillow's Alliance Aeroplane Factory has been taken over as a settlement of the recent strike; and whether it is proposed to take any others over on the same terms?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): As was announced in an official communication which appeared in the Press yesterday, the Alliance Aeroplane Erecting Shop has been taken over by the Ministry of Munitions as a national factory. The superintendent of the Royal Aircraft Factory, Farnborough, has been called in temporarily to manage the factory pending the appointment of a new permanent manager. The financial terms of the transfer are not finally settled. The question of taking similar action in other cases must depend on the facts in each case.
    Mr. ROCH: Does that mean that this factory is bought out and out by the Government?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: The financial arrangements incidental to taking over the factory have not been completed, and I cannot make an announcement with regard to it.
    Mr. ROCH: Surely he can say whether it is the intention to purchase out and out? I am not asking the price.
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I cannot answer as to that. A good deal would depend on the conditions as to whether purchase out and out will be adopted.
    Mr. ROCH: Can he say when he will be able to state definitely what will be done?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I should be able to give a definite reply at the beginning of next week.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Can my hon. Friend say whether this is taken over under the Defence of the Realm Act or under the Munitions of War Act, or what statutory power is employed for the purchase, and if he can say that he can surely say whether it is to be purchased?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I believe it will be taken over under the Defence of the Realm Act.
    Mr. PRINGLE: If it is taken over under the Defence of the Realm Act, is there any power to purchase?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: My hon. and learned Friend is a lawyer, and I am not.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will care be taken to see that no money is paid for the goodwill of the business, and that it is taken simply at its value?

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND.

    NATIONALIST PARTY RESOLUTION.
    Mr. DILLON: I wish to give notice that at an early date I shall move the following Resolution:
    "That the policy pursued towards Ireland by His Majesty's Government is inconsistent with the great principles for the vindication of which the Allied Powers are carrying on the War; that this policy has greatly alienated and exasperated the Irish people; if persevered in will still further alienate and exasperate them, and will steadily increase the difficulty of reaching a settlement of the Irish question on a basis of friendship between the British and the Irish nations.
    That this House heartily endorses the principles laid down by President Wilson in his great speech by the grave of George Washington. When speaking of the objects for which America and her Allies are fighting, he said:
    'These great objects can be put into a single sentence. What we seek is the reign of law based upon the consent of the governed and sustained by the organised opinion of mankind. These great ends cannot be achieved

    1653
    by debating and seeking to reconcile and accommodate what statesmen may wish with their projects for balances of power and national opportunity. They can be realised only by the determination of what the thinking peoples of the world desire with their longing hope for justice and for social freedom and opportunity.'
    And that this House is of opinion that the true solution of the Irish question is to put into operation without delay in regard to Ireland the principles laid down by President Wilson in this historic utterance."
    To-morrow I shall ask the Leader of the House for a day to debate that Motion.

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

  LOCAL LEGISLATION COMMITTEE.
  Special Report brought up, and read.
  Special Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 91.]
  Minutes of Proceedings to be printed. [No. 91.]

  NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.
  Fifth Report of the Select Committee brought up, and read; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 92.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: May I ask the Leader of the House what Orders will be taken to-day, and also what will be the business on Thursday?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): On Thursday we shall proceed with the Bills on the Paper. To-day we shall take as many of the Orders as possible down to the Solicitors (Articled Clerks) Bill, and if there be time also the Corn Production (Amendment) Bill.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman put down the Report stage of the Statutory Undertakings (Temporary Increase of Charges) Bill as the first Order for to-morrow or Thursday?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: It will be put down to-morrow, but I cannot say whether it will be the first Order or not.
  Mr. PRINGLE: It ought to be.
  Ordered "That Government business be not interrupted this night under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House), and may be entered upon at any hour although opposed."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]

NAVAL PRIZE BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
This Bill seeks to set up the machinery for the distribution of prize money to the officers and men of the Fleet eligible to receive the same. For the better understanding of its proposals, let me state in as brief outline as I can the facts relating to prize money and prize bounty, asking the House to bear in mind that the two things are entirely different. Prize money is an award to the Navy for the capture of enemy merchant ships and cargoes, the award being paid out of the proceeds of the sale of the same. Prize bounty is a Grant by the State of a certain sum per head of the personnel of enemy war ships sunk or captured to the officers
1670
and men of the Royal Navy taking part in the sinking or capturing of the same. Prize money is older than the Navy itself as at present established and maintained. Down to Henry VIII.'s time the ports of the Kingdom furnished their quota of ships for the defence of the realm, and in consideration, as an act of grace, the Crown made an award to the mariners from the proceeds of the prizes captured. Time brought its changes, notably the establishment of a navy supported either by the Crown or, as in later years, by the Votes of Parliament. But the policy of awarding, as an act of grace on the part of the Crown to the ship or ships of the Navy capturing an enemy merchantman, the net proceeds of the capture, remained. Down to the present War the award of prize money has been made to the crew or crews of the ship or ships directly and actually engaged in capturing the prize. I call particular attention to the fact because a fundamental change in the mode of award is now proposed in this Bill.
Of course the award of prize money to the actual captors in each case, which was the old system, was a much simpler piece of administration than that now to be followed, but when the Naval Prize Bill was before a Grand Committee of the House of Commons in 1911 attention was called to the injustice involved in awarding prize money to those fortunate enough to be stationed on the trade routes, whilst the men who actually brought the enemy's ships of war to action got nothing from the distribution, though they did, of course, get their chance of earning prize bounty, as to which I will presently say a word. The injustice seemed to be accentuated by modern developments both of ships of the Navy and of the Mercantile Marine. It appeared possible that a small ship of war with a personnel of certainly less than 100 could hold up, capture, and bring in a great liner worth, say, a million of money—not sink her, of course; that is the German method—but bring her in, and undoubtedly, had the enemy Mercantile Marine kept the high seas, that is what certainly would have happened. It was, therefore, decided that, whilst retaining, by grace of the Crown, the old Navy privilege of participation in prize money, to alter the principle of award, so as to make possible a more general scheme of distribution to the Fleet. The net proceeds of each prize were no longer to be presented to its captors, but to be placed

1671
in a general pool out of which the officers and men of the Fleet as a whole actually taking part in sea operations in the present War should participate. I want to make quite clear this change in the method of award. Of course this necessitates the postponement of the final distribution of the award until the pool is full, which, of course, will not be until the close of hostilities. Now this Bill proposes to give statutory sanction to this important change in the method of distribution, announced, as it was, by Order in Council of the 28th August, 1914.
I said I would say a word or two on prize bounty, which is quite a different thing from prize money, and this would appear to be a convenient point to do so. The award of prize bounty is not of such ancient origin as the award of prize money. It dates from the time of the Commonwealth. It represents, as I say, a Grant from the State of a fixed sum per head—in recent times, since 1708, £5 per head—of the ship's company of any enemy armed ship—not a peaceable merchant ship, please remember!—actually sunk, burnt, captured or destroyed, to be distributed under an approved scale to the ship's company effecting the destruction or capture of such enemy ship. The policy of direct award in the case of bounty has been perpetuated in the present War. The Order in Council of 2nd March, 1915, sanctioned this, and the Orders in Council of 29th February, 1916, and 24th October, 1916, prescribed the scale of distribution. The procedure prescribed by the Naval Prize Act of 1864 has, of course, been followed. Claim has been made in the Admiralty Court, the President has given judgment, and the Accountant-General of the Navy has made payment. Down to 9th July, £53,539 has been distributed to officers and men of the Fleet by way of prize bounty out of £55,704 distributable.
4.0 P.M.
I return to prize money, and come to certain important features of our proposals other than that of pooling; and here I must go back to history for a moment. In the Crown, from the beginning, as already said, is vested the right to prize, and, by its favour, awards of the proceeds of the capture of enemy merchant ships and their cargoes captured at sea have been made to the Navy. All prize, therefore, originally was the perquisite of the Crown. In the course of time the office of Lord High Admiral,
1672
originally held by the Sovereign, was conferred on a subject. It was so conferred in the reign of Charles II. on his brother the Duke of York. For the maintenance of his office the proceeds of prize taken under certain circumstances were allocated to the Lord High Admiral. The original Order in Council—and I think the House will be interested in this—is dated either 1665 or 1666, and provides for the maintenance of his office of Lord High Admiral by Charles II.'s brother, the Duke of York. It reads as follows:
"1. That all ships and goods belonging to enemies coming into any port, creek, or road of this His Majesty's Kingdom of England, or of Ireland, by stress of weather, or other accident or by mistake of port, or by ignorance, not knowing of the War, do belong to the Lord High Admiral: but such as shall voluntarily come in, either men of war or merchantmen, upon revolt from the enemy, and such as shall be driven in and forced into port by the King's men of war, and also such ships as shall be seized in any of the ports, creeks, or roads of this Kingdom, or of Ireland, before any declaration of war, or reprisals by His Majesty, do belong unto His Majesty.
2. That all enemy's ships and goods casually met at sea and seized by any vessel not commissionated, do belong to the Lord High Admiral.
3. That salvage belongs to the Lord High Admiral for all ships rescued.
4. That all ships forsaken by the company belonging to them are the Lord High Admiral's, unless a ship commissionated have given occasion to such dereliction, and the ship so left be seized by such ship pursuing, or by some other ship commissionated then in the same company, and in pursuit of the enemy: and the like is to be understood of any goods thrown out of any ship pursued."
Here you have the beginning of what were subsequently known as the droits of Admiralty and the droits of the Crown. The prizes thus allocated to the Lord High Admiral have come to be known as droits of Admiralty, while that portion of the proceeds retained by the Crown are known as droits of the Crown. The House must please get these two categories clear. Droits of Admiralty fell to the King in his right of Admiralty and they were surrendered by King William IV. when the Civil List was established. They therefore fell from that time into the Exchequer. It is important to bear in mind the state of the existing law in this respect in order to appreciate why, in certain cases, the proceeds of prize revert to the Treasury and are not distributed to the Navy. This is, of course, no innovation. The purport of this Bill as regards

1673
these two kinds of droits is to secure for the Navy what it has enjoyed for centuries by ancient custom and practice—no more and no less.
I now come to the application of this ancient custom and practice in the present War. In the early days of the War, at any rate, certain Prize Courts did not distinguish between droits of the Crown and droits of Admiralty. It is not disputed that the net proceeds of droits of the Crown have by immemorial custom been given to the Fleet by the pleasure of the Crown. The net proceeds of droits of Admiralty belong to the Treasury. The phraseology is apt to mislead, I admit, but the difficulty at the moment is the allocation of the value of condemned prize into these two categories. The Government has decided to appoint a strong and impartial tribunal to essay this task of separating these two kinds of droits. The tribunal will, it is proposed, consist of three members. I am glad to be able to announce that for the chairmanship we have secured the services of Lord Phillimore, better known as Sir Walter Phillimore, lately one of the Lords Justice of the Court of Appeal. He bears a name which is as well known in the naval service—as well of to-day as of the last century—as it is in the law. The son of a very distinguished judge who presided for many years in the Court of Admiralty, himself for many years a distinguished leader in the same court, and since then, for twenty years, a judge, Lord Phillimore combines in a peculiar degree the qualifications necessary for the post. The distinguished gentlemen who have consented to act as his colleagues are Admiral of the Fleet Sir George Callaghan, G.C.B., G.C.V.O., and the Eight Hon. Sir Guy Fleetwood Wilson, G.C.I.E., K.C.B., K.C.M.G., who has bad a distinguished official career and was lately the Finance Member and Vice-President of the Council of the Governor-General of India. The tribunal will have all such powers, rights, and privileges as are vested in the High Court or in any judge thereof in regard to the attendance and examination of witnesses, the production of documents, and punishment for contempt of court. They may appoint a clerk who will be paid a salary, and provision is made for meeting the remuneration of the clerk and any other expenses of the tribunal to such amount as the Treasury may sanction. Provision is also taken for the filling of a vacancy amongst
1674
the members of the Tribunal, if unhappily one should occur. All this will be found in Clause 2 of the Bill and paragraph 6, Part 2 of the Schedule.
The total sum standing to the credit of the London Prize Court on the 30th June was £9,818,845, and to that must be added the amount standing to the credit of the Overseas Courts. It is quite impossible to give any estimate of those amounts, but the total standing to the credit of the several Prize Courts must not be taken as the amount to be distributed as prize. So much must be clear from what I have said, because part of the total consists of droits of Admiralty and part droits of Crown. Further, part may be neither the one nor the other. I refer to the cargoes ordered to be detained in this country under the various Blockade Orders in Council, and, again, the expenses incurred in safeguarding ships and cargoes before they have been sold or otherwise disposed of, warehouse rent, dock dues, watch-keepers, as well as the expenses of sale, have to be deducted from the gross proceeds before any conclusion can be arrived at. When all legitimate charges have been met and when the droits of Admiralty have been properly separated from the droits of Crown, the net proceeds of droits of Crown will constitute the prize fund and be ready for distribution. The regulations which will determine eligibility to shave in the distribution and the scale of distribution will be authorised by Proclamation as provided for in Section 1, Sub-section (2). For the better information of Members they have been laid and issued in draft form as a Command Paper, so that Members may be duly apprised of that important side of the matter who is to be eligible for a share in this prize fund and what is to be the scale of distribution. I felt that the discussion would not be complete unless hon. Members had this document before them. The officers and men of the Fleet will naturally be very interested in these Regulations, and I make no apology, therefore, for endeavouring to explain them in some detail. I should like before I do so to express on behalf of the Board our thanks to Admiral Bethell and his Committee, who examined the whole question of the problem of eligibility and the scale of distribution with a care and thoroughness which I cannot praise too highly.
Commander BELLAIRS: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how that Committee was constituted?
Dr. MACNAMARA: Certainly; I will read the names:
Admiral Bethell, President, Captain H. T. Buller, R.N. (Naval Assistant to the Second Sea Lord), Mr. Evans (head of the Naval Law Branch), Mr. Drake (Accountant-General's Department), with Staff-Paymaster M. G. Bennett, as secretary.
Prize money was earned in the old wars by service at sea, and in this scheme it has been considered desirable to adopt the same principle while a more general distribution is being made of the proceeds of prize. We propose to lay it down that to qualify for a full share each individual officer and man must have completed a certain period of service at sea in a seagoing ship. At present we contemplate that this period should be thirty months for a full share, but if the War should last more than double that length of time a longer period of sea service would be required, and we should issue another Proclamation amending this. When the sea service of an individual has been less than the prescribed period only a proportionate amount of the full share will be given, but in no case will any portion of the share be given unless the individual has had at least one month's service at sea. Special conditions are laid down to enable the relatives of those who have lost their lives and of those who have been invalided in consequence of wounds or injuries received while on sea service to receive a full share irrespective of their total period of service at sea, and also in the case of those who die or are invalided on account of disease contracted in the Service, though in the latter case a minimum period of service at sea, namely, ten months, is stipulated as a necessary condition of the award. Prisoners of war will also be treated with special consideration in regard to their eligibility for the distribution. If hon. Members desire more detailed explanation, and will put questions, I will endeavour to answer them.
The scale of distribution of prize money which it is proposed to adopt is based, as far as possible, on a system of relative responsibility of the various ranks and ratings concerned. It is, of course, only an approximation to the value of the services rendered by the various classes. We adopt the principle of a fixed number of shares for each rank and rating, and those of the same relative rank have been grouped together in classes. Under the old scales of distribution, before those
1676
eligible for awards were allocated their share, a certain proportion was set aside for flag officers and officers in command. For instance, under the last of the old prize money scales of distribution, flag officers took one-thirtieth and commanding officers of all ranks one-tenth, such one-tenth being of the whole fund where there were no flag officers or one-tenth of the remainder after deducting the one-thirtieth in the cases where flag officers participated. We have departed from this policy, and no one, I think, will object to our having done so. From the lower deck, supernumeraries, right up to the Commander-in-Chief, all now come upon the fund for their appropriate number of shares. Further opportunity has been taken to recognise the importance of the services rendered by the engineer-officers in charge of the engines of the larger ships. Compared with the past, our scales setting forth the number of shares to be awarded to each rating and rank represents, if I may so put it, a less steep progression upwards than the old scale.
At the bottom of the proposed scale are the canteen staff, and other supernumeraries. I make no apology for going into these details of shares, for I am quite sure the House will desire to know them. These, then, that I have just mentioned will get two shares each; the boy bluejackets and ordinary seamen come next, with three shares each; the able seamen, and equivalent ranks and ratings get five shares each; the leading seamen, six shares each; petty officer, second class, six shares; petty officer, first class, eight shares; midshipmen, and chief petty officers, ten shares each; warant officers, not in command, twelve shares each; if in command, fifteen shares each; sub-lieutenant, mate, commissioned warrant officer, not in command, fifteen shares each; if in command, twenty shares each; lieutenant, not in command, twenty shares; if in command, thirty shares; lieutenant-commander, not in command, twenty-five shares each; if in command, forty shares; commander not in command, and officers of equivalent rank, lieutenant-commander serving as second in command in a ship commanded by a captain, engineer-lieutenant-commander in charge of the engines of a ship commanded by a captain, thirty shares each; captain not in command, and officers of equivalent rank, commander serving as second in command in a ship commanded by a captain, engineer-commander in charge of the

1677
engines of a ship commanded by a captain, forty shares each; commanders in command, sixty shares; captains in command, from 100 to 160 shares each, according to their position on the captains' list. Above this are the commodores, rear-admirals, vice-admirals, and admirals. They go up from 160 to 1,250 shares each. At the top of the scale is the Commander-in-Chief in command of the Grand Fleet, with 2,000 shares. That, then, is the proposed new scale. As I have said, it represents from the bottom to the top a flatter rate of progression than in the past. So much by way of general explanation. I wish I could, but I could not, under the circumstances, make it shorter.
Questions will arise, and have arisen, respecting two or three matters with which I may as well deal now. The policy of pooling, as I have already said, made distribution after each condemnation and sale out of the question. The country, therefore, has had the use of large sums of money from the beginning of the War down to the present time, part of which, at any rate, belongs by grace of the Crown to the Fleet in the form of prize money. The Bill provides that any accumulation of interest on the moneys in the hands of the Prize Court shall be added to the funds. Again, in this War the Government has, as on previous occasions, taken prize ships into its use for the conduct of the War. It has also done what, so far as I am aware, has never been done before, made use of ships which have been condemned, whether as droits of the Crown, droits of Admiralty, or to be detained, for the purpose of trade to meet the necessities of the civil population. As regards those ships which may be classified as droits of the Crown, it has been decided that it would be equitable to credit the naval prize fund with the value of such ships at the time they are taken over by the Government, and to allow compound interest at 4 per cent. per annum, with half-yearly rests; that is, interest is added to capital every six months on such values until the money is paid over to the naval prize fund. Interest at the same rate will also be paid on the net proceeds of goods condemned as droits of the Crown which have been sold.
I should like to add that in certain respects we are improving the machinery of the past in the interests of the Fleet. The deduction of 5 per cent. taken from
1678
the proceeds of prizes before distribution to the captors which, under the Naval Prize and Agency Act of 1864, was appropriated by the Exchequer, will no longer be made. The Treasury waives that in the interests of the Fleet. Similarly, the various odds and ends of forfeited and unclaimed shares and the balances which remain after the distribution has been made will no longer fall into the Exchequer, but will form part of the residue of the fund. As to the fund, one word in a moment! It is also provided that, as the employment of ships' agents is no longer necessary in connection with prize money, they shall have no claim for any percentage such as is reserved to them under the Naval Agency and Distribution Act. Up to the present, as regards prize bounty, they have a claim of 2½ per cent. on the sum distributed. In regard to this there is still some necessity for their employment, but in this case also power is taken by Clause 3 of the Bill to reduce the allowance to a sum not exceeding 1 per cent. We have gone into this matter carefully, and we believe—as experience shows—that this will be equitable. It is not to be supposed, of course, that even at the close of hostilities and the distribution to the Fleet, to which I have just referred, that the matter will then by any means be finally disposed of. Claims will be coming in and matters will remain for final adjustment probably for years to come. It is proposed that after the main distribution, the "sweepings up," if I may so call it, will—I do not deny—involve a very considerable sum of money in the aggregate. This, it is suggested, should be devoted to naval charitable purposes. This is provided for in Clause 1, Sub-section (3). I should like here to say that the officers and men belonging to His Majesty's Dominions outside the United Kingdom, who have contributed so loyally and materially to the success of our operations in this struggle, will share in the distribution of the prize-money to the same extent as members of the Royal Navy. Further, members of these forces will also be eligible to benefit from the income to be produced by the residue of the fund, after its application to naval charities. I have stated the matter quite broadly—a task by no means easy in the case of a most ancient and most complex problem like this. I do not doubt hon. Friends have questions of details in their minds which have not been

1679
answered in the course of this general statement. If they have, we will do our best to reply to them. I beg to move.
Commander BELLAIRS: I should like, first of all, very warmly to congratulate my right hon. Friend on the very clear and lucid statement which he has made. I especially congratulate him on treating this subject first from a historical point of view, and also on his having paid reverence to the past, for this is always specially pleasing to the Services when it comes from one educated in the schools of Radicalism. If I make any criticism in the course of my speech that criticism is in no way personal to my right hon. Friend, who has always met us and explained things to us privately to the very best of his ability, and who has always treated Members of this House with the greatest kindness and consideration. Nor is it personal from myself, because my object simply is this: while we are discussing the droits of the Admiralty and the droits of the Crown we also desire to insist upon the rights of the House of Commons. There may be one or two questions in connection with this Bill and Amendments that it may be considered desirable to make. I am not at all sure, for instance, whether my right hon. Friend beside me (Mr. Peto), who more than any other Member in this House represents the interest of the Mercantile Marine, may not desire to extend certain portions of this Bill to the Mercantile Marine after he has read the Bill, for up till now we have not had much opportunity. In Clause 1, Sub-section (6) of the Bill there is laid down the officers and men to whom the Bill is applicable. It is possible that an Amendment might be in order to extend that. I do not know, but in Clause 3, Subsection (2), an extension is made to the members of the Air Service, and you give a reason for it. You say
"shall include the officers and crew of such of His Majesty's aircraft operating under the directions of the Admiralty as are determined by the Prize Court to have been actually present at and to have assisted in the taking or destroying of an armed ship of any of His Majesty's enemies."
They share in the droits of the Crown which constitute prize money. It is not a question of prize bounty but of prize money. As my right hon. Friend opposite knows, again and again Mercantile Marine officers have, like the Air Force, helped in the destruction of enemy submarine craft, and they certainly, more than any
1680
other class of the community, have shared in the dangers of the sea. It may well be, if it is in order, that someone may, for the purposes of discussion, seek to extend the operations of this Bill to the Mercantile Marine. There is another point in regard to Sub-section (5) of Clause 1. I think it is the Sub-section dealing with the White Paper or the draft Proclamation. Whether or not it will be in order to move Amendments dealing with the Proclamation I do not know, but I put the matter in query form so that it may be considered.
Dr. MACNAMARA: Have you looked at Sub-section (2) of Clause 1?
Commander BELLAIRS: That deals with the Proclamation? My point is whether we are entitled to move Amendments dealing with the Proclamation, because that Proclamation is only issued as a White Paper. As a matter of fact; however, we had a distinct promise in the House of Lords that the scale of charges for prize money would be in the Bill—and we are accustomed to Ministers referring to what takes place in the other House as applying to this House—we had that promise from Lord Lytton this year on 14th May, and he said:
"It has been decided in this War that all prize money shall be pooled and distributed throughout the Navy upon a scale to be submitted to Parliament which will appear in the Naval Prize Bill."
That scale does not appear in the Naval Prize Bill, but in the White Paper. Only 170 copies of that White Paper have been printed, none of which have been issued to Members of Parliament. As my right hon. Friend knows, a White Paper is issued to the Vote Office only to the extent of 170 copies, and it is issued from the Vote Office later, perhaps at the end of this week we may have a Pink Paper asking us whether we desire this particular White Paper, and if we do we put our initials to that Pink Paper and get it. For the moment the result is that a very large number of Members who have seen the Bill will never have seen this scale. My right hon. Friend recited what that scale was. It is a question which very much concerns the House of Commons, because of the original scale to which reference is made by the right hon. Gentleman. He said the Committee had fined down that scale so that there was a less steep progression upwards than formerly. I think those are the words he used. The old scale was based on very aristocratic times.
Dr. MACNAMARA: I am interrupting, but that scale was the Proclamation of 1900.
Commander BELLAIRS: Yes; exactly. We followed traditions, for I think that scale which we propose to replace dated from the seventeenth century. This new Proclamation still has vast differences like the old scale—that is my point. After all, however, the House of Commons has very much changed since the French wars. It is a democratic House of Commons. It might desire in its wisdom that the awards shall be much higher at the lower end of the scale, and also lower at the higher end of the scale. For instance, my right hon. Friend mentioned that an able seaman gets five shares, whilst the lowest amount is two shares. On the other hand, the Commander-in-Chief of the Grand Fleet gets 2,000 shares, which is 400 times as much as an able seaman. The two richest men in the whole Navy, the two Commanders-in-Chief of the Grand Fleet, Lord Jellicoe and Sir David Beatty, will get 2,000 shares each. The thing has to be judged upon its merits. We are going to concede to the Admiralty for all time the power to issue Proclamations under this Bill, and that scale is the one which the Admiralty tells the House of Commons is a fair scale. My own view is that, should an hon. Member at a later stage table an Amendment proposing to cut down the higher limits or to increase the lower limit, and it should be in order, I shall feel bound to go into the Division Lobby to support him, providing he does not ask too much. After all, the honour and glory in all these matters mainly goes to the officers, and the doings of individual men are not publicly recognised to the same extent. For that and other reasons I should be inclined to give any increases to the lower end of the scale. I asked the right hon. Gentleman what was the constitution of the Committee which settled the matter, and he mentioned that it consisted of two or three officers and two or three official civilians, but there was no civilian directly to represent the interests of the lower deck. And, after all, it is the lower deck which later on frequently comes on to the Poor Rates and all those sad cases of men going about who have been discharged from the Army and Navy.
I am much more concerned in preventing anything of that kind happening by giving them higher payments instead of giving it to the senior officers, whose future is
1682
safeguarded. I would rather see the upper limits rather toned down and the lower raised up. I remember a story of the old days regarding a man in the Navy who, in the middle of a naval action, was caught praying, and the officer asked him what he was praying for. He replied that he praying that the bullets might be whacked out like prize money; and in that case the bulk of them would have gone to the officers. There is another point as to whether it is in order to discuss the question where the Foreign Office comes in. I was wondering whether any Amendment would be allowed as to the way the prize fund would be compensated where the Foreign Office takes ships out of the Prize Courts when the Prize Court may or may not have given a decision condemning the ship. As far as I can make out, under this Bill the Navy would lose that money. I take for instance, what Lord Grey offered to agree to on 25th April, 1916, and again on 2nd August, 1916. He offered to agree formally, and in advance of the decision of our Prize Courts, to submit Swedish vessels to arbitration after the War. All those vessels would have been held up if they had gone to arbitration if that had been agreed to, but the Foreign Office were prepared to offer all these ships to arbitration, and the prize fund might have lost the benefit. The Foreign Office again set up a secret Committee of the Foreign Office to sit in judgment and revise the Prize Court decisions. That is a new factor. I am far from arguing that the Navy has any rights in this matter, and I believe it is merely a matter of established custom. The Naval Discipline Act of 1864 expressly laid down in Section 55 that:
"Nothing in this Act shall give to the officers and crew of any of His Majesty's ships of war any right or claim in or to any ships or goods taken as prize or the proceeds thereof, it being the intent of this Act that such officers and crews shall continue to take only such interest (if any) in the proceeds of prizes as may be from time to time granted them by the Crown."
If the prize money ever was taken away, then I would contend you should level up the rates of pay all round, because prize money is partly a compensation for the absence of higher rates of pay, and of the two I should infinitely prefer to see the rates of pay raised all round. While you recognise this custom, I think there is an argument for saying that when the Foreign Office takes ships which have been condemned out of the prize fund, then

1683
the Government should compensate the prize fund. Now let me go back to the time when we had an Order in Council dated 28th August, 1914, suspending the Naval Prize Act. It is nearly four years now after that date that the Naval Prize Bill is introduced in spite of our continually asking for its introduction, and it is being brought forward towards the end of a Session, at a period when the House grants almost anything. I would be disposed to put down Amendments myself on the Committee stage, but I cannot feel the same inclination to put them down at the end of the Session, when I know His Majesty's Ministers are all suffering from their labours and the House itself is anxious to get away. Personally I am ready to sit all through September, but I am not prepared to go against the general sense of the House by prolonging the Committee stage of a Bill like this. May I point out that last night, when it was proposed to take this Bill, the White Paper dealing with this question was not even out, and I pointed this out at Question Time. When I asked my question drawing attention to the fact that this White Paper was not out, a few copies were rushed at 7.40 into the Vote Office. I do not complain, but that is not the way to treat the House of Commons in regard to a big Bill like this.
My right hon. Friend points out that you are going to deal with a sum amounting to £9,819,000 in the Central London Prize Court alone. You have to decide how much of that is droits of the Crown and how much droits of the Admiralty. To that has to be added all the money in the Prize Courts abroad, and possibly the proceeds of a good many of the 251 detained ships. We were told on the 20th July, 1916, that the draft of this Bill was already in existence, and that is exactly two years ago. Then on 9th April, 1918, we were told in the House of Lords that the Bill would no doubt come before their Lordships at an early date, and we were promised numerous times that it would be brought forward at an early date. I know the excuse is that the Government had to consult the Dominions, but between July, 1916, and the present time I should have thought you might have finished your consultation with the Dominions, and got this Bill before the House at an earlier period of the War, instead of four years after the War commenced.
1684
I would remind my right hon. Friend that there are all the widows and orphans of men who have been killed in this War to be considered, and I cannot help thinking that some system might have been devised, in spite of the pool not being complete, under which those widows and orphan? might have had some of the prize money to which they are entitled. That is why we were continually pressing for this Bill to be introduced much earlier in the War. There was an officer advertising in the "Times" the other day for cash for the surrender of his prize money. What results he obtained I do not know, but he did advertise for anybody who liked to accept a sporting chance as to his share of the prize money. My right hon. Friend told us the constitution of the tribunal which is going to judge as between the droits of the Admiralty and the droits of the Crown, and I have no fault to find with its constitution. I do not think a better judge could have been selected than Lord Phillimore, who, as my right hon. Friend said, possesses naval associations, when you put a clever financial authority like Sir Fleetwood Wilson up against a sailor like Sir George Callaghan the advantage as a rule would rest with the financial man. After all, as Sir John Jellicoe pointed out the other day, navai officers suffer from an inability to express their ideas easily. [HON. MEMBER: "Not all of them."] Well, nearly all of them. I remember reading of what occurred in this House when Admiral Lord Clarence Paget represented the Navy—as my right hon. Friend opposite does so well to-day, and has done for the last ten years, in fact, he is the oldest member of the Government as regards keeping the one position all the time—Mr. Disraeli got up from the Front Opposition Bench, and said to Lord Clarence Paget that there was no getting answers from the Noble Lord, for whenever he is faced with an awkward question he hitches his breeches and says he is only a simple sailor. If that difficulty arises in regard to officers, it is still more a difficulty in regard to the men, and I ask the Admiralty whether they cannot give a greater award to the men, even at the expense of those higher up amongst the officers, when they come to deal with the details of this Bill in Committee.
Sir E. CARSON: I should like to add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend upon having at last introduced this Bill. I myself more than a year ago, when I was

1685
at the Admiralty, invited Sir Walter Phillimore to take up the post under this Bill. I really thought at that time that we had everything ready, but I do not think it is really any use going back into the question of delay. We have been at war four years, and there is a good deal in what my hon. and gallant Friend opposite says, that in the exigencies and calamities of war it might have been well if some scheme could have been devised to allocate a portion of this money to the hard cases of those who had suffered in naval warfare. At the same time, we are bringing about a very great change as regards naval prize, and anybody who has had anything to do with this question cannot help knowing that there were very great difficulties that had to be overcome, and not the least of them was fighting the Treasury on behalf of the naval forces. What we really tried to do when we were framing this Bill, which is, I think, practically the same as it was when I left the Admiralty, except for the addition of two extra members to the tribunal, was in making the change foreshadowed in the Proclamation of the 28th of August to preserve absolutely to the naval fighting forces every privilege they had had under previous Proclamations. After all, the officers and the men enter the Service with the knowledge that in the event of war there are certain sums which come to them in addition to their ordinary pay, and certain rewards which under certain, tragic circumstances they are entitled to. The one thing that I was determined was that no privilege which they had had hitherto should be in the slightest degree infringed upon, and that the fund to be distributed by this new tribunal should be the fullest possible substitute for the old prize fund, which was distributed in an entirely different way, and I congratulate the present officials at the Admiralty that they have succeeded in bringing into the House legislation which in no wise infringes upon the fund which has always been distributable as prize money. I do not believe that any Member, knowing what naval warfare is, knowing the daily and nightly hardships and sufferings which the officers and men have to go through during this long period of anxiety, and that their wives and families waiting at home go through, would like to see one single shilling that has ever been applied to the prize fund not applied in the present case.
1686
I say that also in reference to an observation made by my hon. Friend (Commander Bellairs). He said that it might be necessary to move Amendments to include in the number amongst whom the prize fund is to be distributed the Mercantile Marine. The Mercantile Marine have won, a place in this War which is beyond all praise. It is impossible to describe what we owe to them. Nothing could be too good for them. At the same time, I do object to any portion of what is properly naval prize and properly distributable amongst the officers and men of the Navy being applied for any other purpose, no matter how worthy it may be. If, as is true, the Mercantile Marine have taken a part in this War which deserves the highest commendation of the House and the gratitude of every citizen of the Empire, surely we are well enough off to make a sufficient fund for them without doing the mean and niggardly thing of saying that we will pay the Mercantile Marine out of the prize fund of naval officers and men. So far as I am concerned, I could never be a party to any such suggestion, but in any steps that my hon. Friend opposite, who takes such an interest in the Mercantile Marine, may take to secure for them an equivalent prize fund out of public funds he shall have my most earnest support. I hope, even though it is late in the Session, that this Bill may have a speedy passage through this House. It has been very fully considered already in all its aspects both by the Admiralty and by the Treasury, and I can assure my hon. Friends that the amount of work and labour that this tribunal have taken upon themselves is simply colossal. They will have to go through all the different cases that have arisen in the Prize Courts, and, indeed, through all the cases by which the fund has accumulated, and, although there has been no special earmark to show the droits of the Admiralty and the droits of the Crown, they will have to distinguish between them. I think this House and the country will be under a deep obligation to the learned Lord who has taken upon himself the burden of being chairman and to the other members of this tribunal. The best service that the House can do is to pass the Bill at the earliest possible moment.
Mr. PETO: I rise to deal with one point to which the right hon. Gentleman and my gallant Friend have just

1687
referred. I look with considerable interest upon this Bill, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs) has suggested, I do so from the point of seeing just who it does include and who it does not include. I wish at once to say that I am in entire agreement with what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Trinity College (Sir E. Carson) has said. I do not believe that the Merchant Service have the slightest desire to poach on a fund which almost from time immemorial has belonged to the officers and crew of His Majesty's ships. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he could tell us a little more clearly what Clause 1, Sub-section (2), really does include, because, as he knows, the officers and crews of His Majesty's ships have been recruited to an immense extent during the War from the Mercantile Marine? I am quite sure that he would be the last to wish that officers who have joined in such numbers, and who have got commissions in the Royal Naval Reserve, and in many cases in the Royal Navy, should be in any worse position than any other officers on His Majesty's ships. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to tell me whether, in interpreting the words "officers and members of crews of His Majesty's ships of war," we are right in inferring that they include all officers and crews in the direct pay of the Admiralty, all who are serving His Majesty, no matter in what exact capacity, so long as they are persons who have commissions in the Royal Naval Reserve or the Royal Navy. I should be glad if he could tell us where the line is drawn, because it is not a very hard and fast line, and this Bill is not sufficiently fully drawn in all particulars to enable one to see who is included and who is not included. I am not putting in any claim on behalf of others who are not entitled to share in this prize fund.
I should like to say one word with regard to what the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir E. Carson) has said about a special fund for the Mercantile Marine. It is not inappropriate on this Bill that we should have some indication from the Admiralty whether they would regard with special favour and insist in pressing upon the Board of Trade, the Department specially concerned, the formation of some fund to which the nation should have the opportunity of contributing through the
1688
Treasury to signify in some practical manner our appreciation of what the nation owes to the Mercantile Marine. I have suggested to the President of the Board of Trade that he might very appropriately appoint a Committee, upon which there should be representatives of officers, engineer officers, men, engineers, shipowners, the Treasury if necessary, and certainly the Board of Trade and the Admiralty, to consider the question of a special fund of the sort indicated by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I think a pensions fund would be the most appropriate form that it could take; but, so far, beyond receiving a sympathetic reply from the President of the Board of Trade, I have not had any answer that has given me the satisfaction of knowing that he proposes to appoint an official Committee for that purpose. I am grateful to you, Sir, for allowing me the latitude to diverge from the strict matter of this Bill, and I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Admiralty if he could make it quite clear just how far those words "officers and members of crews of His Majesty's ships of war" carry us.
Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: Perhaps the most interesting part of the very interesting speech of my right hon. Friend (Dr. Macnamara) was the historical part, in which he told us that the Duke of York was Lord High Admiral of England in the time of King Charles the Second. There was another Lord High Admiral during the same reign, Sir George Cartaret. He came from the island of Jersey, to which I have the honour to belong, and he further had the honour of representing Portsmouth, which was then a small town of 20,000 people. This is a very good Bill, and I was very glad to hear that the dependants of those who have been killed in our service are to draw their share of the prize money, that invalids are to do the same, and that generous treatment is to be meted out to prisoners of war who have had the misfortune not to be able to serve their country any further. My right hon. Friend spoke of charitable institutions. I should like to know if he includes the possibility of Greenwich Hospital?
Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes; certainly.
Sir B. FALLE: I am very glad to hear it, and the possibility of getting a little of what may be left over. Another point that struck me was that our cousins from the Dominions should take their share. They most certainly should do so along

1689
side ourselves. The question of the Mercantile Marine is one which I think we shall be able to settle in Committee. As I understand it, those who have joined the Royal Naval Reserve will naturally participate on the same footing as naval men. There are two blots on the Bill. One was spoken of by the hon. Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs), who seems to be under the impression that naval officers have a difficulty in expressing themselves clearly. I refer to the 2,000 shares that are handed to the Commander-in-Chief. No one would wish to cut down what is due to the higher officers or to the officers generally, because upon them victory to a very great extent depends, but at the same time I am with my hon. Friend when he says that the difference between 2,000 shares and five shares is very large. Of course, there have been two Commanders-in-Chief, but if there should happen to be ten commanders—
Dr. MACNAMARA: They have got to qualify by sea service.
Sir B. FALLE: Not one month!
Dr. MACNAMARA: They could not get it for one month.
5.0 P.M.
Sir B. FALLE: The other blot is the pool. If a ship in these waters or in Dominion waters has a severe action and captures a prize, I cannot follow the idea that the men on that ship should share with others at the other end of the world. It is not a reasonable, a fair, or an equitable idea. A great deal of the work of the Admiralty falls upon my right hon. Friend, but I have not asked him, and I shall not ask him, to pool his salary with the 670 Members of this House. I do not think it makes for discipline or for heroism, or for the good of the Service, for the men on a ship going into action to know that if a large percentage of the complement happen to be killed their prize money, which they leave to their widows, will have to be divided with men who probably have been in safe waters for the period of the War. It is no catch being in the Persian Gulf, but let us say that the ships serving in the Persian Gulf would share with all those ships which were engaged in the Battle of Jutland. That appears to be an inequitable arrangement and one which we shall have to amend in Committee.
Dr. MACNAMARA Dr. MACNAMARA expressed dissent.
Sir B. FALLE: I am sorry to see that my right hon. Friend shakes his head.
Sir E. CARSON: That goes to the root of the Bill.
Sir B. FALLE: That is why I mentioned it. I think that particular root must be extracted.
Mr. WING: I should like to associate myself with the remarks of preceding speakers respecting the introduction of the Bill, although it is late in the Session. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will tell us the scope of the definition of the various ships engaged in His Majesty's Service in a naval sense. Does it include motor launches, drifters and trawlers, and what would be termed in ordinary circumstances our small craft, not regularly associated with the Navy in olden times? I rather doubt the suggestion made by the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs) as to the inability of the sailor or an officer to express himself clearly. I have mixed very much with them and I have found a freedom of expression and a vocabulary that a King's Counsel might almost envy. The hon. and gallant Member raised the point of the great inequality in the distribution of the prize money, which ranges from five to 2,000 shares. I should like that to be somewhat revised. I do not suggest that anybody is getting too much, but it seems a very great difference between the top and the bottom. Another point is the delay in the distribution of the money. If you keep this money until the close of the War a great many of these men, through the misfortunes of war, will not survive the period, and it would be a very wise thing if in some way a percentage could be paid out, in order that the widows and others should have some advantage arising from what would have been due to their husbands had they survived the War. As to the eligibility of the persons to share in the money and the amount which is to be distributed, I see that there are many deductions, and I wonder what the fund is really going to be. My fading hopes were somewhat revived when I realised that there is still some more money to be added to the amount mentioned. It would be an advantage to the Service to really know what is going to happen both to the lower deck and the men of the auxiliary services. I believe they will be generously and justly treated by this new tribunal. I congratulate the

1691
right hon. Gentleman on the introduction of the Bill, and hope that it will easily pass into law.
Mr. DENNISS: I have tried to gather what is the fundamental principle of the Bill. It seems to me that, instead of the prize money being distributed among those who take part in the action or assist at sea in the capture of the prizes, which I believe was the old system, the money is now to be pooled and divided between every seaman and officer in the Royal Navy, whether or not he has been engaged at all at any time in any sea fight of any kind.
Dr. MACNAMARA: If he has been engaged in the sea service.
Mr. DENNISS: He may have been coaling the Fleet. He may have been on the ship in a clerical capacity or as a canteen assistant. This is a principle which requires a little thinking about. I should like the House of Commons to be able to consider it and see whether or not they approve of it, but I am afraid there is very little chance of that being done. The House is a thin one, and unless it could be circularised, and told exactly what it was, it could never come to an opinion. If it did form an opinion, however strongly held, and ventured to oppose the principle, the right hon. Gentleman would put the Whips on and tell us that we must not vote against the Government in a time of war, and there would be an end of it. I suppose that, whether we like it or not, we have to accept this principle. That is the first deduction I draw from what I have heard to-day. I should like to know very much what are the droits of Admiralty? I have asked my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Trinity College (Sir E. Carson), but he could not tell me. It is very difficult to discover what they are, but upon what are or are not the droits of Admiralty depends how much money the sailors will get. If the droits of Admiralty are extensive or are extended, by so much the less will be the droits of the Crown which are to be distributed among the sailors. I am sorry that I have to plead ignorance as to what the droits of Admiralty are. I know one or two of them. One is that if a ship is taken in a port or creek or what they call a roadway—that is to say, either in a port or a place near the shore—that is a droit of Admiralty, and the Crown gets nothing and the sailors get nothing. Again, if
1692
the prize is captured by a naval ship which is not a ship of war, that is also a droit of Admiralty. Those are the principal droits of Admiralty that I know.
Mr. SPEAKER: I would remind the hon. Member that that matter was expounded at considerable length by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty. It is not a new point.
Mr. DENNISS: I am very sorry that I came in just at the end of that part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. In these circumstances I will not persist any further in that point. But I still would like to have, if possible, a definition in the Bill itself of what are the droits of Admiralty. There is no definition at all. It is to be left entirely to the decision of Lord Phillimore and the two gallant admirals who are to be associated with him. I suppose they know or will get to know. Those are the two principal criticisms I want to offer on the Bill. The question of the merchantmen has been mentioned, and we hope to have a statement from the right hon. Gentleman that something is going to be done for them—I quite agree, not out of the Naval Prize Fund, but out of some fund provided by this House. I noticed on reading the Bill through that the Royal Air Force is not included in Clause 4. It should be included, if possible.
Commander BELLAIRS: It is in Clause 3, Sub-section (2).
Mr. DENNISS: In one case the Royal Air Force is brought in, but it is not mentioned in Clause 4. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will look into that and see that it is put right.
Brigadier-General McCALMONT: I should like to congratulate the Admiralty upon having broadened the basis of the distribution of this fund. It was an inevitable change, and one which will be popular throughout the Navy. It does not seem to have struck some speakers that the majority of the people who go to sea in the Navy in these days are at imminent risks at all times and should share in the prospects of their more fortunate comrades who are engaged in capturing enemy vessels or are the means of obtaining prize money. The one point I desire to put to the House is due to the fact that a great deal of sympathy has been expressed for the lower deck and not very much for the officers. I was rather surprised to hear the

1693
hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs) pressing the claims of the lower deck as against those of the officers. He did not mention the terrible-responsibilities which the senior officers in the Navy have at all times to bear. If it should so happen that this matter is discussed in Committee—at present, I understand, it is unlikely—I, for one, shall support the claims of the senior officers very strongly, because of the fact that their responsibilities are always greater than those of the lower deck. One point I should like to put to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill is that, although he has provided for a vacancy occurring in the chairmanship of the tribunal, no provision is made that in the event of the one solitary representative of the fighting service becoming a casualty, so to speak, his successor shall be a sailor. It is quite possible that some future Administration will fill the place of the distinguished admiral whose name appears in the Bill by appointing a civilian.
Dr. MACNAMARA: No.
General McCALMONT: I do not think my right hon. Friend would do it, but we have to legislate for the future, and I hope my right hon. Friend will be prepared to accept a short Amendment to enable what I regard as an omission to be repaired. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that, from personal experience, I know that this Bill has been anxiously awaited throughout the Service, and that even its rather belated production will be popular with the officers and the lower deck.
Mr. BOOTH: I wish to raise a point with regard to the tribunal. I did not interpolate any remark with regard to this point before, because I did not want to interfere with the general discussion. Probably it is a point that would be better debated in Committee. I give notice that in Committee I shall raise the point of the deletion of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Clause 2. In support of what the hon. and gallant Member opposite (General McCalmont) has said, I do not see any provision that a naval member of the tribunal should be succeeded by a naval man, although there is a proviso that the legal member of the tribunal shall be succeeded by one of the same profession. I do not very much object to that, but I object to the limitation in the proviso, because it would debar an eminent lawyer, who might be suitable and available for this work, from being appointed. Take
1694
the present Home Secretary, or the ex-Prime Minister, both of whom are distinguished for their skill and balanced judgment. They would not be available under this disqualification, and it might be that if there was a successor wanted to Lord Phillimore and there was no judge available no one would object to the appointment of any other exceptionally suitable person who might be so available at that time. I do not see why he should not be chosen. I am only mentioning the matter now, and I give notice that I will raise the question when we come to Committee.
Dr. MACNAMARA: I can only speak by the leave of the House, but there are one or two matters with which I should like to deal in reply to the Debate. At the outset I wish to thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Dublin University (Sir E. Carson), my hon. and gallant Friend (Commander Bellairs), and the other hon. Members for the kindly reception which they have given to this Bill, and especially, if I may say so, my right hon. Friend the late First Lord of the Admiralty, with whom I was in close touch during his occupancy of office. I would like to say, if I may, with great respect, that I shall always look back with the deepest pleasure to my association with him at the Board of Admiralty. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Maidstone and other speakers have referred to the case of the Mercantile Marine, which is only natural. We all look with great admiration to the services which have been rendered during the War by the men of the Mercantile Marine, and I am asked how far, if at all, men belonging to the Mercantile Marine will come into this scheme. The answer is that if they are serving—and no doubt a large number of these men are serving—in vessels which are now commissioned ships they will come into the scheme; and this applies to armed merchant cruisers and other armed mercantile fleet auxiliaries, armed boarding steamers, armed examination tugs, armed fleet sweepers, armed mine sweepers, Admiralty patrol yachts, and other miscellaneous armed auxiliary vessels. If they are serving in any of these commissioned ships they do come in. I am sorry my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham is not present to hear this, but he will be interested to learn that these men do come in as members of the Navy for the time being, and are eligible for prize money.

1695
There will be, of course, a very considerable body of officers and men of the Royal Naval Reserve and the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve, from the Mercantile Marine, and the great fishing fleets serving with us, who will be eligible if they qualify for the distribution. But in regard to the Mercantile Marine proper I think it is commonly agreed that much as we deeply appreciate their services it would not be desirable to put the Mercantile Marine on this particular fund. If they are to be assisted or rewarded, it should be in some other way. As regards what my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto) said about the appeal he had made to the Board of Trade for a fund for the purpose of superannuating officers and men of the Mercantile Marine, I should like to read a letter sent by me on behalf of the Board to him, which, I think, shows a very sympathetic attitude on the part of the Admiralty towards the Mercantile Marine:
"16th July, 1918.
My dear Peto,—
In a letter to me of the 23rd April, you said:
'I should be much obliged if you would let me know whether, from the experience of the Admiralty during the War, they would favour a national scheme of pensions for merchant seamen to which (1) officers and men, (2) shipowners, and (3) the State should contribute in agreed proportions; particularly whether, from the Admiralty point of view, it would be a source of strength to the Navy that such a scheme should be constituted to encourage men of British birth to enter the Merchant Service and adopt the sea as their career?'
I sought occasion to bring the matter before the Board of Admiralty, and I am authorised to assure you that the Hoard are entirely sympathetic to the proposition that some scheme of retiring allowances for merchant seamen should be worked out.
Of course, the matter does not come directly within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty, but it would, indeed, be poor return for the magnificent services rendered by the officers and men of the Mercantile Marine during this War if the Board of Admiralty in such a matter hesitated to express their opinion on the ground that to do so would be going outside their proper province. The Board, therefore, desire me to say that they would cordially welcome any step which may improve the status of the Mercantile Marine, encourage British youth so minded to follow the sea as a permanent calling and not as an intermittent occupation, and steadily increase the proportion amongst those by whom the British Mercantile Marine is manned who are persons of British birth.
The Board observe that in a communication of the 25th May to the General Secretary of the Navy League, the Board of Trade—while sympathising with the object which you and the Navy League have in view—call attention to
1696
this fact, that the governing body which is being constituted under Section 27 of the National Health Insurance Act, 1918, to administer a special fund, will have to prepare a scheme of benefits, which scheme may provide for the payment of pensions to officers and men of the Mercantile Marine.
The Board of Trade suggested that this may possibly form the nucleus of a pension scheme. They further undertook to act as the channel of communication between the shipowners and the representatives of the other interests concerned for the purpose of the appointment of a Committee to study this question of the establishment of a scheme of superannuation for the officers and men of the Mercantile Marine.
I am desired to say that the Board of Admiralty will watch with an entirely sympathetic eye the discussion of this problem, and if they can at any time render assistance and advice, they will certainly be most glad to do so.
Very faithfully yours,
T. J. MACNAMARA."
I only mention this to the House in order to show that whereas we could not agree to the Mercantile Marine coming upon this fund, it would be quite wrong to put the Board of Admiralty in the position of being unsympathetic to the Mercantile Marine or unappreciative of the noble services it has rendered during the War. That would be far, indeed, from our real point of view. As regards the Proclamation to which my hon. and gallant Friend (Commander Bellairs) has referred, I would like to deal with his inquiry as to whether it can be discussed or amended in the progress of the discussions on this Bill. The Proclamation is referred to at the end of Sub-section (2) of Section 1—
"and in such manner as His Majesty may, by Proclamation or Order in Council, determine."
I submit with great respect that it would not be competent to go through this Proclamation and amend it, because it is not a Schedule of the Bill. What I thought was that it should be set out in draft form, so that hon. Members would look at it, and I will go as far as to say that if they have any suggestions which they would like to make to us of any kind regarding this Proclamation—although a discussion is not possible by way of proposing an Amendment to the Bill, because it is not a Schedule—we would certainly give them most careful consideration.
Commander BELLAIRS: Does not my right hon. Friend recognise that Lord Lytton, in the House of Lords in the quotation which I have given, dated 14th May last, promised that the scale which is in that White Paper and the Proclamation should be submitted to Parliament and would appear in the Naval Prize Bill?
Dr. MACNAMARA: I was not aware of that, but I would point out that we are adhering to the original procedure of Parliament in proceeding by way of Proclamation. I was not aware that Lord Lytton had said that it would be in the Bill, and it certainly was not intended that it should be. It must be by Proclamation, as it always has been, as my hon. Friend knows, and all that we have done is to let the House of Commons see it in advance, because we think it is of great importance that we should have any suggestions that can be made in regard to it.
As regards the scale, two or three hon. Friends, and particularly my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Maidstone, have called attention to the Commander-in-Chief's 2,000 shares, and have made a comparison between that and the amount received by the men at the bottom of the scale—namely, the supernumeraries, and so on. I was sorry to hear that from him. I have stated that, as regards the past, we have flattened the upward progression, and we have agreed that flag officers and officers in command should not take a fraction out of the fund before you begin the distribution. But, having done that, I hope it will be agreed that we have not been too generous to the high naval officers. My hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel McCalmont) referred very properly to the responsibility which the naval officer has upon his shoulders, and, when we consider the 2,000 shares which the Commander-in-Chief is to get, it must be remembered that the whole safety of the personnel and materiel of the Grand Fleet are in his keeping, and not only that, but the whole Allied cause depends largely upon his genius and his courage.
Commander BELLAIRS: I am sure my right hon. Friend recognises that that is already provided for in the pay.
Dr. MACNAMARA: I know, but I want to put to my hon. and gallant Friend a consideration which I think he will see is very relevant in one moment. The whole safety of these realms depends to a very large extent upon the Commander-in-Chief's action. I have every reason to be as solicitous about fair play for the lower deck as my hon. and gallant Friend. I do not come from the lower deck, but I come from the next door to it, which is the barrack-room. After careful consideration, I think the House will agree that this is a fair and an equitable distribution, and one which is not too generous
1698
to the officers, and I hope my hon. and gallant Friend, after consideration, will come to the same opinion. Supposing we were to divide the 5,250 shares which are taken by the four men at the top of the list and divide it by half. It would only mean the addition of a few pence or a few shillings at the outside to the men at the bottom of the scale, because these men are so many, and the distribution would be so wide that the 1,000 shares which you might take away from the Commander-in-Chief would only add a few pence or shillings to them. In face of that, I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will take the view that this is not too generous. Personally, I do not think it is.
With reference to the pooling arrangement which was raised by my hon. Friends (Sir Bertram Falle and Mr. Wing), I have only to say that I have already tried to explain why we had gone in for pooling as being a fairer method than the method by which those who had had the good luck of being on the trade routes in this War would have had a large sum of money while those who had brought enemy ships to action did not share at all. I feel sure that opinion in this House and opinion generally will be in favour of this system of pooling. I have every sympathy with the case of the widows and dependants of those who have lost their lives, and in regard to the point of whether an interim payment should not be given I may say that that has been considered more than once, but the great difficulties in the way made it quite impossible to carry it out. The hon. Member for Oldham thought that Clause 4 related to the Naval Air Service. It really does not do so. Clause 4 simply extends the power of the Admiralty to deal with an estate up to £100. It might be that if the prize or bounty award were added to such an estate it would bring it to over £100 in which event the poor people would have to go to law in regard to the administration of the estate. What Clause 4 does is to modify the existing law, to read the £100, which we can administer without going to law on behalf of these poor people, as if it included both the prize and the bounty, which is another thing entirely.
Mr. DENNISS: I quite understand that. I see the object of the Clause. I saw it before. But it is limited to officers, seamen, or marines. It does not say anything about the Royal Air Force.
Dr. MACNAMARA: With regard to the Royal Naval Air Service, we cannot allow the time they spend on shore to count for participation, but they will participate to the extent to which their service at sea will entitle them under the Regulations which have been drafted. The principle of sea service is the fundamental principle to qualify for an award, and, so far as the Royal Naval Air Service is concerned, we have expanded that principle to the fullest extent to allow those who are stationed on shore to count flying time at sea towards eligibility. As regards the Royal Air Force, though they are not eligible for prize money, if they are under the authority of the Admiralty they can claim prize bounty.
As regards vacancies in the tribunal, supposing anything should happen to Sir George Callaghan, of course the Board of Admiralty would insist on filling that vacancy by a Naval officer of high rank. We should not think of allowing that post to be filled by any other than a Naval officer of flag or high rank. Complaint has been made of the delay in bringing in the Bill, but once you agree to pooling, and get away from awards made in each case, you cannot distribute this fund till the pool is full at the close of hostilities. Therefore, no one's interest is prejudiced by the fact that the Bill is brought in to-day. All we want now is that droits of the Crown and droits of Admiralty shall be separated, and that the charges paid into and out of the fund shall be examined, so that at the close of hostilities the money will be there ready for distribution to the Fleet. The tribunal will have two months immediately before it of the legal recess, and a certain period of Parliamentary Recess, during which it can do most valuable work. It is most anxious to commence its duties, and I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Carson) say there should be no delay in allowing us to get the Bill, so that the tribunals can get to work as early as possible.
Commander BELLAIRS Commander BELLAIRS rose—
Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has already spoken, has he not?
Commander BELLAIRS: I merely rise to ask a question.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman may ask the leave of the House.
Commander BELLAIRS: I wish to ask a question, with the leave of the House. The expression "during the War" occurs in the Bill. We have never had that defined. Ought it not to be defined in the Bill? You may be in difficulties as to what it means.
Dr. MACNAMARA: I should like to look into that question. I do not quite follow what the hon. and gallant Gentleman means.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Colonel Gibbs.]

TRADING WITH THE ENEMY (AMENDMENT) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir A. Stanley): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
The principal object of this Bill is to fulfil a promise which was made by the Home Secretary on the 11th inst. He made certain promises with respect to businesses under the control of enemies carried on in this country and also with respect to banks under enemy control. He said the Government proposed to introduce legislation dealing with certain businesses which were under the control of subjects of enemy States and which, under existing powers, we are not able to wind-up. He also said we proposed to take power to wind-up a company, as distinct from the business carried on by that company, where the business of the company has been wound-up, and without making application to the Courts for that purpose. He also said we proposed to take powers to prevent enemy controlled banks from reopening in this country after the close of hostilities. These are the principal provisions of the Bill, and they are contained in Clauses 1, 2, and 3. The remaining Clauses deal almost entirely with administrative matters. They are points of minor importance which our experience in dealing with the principal Act of 1916 has found to be inadequate for these purposes. Under existing legislation the Board of Trade is empowered to wind-up businesses carried on in the United Kingdom wholly or mainly

1701
for the benefit or under the control of enemy subjects. Where a business is carried on by a company incorporated in the United Kingdom, the Board of Trade has full power with respect to the winding-up of the business of that company, but we have not power to wind-up the company itself. It is necessary in those instances for the Board of Trade to make application to the Courts, and it is for the Courts to make an order winding up the company. I think it would be agreed that in those instances, where the Board of Trade makes an order winding-up a business carried on by a company, it would be desirable that we should at the same time have the power, and should in fact make an order winding-up the company so that the company, and the business carried on by it as well, should be permanently and finally brought to an end and completely dissolved. I think, in dealing with this aspect of the problem, we have gone a long way towards meeting the recommendations made by the group of Members of which the right hon. Gentleman (Sir H. Dalziel) was the chairman, which suggested that the Board of Trade should make every effort to wind-up these businesses and companies within a period of three months. It will be quite impossible for us to come under any such obligation as that.
Sir H. DALZIEL: Special reasons?
Sir A. STANLEY: There will be exceptional cases, but on the whole it will be possible for us approximately to meet that particular recommendation, and having the power to wind-up the business and the company at the same time will, I think, remove what is to-day a constant source of irritation.
Clause 2 deals with enemy banks. Under it it will be impossible for any bank which is carried on, wholly or mainly for the benefit or under the control of subjects of present enemy countries, to be established in this country for a period of five years after the War. It would be a great mistake for us to allow these banks to be re-established after the War, after we have gone through the difficult process of winding them up. Banks in the business world occupy a very special position, and if they are carried on by those who are not friendly to the interests of this country, they would establish a real menace to those interests. For that reason, I think it very expedient and desirable that we should take steps to prevent these institu-
1702
tions from being re-established. The establishment of banks under the control of those who are not friendly to our interests obviously affords them exceptional facilities for acquiring information with respect to the businesses of this country, and, probably more important than that, it affords these institutions an opportunity of establishing businesses in this country not in the interest of British subjects, and not intended to take a fair and honourable part in the development of trade and industry of this country, but rather established in the interest of subjects of present enemy countries, and as part of a deliberate national policy of commercial and political penetration. Under this Clause it will be a misdemeanour for anyone to associate himself in the establishment of any banking enterprise in the United Kingdom which is carried on after the War wholly or mainly for the benefit or under the control of subjects of the present enemy countries. Under the Bill we are taking power to inflict very severe penalties, both by way of fine and imprisonment, for any breach of this prohibition. But having done that, it is of course necessary to go further. If by accident a banking institution should be established in this country which comes within the expression which I have indicated, the Bill not only empowers the Public Prosecutor, under the fiat of the Attorney-General, to take steps to punish these people by fine and imprisonment, but it is also necessary that we should have power to wind up these businesses, and in Sub-section (2) of this Clause power is given to the Board of Trade to wind them up. It may be there is a possibility of some misconception arising upon this Sub-section. It is not intended that the Board of Trade, or any advisory committee which may be set up, shall have any discretionary power on this question of winding-up. It is intended that it shall be the duty of the Board of Trade to wind up these banks, and I am quite willing at a later stage, if this point is not quite clear, to move an Amendment to make it perfectly clear that the Board of Trade is bound to wind up these businesses.
Sir J. BUTCHER: Could it not be done by inserting the word "shall" instead of "may"?
Sir A. STANLEY: I think it may be necessary to do a little more than that, because under the Sub-clause as now drafted it is possible that the reference

1703
to the principal Act may make provision for discretion being exercised by the Board of Trade. That is necessary, and it has proved to be necessary in dealing with businesses under the principal Act, but, now that we are dealing with banks, I suggest that it is not necessary to have that discretion, and that it should be made perfectly clear that these banks are not in any circumstances to be established during the five years after the War. The point arises as to what is meant by the word "bank." There is not, so far as I know, any very clear definition of this word, but we certainly do not intend, in using this word, that it shall be interpreted as probably the general public understand it, as simply meaning a banking institution carrying on ordinary current accounts. We want a great deal more than that, and we intend far more than that by the word "bank." We intend to make it impossible for any financial undertaking to be established in the United Kingdom for the five years after the War, which is carried on mainly or wholly for the benefit of or under the control of subjects of present enemy countries. We are proposing to deal with this particular point by making rules which will define what we mean by "bank." These rules will be prepared in agreement with the Treasury.
Commander BELLAIRS: Will it cover insurance companies?
Sir A. STANLEY: Not necessarily.
Mr. BOOTH: Discount companies?
Sir A. STANLEY: Yes. Clause 3 is intended to deal with what is the greatest defect in the principal Act. There were in existence at the outbreak of war businesses carried on by partnerships, where the partners were naturalised enemy subjects, and also enemy subjects resident abroad or carrying on business abroad. Under the law as it stands to-day these partnerships are automatically dissolved by the outbreak of war—that is, so far as the business here is carried on. Our practice during the War has been to vest the enemy subject's interests in the business in the Public Trustee, but that leaves the business in this country to be carried on by the remaining partners. It does seem somewhat of an anomaly that a business which immediately before the War was carried on mainly or wholly for the benefit
1704
of or under the control of enemy subjects should be allowed to be carried on during the War, and it is, I think, desirable that the Board of Trade should take power, if it be deemed expedient, to wind up these businesses, as is done with other enemy controlled businesses where, the partners being resident here, there has been no bar to their coming within the provisions of the present Act. I agree that there are probably not many businesses which would come within this Clause; still there are some.
I think it would be true to say that it may not be desirable to wind up all these businesses. There are probably instances, perhaps numerous, where one of the partners is a British subject resident in this country, and carrying on the business in this country, whose partner or partners were subjects of and resident in enemy countries. As a partnership or business arrangement that was quite permissible before the outbreak of war. In so far as the enemy interests in that business are concerned they have been vested in the Public Trustee and the British subject has been allowed to carry on the business, and so long as the Board of Trade is completely satisfied that that business has been carried on not in the interests of enemy subjects, but in the interests of this country, there appears to be no reason why in a case of that kind the business should be wound up. But there are other instances where the facts are not the same. There are instances of businesses where one of the partners is a naturalised enemy alien—a naturalised German before the War—and the other partner or partners are subjects of an enemy State. There the interests of the enemy subjects have been vested in the Public Trustee and the business is allowed to be carried on by the other partner, who may be a naturalised German. I think there is a certain prejudice, and I think rightly, against that business being continued. The presumption is, and I suggest that it is a fair presumption, that that business having been carried on wholly or mainly in the interests or under the control of subjects of enemy countries would in all probability, if it were allowed to be continued, resume that relationship after the War. I think that where it can be shown that the business has not been carried on prior to the War in the interests of this country, unless there is very good reason to be shown to the contrary, this business should be wound up.

1705
Sub-clause (2) of Clause 3 deals with clubs, friendly societies, and kindred institutions of that kind. The object of introducing this Sub-section is because there is some doubt whether we can legally include institutions of this kind under the definition of businesses. Therefore, in order to make this point perfectly clear, it is provided that the Board of Trade shall have power to make a Winding-up Order where these clubs and institutions which may operate, not in the interests of this country, but for propaganda and for other improper purposes, have been carried on wholly or mainly for the benefit or under the control of enemy subjects. In those cases we desire to have the power to immediately wind up such institutions. There is only another point and that is with regard to paragraph (c) of Clause 5. Under the existing legislation when a business is wound up non-enemy creditors are dealt with in priority to enemy creditors, and it is suggested that when we wind up a company as well as wind up the business of the company the same procedure should apply, namely, that non-enemy creditors should have priority with respect to the assets of the company, just as they have priority with respect to the assets of the business of the company. The other points of the Bill are minor points of a rather technical character, and I think it might confuse the principal issues involved in the Bill if I attempted to give any description of these detailed points, but I shall be prepared to give any further explanation of any Clause which may be desired.
Sir H. DALZIEL: I have listened with pleasure to the interesting and clear statement which my right hon. Friend has given of the objects of this Bill. His speech had a ring of conviction about it. He seems to me to be a believer in the policy which he is recommending the House to adopt. He is not, if I may say so, a conscientious objector to the policy, neither is he a conscript to the policy. He is, I hope, in every sense of the word a volunteer. Therefore we shall look forward with interest to the manner in which—as I hope he may be in a position to do—he carries into force the powers which he asks the House to give him. Let me make one preliminary criticism of this Bill with respect to legislation by reference. I know the Bill has been drafted very quickly, and we are very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the prompt-
1706
ness with which the Bill has been produced, but I would suggest to him, and to all Ministers, that the time has come when it ought not to be necessary for Members of Parliament to go to the Library to rake through the shelves in order to understand a measure before the House. This is an old custom which has been complained about very often, and there is no change, so far as I can see, on the part of this or any other Ministry. Why cannot we do away with legislation by reference? If it is necessary to refer to a particular Act in the Bill, let that Act, if it is not very long, be printed in a separate Schedule at the end of the Bill, so that Members can see exactly what is meant by the references in the Bill.
6.0 P.M.
In regard to the first Clause, the chief importance with respect to the winding up of enemy businesses is that it will remove the rather cumbersome policy of having to go to Court in order to wind up an enemy concern. In future the Department will have the power, without the necessity of having to get the sanction of the Court to take the necessary proceeding in regard to enemy businesses when they are convinced that they are enemy businesses. That is all in favour of more expedition, and, so far as that is concerned, I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. One of the most important provisions of the Bill is the proposal in regard to enemy banks. That was one of the recommendations of the Committee with which I had the honour to be associated. I have seen it suggested in some quarters that the departure which is now being made in putting the enemy banks into the hands of a liquidator as distinct from the present position of being in the hands of a controller is not a matter of great importance, and that the position is very much the same. I hope that my right hon. Friend will disabuse the mind of the House of that idea, and that we shall understand clearly that handing the banks over to the liquidator means that in a comparatively short time their whole affairs will be wound up, that, in fact, the banks as separate entities will cease to exist from the day the liquidator is appointed. At the present time the banks are allowed, we know—though they have not been doing a big business of late—to continue to exist as banks, and to declare on their notepaper that they carry on certain businesses within a certain defined limited authority as inter-

1707
preted by the Controller, Sir William Plender. Once the liquidator is appointed I understand that there will be no delay in distributing the assets, and if he will be expeditious in the matter, as I am assured, if he is under the surveillance of my right hon. Friend, he will be, it ought to be possible within a very short time, measured by a few months, to bring the whole matter to an end. I hope that my right hon. Friend, if he takes any further part in the Debate, will tell us his estimate of the time when that state of affairs will be brought about, and will make it quite clear that no matter who the liquidator may be it is entirely out of his power to keep those banks alive.
I would like him to make quite clear whether the Bill is going to refer to the fullest extent to what are known as discount houses in this country. The mere fact that they may put a name over the door and declare themselves to be a bank—the word "bank," I think, very often is misleading—ought not to give them any special advantage over the other private houses, because the other private houses are doing in many cases exactly the same business as the banks are doing, though the larger part of their business probably deals with accepting bills and discounting them. As the right hon. Gentleman is providing that for five years after the War discount houses under enemy control shall be prohibited from carrying on business, I would like to ask him, does his Bill ensure that these houses cannot carry on business at the present time? If it is objectionable that these discount houses and banks should operate for five years after the War, it is equally objectionable that they should operate at the present time. I hope that my right hon. Friend will explain clearly his position on this matter. The Bill as it stands, in my opinion, will not deal with enemy aliens who purchase controlling interests through nominees in existing British banks. That is a matter perhaps more for the Committee. But, as I read the Bill, I do not think that that is so. I should be glad to have an assurance that that possibility will be entirely removed by the Bill, because in these days of bank amalgamations one hardly ever knows who may be the controlling persons in any of the interests which are being united. I am sorry that my right hon. Friend has made it necessary that the Rules should
1708
lie on the Table of the House of Commons for, I think he said, twenty days before being put into operation, and I would suggest that, if possible, the Rules should be embodied in the Bill before it leaves the House of Commons, because otherwise nothing can be done for a considerable time. If the Rules have to lie on the Table for twenty days after the House meets, that would mean, at the earliest, for twenty days after the 8th October. There are some minor points which I intend to raise in Committee, but for the moment I thank my right hon. Friend for the Bill. It is a much better one than I had really hoped for, and I trust that it may have a speedy passage into law.
Major PEEL: I have had the rather special experience during the War of liquidating a certain number of enemy firms in Egypt, including, as it happened, the Deutsche Orient Bank, one of the great instruments for Germanisation in the Near East, and it revealed a most complicated system of holdings, including the Dresdner Bank, one of whose branches is in question this afternoon. I shall be careful, in the course of my few remarks, to reveal nothing that I learned in the course of my official experience in Egypt, bat at the same time I may look at the matter from one or two angles that happened to have been mentioned in the course of the speeches of the two right hon. Gentlemen. It is very important to remember that this Bill is more far-reaching in one sense than at first sight appears, because throughout the whole Empire the legislation adopted by this House in these matters is generally imitated, and sometimes that legislation is put into operation by the Foreign Office, and sometimes, I suppose, by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and sometimes on the initiative of local legislatures. I would like, therefore, to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has taken any steps in regard to uniformity in these matters? It would be extremely awkward if in some parts of the Empire they had not made an arrangement of the same nature for stopping enemy banks for five years after the War as is indicated in this Bill. Then I would ask whether uniform measures are being taken in this matter as between ourselves and the Allies? What is the exact business of these enemy banks which we are preventing from operating here for five years after the War? I suppose that if you were to state it in a sentence you would say that they were acceptors for

1709
value received, and they have come to this country for the business reason that this country is the main discount market of the world, the clearing house of the world. That is, I presume, owing to the fact that we have the gold standard that was established under the Statutes of 1819 and 1844. But who comes next in the running after us? I presume it is New York. Therefore, it might be likely, if these institutions are not allowed to operate here during five years after the War, they might transfer their business to New York, and pro tanto we should find our status diminished as the principal discount market of the world. I feel sure that our gallant Allies do not wish to take any such advantage of us, but it might be right to ask them if they will go a step with us in this matter, and whether, if we take this action in London, they will not take similar action in New York.
Our own banks, I suppose, have some considerable advantage from the fact that their rivals will be excluded here during five years after the War, and I would ask whether in furnishing that advantage to our banks we cannot make some stipulation or agreement with them as regards any action which they may adopt in financing German businesses after the War. What I mean to say—and I draw it from my own experience—is this. I have liquidated in Egypt several German export or import houses. Those houses would export goods to, or import them from, Germany or other parts of the world. They were financed in a great measure by English banks. Therefore, it seems to me that some stipulation might be obtained from these banks, if we give them the great advantage which we are conferring under this Bill. And that is not all. Side by side with these German institutions in Egypt are English institutions and English import or export firms, and those English firms deal quite indiscriminately with Germany or with England. But again, who finances those English firms? English banks. Therefore, again English banking is used as a direct medium of English firms abroad financing and helping trade in so far as those firms are conducted by Germans. Therefore, it seems to me that after granting to our banks this advantage relations should be established with them on these important matters, all the more since we see that they are amalgamating at a very rapid rate, and are to have the advantage of these amalgamations. There is another question which
1710
has not been mentioned before, nor in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, on which I should very much like to have an answer. I know that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade does not attach much value to the Report of the Committee over which Lord Balfour of Burleigh presided. That Committee investigated this question in great detail and with great care. In paragraph 165 of that Report they state that they had paid particular attention to this question of the banks, and they proceed to say:
"In view of the importance of maintaining the financial position of London and the complicated nature of international trade, it would have been impracticable and inexpedient to impose any restriction and discrimination as regards the use of London credit."
The plan the Committee propose as alternative to the plan now submitted to the House—and whether this alternative is wise or not I would like to hear what the right hon. Gentleman has to say about it—is that, instead of stopping these banks here for a period of five years after the War, there should be a system of licensing, the licences to be issued annually to banks, and should any of these businesses or banks show that they were in any way under enemy control, then the licence should be extinguished. The Committee adduced the further argument in favour of their proposal that by this means we should be able to bargain for reciprocal facilities. A further question I should like to have answered, before we assent to this measure, is as to what view the Government take of the subject, and what arguments have induced them to adopt this limit of five years after the War. These are the three or four questions I should like to have answered: first, as regards uniformity in this matter throughout the Empire; next, a uniform policy as between ourselves and the Allies; and, third, whether we could not bargain a little with our banks in this matter of enemy trade and enforce the alternative system of licensing?
Sir J. BUTCHER: I have listened with interest to the well-informed speech of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. I think some of his suggestions are well worthy of consideration when we come to the Committee stage, more especially his suggestion which would limit the utilisation of British capital through the banks of this country for financing German industries in the manner in which they have been financed in the past. As regards the

1711
Bill itself, I think the country will be very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for having brought it forward. I think it will be a valuable measure, and perhaps all the more valuable when it has been discussed in Committee and possibly amended. I hope my right hon. Friend will not consider it ungracious of me if I say that I greatly regret that it was not produced a very long time ago. As regards some of the main recommendations in the Bill, they were brought before the notice of my right hon. Friend by a Committee of this House over which my hon. Friend the Member for Chester presided. The Report of that Committee was produced as long ago as February of last year, but perhaps we ought to be grateful for what we have got in the general provisions of this Bill for winding up German banks and businesses and bringing them to an end. As regards the provisions for dealing with the German banks, they seem to be satisfactory. In the first place, they not only make the Winding-up Order, but they bring the business to a close. Up to now they have been under German managers, under the control of Sir William Plender, but Sir William had no power to make the German managers do anything he desired. In future the liquidator will have power to do what is right, and I hope as quickly as possible, in the way of winding up these businesses.
But to wind them up and bring them to an end for the time being obviously is not sufficient in itself, and therefore I think the right hon. Gentleman is very well advised in the provision which makes it impossible for them, so far as legislation can make it impossible, to be revived for at least five years after the War. For my own part, I hope that after those five years have elapsed we shall reconsider very carefully the extension of that period of five years, unless in the meantime the German people and their military governors have very materially altered their character and their methods. A question I should like to ask my right hon. Friend is this: Up to now there have been a good many creditors of these German agencies and banks who have not been paid, and there has been some reluctance in the administration to pay these German debts, because it was said they could not obtain from Germany sufficiently good evidence of the existence of the debts. I gather that Clause 7 of the Bill will remove that difficulty, and that the High Court will be
1712
in future prepared, on satisfactory evidence, to pay neutral, Allied, and British traders. This is not an unimportant matter, because, as my right hon. Friend knows, there is something like £5,000,000 of German debts.
As regards the point raised by my hon. Friend who has just spoken, I do not know how far it may be possible to control the operations of English banks or English discount houses. I can see difficulties myself, but the position is one for which possibly a remedy could be found. What has happened is this: The British joint stock banks have materially financed German industries, both in this country and abroad, by discounting bills drawn in Germany and by British credit supplying the raw material—namely, money—to carry on these German industries. This was done through the agency of the German banks; bills were discounted by these German banks in London and discounted by our joint stock banks. That operation will not go on any more, but the question is, Will these bills, drawn for financing German industry, be discounted in future by British joint stock banks? I hope not. If the right hon. Gentleman can discover any method by which that can be impeded, if not completely arrested, he will be conferring a benefit on British industry. There are two other provisions of the Bill to which I wish to refer—namely, the power given to the Board of Trade to wind up a company as well as close the business. That was one of the recommendations of the Committee over which my hon. Friend the Member for Chester presided. I think it a most valuable provision, because under it not only do we wind up the business, but we bring it to an end and pay the creditors. You get these companies dissolved after all the assets have been dealt with, and the businesses are ended. In Clause 3 there is a provision which is also based on the recommendation of the Committee, and the case I put to my right hon. Friend is a very simple one. It is that of two partners in a business, one an unnaturalised German, who is the predominant partner, and the lesser partner a naturalised German. On the outbreak of the War the partnership was dissolved, and what has been done up to now is that the remaining partner was allowed to carry on the business during the War, and no doubt the unnaturalised German partner, living in Berlin, had the benefit of the profit made in that way. I am glad to

1713
think that the provision of Clause 3 will ensure that such a business will be wound up in future, and that there will be an end of it.
There are only two other points to which I wish very shortly to draw attention, and on which I think the Bill will require strengthening. The House knows that the Board of Trade when they wound up a business under the Act of 1916 got the report of an Advisory Committee as to whether it came within the scope of the Act. In order to ascertain that, the Advisory Committee had to ascertain a certain number of facts, and they have had difficulties up to now in getting the necessary facts, because they had no power to compel witnesses to give them. Persons who were carrying on a business which it was sought to wind up were not likely voluntarily to give evidence in support of that object. It is, I think, essential, in order to effectuate these windings up more easily and speedily, that there should be power on the application of the Board of Trade given to the Court to compel witnesses to appear before the Board of Trade or its Advisory Committee to give evidence on oath and to produce documents. That is a power which will hurt no one, and will only make the provisions of the original Bill and of this Bill more effective.
There is one other point which I think will have to be dealt with in Committee. There have been a good many cases since the War where this sort of thing has happened. They happened largely before the Act of 1916 was passed, and I think they have happened since. What was done was this: There were, say, two enemy subjects or more carrying on business here. They foresaw that it might be made unpleasant for them when the country woke up to what they were really doing and that their businesses might be wound up, so they entered into contracts, more or less fraudulent, to transfer their businesses to some compliant gentleman with either an English nationality or an English or a neutral name, or it may be a neutral nationality, who would quietly carry on these businesses, ostensibly for his own purposes, but really under some secret agreement by which he should hand the profits made during the War and the businesses themselves back to the original Germans after the War was over. I believe that has occurred in a good many cases. How many it is, perhaps, hard to Bay, because we have not had the power
1714
hitherto of examining these people on oath to find out what really did happen. Under the Act of 1916 the Board of Trade has the power to cancel agreements made with enemy subjects for the transfer of businesses, "but only where it appears to them that the contract is injurious to the public interest." It is very difficult to say always that for a German to sell his business to some one who will carry it on during the War and hand it back to the German afterwards is against the public interest. There is no great international question concerned, but it is a very fraudulent thing all the same, and a mode of evading the Act, and I suggest to my right hon. Friend that he should provide in this Bill that all agreements for the transfer of these enemy businesses made since the War should be void unless they are made bonâ fide and for valuable consideration and are consistent with public policy. I would go a step further in order to tighten it up, because I think in these matters you do not want any loophole for fraudulent gentlemen, and I should suggest that the onus of proof of a business being bonâ-fide transferred should be placed upon the man who has transferred it during the War. These are suggestions which I trust my right hon. Friend will consider, but I wish to thank him very heartily for the Bill as it stands. I think it is a most valuable Bill, and with a few necessary Amendments I think it will carry out the objects which the country desires.
Mr. J. HENDERSON: I yield to no one in this House in my detestation of Germany, and I should like to see them all cleared out, but I am a business man, and I know something of banking, and I know that this Bill will achieve no good so far as the banks are concerned. I do not think that hon. Members who have been so excited about these banks really understand what has been done by them. In the first place, these are branches. They are not the Dresdner Bank, nor the Disconto-Gesellschaft, nor the Deutsche Bank. They are only branches, and how are you going to wind up a branch? It is quite true that by this Bill you may go to the Court, which hitherto you could not do, because the Court had no jurisdiction over a foreign bank or one of its branches. The Court could not make an order, but they can now, that these branch businesses, whatever they are, shall be wound up. Why this haste to close them? My right hon. Friend spoke of dissolving them, but does he know what the danger

1715
is? Suppose there are any outstanding assets which you want to recover to pay to the Scottish, English, Welsh, or Allied creditors in a general clearing up of all these assets. You destroy your title, and anybody that owes money in Germany will snap his fingers at you. The company is dissolved and has no entity. Let me point out that there is a difference between an English company and a private bankruptcy. In the case of an English company, when it is dissolved, anybody who owes it any money can escape and any assets cease to belong to the creditors altogether. It is different altogether with a private bankruptcy, where an official assignee continues trustee ad infinitum. Let me give a case in point. A German merchant has an agency in South America, and he comes to the German banks in London and says, "Give me credit, so that I may draw bills against it." The banks say, "Very good; we will accept the bills when they come here, but you must put up securities." What security does he put up? German securities, of course, and very likely German bank shares. These bills come forward. The Disconto and the Dresdner have accepted them and paid them; but what about the securities they have got to get from their debtor in Germany? They cannot realise them. I hold in my safe now German bank shares which were very valuable at one time, but I cannot sell one of them, and never shall until after the War; and if you appoint a liquidator he could do no more. He has a tremendous lot of German securities which he cannot realise until after the War, and the fact of your dissolving a business destroys all the value of these assets. The German people will simply laugh at you. So wild were some of my hon. Friends that they said, "Destroy the papers and the books and records—burn them." That is not the way to deal with a question of this kind. Do you want to wipe away all these assets and to destroy them? It is most absurd.
Sir J. BUTCHER: In answer to my hon. Friend, I have never suggested that any company or firm should be dissolved until it is wound up; that is to say, until the assets are got in and the debts paid.
Mr. HENDERSON: Very well, then; but you must wait until after the War. I say that you will never be able to fulfil my hon. and learned Friend's proposition
1716
that when all the assets are got in you can dissolve it. I tell you that you cannot in any of these cases where there are German or Austrian securities dissolve them before the end of the War, and it should be noted that there are also a lot of Scandinavian securities which you cannot realise at present A great many of our Allies are so mixed up in them that they cannot be realised until after the War. So that to talk about dissolving them before the War is over, to a man who knows anything about it, is silly and stupid. Then, what about this five years' business? I have no objection, but are you not sitting here in judgment on the economic situation which may be settled at the Peace Conference? Are you going to the Peace Conference with this tied round your neck, that nobody is to be allowed to carry on and discount German bills after the War? Look at it as business men. Our trade with Germany alone was almost £70,000,000, and are you going to drop all that? Is the Peace Conference going to drop it?
Mr. BOOTH: It is dropped now.
Mr. HENDERSON: Yes, but are you going to wipe it out after the War? Is the Peace Conference going to say that the Allies shall never have anything to do with Germany? If they do, well and good, but are you not prejudging the case? You cannot stop it even then. My right hon. Friend must know that the ramifications of business are so subtle that what you cannot do direct with Germany you will have to do through Switzerland, through Danish, Swedish, or Norwegian merchants, and even through American merchants. When the War broke out we would not use German sugar when it was offered in the market, any quantity of it. But we did buy it ultimately, mostly through America. People imagine that you can cut business in that way, but any man who knows anything about it knows how subtle its ramifications are and how they permeate in all directions. This five years' business is a deliberate attempt to prejudge the conditions of peace. When you get to deal with a question of this kind, to say that you are not going to have anything, for five years after the War, to do with Germany simply means that you are not to allow any trade to go on between us and Germany. Will the Allies agree to that? Will America agree to that? If France does not agree to it, or Italy, or America, where are we? We

1717
are tied up while these people are doing the business which we in this country might be doing, and of course the whole idea is absurd. We shall have to buy the commodities which we want in Germany through America or through Norway, because if we want them we must have them, and if we have to do it in that way are we not rather foolish, is it not silly, and what will your hankers say? You cannot shut them out, and neither can you shut out the trading of a discount nature. You cannot do it. Bills are offered to a man, and if he takes them are you going to prosecute him? If an ordinary merchant, a broker in Mincing Lane, accepts a bill against goods shipped to Hamburg, are you going to prosecute him? What nonsense!
The Bill may do some good. I do not think that the German banks will ever put branches here again themselves, because I think the feeling will be so strong against them that they will not want to come here. My hon. Friend suggested that an unnaturalised person might sell his shares to an Englishman or a Scotchman. How is he going to stop a thing like that? Besides, what is the value of stopping it, unless it is buying or selling German goods? Would you stop a German from buying or selling English or Scottish goods? Let the House be sensible. You cannot dissolve these branches until you have realised all the assets that those branches have, to meet the general fund that has got to be distributed. You cannot dissolve them without danger and loss, unless you are perfectly certain you have realised every possible asset you can, and I say with knowledge you cannot do that until securities, which are tied up by the War, become soluble and realisable after the War. My hon. Friend here speaks of the public interest. What public interest is being served by forcing assets which cannot be realised? That is not business, and I am prefectly certain that this Bill must be, to a large extent, a dead letter. It is not a fact that any fresh business has been done. Not a particle of fresh business has been done since the War, except for the purpose of realising the assets. That being so, there is no earthly object in hurrying a dissolution. If you can get liquidation going on steadily, you can preserve your assets, and not squander them. Therefore, I do not think that this Bill is really going to do very much good.
1718
It is a sentiment, which is really unworthy of Englishmen, that has got abroad.
Sir F. HALL: Not at all!
Mr. HENDERSON: That is just the sentiment that is pleasing and amusing the Germans at the present time. They say Englishmen are rattled. Why should we do this? You have the assets in your own hands. You have the grip of the men. What more do you want?
Sir OWEN PHILIPPS: I have listened to the speech of the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire (Mr. Henderson) with sadness. He twits the Government after four years of war with showing great haste to close the enemy banks and wind-up and realise their assets. He tells us he has special knowledge of business and banking. He is not the only Member of this House who has special knowledge of business, or even special knowledge of banking, and, even with the knowledge he has, I can assure him it is quite possible to wind-up companies, and to wind them up quickly without losing any of the assets. I do not think it comes well from a Member of this House, who informs us he is hoping to realise his shares in the German banks after the War, to be the one to urge the Government—
Mr. HENDERSON: The shares are not mine; they are my clients'.
Sir O. PHILIPPS: At any rate, the hon. Member told us they were in his safe, and we were not unfair in assuming that they were his shares. Anyhow, I withdraw that. He says that five years after the War is no use, or is too long. In my opinion, it might be made longer, and I hope before the Bill leaves the House my right hon. Friend will agree to increase the period to seven or ten years. I welcome the Bill. I believe the Bill is an honest attempt to bring the legislation on this subject up to date, and to enable the Board of Trade to deal promptly with the many difficult problems they have had to deal with, and in dealing with which there are legal difficulties at present. I believe it is speeches like the speech of the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire which show that not only is it necessary to dissolve companies quickly, but which show the necessity of bringing this House more in touch with the feeling of the whole country. Therefore, I hope the Government will lose no time, when the new

1719
Registration Bill comes into force, in appealing to the country, and in giving the country an opportunity of expressing its opinion on a speech like the speech we have had from the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire. I hope no Member will return to the House and stand up here after the next General Election, and make a speech such as that to which we have just listened. I have very much pleasure in supporting the Bill.
Mr. D. MASON: I did not share the hon. and gallant Gentleman's sadness in listening to the speech of my hon. Friend (Mr. J. M. Henderson), for I listened to it with delight. I think it was the first speech of sanity I have heard from that side for some considerable time. The hon. and gallant Gentleman was quite entitled to express his regret at the speech of my hon. Friend, but he did not show us in what way it was unsound or inapplicable. I thought the speech was, if I may say so, sound and conclusive. It was not rhetorical. My hon. Friend gave us most admirable and business reasons for his criticism, and it has not yet been shown that he was wrong with regard to what he said about not being able to wind up these institutions as such. You can stop a branch from doing business, and I certainly entirely agree with the hon. and learned Member for York (Sir J. Butcher) that everything in time of war should be done to eliminate all trading with the enemy, and to wind up or close those branches, and that it should be done quickly. At the same time, we should pause before invalidating the claims of British creditors by doing anything to prevent them from getting these assets or being repaid after the War. Anyone conversant with the City knows these concerns are really being carried on for the benefit of the British creditors. Anything that will tend to allay suspicion, which I quite agree may exist, certainly will have my hearty support. Anything that can be done in this Bill to stop trading with the enemy, or having any communication with the enemy, will certainly have the unanimous support of this House.
7.0 P.M.
This Bill may be divided into two parts. The part which relates to trading with the enemy, or having connection with the enemy in a business or financial sense, certainly ought to receive the unanimous support of the House. But I venture to say that where many Members will join
1720
issue with the promoters of this Bill is when you come to deal with post-war legislation. We are entitled to assume that the War will not be brought to a close until we have obtained a satisfactory and an honourable peace, and we have to project our minds forward to the resumption of the arts of peace and the building up of the structure of world commerce, which has for the moment been largely destroyed. Yet we are met here with a provision which is to prevent all enemy institutions, discount banks, trading and finance concerns of any character, from having any connection, trade, or commerce with this country. It does seem almost incredible really, as my hon. Friend pointed out, that we should do that now. In the first place, we probably should do it very much better if we were to delay it until that peace, which we all hope to attain, has become an assured fact. We are doing this blindly. If you eliminate all financial connection with the Central Powers, and with the Balkan Peninsular, and all our enemies, how can you carry on trade? What, after all, constitutes the money market? Do not these foreign institutions, with the capital they bring, add to the strength of that market? If we could discriminate between desirable and undesirable aliens, and if we could keep out the undesirable aliens, it would no doubt be a good thing. But before we legislate in the way now proposed we ought to look at the advantages we have derived from throwing our ports open and from having brought within our shores many of these foreign institutions. I have had some experience in the City of London, and I wish to pay my tribute to what the great British houses have done, but anyone who has the slightest knowledge of the City of London must know that some of the greatest finance houses there have been of foreign extraction. The Rothschilds and the Speyers both came from Frankfurt, and when you remember what has been done by those houses, when you bear in mind how they helped to reorganise the American railways and how the very tubes on which we enjoy travelling in London, and which are such a great improvement on the old underground smoky atmosphere, were organised by Speyers, we should pause before passing legislation of this kind. We talk of the "menace of peaceful penetration." I have often wondered where the "menace" comes in.

1721
Of course, these financiers and discount brokers do not come here for the benefit of their health; they come here to derive profits, but they also bring with them enormous profits and skill, without the aid of which many operations could not be carried through by British firms. We are bound to look at the enormous business which they bring to London. These foreign exchanges have houses in Berlin, Vienna, Paris, and Frankfurt. Do hon. Members remember what all that means? Is it desirous to cut them all off? I notice an hon. Member says, "Hear, hear!" Has he any knowledge of the business of the City of London? Let me put this to him: You have these large houses in these different centres; think of the aggregate population they represent, think of the population alone of the Central Powers. The hon. Member cheered the idea of cutting them out. He apparently would cut off all the commercial trading and financial connections of this country. Will anyone get up in this House and suggest, always assuming that we have obtained a satisfactory and honourable peace, that it is sane to say that the British people should have nothing to do with these people in any shape or form in trade, commerce, or finance? If you cut off all your finance you will not have any trade or commerce, and I am sure that the hon. Member who last spoke (Sir Owen Philipps) will agree that banks exist for the purpose of facilitating the carrying on of trade and commerce. A demand has been made that these German banks should be immediately wound up because after peace has been declared they will be ready to "pounce" on British trade and industry. But banks do not do such things as pounce on business or trade; they exist for the purpose of facilitating trade and of discounting traders' bills, and it shows ignorance of the ordinary A B C of trade to suggest otherwise. Do not let us, in our indignation against the Germans, lose our wits and make ourselves ludicrous in the eyes of the world. Do not let people say that the great British nation, which has in the past held the primary position in the money market of the world, are cutting off their noses to spite their faces. From the very first I have been foremost in my detestation of the atrocities in Belgium. I am in full sympathy with those who have given expression to that detestation; but still, my detestation of those atrocities is not going to affect my thinking powers to the extent of making me do something foolish.
1722
We are here to legislate. We are not dealing with the enemy just now. Everyone is agreed, of course, that now there must be no trading in any shape or form with the enemy. But we have to consider what will be the position after the War, and I do ask the Government to pause before agreeing to a measure of this kind, which may only be the forerunner of many similar measures, taking us on the downward plane as far as this country is concerned. Let us not forget what these foreign banks have done for British trade in the past. If one of these houses has obtained a concession it has come with it to the London money market, to which all the nations of the world bring their capital, thereby swelling the short loan money market as it is to-day. These finance houses, whether they have their headquarters in Russia, Austria, Germany, France, or Italy, if they get a concession for a South American railway or mine, bring it to the London money market. It is said that trade follows the flag. I would suggest that trade follows the loan, and if the loan is brought out here by foreign bankers the proceeds of that loan go out to South America in the form of locomotives and steel rails and other commodities which are of benefit to this country, and the more you attract to the London money market these foreign firms the more you induce them to do their financial business in London, the better it is for British trade. It is quite a delusion to imagine that you can cut out a large section like the Central Powers; they would have to do their financial business somewhere, and they would do it either in Switzerland or New York, and that would militate against us. It is necessary we should proceed with care in this matter. I have no doubt the President of the Board of Trade is animated by a desire to benefit British trade. But this Bill would not have that effect. It may benefit a few individuals, it will perhaps give them a larger share of discount business, but it will not benefit Great Britain in the aggregate, and it is the general interest of Great Britain that we have to study. I therefore urge the Government to pause before they proceed with that section of the Bill which deals with post war finance.
Mr. R. McNEILL: The hon. Member who has just sat down (Mr. D. Mason) began by saying that he had listened to the speech of the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire (Mr. Henderson) with

1723
delight. That is exactly what I would expect from him. I, however, listened to it, like my hon. Friend beside me (Sir Owen Philipps), with a great deal of sadness, and the reason why I think we take such very diverse views is this: the hon. Member for Coventry and the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire speak, as it were, in a different language to that which many of us use in approaching these questions. The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire spoke of the silliness and absurdity of this Bill. I am not surprised. From his point of view it is absurd that we should approach this question in the way we do. I hope the hon. Member for Coventry will not take it in an offensive sense when I say that he and my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire remind me very much of the description I once heard given of a business man. I heard it said of him, "He is such a good business man that he would sell his mother's grave for a sovereign." That is indicative of the difference that exists between the views of the hon. Members and of those who agree with me. No doubt what I am going to say will sound to the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire foolish and silly in the extreme. He spoke as an expert in banking, and that is, of course, his business point of view. But I do not regard this as a business proposition at all, and consequently the speech of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Mason), however able the arguments it contained, could not make any impression on my mind, simply because I do not regard this as a business proposition. I look on it as a moral and spiritual question. I suppose it is inconceivable to the hon. Members to talk about foregoing profits or foregoing money for an ideal. The whole of his argument, and that of the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire, was that under this Bill or under the policy which some of us recommend you might not secure the last farthing of the assets of these banks, and you might in the end possibly find there were some unsatisfied creditors. I dare say it is possible, but I do not care if it is. This proposition, I say, is to us a moral and a spiritual proposition. Apropos the provision that these banks are only to be closed for five years after the War, I say, Why that limitation? When you are building a house you do not build the house to be waterproof for five years. You do not construct your sewer system
1724
to keep out foul gases for live years; you try to keep them out for ever—at all events until some new invention is found which removes the noxious character of the gas. That is the way in which I look upon this Hun influence. It is not that I am able to contest the proposition that has been made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Aberdeen, for it may be that we shall lose money. If we do, I say we shall lose money in a very good cause and get very good consideration for it. We want to keep out, so far as we can keep out from our midst, and from our dealings, a race who have proved themselves not merely barbarians but a degraded race, contact with whom is contamination.
From that point of view, I say it is worth making a loss if we do, and to the extent we do, if we can preserve our people in the future from contact with such a people. I do not suppose that the hon. Member would speak as he does if, instead of looking at the thing from a national policy point of view, he were to think of it as a matter of personal policy. I do not suppose that the hon. Member would continue in business or social relations with a man who had murdered a good many of his relations, who had possibly raped two or three of his sisters, and had been guilty of every abomination of which social life is capable! I do not suppose the hon. Member would be willing after a short interval to go and shake hands with such a gentleman, ask him to his house, propose to do business with him, and sit down and dine at the same table. He would not do it. That is the point of view which we take as regards these two nations. We say, so far as it is possible to avoid it—I do not say it is possible in every respect—our object is to treat this German nation after the War, and after the revelation of their character, in the way which the hon. Member would. I think, treat an individual who has acted after the manner I have described.
Mr. D. MASON: May I interrupt to say that the point I desired to make was that you do not get at the individual in the way suggested, and you cannot frame an indictment against a nation? You do not get at the persons who committed the crimes.
Mr. McNEILL: I was only trying to bring the parallel of the individual into the national life. I do not care whether you

1725
can get at the individual or not. What I say is that the nation as a nation, and in every way in which a nation can express itself, by its Government, Press, professors, and preachers, the German nation, in this War, and certainly before this War—though that knowledge is now coming to us for the first time—has proved itself to be a degraded unit in the same sense in which I say an individual by shameful acts can prove himself to be unfit for decent society. It is from that point of view, and not from the purely business point of view, that we look at this Bill. Therefore I say that it is not surprising that those of us who take that attitude towards the whole question find ourselves at great divergence from the hon. Members who represent West Aberdeen and Coventry and who approach this matter entirely from the point of view of the balance-sheet. We approach it from a totally different standpoint. After a careful consideration of the Bill, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on having brought it in. I trust that it will become law with as little delay as possible.
Sir J. D. REES: I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman who last addressed the House that this is not a business proposition. I think it is a business proposition, and a very good business proposition, and such as I should expect to come from the eminent man of business who occupies the post of President of the Board of Trade.
Mr. McNEILL: I did not in the least mean to imply that the Bill was not also a very good business proposition. I agree with my hon. Friend there. I only meant that that was not the point of view from which I personally approached it and which seemed to me to be the more appropriate point of view.
Sir J. D. REES: I think I understand my hon. Friend. Hon. Members will remember how, when the War broke out, it was found that the strangle-hold of Germany upon Russia and upon Italy was evident, and that it had made great strides in this country, so that what was described as peaceful penetration really meant absolute bonds. The businesses of the countries in which Germany had obtained a foothold no longer belonged to those countries to which they nominally belonged. We have lately seen the result of the German business of penetration amongst our
1726
Allies. Is it possible that anyone can doubt that this Bill is not only business, but exceedingly good business? The House heard two speeches from different points of view. There is one from that eminent man of business the Member for Chester. He followed the hon. Member for West Aberdeen. I will undertake to say, as one who spends a part of every day in the City of London, and represents a Division of a great business city, that, while the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Chester would have been well received and applauded in any business company or business meeting in London or Nottingham, the speech of the hon. Member for West Aberdeen would have been wholly out of keeping with the spirit of the whole of his audience. I think it is desirable to say this, because the hon. Members who have addressed the House, those representing West Aberdeen and Coventry, have rather spoken as if they were the only business men in the House, or at any rate if not that, business men of such weight that what they said was especially entitled to the consideration of the House.
Mr. MASON: No, no!
Sir J. D. REES: I venture to say that their speeches have been wholly at variance with the business spirit of the City of London. I firmly believe that to be the case. I was greatly disappointed to hear the hon. Member for Coventry again repeat those arguments which were put forward here when the Non-Ferrous Metals Bill was before the House. That Bill was hailed in business circles as a sign that the spirit of the country was being expressed by the Board of Trade. We had the old heresies trotted out about the advantages we derived from Free Trade, from free dumping, and all these other theories, the adoption of which has actually enabled our bitter enemies, the Prussians, to build up their armies and navies for our destruction. It is out of these very principles, by their adaptation and by their adoption, that we have enabled our enemies to wax fat so as to be able to meet us in a great superiority on the land, and even with something like equality at sea. I am bitterly disappointed to hear to-day, at this the fourth year of the War, the same worn-out shibboleths repeated to the House of Commons. My hon. Friend spoke as if this Bill was going to lead to the ejection of the Rothschilds from England. He actually mentioned their

1727
name. What in the world has this Bill, which is a business proposition, got to do in the way of interfering with a great business built up by generations and by families who have proved their citizenship. They have thrown in their part and lot with this country.
It was a very lucky thing on the part of the hon. Member the Member for Coventry that he addressed the empty seat of my tight hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dublin University. If my right hon. and learned Friend who fills it had been here I think he would have had something to say when he was described as one wholly ignorant of the beggarly elements of business. And this a man to whom the greatest business men in the City of London go when they are in trouble to put them right, one whose voice is heard with admiration by business judges on the Bench! The hon. Gentleman's attitude towards these questions is, as it were, to say, "I am Sir Oracle; when I ope my mouth let no little business man bark!" It will not do. I believe it is totally at variance with the spirit of the City of London, which was admirably expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Chester. I think the hon. Member for West Aberdeen was rather betrayed into a sidetrack. He admitted that he was dealing with certain estates that he was administering. We do not want to be dealing with the administration of particular estates or the recovery of a particular debt. My hon. Friend who last addressed the House said we had to deal with the matter from a somewhat more lofty platform, though he did not dispute that the Bill is in itself a good business proposition that may be adopted by business men on business grounds.
I cannot understand the hon. Member for West Aberdeen when he urged that it is quite impossible to wind up the banks during the War without losing the greater part of the assets. I do not really think, so far as I can understand, that is true. Nor could I make cut what positive proof he gave of his statement, which, if it were true, would really prevent this country from getting rid of the incubus of the German banks at all. There is always in every liquidation some individual asset which we know is refractory and will not come into line with the others, like the ducks which will not come to be killed. There is always some item of that sort in every liquidation. But
1728
does the hon. Member for West Aberdeen really mean to say that the existence of some few accounts, or, if you like, many accounts, which cannot be settled during the War, is a sufficient ground for maintaining in being these hostile institutions which are assuredly designed to govern our trade? It is true that the ramifications of trade are subtle. They are not only subtle, but they are desperately dangerous. The ramifications of trade on the part of the Germans tends to the strangling of British enterprise all over the world. For my part, I think that the President of the Board of Trade has well expressed the feeling which exists all over this country in great volume, and in daily-increasing volume, in bringing forward this measure. I think that the post-war provision of five years is little enough, but it will be hailed with great satisfaction throughout the country. For my part—for what it is worth—I wish to bless the Bill, and to thank its author.
Mr. RUNCIMAN: I do not propose to say anything on the general policy of the Bill, and certainly I do not propose to follow the hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Augustine's into some of his animadversions on the Members for West Aberdeen and Coventry. The House is now dealing with a business proposition of the greatest importance, and although it may have for the Member for St. Augustine's purely moral and spiritual advantages, it has for very large numbers of business men considerations which are not entirely governed by those two categories. It is not, however, with individual business men that I am concerned this evening. I am much more concerned with the effectiveness of whatever policy is pursued by His Majesty's Government. It is by no means an easy matter to eliminate the financial influence of foreign houses from the international trade of the British Empire. We may attempt to stop one hole, and we may find we have only done something to divert the channel of trade without bringing to an end the enemy influences which have been used for the grossest purposes, not only in Italy and Russia, but to some extent in England. None of us can shut our eyes to the fact that the German banks which had important branches in London existed for other than purely financial purposes. They used their financial strength and knowledge for the main purpose of organisation in Germany in the years previous to

1729
the War, and for increasing their belligerent strength. Therefore it is no use viewing this matter as being purely one of economics, because it had something of the War quality about it even in times of peace which cannot be ignored. If we were to allow the spread of that sort of organisation in channels in England somewhat similar to the successful efforts made in the North of Italy, we might find ourselves at a great disadvantage if ever our present peril recurred. The Government should be sure that their policy is likely to be effective and complete, and at the same time they should see that it will not diminish the great value of London as the centre not only of our intern, but also of our foreign trade.
I rise to ask the Government if they will give us further information on the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Spalding in the course of a speech based on knowledge and experience derived in one of the outposts of the Empire. The first question is whether, before bringing forward this scheme, the Government took the advantage of the presence in London of the Dominion Ministers to enter into an arrangement with them which will provide for dealing with these matters on a uniform basis throughout the Empire? I cannot imgaine that Australia is likely to take what the hon. Member for St. Augustine's (Mr. R. McNeill) called a weaker course than will be taken by our own Government, but, whatever steps may be taken by this country, they ought to be in uniformity with the other portions of the Empire. That will cover not only the Dominions, but it must also affect the Governments of Egypt and of India, for it would be absurd for us to imagine that we were completely dealing with the task which lies before us if we were to leave Egypt and India out of our consideration. When I ask that, I have not by any means completed the range of uniformity which will be necessary if the policy of the Government is to be effective, and I must press my right hon. Friend, who is going to close this Debate, to tell us how far this policy is based upon arrangements made with our Allies.
The hon. Member for Spalding pointed out that the financial centres of the world are extremely delicate, and it might be possible for us, by making a mistake now to do a good deal by the diversion from London of an immense amount of financial business which is, of course, of deep interest in the City, and to every industry in
1730
the country which requires credit finance. I would not accuse the French or the American people of wishing to filch from us the position we have held as a financial centre of the world, but there are shrewd French and American business houses who, after the War, will be quite prepared to do their best naturally to retain within their own centres the facilities which used to be possessed by London alone. Paris and New York will be competitors of ours. We must not shut our eyes to the fact that with the tendency of the low value of money during the last few years and the immense burdens we have been under here in this country, and the fact that too many people are blind to the fact that we have long since parted with the gold standard, has led to the predominant position of London as the financial centre of the world being severely shaken.
It may be that we shall be so wholly indebted to America after the War that we shall be paying a great tribute to America year by year, and if we are to avoid making an error which will only become apparent when the War is over, I submit that it is necessary, before proceeding further with their scheme, that the Government should make sure that the arrangements with the Allies will not tighten things up in London and leave them comparatively slack in Paris and New York which might tend, in the case of New York, to that country capturing the financial business which has been the main characteristic of London for practically the whole of the nineteenth century. I am not saying this in the interests of the financial houses, but I would suggest, in the interests of business as a whole and in the interests of our manufacturing and exporting businesses it is essential that we should do nothing to injure London as the great finance centre of the world. The fact is that London paper is currency now everywhere. London is really the clearing house for all bills of exchange and for matters of large extent the London cheque was accepted everywhere. Every merchant has realised that from his own experience, for he has had London cheques coming back after long periods, with perhaps the signatures of forty or fifty different houses upon them. When that happened there was a great deal of money here, and this tended to produce a cheaper money market than you would find anywhere else. A cheap money market is not only of importance to our merchants, but also to our manufacturers,

1731
who require cheap money for the promotion of their businesses, otherwise they would not have been able to compete with their competitors abroad.
London in the past has been the financial centre of the world, and we made up in this way for certain disadvantages in our banking system which was provided for by the German bankers, who supplied many of their merchants in business houses. It is incumbent upon right hon. Gentlemen opposite who are responsible for our industry and commerce—and I would suggest particularly to my right hon. Friend who is now the head of the Department charged with foreign trade after the War—that they should make sure that no step is taken now which might tend to the financial facilities of London becoming less advantageous to our people, and the danger of the financial centre passing to America being accelerated by our own legislation. I press for an answer to the point raised by the hon. Member for Spalding—namely, have arrangements been made now, or will they be made before this Bill becomes law, with the Allies for the uniform treatment of enemy financial houses? That is a pertinent question to which I hope my right hon. Friend will be able to give us a reply.
There is only one other point I wish to mention. There were some business houses which used the German banks for their own purposes in the days before the War. I think they were foolish in using the German banks, for I believe they could no doubt have got equally good facilities from English bankers, but they used them because the German banks had more ramifications abroad, or else because they could get their money more cheaply than from some of the English houses. I think those who have had dealings with the German banks have bitterly regretted that they ever dabbled in their affairs at all, but if you are to close the London markets against these three or four or five or more enemy banks, is it incumbent upon the Government to see to it that in these days when banking amalgamations are going ahead and when there is a great agglomeration of capital under the control of a small number of groups of banks that they should do something to make sure that while they are cutting off such facilities as were given in the past they are going to use this opportunity for extending facilities or asking for the ex-
1732
tension of facilities from these very groups of banks which will now have control of practically the bulk of the deposits of this country, and by their influence over industry and commerce may have a deciding voice upon many industries in the future. These are practical business questions apart from the spirituality or the morality points which are so dear to the heart of the Member for St. Augustine's, but they have a practical bearing upon the commercial affairs of our people and upon the future which we must all look forward to with great interest. I ask my right hon. Friend to clear up some of these important points before the Bill passes through its further stages.
Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND (Department of Overseas Trade): I am sure the House will agree with me when I say that a number of very interesting points have been raised with regard to the Bill now before the House, but broadly speaking the discussion has centred around the question of the German banks and around financial questions connected with them. One or two speakers, the hon. Member for York, for example, have referred to some of the other provisions of the Bill which are of course an important part of it, and which were concerned with the Amendment of a former Trading With the Enemy Act. Perhaps I may be allowed to refer to these points in the first instance. The hon. Member for York made one or two suggestions with regard to the Bill as to some additional powers which he would like to see given to the Government and some additional provisions which he would like to see inserted in the Bill. One, I think, was that there should be power to compel witnesses to appear before the Advisory Committee to give evidence on oath. Another was that power should be taken to deal with colourable contracts for the sale of businesses. I can only say to my right hon. Friend that as regards the first I do not see any very great objection, but perhaps it will be sufficient if we consider those points when we come to the Committee stage, because they are really much more suitable to that stage where we can deal with them in detail than on the occasion of the Second Reading.
The greater part of the discussion has centred round this question of the German banks. I would like to clear away one or

1733
two of the more detailed points before I deal with the most interesting and important question raised first of all by the hon. Member for Spalding and then by my right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Runciman). The question raised is as to whether, if this Bill is passed, it will not be still possible for German financial institutions, whether it be the Deutsche Bank or the Dresdner Bank, or any other German bank, to still pursue their policy of penetration in London under a cloak by means of purchasing shares in a British institution or some similar method. The answer to that question is really quite plain. It is that there is every power of investigation given us, and it can be ascertained whether there is such colourable use of British institutions by the purchase of their shares. The hon. Member will also realise that anyone who is found guilty of such a practice is subject to very severe penalties which are provided for in the first Sub-section of Clause 2. Therefore, I think that particular point, which he quite rightly raised, is fully covered. I am sorry that I was not in the House when he made an allusion to the undesirability of legislation by reference. I do not think that it is a very serious point. He referred to defining enemy controlled companies as those within the definition contained in the Non-Ferrous Metal Industry Act, 1918. If it is necessary, probably on the Committee stage, the actual definition can be given. It consists of the four main points in the Schedule to that Act which can quite easily be inserted in this Bill to make the meaning quite clear, if, in the opinion of the Committee, it is better to insert it. Lastly, if it is possible by the Committee stage, I am sure that there will be no hesitation whatever in producing the Rules and letting the Committee see them, even if they are not actually inserted in the Bill. It is really a question of time. The hon. Member will realise that such definitions are not very easy to draw, and it is all a question as to the period of grace before which they can be produced. There is, however, every wish to lay them, so that every Member of the House can see them with the greatest freedom.
I now come to some of the criticisms of the Bill itself. There was one which was raised by the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire (Mr. Henderson), which perhaps I ought to mention, even though the hon. Member is not here, because he dis-
1734
covered, I think, a mare's nest. In the hon. Member's opinion, under the system of winding-up which will be enacted in the Bill if it passes into law, the assets of a company will be lost. I can assure him and the House that there is really no foundation for any such apprehension. If the assets to which he refers are assets belonging to the German banks, well, the Deutsche Bank is not wound up by this Bill, nor are the other great German banks. Those assets are still there. If, on the other hand, they are assets belonging to British companies incorporated in this country which are wound up under the Bill, there is an express Sub-section which deals with the point, and in which it is said, if not only the business, but the company is wound up, that the Official Receiver, who, ex officio, becomes Liquidator, may take proceedings in his official name for the recovery of debts and property, notwithstanding the dissolution of the company, and he can deal with such assets when he has got them in such manner as the Board of Trade may direct. Consequently, that fear on which the hon. Member laid so much stress is really groundless.
I turn now to the main financial problem, which was raised in his most interesting speech by the hon. Member for Spalding (Major Peel) and by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Runciman). First of all, as regards actual uniformity of practice with the Dominions and with foreign countries: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman himself will agree, when he comes to examine the question, as, of course, he has known in his experience before, that it is not possible to get textual uniformity of measures even with our own Dominions. What really happens is this: We communicate to them the text of a measure, and, although no one can claim that Australia, Canada, and the other Dominions should precisely follow it without any alteration; yet, as a matter of fact, legislation in the Dominions does practically take parallel lines to that in this country. That is not what I call textual uniformity, but it is practical uniformity, making some allowances for differences of conditions in the different Dominions. Therefore, as regards that matter there is no reason for any apprehension.
Of course, the really important point is that which concerns the position of London as a financial centre and the relation of London to the other great centres of the

1735
world. May I assure my right hon. Friend that before this measure was brought in we consulted the leading bankers in the City, and it has been brought in—the same is true with regard to the question of prohibition instead of licences—with their approval as being suited to the case and as not prejudicing the financial position of London. Of course, the problem that we have got to face, and the problem that the right hon. Gentleman had to face in his time at the Board of Trade, is really this: There is no question whatever that the whole object of Germany in peace time was by their methods of finance to penetrate foreign countries and to subordinate them not only for purely commercial purposes, but for other ulterior purposes as well to their own policy, and its great instruments of penetration were the banks. In this country they no doubt pursued them through the branches of the Deutsche and other banks. In Italy, as the right hon. Gentleman knows full well, they pursued them through other institutions than their own national banks. In the first place, it is quite impossible at the present moment to expect that all the Allies should take precisely similar steps. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman requires that. The problem before Italy, for example, though similar in some ways, is different in others from the problem before this country. If I may say so, it is being dealt with in a very remarkable manner, which I am sure commands the admiration of this House, by the Italian Finance Minister, who is here in London at the present time. The position, however, differs from that in this country, and the methods taken differ accordingly. Let me again come to the question of whether the position of London as a financial centre is likely to be hurt. We have two things to consider. Before the War there was no question that, besides their penetration generally, the Germans exploited London as a financal centre in a systematic manner attempted by no other country.
Mr. D. MASON: What is penetration? What did they do? What was the method adopted?
Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Of course, they borrowed money.
Mr. MASON: They paid interest.
Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Of course, they paid interest. Everyone knows that.
1736
They borrowed money on the London market. The London market was open to anyone to borrow money cheaply, and the hospitality of the London market was offered to the Germans as to everybody else, but, as far as I can ascertain, after a good deal of inquiry, they systematically exploited the London money market in order to use our own capital to undercut British enterprise and to beat us in foreign markets. They did that quite systematically, and that is exactly what has to be guarded against.
Mr. MASON: We do the same in other foreign countries.
Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Perhaps I may be excused arguing this case sentence by sentence with the hon. Gentleman who interrupts. As a matter of fact, before the War British industry and British finance were never systematically organised for this purpose in the way that German industry and finance were organised. We did not deal with affairs in the same way as the Germans. To return, however, to my main point, no one wants the London money market to lose its position. At the same time, consistently with that, after the War, especially when capital will be very scarce, no one wants the London money market to be exploited against us in the way that it was before. Therefore, the whole question is whether a measure of this kind will be any danger to the London money market? The closing of the German banks will not endanger the London money market in the very least. The real question is whether this measure in itself will be sufficient to attain its object? In itself it can do no harm. The more serious question is whether it will achieve the whole result necessary. If you are going to achieve the whole result required, and if there are to be any further measures, then I quite agree with my right hon. Friend that the most extreme care must be taken to see that the very valuable position of London is not endangered. I can assure him quite categorically that before any measures are taken which might conceivably injure the position of the London money market every possible care will be taken and all circumspection will be used. The whole of that question has been and is still subject to very careful investigation indeed.

1737
I do not wish to detain the House longer, except to mention one or two points which were raised. We were told that a measure like this is a symptom that the British are getting rattled. To my mind, precisely the opposite is the case. We were told that we ought not to prejudge the terms of peace in a measure of this kind. I would ask the House to consider what it would mean if such advice as the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire gave us were followed. It would mean that we must take no measure for going forward, because other terms might be agreed upon when peace was settled. If we were to hang back in every case of this kind, surely the obvious inference to the Germans would be that we were apprehensive of the result! The best way to deal with all these cases is the way in which the matter is dealt with in the present Bill, namely, to go quite steadily on—it is no sign of being rattled; quite the contrary—tightening up wherever we can, so that our enemies may know that we are going forward with our object and that the longer the struggle the tighter will the strings be drawn against them. That seems to me to be the plain moral, and not that which was drawn by the hon. Member. He further said what practically amounted to this, "Do not do anything for fear that the business previously done with you by the Germans may go to your Allies." That is quite a different exhortation from the one which bids us beware not to prejudice the position of London. That type of exhortation of the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire really presupposes that the Allies are to be jealous of one another. On the contrary, there is growing, I trust, complete co-operation for all these matters, and the real answer to my mind is for each of the Allies, communicating with one another, so that if there is not exact uniformity there may be similar action suited to the circumstances of each country, to go forward with measures of this kind, so that the Germans may know perfectly well that the longer the struggle is continued the more steadily will their influence be utterly rooted out.
8.0 P.M.
Mr. STEWART: I desire to thank the President of the Board of Trade for this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Runciman) hit the mark when he said that the Germans used their banks in this country not for trade
1738
purposes only. I can bear testimony to the use they made of the London market in financing loans and railway operations in China. They very nearly dragged us in to supplying the money to build the Bagdad railway. We all know for what purpose that railway was meant. As to the doubts in the mind of the hon. Member for Coventry (Mr. D. Mason), whether the German banks followed this practice for their own convenience and not for ours, I would point out that they discounted bills given by their traders in Germany in London, where money was cheaper, and they used that money to build up their industries and to cut out our manufacturers in this country. The hon. Member need not be alarmed that, if we curtail the transactions of the Germans, we are likely to lose any of our profits. I should like to back the Bill up, because I was a member of a Committee appointed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dewsbury to go into the question of German penetration. That Committee is still in existence. When one realises the way in which the Germans put their tentacles round us, it is highly desirable that we should use what powers we can to prevent a recurrence of similar treatment. There is no doubt that they began the penetration of this country and an economic war against us in 1879. They carried it on with great skill and judgment, using our elastic and easy-going laws most successfully. I do not want to enter into the contention between the hon. Member for the St. Augustine's Division (Mr. R. McNeill) and the hon. Member for Coventry about there being a moral side to trade. I think the hon. Member for Coventry will admit that trade is not pure materialism, but that it also has a moral side, and that the Germans have violated it in every way. The essence of business is credit. The Germans have by their actions done more to destroy law and custom than anybody has ever done. They did it with their treaties, and I have no doubt they will do it with their contracts. I would thank the right hon. Gentleman for taking the precautions proposed by this Bill to cleanse us from the German influence, from which we have suffered for so many years.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Sir A. Steel-Maitland.]

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
Mr. WATT: I think we should have from the Minister in charge of this measure some explanation of it before the House is asked to pass the Second Reading. The Bill deals with considerable sums of money. Clause 1 provides for the loan of sums not exceeding £1,000,000, and for the loan of further sums not exceeding £250,000 to Ireland, for public works, the latter sum being a larger proportion than Ireland deserves. Clause 2 is more interesting, and requires some explanation. It provides for the writing off of debts which are owing to the Exchequer. I am sorry to see that one of those bad debts has been incurred in Scotland, and that another has been incurred in Ireland, while there is no sign of a bad debt having been incurred by the Department in England. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain how those bad debts have been incurred, particularly the one due from the Port Ness Harbour Trustees. There is no explanation of that in the measure itself. The Eyemouth Harbour Trustees' case may be explained by some shortage of the Herring Fishery Branding Fund, but no explanation is given of the debt owing by the Port Ness Harbour Trustees, amounting to £1,900 out of a total of £2,100. The items with regard to public loans in Ireland seem to be interesting. The Treasury is losing as bad debts a very large proportion of the money that has been advanced. These are points the House would desire to have explained before passing the measure.
Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): In the first place, I would remind my hon. Friend that although in the first Clause of the Bill there is a sum named which seems to him, not unnaturally, a large sum, it does not follow that the whole of that amount is to be expended as a maximum sum beyond which loans will not be advanced. I am sure he will be pleased to hear that out of the £1,000,000 sanctioned last year as a maximum, no obligations beyond the sum of £125,000 have been entered into, and that of the £300,000 which was allotted to the Irish Board of Works, £90,000 only has been earmarked since the passage of the last Bill. With regard to the writing-
1740
off that had to be made this year, I am sorry my hon. Friend has not possessed himself of a most admirable White Paper which was issued some little time ago and which gives the fullest details of the Port Ness case. I do not think he would like me to go into them here, because he can read them there. Briefly, that case is one where money was advanced to a harbour very many years ago, where trouble arose at an early date between the contractors and the harbour trustees, where a lawsuit was started between the contractors and the harbour trustees and where the harbour trustees had to surrender their undertaking into the hands of a liquidator before the work for which the money had been advanced had been completed. The harbour since that time was destitute of funds. It silted up and never received a certificate from the Board of Trade, and for the last twenty-four years no money has been received by the Exchequer by way of repayment of principal or payment of interest. There is no income out of which these sums can be repaid, and the only thing, at the expiration of this time, is to write them off as a bad debt. We ask the leave of the House to do that in bringing in the Bill this year.
The Irish case to which my hon. Friend referred perhaps deserves one word of explanation. It is a unique case. It is a case in which under the Land Act, 1885, a property was brought in 1889 subject to a head rent of £30 a year. The head rent was paid for many years, but after the passage of time there came a general rivalry among the tenants as to who should pay it. While they were quarrelling among themselves as to whom should pay it, the time went by when it ought to have been paid. Although they were helped out of their difficulty by the Land Commission once, the second time it occurred events took their natural course. The nobleman to whom the head rent was due, not receiving it at the appropriate time, obtained an order of ejectment against the tenants and they were thrown out of their holdings. The result is that they forfeit the money they have already paid in redemption, which will amount to something like one-quarter of the sum advanced to them, but there is no particular hardship in that, as they have been enjoying the use of the land at a rather less rate than if they had paid rent. It would be monstrously unfair if we had tried to compel them to make further payments on account of land

1741
which is no longer theirs. We had no means of obtaining the money from them, and there seemed no other course open to us, after investigating this case, than to remit the balance, which amounts to about £2,600 on this small estate, and to write it off. The case, as my hon. Friend has probably discovered, is quite a unique one. There is no case like it in Ireland, and no similar case is at all likely to arise. I hope the explanation I have given will be satisfactory to the House, and that they will allow the Second Reading of the Bill to proceed.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. Towyn Jones.]

ASYLUMS OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Brace): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
This is a Bill to make further provision for the application of the Asylums Officers Superannuation Act, 1909, to officers in certified institutions for defectives, and to provide for the aggregation of service in asylums and in such institutions. The Bill is intended to remedy certain defects in those Sections of the Mental Deficiency Act, 1913, which provide for the superannuation of officers in certain institutions managed by local authorities, the chief defect being that Section 45 of the English Act of 1913 does not make provision for the aggregation of services for pensions when any officer is transferred from an asylum to a certified institution or vice versa. This is a real hardship, and it is a pressing public necessity that something should be done to deal with the problem. It is urgently necessary to rectify this defect, because of the difficulty of providing a nucleus of trained officers or trained staffs for the new institutions for defectives unless experienced officers can be drawn from the asylums. Under the law as it stands, if officers move from an asylum to a certified institution, they start, as regards his or her pension as if they had no experience or no service
1742
whatsoever. It was very natural that an officer would not be disposed to be transferred from an asylum to an institution, which would mean the loss of his or her accrued pension rights, and this Bill is simply a measure for the aggregation of the pensions so that the transfer may be made quite easily and that we shall have a nucleus for the new institutions that are being and will be established to staff them in a proper way. I therefore hope the House will give us the Bill without any delay.
Mr. WATT: I do not for a moment oppose the Second Reading of the Bill as I think it is a very valuable measure, and that the House will do its duty if it thanks the right hon. Gentleman and the Home Office for having brought it in. I know that officers who are removed to certified institutions from asylums have a marked grievance in suffering as they have done from that transfer. As the right hon. Gentleman has indicated they were reluctant to be transferred to certified institutions and the patients in the certified institutions suffered. I therefore congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his Bill, but I would not have risen to say that alone. I desire to ask him if he is able to explain to me whether under Clause 2, Sub-section (2), a change is made in Section 36 of the Mental Deficiency Act (Scotland), 1913? I have been unable to take the opportunity of turning up that Act to see what Section 36 enacts, but I rely upon the right hon. Gentleman having that information, although perhaps he is not very conversant with the law of Scotland. But still I think he may be able to state whether this Bill cancels Section 36 of that Act. I think the House ought not to pass any measure until it knows clearly what its effect may be.
Mr. BRACE: In a sentence, it simply means that a transfer after this Bill becomes law can take place between Scotland and England and between England and Scotland.
Captain A. SMITH: With continuity of pension?
Mr. BRACE: With continuity of pension.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Lord E. Talbot.]

SMALL HOLDING COLONIES (AMENDMENT) BILL.
Lords Amendments considered.

CLAUSE 1.—(Increase in Area of Lund which may be Acquired by Purposes of Section 1 of 6 and 7 Geo. 5, c. 38.)
Subject to the provisions of this Section, Sub-section (3) of Section one of the Small Holding Colonies Act, 1916 (hereinafter referred to as "the principal Act"), which limits the area of the land which may be acquired by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries for the purposes of that Section, shall have effect as if forty-five thousand acres were therein substituted for four thousand five hundred acres, twenty thousand acres for two thousand acres, and sixty thousand acres for six thousand acres and paragraph (c) of Section eleven of the principal Act, which limits the area of the land which may be acquired by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland for the purposes of the said Section one, shall have effect as if twenty thousand acres were therein substituted for two thousand acres:
Provided that where land which is to be acquired for the purposes of the said Section one could not, if this Act had not been passed, have been acquired for that purpose without making the total area of the land for the time being so acquired exceed the amount authorised to be so acquired, the land shall not be acquired otherwise than by taking the same on lease or by purchasing it on the terms that payment shall be made therefor by way of a rent-charge or other annual payment.
Lords Amendment: After the word "acres" ["six thousand acres"], insert the words,
"Provided that for the purposes of the acquisition, equipment, and settlement of the area hereby authorised to be acquired by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, the Board may, as respects any county with the consent of the council of that county, employ that council as their agents and vest in them all the powers hereby or by the principal Act conferred upon them in addition to those vested in such council by virtue of the Small Holdings Act, 1908."
Lords Amendment read a second time.
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir R. Winfrey): I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, after the word "all" ["all the powers"], to insert the words "or any of."
We have no objection to the Lords Amendment so far as it goes, but its acceptance must not be taken as any indication that the Board of Agriculture has at present any intention of delegating the management of these colonies. With that proviso, we propose to accept the Lords Amendment with one slight alteration.
Amendment to Lords Amendment agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment, as amended."
Sir J. SPEAR: I am glad the Government propose to accept this Amendment, for I certainly think that the county councils would be extremely valuable agents in carrying out the purposes of this measure. Those bodies already have done a great deal in promoting the provision of small holdings. They have the equipment, they have the agents, they have knowledge of the circumstances of the county and of the local requirements. I feel confident they will effect the desired objects and purposes of the Bill far better than any other agency could possibly do. But I did not quite catch the Parliamentary Secretary's remark. I hope he did not imply that the Board of Agriculture do not propose to give powers to the county councils to carry out the measure, because I certainly think that, subject to the over-ruling power of the Board of Agriculture, the county councils should be empowered to carry out the Bill. I know the chief purpose is to provide colonies. I think it has a very much greater prospect of making suitable provision for returned soldiers and sailors through the county councils than it would have through farm colonies. I believe that, in the first place, the county councils would be the means of settling men in the districts from which they came, and the men would greatly value the opportunity of becoming smallholders in the district in which they were born and bred, and in which probably their families had lived for generations. More than that, the advantage of small holdings for these men, suitably spread over the country, would, I think, afford them very much better prospects of success than would be the case if they were concentrated in large colonies. The men, many of them, would have a pension, and with 10 or 20 acres of ground would be able to keep a few cows, produce pigs and poultry, and carry on the various offices of husbandry in a small way, and would be able to utilise any surplus time they might have in earning wages in the employment of larger occupiers. It would be a mistake to suppose that these men will be able to make a living simply on 10 or 20 acres of land, except perhaps in the immediate vicinity of towns. But, generally speaking, they

1745
must have some other means of augmenting their livelihood. It would be a false kindness to plant these men on 10 or 20 acres of ground only. These men, to many of whom the country owes a debt of gratitude, which we all acknowledge, would be unable to support even a small holding unless some money could be advanced on loan by the county council to enable them to secure stock and make a start on the holding. I hope the intention of the board is that the county council shall have some funds from Imperial taxes for this purpose. It is a national liability and a national responsibility, and surely these bodies, which are elected and representative of the people, can be trusted to use Imperial funds, subject to the sanction of the Board of Agriculture, to the best advantage in promoting the interests and well-being of these men.
I think much greater success will attend the settling of soldiers and sailors through the county councils on the land than will be the case with very large colonies. To obtain land for large colonies means the dispossessing af a large number of farmers from their holdings. That is a very great hardship. No man likes to be turned out of the holding which he has acquired on the principle of supply and demand, and which he probably would be farming in a very proper way, but if the county councils are used as the agents that difficulty will be avoided. They would be able to acquire portions of land here and there for the purpose of providing small holdings, and although no farmer likes to part with a part of his farm, it is a much smaller grievance for him to have to part with 10 or 20 acres than to be turned out of his holding in order to get land for farm colonies. So that from every point of view, with that earnest desire to see that settlement of soldiers and sailors comfortably on the land, I firmly believe that it would be much more successful if carried out through the county councils than if we adopt the policy of farm colonies. This is certainly a step in the right direction. I hope this concession, if it may be so called, to local feeling through the county councils will not be made by the Board of Agriculture in any grudging spirit. I believe these bodies, in the way they have provided small holdings hitherto, have shown judgment and tact and a very fair amount of success. That entitles them to be trusted by the Government to do this great work, and I hope the Government will, from Imperial funds, provide
1746
the money, and then I believe there is every prospect of our soldiers and sailors being comfortably settled in small holdings. The one advantage in congregating men in colonies is that they will be able to co-operate. There is something in the British nature which makes us prefer individuality, and I am confident that these men will be happier on their 10 or 20 acres under their own management, with the utilisation of their pensions and the opportunity to carry on any other little industry, and they will be able to make a living and will be able to bring about that which we have been yearning for for many years—the increase of the rural population. We have been deploring the movement of the rural population into the towns—
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir D. Maclean): I do not quite see how that arises on this Amendment. It is quite a limited one, the hon. Member will, on reflection, agree. I cannot allow him to pursue that topic any further.
Sir J. SPEAR: I am very glad the Amendment has been accepted, for I am sure it will contribute to the successful provision of small holdings very much better than any other proposal that has been mentioned.
Major BARNSTON: I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman has accepted the Amendment, but I very much wish he had not accepted it in the way he did, because it seemed to me that, having accepted it, he is not going to take much further notice of it. We who support it are just as anxious as anyone that all soldiers and sailors who have fought for this country and want to live on the land should have an opportunity of doing so. The whole point between us is the best machinery and the best and cheapest way to get them on the land and keep them there. And it seems to me, when you have county councils, which have been doing this work now for some years, while if you use the Board of Agriculture you would probably need a whole host of new officials—when the county councils have local knowledge of the needs of agriculture in the different counties, they are the bodies ready to hand to take on this work and will do it much better than it would be done by any board in London. I sincerely hope, though we have to thank the hon. Gentleman for accepting the Amendment, that he will

1747
think better of the proviso and that he will allow the county councils to manage these small holdings.
Captain Sir C. BATHURST: I am delighted to hear that the Board of Agriculture has decided to accept the Amendment, it being one which I myself put down for the Committee stage, but unfortunately I was not present to move it. I am just as anxious as the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill that this experiment in small holdings and colonies under direct Government management should be given a fair trial and, if possible, be attended with success. But two years ago, when the original Bill was before the House, it was stated explicitly and repeatedly that this scheme was merely an experiment, and that it would not be largely extended until its success had been demonstrated. The time has certainly not arrived when we can say with full confidence that the success of this colonisation experiment is fully assured, and in attempting to multiply the number of acres originally contemplated by no less than ten, it must be admitted that we are carrying the scheme beyond the experimental stage, possibly involving the country in a considerable expenditure, possibly setting up a somewhat expensive machine which does not at present exist, and possibly also not meeting altogether the requirements of the ex-soldiers and ex-sailors in the matter of land settlement. My anxiety with regard to this Amendment is founded upon the fact that I do not want to see our ex-soldiers fall between two stools. The powers of the county councils are at present suspended. We none of us know when they may be revived. In spite, I believe, of considerable pressure on the part of the Board of Agriculture, the Treasury has not yet seen its way to allow these powers to be revived, and, assuming that this scheme is not a success, the whole of our expressed aspirations for the future land settlement of our soldiers and sailors serving overseas will have been blown to the winds, and surely we shall have been guilty of something very much in the nature of deception of those who are dependent upon our efforts to provide them with the land settlement scheme which so many of them are looking forward to.
The Amendment comes to the House with the strong backing of the County Councils Association, and with, of course, a full realisation on their part of what has been achieved during the last ten years,
1748
allowing for the interruption of their powers during the War, and also the strong backing of the Central Chamber of Agriculture, both bodies of considerable experience and both very anxious that the county councils should, if necessary, be allowed to take up this work if the Government finds that it cannot with success carry it through without their intervention. The word "may" is a permissive word that does not involve the Board of Agriculture handing any of their powers under this Bill or the previous Bill over to the county councils if they feel they can successfully carry through their schemes without their agency. But it does give that alternative, without which the well-known desires of many of our ex-soldiers may not be satisfied. It gives that alternative which enables the existing agencies, which have grown up largely on the initiative of my hon. Friend, and the success of whose work is far above my anticipations, and, I imagine, his anticipations, an opportunity of carrying out the work for which they are well fitted on delegation from the Board of Agriculture, and to provide in a way for the ex-soldiers, which the ex-soldiers would infinitely prefer to the way contemplated by the Bill.
Mr. WATT: The House is in a peculiar position in dealing with this particular Amendment, because the Government have recommended its acceptance by the House, but saying at the same time that they do not intend to act upon it.
Sir R. WINFREY: Oh, no!
Mr. WATT: As I understood the hon. Member, this Amendment enables the Board of Agriculture to utilise the county councils as their agents and to vest in them all the powers they have got. The hon. Gentleman accepts this Amendment, but tells the House that the Board of Agriculture will not carry this out and that they will not delegate any of these powers to the county councils. Therefore, they are proposing to accept the Amendment and at the same time telling us they will reject it in action. In face of that the hon. Gentlemen who have spoken on behalf of agriculture have expressed their delight at this Amendment being accepted, although it is not going to be carried out. One hon. Member who drew attention to the point I am referring to said that if the Board of Agriculture started this system themselves instead of deputing it to the county councils to act as their agents

1749
there will be a new set of officials set up who will not only be new, to the job, but will have to acquire knowledge, while at the present moment there are in the employment of the county councils officials who are doing these duties who have had experience in the past, and who are much more likely to be more efficient than any new officials who may be set up. It may be possible yet for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture to withdraw what he said as to the intention of his Department not to carry out this Amendment, and to tell us quite frankly that he has changed his views, and that he proposes to have the county councils as agents in this matter and to utilise them and their officials.
Mr. BOOTH: As I understand this Amendment, it will lead to a little more elasticity in the working of this measure. If the county councils become the agents to carry out these powers, I think it is possible that the county councils may go different ways and have different ideas. I was rather sorry to hear from the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Watt) that the Government have set a face of adamant against any experiments by the county councils; but I was reassured, because the Parliamentary Secretary shook his head, and I took it to mean that he did not intend that this should be a dead letter. The reason why this commends itself to me is that some of the more progressive and enlightened county councils may set up a small holding colony to deal with tuberculous persons. The Parliamentary Secretary remembers that when the Bill was before the House I urged upon him that at any rate one of these colonies might well be devoted to the question of tuberculous soldiers.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That does not arise on this Amendment.
Mr. BOOTH: I think if you had listened—[HON. MEMBERS; "Order, order!"]—and had allowed me to pursue my point—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]—I do not mean any discourtesy, and I am surprised that any hon. Members should think that for a moment. My point is that one of the county councils which has got this question in hand and is spending money upon it, if they exercise the powers vested in them, could establish a colony for tuberculous soldiers. That is why the Amendment commends itself to me. There is an opportunity, if this Amendment is sanc-
1750
tioned, for an experiment to be carried out. It will enable us, instead of having to go to the Board of Agriculture, to go to the county council as the agent and appeal to them to exercise the power vested in them. I am very hopeful that, at any rate, one of the county councils may be found enlightened enough and progressive enough and anxious to serve the public interests to utilise this Clause and the power which this Clause gives them in order to set up a colony for tuberculous soldiers. I do not wish to suggest that the whole of these small-holding colonies should be devoted to that purpose. I have always been modest in my requests, and I ask that one county council—
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I have allowed the point to be raised, but I cannot allow the subject to be enlarged upon.
Mr. BOOTH: I am thankful to you for allowing me to make a passing reference. That is the only reason why I support the Amendment. If I thought that there would not be a county council likely to do this, I should vote against this Amendment. Therefore, I think the point I am raising is quite relevant because it influences my vote and I daresay the vote of other Members. It is because I see an opportunity for some county council to put in force these powers in the way I have suggested, which I think would be successful, and would lead to great reform, that I am glad the Government have seen their way to accept the Amendment.
Question put, and agreed to.
Lords Amendment: Leave out the words "on the terms that payment shall be made therefor by way," and insert instead thereof the words "in consideration of the grant."
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Mr. BOOTH: I think we are entitled to know what is the exact bearing of this. Is it to be a drafting Amendment?
Sir R. WINFREY: Yes. I move that we agree with the Lords Amendment because it is purely a drafting Amendment.
Lords Amendment agreed to.
Lords Amendment: After the word ("payment") insert the words ("or by taking the same in feu").
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Sir C. BATHURST: I would like to be quite clear as to what this means. Is it introduced simply for the purpose of providing for Scottish conditions? Because if it were to apply to England, we have no knowledge of feu duties or similar Scottish expressions.
Sir R. WINFREY: It is purely Scottish.
Sir C. BATHURST: I have merely mentioned the matter so as to be satisfied that this is in fact the exact equivalent of the rent-charge contemplated under the English provisions, because it is obviously right that the conditions should be the same in both parts of the United Kingdom.
Question put, and agreed to.
Lords Amendment: At end of Clause 1 add the words,
"Provided also that no portion of the additional land authorised by this Act to be acquired by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries shall be so acquired except after consultation with the chairman of the council of the county in which the land proposed to be acquired is situate, or with a committee of that council."
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Mr. BOOTH: It is quite clear that this is not a drafting Amendment. It is an Amendment of some substance, and we are entitled to an explanation from the Government as to why they accept it. Was this introduced as a Government Amendment in another place or how did it come to be accepted? It does not seem to be of any value. Very often in a county there are many more men interested in agriculture than the chairman of the county council, who may be a coal-owner, an engineer, or a tradesman. Why this distinction should be made, except as a sop to the county council, I cannot understand. I am never in favour of these things that are put in merely to get a Bill through or to silence somebody, or with some object of that kind. The only effect which this could have, it seems to me, would be to delay matters. To comply with this provision, I take it there would have to be some documentary evidence to show that this consultation had taken place, and that would mean correspondence, or something of the kind, which might delay matters.
Mr. WATT: I expected that the Under-Secretary would have answered the ques-
1752
tions of my hon. Friend. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman recommends the House to accept this particular Amendment. It seems extraordinary that the Board of Agriculture should consent to a consultation with the chairman of the county council of a county in which the land proposed to be acquired is situated before they proceed to take the land. The effect, of course, is delay. It is hard to find any reasons for accepting this Amendment. It limits the powers of the Board when we are anxious to get ahead. Probably the other House was determined to have this particular Amendment, and the Board of Agriculture thought that rather than have a disturbance with that House they would let it go; but the effect is certainly to weaken the measure. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has a remarkable gift for silence. In that respect he differs from his chief, who has an extraordinary gift of fluency. Between them they strike a very happy average, but silence can be carried too far, and in this case I think that the hon. Gentleman ought to give an answer to my hon. Friend.
Sir R. WINFREY: Really, the reason for this Amendment is plain. If county councils are at any time to be asked to look after these colonies, surely it is a reasonable and sensible thing to take them into consultation.
Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 2.—(Short Title.)
This Act may be cited as the Small Holding Colonies (Amendment) Act, 1918, and the principal Act and this Act may be cited together as the Small Holding Colonies Acts, 1916 and 1918.
Lords Amendment: After "1916" insert the words "and otherwise to amend that Act."—Agreed to.

DEPUTY-LIEUTENANTS BILL [Lords].
Order for Second Reading read.
The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
The object of this Bill is to get rid of the property qualification which has been in existence for a very long time. It existed if I remember aright, before the year 1757, when the Militia was under the Home Office. It was reaffirmed in the Militia

1753
Act, 1882, when it was made quite plain that unless you had a very substantial holding in the county you could not be appointed to be a deputy-lieutenant of that particular county. When Lord Haldane, who was then Secretary of State for War, introduced the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act in 1907 he made provision for constituting the lord lieutenant of each county to be the president of the Territorial Force Association for that county. He also obtained His Majesty's assent to the rule that nominees for the appointment of deputy-lieutenant should be qualified either by ten years' commissioned service or by good service as members of the County Association. All this was done to encourage the Territorial Force and to encourage recruiting for that particular force. During this War it has been found that the restrictions precluded the appointment of gentlemen not possessing the necessary statutory qualifications who had in other ways rendered exceptionally valuable services to the military forces of the Crown in connection with recruiting, Red Cross, and the volunteer movement.
Accordingly in April, 1915, the King commanded that existing qualifications should be extended, in order to provide for the recognition of such special services. The foregoing rules, namely, those of 1915, and the provisions made in connection with the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act, 1907, secure the nomination of suitable candidates for the appointment of deputy-lieutenant, but it appears that there is difficulty in rendering them effective owing to the fact that gentlemen otherwise eminently qualified to become deputy-lieutenants do not always possess the statutory property qualification. In such a category are found many officers of the naval and military forces, whose incomes are derived from salary, pay, etc. We also found among officers members of the professional classes and others dependent on their earnings, many willing and able workers in the national cause—many business men, who had really no great property qualification at all, but who did reside in the county. The Government therefore thought it wise and proper that these men should have the same right to be appointed deputy-lieutenant as other people who happen accidentally to possess the property qualification, and it is really to give us the right to appoint as deputy-lieutenants such men who reside in the county, and
1754
who have done good service, whether they have the property qualifications or not, that this Bill is now introduced.
9.0 P.M.
Mr. WATT: I think the right hon. Gentleman is to be congratulated on having brought in this measure, which does not make the property qualification necessary for the appointment of deputy-lieutenant in counties. It was a good thing, I think, that the position of deputy-lieutenant was confined to men who have given military service either in the Army or the Territorial Forces, or in the Navy. Now conies the question of dealing with deputy-lieutenants in two ways. The first is to exclude the property qualification, and the other is to appoint men who have held positions connected with the Naval, Territorial, or military Forces. I think the right hon. Gentleman has erred in two matters, on which I propose to move Amendments in Committee. He said it was desirable that a deputy-lieutenant should be resident in the county. Several times during his speech he used the expression, "resident within the county," whereas this measure goes outside the county, and men who are resident within seven miles of the county may be appointed to the position of deputy-lieutenant. That is one of the points to which I object. I should say that there is not a single county in the country where men suitable for this appointment would not be found within the county, and there is no necessity whatever for going outside to appoint someone resident within 7 miles. In Committee I shall move to leave out the words "within seven miles thereof." The other point to which I object is in paragraph (b), which says that men may be eligible for the position of deputy-lieutenant where they have acted in a civil capacity in connection with the naval and military services. I submit that they ought not to be included, and that the position of deputy-lieutenant should be confined to men who have been in the Army, Navy, or Territorial force—that is, the position should be confined to military men. That was set up in the Act of 1907, and it has been a great success up till now. From what my right hon. Friend says, not only military men would get these posts, but clerks associated with the Navy or Army, and men who have in any way done work for the Services, would be eligible for the position. I submit these words, which include the appointment of civilians,

1755
should be deleted, and in Committee I will move an Amendment with that object, so that the appointment will be confined to men who have rendered military service and who have residence within the county.
Mr. BOOTH: When I first read this bill and before the explanation given by the right hon. Gentleman in charge of it, I must say that I thought it had nothing to do with the War, and I was prepared to make a protest on that ground. But my right hon. Friend has shown that while it may not be a military measure it has arisen out of the circumstances of the War, and, therefore, I quite admit that there is a case for bringing in the Bill at the present time. I would like to thank him for removing the property qualification, and I only wish to make one criticism in support of my hon. and learned Friend behind me. I shall take the opportunity in Committee of supporting my hon. Friend's Amendment. If a man has simply made money through services he has rendered in connection with the Army or Navy I do not think such a case should be included. I cannot think that my right hon. Friend wants to give the privilege to a man who has simply been manufacturing munitions or has been doing something for which he has been handsomely remunerated. I do not think that such a service should qualify a man in some special way for this post. As the Bill is worded we might have men who would be considered as having been connected with the forces, but who had really occupied some lucrative civilian post or had done some business in connection with the Army. If the idea is that a civilian has really served the forces by doing something very effective, and which has not been the means of his making money or profit in so doing, then I see no objection to it. One thing that I wish to warn the House against is that it is exceedingly unpopular in the country that men who have cottoned themselves up to some Government Department and made large profits by so doing then receive Orders, or become qualified for posts, for which they would not otherwise be eligible. I hope my right hon. Friend will be able to satisfy us in Committee that there is no intention of regarding as a qualification for a deputy-lieutenancy the fact that a man has had a lucrative post with the Army, the Navy, or the Air Force. Generally speaking, I welcome the Bill.
Mr. R. MASON: May I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on introducing this Bill? We all know, I think, that since the commencement of the War there are many gentlemen resident in the counties who have done very loyal and valuable service to the Crown in recruiting and in many other ways connected with the War, and I personally welcome as a step in the right direction that these men, although they may not have the property qualification, are yet to be eligible for this recognition, which is an honourable position which some men covet. I am quite at one with the terms of the Bill, and think that the 7 miles radius outside of any particular county should be preserved, because I know of my own knowledge of gentlemen who have done the services to which I have referred who may have their place of business in the county and have done the service in the county, and who might not quite be resident within the four corners of the county, and would thus be debarred if the 7 miles radius was struck out of the Bill.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. Pratt.]

SOLICITORS (ARTICLED CLERKS) BILL [Lords].
Order for Second Reading read.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Gordon Hewart): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
This is a Bill designed for the benefit of articled clerks of solicitors. It is intended in two ways to modify in their interests the provisions of the existing Solicitors Acts. In the first place, the Bill provides that an articled clerk may reckon as time duly served under his articles any time which since the commencement of the War has been served in the forces or during which he has been detained as a prisoner or interned in an enemy or a neutral country. In the second place, the Bill provides that the Lord Chief Justice or the Master of the Rolls, in circumstances arising out of the War, may exempt an articled clerk from his intermediate examination.
Mr. BOOTH: I quite admit that this is made necessary to some extent by the circumstances of the War, and I fully

1757
appreciate the good objects of the Bill, but at the same time I think one might point out that in business circles similar unfortunate experiences occur for which the Government are not providing any remedy.
Sir G. HEWART: They do not have to pass an examination.
Mr. BOOTH: No; but, on the other hand, grievances just as unequal are occurring every day in business, and yet the Government are ruthlessly taking people up to fifty years of age, utterly regardless of individual hardship. I admit that that is not a valid argument against this Bill, but it is another instance of the tenderness with which the Governments of this country and the House of Commons are inclined the view any difficulties in the legal profession. Here a hardship has been pointed out, and the Government at once bring in a Bill to put it right. I am not going to vote against it, but I think we ought to point out that there are a hundred more instances of exactly the same hardship occurring in the business community, for which I, quite agree one cannot suggest a remedy. One should not play the dog in the manger, and say that because you do not find a remedy in one case you shall not in this case. But, at the same time, I think the House should realise that suffering is taking place every day in business circles which the House is passing over without any concern.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a second time.
Resolved, "That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee on the Bill."—[Mr. Pratt.]
Bill accordingly considered in Committee.
[Sir D. MACLEAN, Deputy-Chairman, in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Reckoning of Time of Service with the Forces, etc., at Service of Articles.)
Notwithstanding anything in the Solicitors' Acts, 1889 to 1917, any time after the third day of August, nineteen hundred and fourteen (whether before or after the passing of this Act), during which an articled clerk has for the purposes of the present War served in any of His Majesty's Forces, or in any public service connected with the present War of a character approved by the Master of the Rolls, or has, in consequence of the present War, been detained as a prisoner, military or civil, in any enemy country, or been interned in an enemy or neutral country, shall, on the Law Society being satisfied as to the fact and length of such service, detention or internment, and that the
1758
articled clerk has in other respects complied with the said Acts be reckoned for all purposes as time duly served under his articles of clerkship.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
Mr. BOOTH: I do not think we had any notice that this Bill was to be taken in Committee. I do not like to move to report Progress, but I understand that no indication was given that an attempt would be made to pass this Bill through all its stages, and I should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman has got some ground for doing it. At present no suggestion has been made that this needs to be rushed through all its stages in one day.
Sir G. HEWART: My answer is quite short. This Bill is a perfectly simple, obvious, and modest Bill. It has been passed through all its stages in another place. It explains itself. There is no objection to it, and there is no reason why it should be postponed.
Question put, and agreed to.

Clauses 2 (Power to Exempt from the Intermediate Examination) and 3 (Short Title and Extent) ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill reported, without Amendment.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
Mr. BOOTH: I wish to raise a protest. The Government are in possession of the whole time of the House, and they do not allow private Members to put down a Motion or bring in a Bill of any description, and that has been so for a very long time. It is all very well for my right hon. Friend to say there is no objection to this Bill. How does he know? No Member of the House can put down an Amendment to the Committee stage until after the Second Reading, and in the old days, when a controversial Bill passed the Second Reading it was a very familiar sight to see a file of Members waiting to hand in their Amendments, and that could not be done until after the Bill had been read a second time. There are no members of the legal profession at present in the House, apart from those on the Government Bench, whom we are glad to see, although they come so seldom. I am sure that other members of the legal profession in the

1759
House were not aware that the Bill would be taken beyond the Second Heading. It might be that some of them would have put Amendments down, but no chance was given. My right hon. and learned Friend might have satisfied himself. If he can assure the House that he has some means of knowing, of course I will give way, but I do want him to recognise that, when the Government has the whole tune of the House, and has been spending days and weeks upon matters which have nothing to do with the War, and cannot come into operation for years after the War, it is not unreasonable to ask them to adhere to the Rules of the House, and take Bills stage by stage. I can quite understand that if, on the Committee stage, there is no Amendment, and, of course, in that case there is no Report stage, we may take the Third Reading, but I cannot understand rushing through the stages after the Second Reading without giving any chance for Amendments to be put down. It may be that my right hon. and learned Friend is quite convinced that the Bill meets with unanimous acceptance. If so, I will accept his assurance.
Sir G. HEWART: It is said that no indication was offered that this Bill would go through all its stages to-night. I might point out that no indication was offered that anybody would think it night upon this Bill to raise any objection. This Bill is simple, clear, and obvious, and I am not going to repeat what I said upon the last stages. I cannot conceive that there is any Member of this House who, except for mere purposes of controversy, or for mere purposes of wasting time, or for the mere purpose of hearing his own voice, would raise any objection to this reasonable relief to the articled clerks of solicitors.
Mr. BOOTH: We have not had a chance.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill accordingly road the third time, and passed.

CORN PRODUCTION (AMENDMENT) BILL [Lords].
Order for Second Reading read.
The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Prothero): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
1760
This Bill proposes to continue the powers that the Board of Agriculture now possess under the Defence of the Realm Act during the War, instead of bringing in on the 21st August Part IV. of the Corn Production Act. Sub-section (3) of Section 11 of the Corn Production Act was introduced in another place. It was accepted by the representative of the Government who had charge of the Bill. It was adopted in this House. It was part of a Parliamentary bargain. Therefore, I fully agree that we ought to show some good reason why the powers that we then gave up should be continued. Of course, the main reason is that we still are acting in the stress of emergency. But there are three reasons why I hope the House will give a Second Reading to this Bill. The first is this: If Part IV. of the Corn Production Act comes into operation on the 21st August the Board loses possession of some 40,000 acres it is now cultivating, on which it hopes to harvest its crops, and, more than that, it loses possession also of some 300,000 allotments, which have been obtained under the Defence of the Realm Regulation. We should have no resource but to turn out those allotment-holders and pay them compensation, on the 21st August. The second reason is this: Under the Defence of the Realm Act we have the power to obtain with great rapidity land for allotments. That demand comes mainly from urban districts, and it is a very insistent demand. If Part IV. of the Corn Production Act comes into operation on the 21st August, we shall have no means of satisfying that demand for allotments, except under the procedure of the Small Holdings Act, which, to say the least, is somewhat slow and cumbrous.
No argument was raised in another place against the Bill on those two grounds. It was, indeed, said that we might have introduced a Bill dealing specifically with allotments, but that would not have met the case of the agricultural land of which the Board is in possession, and also this is the simplest way in which we could effect our object in obtaining and retaining the land for allotments. The third reason for which we want the Amendment is that we desire to retain powers of prompt action with regard to enforcing proper cultivation where the land has been neglected. If Part IV. comes into operation, if we issue an order upon a man to clean his field, he has the right of appeal

1761
and the Order itself is a seasonal operation which must be performed at once, or probably it is of little or no use for another year. The question of delay, therefore, at once arises. Moreover, if we want to get rid of a farmer, who neglects his land because he has not the means, or the skill, or the capital, we cannot do it under Part IV. except by the ordinary notice to quit, which may not operate for a year and a half. I do not think in the present emergency it is safe for the Board to abandon these powers under the Defence of the Realm Act, and, therefore, I hope that we shall be allowed to retain those powers as regards the enforcement of the specific acts of cultivation according to the rules of good husbandry.
In another place certain Amendments were made. Two out of the three we propose to accept, but the issue rises solely, or almost entirely, upon this question, whether we are to have the right of enforcing specific acts of cultivation with or without an appeal? In those cases the real question is, what are the customary methods of cultivation adopted by good farmers in the district? We think that the best farmers in the district, many of whom are sitting on these war agricultural committees, are as good judges on that subject as any surveyor in the neighbourhood can be. We also venture to think that the war agricultural committees have deserved well of the country by the way in which they have carried out their public duties. We want to preserve their prestige and authority. We want them, to continue working and we want to show them all that we have confidence in their judgment and experience. We think, therefore, it is quite necessary they should be able to issue these specific notices with regard to the acts of cultivation to which I have alluded, such as cleaning foul land and hoeing thistles. We think they should be able to issue these notices within the limits of the class of orders and without any appeal. On that point there may be a difference of opinion between ourselves in this House and another place. The important point for us to remember is this, that we have to make good to Parliament the reasons why we are asking for this Amendment. The reason is, in the main, as I have said, the emergency crisis in which we are working and the danger of parting with some of our powers. I have already explained to the House that we do not propose so long as the labour situation is what it is at present, to issue any more
1762
orders to plough up grass land and in any case whenever these orders are renewed they will be subject to appeal. It is only for the limited class of cases to which I have referred that we want these powers.
Sir C. BATHURST: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what particular words he proposes to disapprove in this Clause?
Mr. PROTHERO: The notice requiring any land in the occupation of the farmer shall be cultivated according to the rules of good husbandry.
Sir C. BATHURST: I should like to offer a warm welcome to this Bill in its modified form with the exceptions that the right hon. Gentleman has indicated. This Bill as it first came before another place appeared to me to be rather a serious breach of what the right hon. Gentleman has called a Parliamentary bargain, and in view of the great rapidity with which extensions of the arable area have been made, thanks to the patriotic efforts of the war agricultural committee, it did not appear to me, at any rate, to be a sufficient justification for what might be regarded as a breach of faith. I am open to agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we are by no means at the end of our food anxieties, and, for all we know, it may become necessary to provide once more more active powers for the war agricultural committees in extending their arable area beyond what it is at present. For my part, I feel that the Board is justified in asking that the powers under Part IV. of the Corn Production Act, 1917, should be continued for a longer period, even until the end of the War; but this should be limited to ensure that good husbandry should be carried out upon the existing arable area of this country. So far as that is concerned, I should deprecate there being an appeal against the decisions of the war agricultural committee, because, as the right hon. Gentleman very properly says, it seems that the operation of cleaning the land has to be carried out with great rapidity, and by the time the appeal came to be heard it might be that the time had passed when the occupier of the land could properly or reasonably be expected to carry out the work demanded of him. I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has seen his way to agree with the Lords in their provision that, as far as deprivation of possession and as regards the extra ploughing of grass lands, there shall be an appeal such as was provided for under the principal

1763
Act. I agree that prompt action continues to be necessary in connection with cases of bad husbandry, and I almost wish there could be included in the Agricultural Holdings Act, by Amendment, a provision which would enable the county war agricultural committees to take action in the best interests, not merely of the food supply of the country, but of the tenant farmers themselves, to see that the land is not allowed to slip back into a neglected condition, with the result of a reduced production of food, sometimes, indeed, becoming little better than prairie land, to the detriment of all concerned. If powers could by an Amendment of the existing Act be conferred on some local authority to keep land in its present state of cultivation, producing for the country the largest possible supply of food, it would be a good thing. Subject to the modifications announced by the right hon. Gentleman, I give my hearty support to this Bill.
Mr. ALDEN: I should like to support this Bill. I am not an agricultural labourer, nor a landlord, nor a landholder, nor an agriculturist, but I am very interested in allotments and in what is being done by allotment-holders. Very considerable anxiety has been expressed during the last few months as to the action of the Government with regard to allotment-holders throughout the length and breadth of the country. These people have increased now to quite remarkable numbers, and I am very glad to be able to testify that the interest in allotment work has not decreased. We may claim that allotment-holders have sensibly improved the food situation, especially in the neighbourhood of large industrial centres, and have been able to make considerable contributions to the food supply which have proved of incalculable value. They feel that their tenure is in a rather precarious position. I understand it is to come to an end in August of this year under the old Corn Production Act. They are anxious, therefore, for a Bill which will give them security of tenure as is provided by Clause 1 of this Bill. I believe by that Clause their tenure is made secure until the termination of the War or six months after.
Mr. PROTHERO: Two years after.
Mr. ALDEN: I was not aware of that fact. I now understand that the Presi-
1764
dent is bound by the promise he has made that it should be for two years after the termination of the War?
Mr. PROTHERO: Not exceeding two years. Under the Defence of the Realm (Acquisition of Land) Act, 1916, Section 1, it is so provided.
Mr. ALDEN: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for that answer. At all events, it removes any immediate cause for anxiety that the allotment-holders may have had. They will now be secure for two years after the War. I should like to urge the right hon. Gentleman to give them a definite place in his great scheme of land development. Let it not be said that they were treated merely as men who could be of assistance during the War, and then, after the War, their exertions were forgotten and their good work was neglected. I am quite sure that is not the wish of the President of the Board of Agriculture, for we know from what he has said and done that he takes very great interest in allotment work. I trust it may be possible next Session to introduce a small Bill giving further opportunities to allotment-holders and making clear what their position is. At the moment, if I understand it rightly, they are protected by certain Orders, and by this Bill, when it becomes an Act, they will be further protected. But apart from such protection they do not know where they are at all, and it does seem to me it would be advisable to further regularise their position when opportunity offers, as it may offer before very long. I beg to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the assurance he has given that for two years after the War they will be safe in their tenure of the land they now hold.
Mr. MORRELL: I do not want to detain the House at this time, more especially because I had not the good fortune to hear the beginning of this Debate. I did not know that this Bill was coming on so soon, otherwise I should certainly have taken steps to be here when the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture was speaking. My only object now in rising is to express some regret that anything is being done, at this time, to weaken the powers of the agricultural executive committees. I was one of those who regarded the appointment of those committees with a great deal of apprehension. I must say from the experience I have had of their working in my district that I am filled with admiration at what

1765
they have succeeded in accomplishing in the short period. Speaking, as I hope I may, as a practical agriculturist—and I have now had a farm in my occupation for over four years—I notice hon. Members smiling, but I may say that this has brought me into personal contact with these committees—and they have given me real assistance. I can also assure hon. Members that my contact with the members of these agricultural committees have been uniformly pleasant; they have given me advice and help, they have hired horses out to me, and, on the whole, I have nothing but praise for the work which has been done by them. For that reason I confess that I am inclined to take sides—if there is any controversy—with Lord Lee, because I have seen in my own neighbourhood the immense change for the bettor following on the work of the Food Production Department and the agricultural committees. Nothing is more certain, I suppose, to those who take an interest in matters agricultural than that before the War—even to-day—the land of this country was not, and is not, producing anything like the amount it might produce under proper conditions of cultivation.
The agricultural committees have done something to remedy the deficiency. I know, however, that in my own district, in spite of all the efforts which have been made, there are still farms which are disgracefully under-cultivated. At a time like this, when the production of food is of such vital importance to the country, I confess it seems to me a pity that any machinery should be introduced which will have the effect of delaying the application to the tenants of such farms of the powers possessed by the Food Production Department. Only a few days ago I remember speaking to a man who was doing some steam-ploughing in my neighbourhood. I was asking when he was going to bring the steam plough to my farm. Not knowing I had any special interest in the matter, he described to me one or two of the farms at which he had lately been at work. He said, with intense conviction, having been round all the farms in the neighbourhood, that there were men who had no business to hold the land they do hold. In time of war I must say I have very little sympathy or pity for men who hold land and do not cultivate it to its fullest extent. Therefore I frankly confess that I regret that anything should be done to alter or impair
1766
the powers of the agricultural committees to enforce the proper cultivation of the land in the district.
At the same time, I gather that we are not—I hope I am right in this!—really going to have a change of policy. Personally, I greatly regret the resignation of Lord Lee. Though I have always differed from him politically, I recognise—and I think no one can fail to recognise—the immense amount of energy and of real initiative he has put into the work of the Food Production Department. If the report which I see in to-day's papers be correct, I think my hon. Friend opposite—I think I may so call him—the Member for the Wilton Division (Sir C. Bathurst) is likely to occupy that position. I trust if that be so that he will do his best to support the agricultural committees. Certainly, whoever takes the place of Lord Lee, I cannot help feeling will have still a great deal of very important work to do if we are to make the cultivation of the land of this country at this time what at really ought to be. Therefore, I hope I am not exceeding the bounds of order if I say that, whatever the result of this Debate on this Bill may be, that we may still feel that the agricultural committees, who have done gratuitously a rather difficult and thankless task, who no doubt have made mistakes, but who, on the other hand, have done excellent work, will still have the encouragement and support of the Government in the work they are doing.
Mr. DENMAN: I expect many Members of this House will, with the last speaker, feel that it is regrettable that powers should be taken from the war agricultural committees. Because there is, I believe, that feeling, I want, in a few sentences, to say how excellent, on the whole, this Bill seems to be. The position the President had to face was one of obvious difficulty and one opening up a very wide field of controversy unless carefully handled. I confess it seem to me he has shown in this particular Bill all the skill and dexterity of touch with which we were so familiar last year when the main Bill was under consideration. What we really have to balance is two different factors—justice to the tenant and cultivator of the soil on the one hand, and, on the other, speed of production. The balance which is made by this amending Bill seems to me to be exceedingly perfect. Obviously, where you have the right of appeal you

1767
must, to some extent, slow down operations, but I believe you will get a corresponding advantage in the sense of a lessened feeling of grievance on the part of the cultivators. Let me give one quite simple fact, for example, of the sort of thing which would be prevented by this right of appeal, the sort of thing which we all know has occurred; for we all know cases where, well on in March, orders to plough and to sow oats were sent. The weather happened to be good, and, with luck, you got the thing done in some sort of way. The issuing of such an Order without any preliminary notice was a thing which only those who had to do with land can realise. If there is a right of appeal against an Order of that kind, then the Committee will make up its mind some time in advance, and they will probably decide that the executive committee is right. With regard to the right of appeal on questions of cultivation according to the rules of good husbandry, I felt that was going too far, because it introduces delay when you really want it to speed up things, but as the President says he proposes to omit those words, I hope the House will accept this measure.
Captain WRIGHT: I agree with the Member who has just spoken in deprecating any limitation of the powers of the agricultural committees. I also deprecate the resignation of the Director of the Food Production, who seems to some of us to have been somewhat premature. I would call the attention of the President of the Board to the fact that the provisions in the Corn Production Act, 1917, that Part IV. should come into force either at the end of the War or twelve months from the date of the passing of this Act was in the nature of a bargain, and it was a provision accepted by the right hon. Gentleman on account of a certain amount of opposition from those engaged in agriculture to some of the proposals in the Bill. They wanted Part IV. to come into effect at once. The position at the present moment is that under this Bill that bargain is being done away with, and the appeal which was given to owners and occupiers is to be taken away, so far as the Orders or notices concerning good cultivation are concerned.
That is the point of view of the owners and occupiers. They think they should
1768
have that appeal as from the 21st August next, and I do not think they like this Bill inasmuch as it takes away that right of appeal. From the point of view of the agricultural committees they think there should be no appeal because they feel if there is going to be an appeal against their decision their authority will be lessened, and they will no longer have the influence they have had in the past. It seems to me time that another bargain should be come to between the parties concerned. I would suggest for the right hon. Gentleman's consideration a provision under which the right to compensation given by this Bill should be extended, and that the procedure of the Corn Production Act, 1917, with regard to the claiming and assessing of compensation should be brought into force as from February, 1917. If the right hon. Gentleman will agree to some such provision as that, I know it will go a long way with the Executive Committees' Federation and the executive committees, and the owners and occupiers concerned. I do not want him to answer me this evening on that point, but I hope he will consider an Amendment providing that the procedure under the Corn Production Act, 1917, regulating the assessment for claims for compensation should be made retrospective as from February, 1917. I think that would go a very long way in the direction of causing those inclined to oppose this Bill to withdraw their opposition.
Major LANE-FOX: There is one thing which has been said by several speakers which, I think, requires some comment, and it is the assertion that this Bill will have the effect of weakening the powers of the war agricultural committees. That statement has already appeared in the newspapers as being the reason for Lord Lee's resignation, but from the point of view of a certain number of the war agricultural executive committees there is no reason why that should have been the result. If there had been an appeal from all the Orders issued last year, I think it would have been absolutely fatal to the work which those committees have done. Their work was done at very great pressure. Many of the Orders were issued very late, but that was not the fault of the executive committees. If those orders had not been carried out, a great deal of what is now in some counties a good corn crop would not have been produced. Some of the land which is most in dispute has produced some of the very best crops, and

1769
that shows that if the appeal had been enforced in those cases the country would not have had now this extra corn. I think the right hon. Gentleman has adopted a most excellent compromise in this matter, because the appeal which he has granted is not one which is going to effect any congestion; and obviously there will not be the same number of instances as in the previous winter. In any case, there will not be the same congestion.
If an appeal had been granted in matters of cultivation or bad farming, I think that would have been a very serious weakening of the Bill, and I am glad the right hon. Gentleman is going to omit that. I think there is a danger of some people, when they hear of the great success of the working of the agricultural committees, weakening their efforts and not regarding production as urgent, but I hope that is not going to be the feeling throughout the country, for this may lead to many of them not using the efforts which are still necessary for the national advantage. I hope all these people will make an effort to do a little bit more, and that they will not be diverted from taking that course by the statement that the action of the executive committees is being weakened by the Bill now before the House. I hope their action will not be weakened. On the contrary, I hope their hands will be strengthened and that the very good work they have been able to do up to now will be increased.
Sir J. SPEAR: I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman will give some indication as to who will be the arbitrator in case of a dispute arising as to whether a farm is farmed well or not. Will it be possible to say who will be the arbitrator? I think it might be more satisfactory inasmuch as the object of the Bill is to promote cultivation and increase production; we must all feel deep sympathy with it. I wish to bear testimony to the great and valuable work rendered by the war agricultural committees, but, after all, we cannot forget that the great success of this scheme has been due to the master mind of the President himself in devising it. It is true that the war agricultural committees have loyally carried it out. It should not be forgotten, however, that the loyalty and perseverance of the farmer, together with remunerative prices for crops he has produced, have contributed to the great success which has hitherto attended this
1770
increased production. We all want to see it carried on. The better the land is farmed the better it is for the farmer, for the landlord, and for the country, and, inasmuch as this Bill will help to produce that, I am sure that we all wish it every success. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Morrell) has just told us that he has gone in for farming during the last four years. I only wish that he had done so a little earlier, and had experienced some of the times that the farmer has passed through. Still, he will get them by and by, and he will be a valuable help in this House in dealing with agricultural questions. He must not, however, form all his conclusions from his experience of the last four years, because if he does I am afraid that they will be rather erroneous conclusions.
If the right hon. Gentleman could indicate who will be the arbitrator, I should be glad, because these disputes cause a good deal of ill-feeling. There is often very great difference of opinion as to what is good farming, and a fanner very much resents any interference with his system of management, especially by brother farmers who are on the war agricultural committees. I cannot help thinking that it would be desirable that we should have a recognised authority to settle any disputes. It would avoid some of the bitterness which springs up when members of the war agricultural committee come down on a farmer and say, "You are not farming right." He would be glad to be able to turn to an impartial tribunal to decide whether the charge was justifiable or not. We all agree that the land ought to be farmed up to its highest capabilities, and the war agricultural committee ought to have a remedy, but, in case of dispute, it should be decided by an impartial arbitrator, and, if the right hon. Gentleman will provide for an impartial tribunal in his Bill, I think it will avoid friction.
Mr. PROTHERO: The arbitrator is the arbitrator who is appointed under Part IV. of the Corn Production Act, namely, an arbitrator appointed by the Surveyors' Institute.
10.0 P.M.
Sir F. BANBURY: Unfortunately, I did not hear the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, but from what I have been able to gather the Bill is going to be accepted by the Government, subject to the alteration that there shall be no appeal from the

1771
war agricultural committee in cases where there is supposed to be bad farming. I am very sorry to hear that, because, though there may be cases in which the war agricultural committees are judges of good farming, I am quite certain from my knowledge of them that in many cases they are not judges of good farming. I happen to know a committee, a prominent member of which is a solicitor who has never had anything to do with land at all. I do not know how on earth he got on to the committee, but he is quite incapable of judging whether farming is good or not. Supposing the war agricultural committees are composed of farmers, you are setting one farmer to judge of the farming on another farm. All farmers differ with regard to the best methods of cultivating their lands and all farms differ. Farmer A on his farm A may cultivate his land very well, but he may not be a judge of what farmer C on farm C ought to do. You do not know how to cultivate the land until you have tried it and until, after some years' experience, you know what each field grows. It is impossible for any man, however capable, to go round the country and by merely walking over a field decide whether or not it is being cultivated in the proper way. I do not agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Barkstone Ash (Major Lane-Fox) that all these experiments are successful, if what we desire is the production of food. I am assured every day, and I know from my own experience, that the result of this ploughing up of grass land has been that other arable land has been neglected. There is not the labour.
Major LANE-FOX: We farm rather better in Yorkshire.
Sir F. BANBURY: You cannot have arable land without labour, whether yon farm better or worse. There may be sufficient labour in Yorkshire, but there is not in other parts of the country. I defy any war agricultural committee, sitting in a county town, to decide whether or not a given person is able to single out his roots or keep them clean. Agricultural labourers can earn quite sufficient now without piece-work, but when you come to hoeing roots, unless it is done on piecework you do not get it done in the time in which it ought to be done. That is one of the results of the Corn Production Act. Instead of more work being done, there is
1772
less work done. I do not see how you are going to get over that difficulty. It is a very great power to put into the hands of these people. I do not know how the war agricultural committees are selected. I have never been able to find out. There are three or four ladies on the Wiltshire War Agricultural Committee. I happen to know one of them. She is a very nice lady, but I do not think she knows anything about farming. I really do not know why on earth they were put on the committee. In law cases, whether you go before the magistrates at the Petty Sessions or before the High Court, there is always an appeal. Why should there not be an appeal from the decision of these particular people, who are not elected, who are chosen somehow or other—I do not know how—and whose decisions in many cases are extremely bad? I sincerely trust that this Bill, which has been very carefully considered in another place, will be passed without any further Amendments. It must be remembered that the Corn Production Act would never have become law unless this Clause had been brought in, and it does seem to me that it is more or less a breach of an agreement to alter it as soon as it has come into operation, in what many of us consider to be a vital respect. Unless I am very much mistaken the Government in another place accepted these Amendments. I have read the Debate which took place there very carefully, and I think all these Amendments were accepted by the Government. But I am not quite certain about that. There was one Division in which the Government were beaten by two. However that may be, I sincerely trust that the Bill will be allowed to pass without Amendment.
Colonel ROYDS: Before the Second Reading is passed, I should like to quite clearly understand what is the effect of the Bill? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell me if I am right in construing the effect of the Bill as accepted by him. Is it really to abolish the right of appeal in regard to bad cultivation? If this Bill had not been introduced, the Corn Production Act would have come into operation, but the powers exercised under the Defence of the Realm Act comes to an end by this Bill. I did not hear the right hon. Gentleman make his statement, but I am informed that the effect of the Bill is merely to abolish the right of appeal in respect of bad cultivation. Is that the

1773
whole effect of it? Is it quite clear that no person can be deprived of his right to the occupation of his holding or any part of his holding for the purpose of allotments or any other purpose without his having a right of appeal to an arbitrator? If the effect of the Bill, with the Amendments which were passed in another place, is merely to abolish the right of appeal in regard to bad cultivation, then it is rather unnecessary to pass the Bill at all. I quite appreciate the good work that has been done by the war agricultural committees. My own private opinion is that the position of these committees would be materially strengthened if there were an arbitrator to whom matters of dispute could be referred. I do not believe there would be one appeal in 999 cases out of 1,000. There would only be an appeal in a case which is a proper subject for appeal. If the right of appeal were given in respect of bad cultivation, that would strengthen and not weaken the position of the war agricultural committees. I shall be much obliged if the right hon. Gentleman would answer these points before we pass the Bill.
Colonel GRETTON: This Bill is quite different from the original Bill. I understand the Government proposes to strike out from the Bill as it has reached us that part of the proviso which establishes a right of appeal in regard to bad cultivation. With regard to the right of appeal against an Order for the ploughing of grass land, I have had considerable experience of the working of an agricultural executive committee, and I do not think that right, if granted, would materially weaken the operations of the committee. As the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash (Major Lane-Fox) said, the late coming of the ploughing Orders was not altogether the fault of the war agricultural committees. If the grass land is marked out for ploughing, the Order should be given in time, and there would be no loss to anyone from any point of view if the right of appeal were given in that case. Many cultivation Orders are matters of great urgency, and the right of appeal would render the execution of those Orders of no avail, because the time for carrying them out would pass, and the mere fact of appealing, in a vast number of cases, would mean that the Order would be set on one side. The war agricultural committees still have a great deal of work to do. As one goes about the various counties he cannot help noticing that a great
1774
deal of land is not being cultivated to full advantage. That applies not only to arable land but to grass land also. The war agricultural committees have still a great deal of useful work to do in giving advice and sometimes bringing pressure to bear with regard to the cultivation of land. Anything which would weaken their authority in that direction would be disastrous to the best interests of the country. War agricultural committees are only a temporary device for promoting the interests of the country in certain urgent directions. Their powers are too drastic to be continued in peace time. This is a war emergency measure and the powers can only be justified under that head.
I differ from some hon. Members who have spoken, because I confess I look with considerable alarm on an appeal against the war agricultural committees entering into the occupation of land as they can do now, subject always to the appeal to the Board of Agriculture where the persons concerned refuse to carry out the Order or where the farm generally is badly cultivated. In some cases the occupier is unwilling to do it, and in every district, however excellent it may be, there are always one or two contumacious persons who resist authority. They set a bad example to the whole countryside. If there is the right of appeal and great delay in carrying out these Orders it will be found that drastic action will have to be taken, and some persons dispossessed of their land who, under the present conditions, would not be dispossessed of it for the reason that the authority and the powers of the war agricultural committees are now well understood, and, in the final issue, it is known that they have power to get their Orders carried out either by the occupier or by themselves entering into possession in order to execute the Order, the employés becoming servants of the war agricultural committee. If it is wide-cast over the country that the powers of the war agricultural committees and of the Board of Agriculture are going to be weakened, you will have people trying to find out what the position is, and drastic action will be necessary where the matters are now carried out easily by negotiation. The better line of action would be to improve the war agricultural committees where they are at fault or use their powers without discretion or where they use them with partiality or ignorance. No doubt they are in some

1775
cases capable of improvement, and I would suggest that where the Board of Agriculture or the Food Production Department is not satisfied with the work of a war agricultural committee they should take steps to strengthen that committee with the amount of knoweldge and discretion which is necessary in a public Department. With the Amendment the President has announced I welcome the Bill, although I think there will be a certain amount of friction when the new conditions are established, and the result will be that some persons will be dispossessed of their land.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. J. Hope.]

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS [REMISSION OF DEBTS].
Committee to consider of authorising the remission of certain debts in pursuance of any Act of the Present Session relating to Local Loans—(King's Recommendation signified)—To-morrow.—[Mr. Baldwin.]
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 13th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
Mr. BOOTH: With regard to the rest of the Orders on the Paper, I beg to ask whether there is any intention to take the Juries Bill before the Recess? I presume when it is taken that the Minister in charge of the Bill will come down in good health and good temper. I would like to ask whether, in view of the fact that it is very controversial, and cannot be passed through both Houses before the Adjournment, we shall have some assurance that it will not be taken before the holidays?
Lord E. TALBOT (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): No, Sir; it is intended to take that Bill before the holidays.
Mr. BOOTH: What day?
Question put, and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Seventeen minutes after Ten o'clock.

WAR.
  COAL SUPPLIES (IRELAND).
  COAL SUPPLIES (IRELAND).
  CHURCH DAMAGED, COUNTY CORK.
  CHURCH DAMAGED, COUNTY CORK.
  STEAMSHIP "SATELLITE" (SINKING).
  STEAMSHIP "SATELLITE" (SINKING).
MILITARY SERVICE.
  TRANSFER TO HOME SERVICE.
  TRANSFER TO HOME SERVICE.
  CASE UNDER INQUIRY.
  CASE UNDER INQUIRY.
  TRADE LOSSES.
  TRADE LOSSES.
  DISCHARGED SOLDIER CALLED UP.
  DISCHARGED SOLDIER CALLED UP.
  MEDICAL GRADING.
  MEDICAL GRADING.
  EXEMPTIONS (CIPPENHAM MILITARY WORKS).
  EXEMPTIONS (CIPPENHAM MILITARY WORKS).
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  TROOPS IN MESOPOTAMIA.
  TROOPS IN MESOPOTAMIA.
  SOLDIERS' LEAVE.
  SOLDIERS' LEAVE.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  DISCHARGED SOLDIERS (TUBERCULOSIS TREATMENT).
  DISCHARGED SOLDIERS (TUBERCULOSIS TREATMENT).
MUNITIONS.
  PROTECTED OCCUPATIONS.
  PROTECTED OCCUPATIONS.
  ORDER OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE (MR. B. E. SPOOR).
  ORDER OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE (MR. B. E. SPOOR).
  REGISTRATION OF VOTERS.
  REGISTRATION OF VOTERS.
  HOLZAPFELS, LIMITED.
  HOLZAPFELS, LIMITED.
  SALVARSAN (PRICES).
  SALVARSAN (PRICES).
  RAILWAY SEASON TICKETS.
  RAILWAY SEASON TICKETS.
  OFFICERS' UNIVERSITY AND TECHNICAL TRAINING COMMITTEE.
  OFFICERS' UNIVERSITY AND TECHNICAL TRAINING COMMITTEE.
  INSURANCE AGENTS' REMUNERATION (COMMITTEE'S REPORT).
  INSURANCE AGENTS' REMUNERATION (COMMITTEE'S REPORT).
  ENEMY TRADING (LISTS).
  ENEMY TRADING (LISTS).
  MUSEUM ATTENDANTS (PAY).
  MUSEUM ATTENDANTS (PAY).
  PRISONERS OF WAR (TURKEY).
  PRISONERS OF WAR (TURKEY).
  Housing Conditions, Kingston.
  Housing Conditions, Kingston.
LORD GLANELY.
Sir William James Tatem, Baronet, having been created Baron GLANELY of St. Fagans in the County of Glamorgan—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
LORD SHANDON.
The Right Hon. Sir Ignatius John O'Brien, Baronet, late Lord Chancellor of Ireland, having been created Baron SHANDON of the City of Cork—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I should like to ask my noble, friend the Leader of the House whether he can tell us when the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Bill is going to be taken in your Lordships' House.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, we propose to ask the House to give a First Beading to the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Bill to-day, and to take the Second Reading on Friday when we will meet at the usual hour—namely, 4.30. As I happen to be o my legs I might, perhaps, make one or two other observations upon the proposed order of business. To-morrow there is a very important Motion standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Selborne, which will probably occupy a certain amount of time. Therefore I suggest that we should meet at 3.30 to-morrow, instead of 4.30, my noble friend having precedence with his Motion; that we then take the further stage of the Second Reading debate on the Education Bill, which measure my noble friend Lord Lytton is about to move this afternoon. I have reason to believe that if we adopt this course we shall be able to get the Second Reading of the Education Bill to-morrow evening; and in those circumstances it will, I believe, be unnecessary to ask your Lordships to sit after dinner to-night for the earlier stage of the Second Reading discussion.
LORD PARMOOR: May I say, with reference to the noble Earl's observations, that he had asked me, under the conditions of business, not to bring on my Tithe Rentcharge Redemption Bill this afternoon. Of course, I readily assent, and I propose to put it down for Second Reading on Thursday next. There are some other Bills in front, but I am told that they are not likely to take a long time; and that will be before the Committee stage of the Education Bill. I do not know whether there is any objection to that course.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I do not think so, my Lords. As the noble Lord will remember, I told him in the letter to which he refers that the Government were going themselves to introduce a Tithe Rentcharge Bill at an early date, and it is fur him to say whether, in view of that information, he thinks it necessary to proceed with the discussion of his Bill. If, however, he desires to go on, I see no objection.
LORD PARMOOR: I desire to go on with my Bill.

WAR LOAN BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
BRITISH NATIONALITY AND STATUS OF ALIENS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
TRADE BOARS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

A PERSONAL STATEMENT.
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE: My Lords, before the public business of the House begins, I ask the indulgence of your Lordships for a few moments in order to make a personal statement. I shall not detain you at any length, and I hope the House will excuse my interpolation. On the Second Reading of the Corn Production (Amendment) Bill on July 9 last, Lord Parmoor called attention to the stormy experience that he had had with the Bucks Agricultural Committee, and he criticised them somewhat severely for ordering I

1003
think it was 100 acres of land to be ploughed up. He then left the House, and I thought it my duty to stand up for the committee of which I was a member. I answered that there was not only that stormy experience, but that we had had another little experience with my noble friend with regard to the cultivation of some parts of his farm of over 1,000 acres, which I said was not very satisfactory.
On July 11 my noble friend, speaking on the Committee stage of the Corn Production (Amendment) Bill, used these words—
"I regret that the noble Marquess—"
referring to me—
"who made some remarks about toy farming is not prosent. As he is not here I only want to say this. There is not a shadow of foundation Of truth, as far as I can understand, in what was no doubt his unintentional statement."
A statement may be right or it may be wrong, but I do not know what an unintentional statement is. Then he went on to say—
"I do not wish to say more than that in the noble Marquess's absence."
If I had been sitting next to my noble friend I do not know how much more he could have said.
I hope the House will not think that I am in any way touchy or quarrelsome, or that I object to criticism, but I really think that my noble friend went a little far when he used the words that I have just quoted. To put the matter as briefly as I possibly can, I had better say this. My noble friend fell foul of the agricultural committee of which I was a member, and he carried his complaints to Cresar. He wrote to Mr. Prothero to complain of our action. Mr. Prothero replied to his letter, and said—
"I have sent a copy of this letter to the Chairman of the Bucks Committee—"
that is the committee on which I serve—
"and have no objection to your publishing it."
I hope, therefore, that I am doing nothing wrong in reading the letter to your Lordships' House.
LORD PARMOOR: I do not wish to interrupt the noble Marquess on a question of this kind, except to say that I think the letter to which he is referring has nothing to do with this matter at all.
THE MARQUESS Of LINCOLNSHIRE: I do not think there can be any objection—and I have taken advice upon it—to my reading to the House the letter addressed to Lord Parmoor, a copy of which was sent to the chairman of my committee, and to the publication of which the writer. Mr. Prothero, has no objection. It is as follows—
"I received your letter of the 2nd instant, making a strong protest against the action of the Buckinghamshire Agricultural Committee in ordering you to plough up 53 acres of grass on your estate. It is not my practice to interfere with the county executive committees in their exercise of the difficult and responsible duties which have been entrusted to them, and I have no intention of acting as a court of appeal from their decisions. It is obvious that the practical and experienced men who compose those committees are in a far better position to decide what land should be ploughed than any one in London with no knowledge of the local conditions.
"As, however, you contemplate publishing our correspondence. I have inquired personally into your case. I find that just a year ago your estate was inspected and the surveyor reported that none of it was cultivated satisfactorily; that in June last the executive officer of the Buckinghamshire Committee reported that six fields were particularly foul; that when your attention was called to them you agreed in the main with his criticism; but that another inspection in September showed that, though there had been some improvement, there was still cause for complaint.
"Last month the chairman of the Hambleden District Committee wrote to you in connection with the demand of the Government for more arable land for corn growing, and stated that his committee were of opinion that two fields comprising 53 acres in all should be ploughed, but he stated that his committee would gladly consider any alternative area that you might prefer to suggest. You replied contending that the productive capacity of your farm would be impaired, and declining to plough any mere grass. The two Fields which were scheduled were inspected last week by the executive officer of the Bucks Committee, and he reports that, one consists of 30 acres of poor grass which has been down about twenty years, and the other of 23 acres laid down in 1894 of which the herbage is of poor character and part of which is covered with young briars. He saw no reason why both of these fields should not produce good crops of spring corn.
"In your letter to the chairman you wore good enough to say that great weight is due to my opinion. I hope, therefore, that when I say, as I do now, that in my opinion it is your clear duty in the national interest to carry out the order of the Bucks Committee, you will proceed to do so at once. If you require an extension of time beyond March 15, the Bucks Committee will be ready to agree, but it is necessary in the orders to prescribe an early date for completion, so that in case of non-compliance the necessary action can be taken before it is too late.
"Having satisfied myself that the land scheduled had been carefully selected and that you had been treated with all possible consideration, I have no hesitation in endorsing the action of the Bucks Committee, and I shall support them to

1005
the full if, which I cannot believe, it should be necessary to enforce their order. I have sent a copy of this letter to the Chairman of the Bucks Committee, and I have no objection to your publishing it."
I will now read, if I may, two or three paragraphs from the report of the executive officer, dated June 16, 1917—
"Gentlemen,
"Moor Farm. Gt. Marlow 1607. Map 140 & 147. Grass 130. Arable 165. Owner and Tenant, Lord Parmoor.
"Accompanied by an officer of the Board of Agriculture and a member of the Bucks Agricultural Committee, upon instructions I inspected this farm on the 15th inst., and beg to report as follows:—
"I wish especially to draw my committee's attention to six fields—"
mentioned in Mr. Prothero's letter, and containing altogether 76 acres; that is, half the arable land of Moor Farm, which was inspected and complained of—
"No. 36. 14·797 acres is an oat stubble after wheat, not even ploughed or cultivated, and is full of docks and rubbish.
"No. 31. 10·933 acres. Peas after winter oats, there is absolutely nothing of a crop. This field is full of charlock and thistles, and should receive immediate attention.
"No. 56. 9·265 acres. Barley after wheat—very thin crop and full of couch.
"No. 82. 14·391 acres. Fallow after oats. This field is as full of couch as it is possible to be, also docks; this field is in a most deplorable condition; ploughing has just been started.
"No. 60. 13·005 acres. Oats after swedes. This is a very leer crop, full of thistles and a good deal of couch.
"No. 79. 9·169 acres. Half of this planted oats and vetches; the latter failed; there is nothing on it except rubbish."
In view of this, my Lords, I think that I was justified in the words that I used. With great humility I submit, that the words used by my noble friend were not what we are usually accustomed to in this House, and with every confidence I ask my noble friend to be good enough to withdraw them.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I regret as much as the noble Marquess that a matter of this kind should be brought before your Lordships' House. It originated in a reference which was made to me in the Corn Production Bill debate. Let me supply my side of the case. Just before the report to which the noble Marquess referred was made, I had this farm inspected by a person who I believe to be the greatest expert in the South of England in matters of this kind. This is his report—
"I am very much impressed with the way in which your bailiff has managed the farm. The
1006
stock all looked well, and his farming left nothing to be desired. The husbandry is good and the crops are excellent."
The report to which my noble friend referred was sent to me, and I passed it, on to this expert, and this is what he says about it—
"I am bound to say that in my opinion the report of the executive officer is most unfair and misleading. As I have before stated, the farm is carrying crops that any farmer might well be proud of, and I have no hesitation in saying that better crops of wheat and oats could not be seen. At the same time, after making an expenditure in 1916 of about £1,000—"
I have spent, about £1,000 a year on this farm for many years to promote production. He goes on—
"on cakes and artificial manures, and a large outlay for the present year, it is only to be expected that the crop should be in a satisfactory condition. In conclusion, it is my opinion that the farm has been cropped in the best manner to provide the greatest possible amount of corn to meet the needs of the nation, and as a whole it reflects a very considerable credit on the bailiff."
There was a difference between this gentleman and the executive officer. I made the suggestion—I think a similar suggestion was made by the noble Lord who represents the Agricultural Department in this House, the other day—that the threshing machine should decide. When the threshing machine came I wrote to the executive committee on behalf of my bailiff to point out that the wheat crops had turned out a record. There were six quarters to the acre upon this farm which has been attacked—almost an impossible record upon our poor hill cold farming land.
I may say that my farm is open to everyone to inspect; and before he knew anything about these discussions a neighbouring farmer whom I did not know, but who is a great farmer in oar district, wrote—
"It is a great pleasure to mo to go over your well-managed and well-cultivated farm. This farm is producing much more beef, clover, roots, corn, and mutton than any other farm that I know in the Chiltern Bills district."
There is a question for discussion. I withdraw nothing of what I have said—nothing whatever. It would not be fair to my bailiff if I did.
There is only one matter of the slightest general interest in this connection, and it is this. I did not know that my noble friend was a member of the committee, and I should have thought that the information he got as a member was a privileged com-

1007
munication. Of course, if the committee wish to take steps it is for them to do so, but I have never heard a word more since about a year ago. The produce of the farm was a record in every direction. If the committee wish to take steps they can do so, but I hope that in this House we shall not have illustrations of members of committees dealing with what are really privileged communications, and making statements which, so far as the noble Marquess is concerned, were as I said unintentional—
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE: It is not privileged.
LORD PARMOOR: I think it is. If all the information which is sent to the executive committees is to be used against individual farmers—in my case it does not matter—it will be a very serious thing for those individual farmers, and to them it will matter a good deal. It is a monstrous thing, and one which should not be allowed. There is one other matter. The noble Marquess referred to me, I think, as Chairman of Quarter Sessions, with the imputation or insinuation that as Chairman of Quarter Sessions I wanted some exceptional treatment. I beg to say that there is not a word of truth in an insinuation of that kind, which I humbly suggest ought not to be made to your Lordships. I have nothing more to say.

EDUCATION BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: My Lords, the Bill which I now have the honour of inviting your Lordships to read a second time aims at the establishment, upon foundations already laid by existing Acts of Parliament, of a complete national system of public education in this country. It accepts the administrative machinery of the Act of 1902, and gives powers to the authorities constituted under that Act to improve the education in their elementary schools, and to supplement it by the addition of continuation schools where young persons shall continue to be educated up to the age of eighteen. In order to ensure that these facilities may be fully effective, the Bill also contains provisions regulating and limiting the industrial employment of children out of school hours.
1008
This, my Lords, is perhaps the most important part of the whole Bill. It is the first time that the nation has been asked to decide definitely that the claims of education shall come before those of industry, and to restrict the employment of child labour which has hitherto prevented so many children from deriving full benefits from the educational facilities offered by the State.
I am confident that these main objects of the Bill will be received with sympathy by your Lordships. But before I proceed to explain how the Bill endeavours to carry them out in detail, I ought to say a word about the reasons for introducing it at this particular moment. This Bill is, perhaps, the last great legislative Act of the present Parliament. It is a Bill which deals with One of those problems of reconstruction with which in all probability the next Parliament will be chiefly occupied. Some of your Lordships may be inclined to ask why a Bill which is mainly a reconstruction Bill should be introduced during the war, and when the end of the war is not even yet in sight. This seems to me a very reasonable question, and one which I propose to answer at the outset, because I think that your Lordships can hardly be expected to examine the merits of a Bill unless you are previously satisfied that it is an appropriate moment for discussing them.
There are two reasons why it is absolutely necessary that this Bill should have been introduced at once, and why it should pass into law with the least possible delay. The first reason is that, though not a war measure in the sense that it is necessary for the prosecution of the war, it is a war measure in the sense that, it is an attempt to repair to some extent the damage occasioned by the war. Of the material losses which the nation as a whole is suffering through the war, some can be made good; others, unfortunately, never can. And it is just because we are losing so much that can never be replaced that I feel that the Government is bound to do whatever is possible to repair so much as is capable of reparation. It is partly with that object that this Bill is introduced.
Let me explain a little further. The time is not yet when we can estimate the value to future generations of the sacrifices which are being made by the present generation in the war. That day may come. Some day, perhaps, we shall realise

1009
fully what it is that we are gaining at so high a price. We cannot do that to-day. But, unfortunately, we can already realise only too clearly the direction in which posterity must inevitably suffer. Even if victory were assured to us to-day, and we had already accomplished the peace to which we all look forward, we should still have to contemplate a few years of restricted supplies and many long years of heavy financial burdens. But those things are small, very small in comparison with the permanent drain upon the manhood of this country. We are to-day losing much that is bests-best in age, best in physique, best in moral qualities—of our manhood; and all that we can do, since we can never replace those lives, is to endeavour to improve the value of what is left to us. We hope in some measure to do that by this Bill. I may speak of it as a part of the payment of our colossal national war debt, an attempt to create a new source of national wealth in a race of men and women sturdier in physique, richer in intellectual accomplishments, more efficient in technical skill, stronger, wiser, and happier than those who have preceded them. That is one of the reasons for the introduction of this Bill at the present time.
The other reason is that the machinery which the Bill authorises has to be created before it can be used. We want to have it ready in time. A great deal must be done before the objects of this Bill can be attained; schools have to be built, teachers have to be trained, schemes have to be prepared. All this is necessary, and must take some years to complete. We want to ensure that when the time comes for putting this reconstruction measure into operation we shall have the machinery ready to do it, and if we were to wait until the end of the war much valuable time would have been lost. We should not then be ready to start the constructive work, and I think the Government would be justly criticised for having lost this time and not having made its preparations in advance. For these two reasons it was considered necessary that the Bill should be introduced at once.
Let me attempt to explain some of its provisions. In order to realise the problem with which the Minister of Education was faced, I should like to summarise very briefly some of the defects in our existing educational system. I think the chief of these is the fact that education to-day stops
1010
short at the very age when its value is only beginning to be realised. In theory our education is universal, free, compulsory, but in practice it is essentially incomplete, and the number of children who get any education at all beyond the age of fourteen is very small. Then, again, our present industrial system prevents a large number of children from ever getting beyond the elementary school, and the necessity for earning wages as soon as they can be earned prevents others even from reaching the higher standards in those schools. Thirdly, the physical condition of the children in our elementary schools is so poor that in many cases they are debarred from profiting from the teaching which they there receive. And, lastly, the varying standards of interest and efficiency among local education authorities and the varying facilities which they are able to offer for higher education throughout the country prevent, one from being able to say that equal chances are open to all children. Those are some of the obstacles which now obstruct the progress of education in this country, and this Bill has been introduced with the object of remedying and removing as many of them as possible.
I will endeavour to show how they are dealt with in the Bill. First of all, let me take the administrative provisions. The first seven clauses of the Bill deal with the powers and duties of local education authorities, and indicate the kind of provisions which they will be expected to make. The later clauses define those powers in more detail, and make provision for the realisation of the schemes which the local education authorities are called upon to prepare. Clause 1 enacts that it shall be the duty of the council of every county and county borough to think out and submit to the Board of Education a scheme which will provide for the progressive development and comprehensive organisation of all the educational needs of their area. Clause 2 requires the councils of boroughs and urban districts (that is to say, what is known as Part III authorities under the Act of 1902—those which have powers for elementary education only) to prepare similar schemes, which will ensure in particular the provision of central schools, special classes of practical instruction, courses of advanced instruction for older children, medical treatment, the preparation of children for secondary schools and their transference at suitable ages to such schools, and, lastly,

1011
the supply and training of teachers. Clause 3 requires the provision of day continuation schools to carry on the work of the elementary schools—that is to say, to carry on education after the age at which elementary education ceases. Clause 6 provides for the combination and co-operation of neighbouring local authorities in making these provisions; and Clause 7 abolishes the limit of expenditure to a rate of 2d. in the £ which was imposed by the Act of 1902 for higher education.
Before proceeding further to explain how this policy is carried out, I should like your Lordships to pause at this point and consider what will be the cumulative effect of these first seven clauses. As soon as the Bill becomes law the education authorities throughout the country will find themselves endowed with new responsibilities. It will be their duty to think out how they can best secure a thorough physical and intellectual training for all the children of their area, from the nursery schools which they may enter at the age of two right up to the age of eighteen to which the continuation schools will carry them.
I think the keynote, the basis, of the whole of this Scheme is the fact that there shall be an obligation upon the education authorities to use all the powers which they possess. They will have to examine existing facilities to see how they can be improved; they will have to look into existing deficiencies to see how they can be made good; to make provision for practical instruction; to consult with neighbouring authorities for the provision of secondary schools and training colleges for teachers; and they will have to consult with the doctors in their districts for the provision of medical treatment. All this means, of course, a very large addition to the labours of the existing authorities; but I think it will also mean a great addition to the interest of education committees in their work.
I want to say a word upon this point, because I believe that the new interest which will be brought about by this Bill will to a large extent compensate for the new burdens which will be imposed. Your Lordships will no doubt have remarked that whereas education proper—the framing of the minds of young persons, the development of their characters—is one of the most vital, the most interesting, processes in the
1012
world, yet the details of educational administration, its phraseology, the language of its statutes and its syllabuses, are the most depressing and the most boring. If I may I will mention a personal experience, which I have no doubt has been shared by many of your Lordships. After the passing of the 1902 Act I had the honour of serving for many years upon the education committee of the county in which I reside; and during all that time, with possibly one or two exceptions, we never had any discussion upon what I would call real educational policy; our whole time was occupied in giving effect to the matters laid before us by our officials, which dealt mainly with such subjects as the design of and estimates for buildings, the salaries and appointments of teachers, the prevision of material, and so forth. I think that the very able and enthusiastic men and women who serve on our education committees all over the country to-day would really welcome an opportunity of giving their attention to something a little more interesting. Therefore, great as will be the burdens imposed by this Bill, I hope that these men and women will find them worthy of their intelligence, and stimulating to their interest in education.
Having now shown how the Bill will affect the administrative bodies, let me say a word about the manner in which it will affect the children. I would put in the forefront the physical benefits of the Bill. I say this, not because I attach any higher value to physical training than I attach to intellectual training, but merely because I think that an improvement in this direction will be easier of accomplishment than an improvement in the intellectual direction. We have still a very long way to travel before we can say that we are satisfied with the methods of teaching at our schools, with the intellectual food which they supply to the children attending them. To secure a greater variety in the curriculum, to obtain improved technical instruction, to see an improved training of teachers—all this must be the work of many years, and it will be accomplished only after many experiments. But I believe that we understand physical training in this country; and all that is required for an improvement in this direction is fuller powers and additional staffs. If I may use the phrase, I think that in this direction we are in a position to "deliver the goods"; and it is only because I am of opinion that there will be a quicker return from an

1013
improvement on these lines that I put this question first.
The school medical service was founded in 1907, and it has already proved of considerable value in improving the physique of the children attending the elementary schools. But at present those powers are still voluntary; there are some authorities which have never put them into practice. That a further improvement is capable in the health of the children is shown, I think, by this fact. (a piece of statistics which is constantly quoted when people are speaking about education) that the Chief Medical Officer of Health of the Board of Education has stated that at least 1,000,000 children in elementary schools to-day are unable to profit by the instruction that they receive there owing to their physical condition. That is a state of affairs which we hope to remedy by this Bill.
Subsection (1) of Clause 2—at the very outset of the Bill—mentions attention to health as one of the objects for which local education authorities must provide in their schemes; that is to say, the provision of medical inspection and treatment is now made obligatory for the first time. Then Clause 18 further empowers the authorities to provide not only medical inspection but medical treatment, if required, to all children attending both the elementary schools and the continuation classes. This means that from the age of five—or even from a much younger age in the case of nursery schools right up to the age of eighteen, all children attending the national schools will receive careful medical attention. It is impossible, I believe, to exaggerate the value of this provision. In addition to the advantages which will thus be gained by the children, great advantages will result to the medical profession itself; because from the increased experience which doctors will derive from the study of children in large communities a very considerable advance in medical science may be expected.
Then, in addition, Clause 17 gives further powers, to supply and to maintain, or to assist in the supply of, holiday camps, play centres, and such forms of recreation as will supplement the physical training given in the schools themselves. There is, I understand, a very general agreement as to the value of these holiday camps for boys; and we hope to utilise movements like the Boy Scouts and the Girl Guides, and to bring them into our educational system. The general effect, therefore, of
1014
these clauses will be that throughout their school age the children will receive such attention as will ensure their deriving the greatest possible benefit, not only from their schooling, but from their leisure. I mention this because I think it will be admitted that it is one of the duties of education to train scholars to employ their leisure as well as their school time. Closely allied with this question of physical efficiency is the question of the industrial employment of children out of school hours. At the present time children nominally attend school between the ages of five and fourteen. In practice, however, owing to the system of "half time" which prevails in certain parts of the country, education is seriously interrupted, if not sometimes actually suspended, even at the age of twelve years. In Lancashire and Yorkshire alone there are 30,000 children between the ages of twelve and fourteen who divide their working day between the school and the factory; and, besides that, all through the country the value of the elementary school is seriously impaired by the work which is now imposed upon children out a school hours. They are liable to be employed for three hours before the school opens, and for further long periods after the school closes.
I would like to quote to your Lordships three particular instances of the effect of this power to employ young children out of school at the present time. I admit that they are not typical cases. They are exceptional, and I mention them to show, not what is happening generally, but what is possible to happen at the present time. I have here a list of the various employments in which children are engaged, and I would like to quote three cases. The first is the case of a boy of eight in an infant school, who sells papers for thirty hours a week for 3s. 6d. The second is the case of a milk boy, again a boy in the infant department, 8½ years of age, who works every day from 4.45 in the morning till eight o'clock, and for a second delivery on Saturdays—that is to say, he works about thirty hours a week for 3s. 6d. The third is the case of a doctor's boy, a lad of ten, who works from Monday till Friday from 12.10 to 1.30 and from 4.45 till 8, on Saturdays from 8 in the morning till 8 at night, and on Sundays from 8 till noon. He works thirty-nine hours a week for a shilling and his tea and dinner. This means that the children come to school already tired, and the double burden of work outside the school and in the school very seriously injures their

1015
physique. All this we hope will be put an end to. Clauses 13 and 15, which deal with this question, have been drafted on the assumption that up to the age of twelve, at any rate, a child when not actually learning in school ought to be eating, sleeping, or playing, and nothing else.
The policy of the Bill is, first of all, that no child shall be employed at all for profit up to the age of twelve; that between twelve and fourteen a child shall not be employed before school nor after eight o'clock in the evening, and on other than school days not before six in the morning nor after eight o'clock in the evening; and that in the case of young persons between the ages of fourteen and eighteen attending continuation schools the education authority may require the suspension of employment on the day of attendance at the school or for any period not exceeding two hours which they may consider necessary in order to ensure that the young persons may arrive at school in a fit condition to benefit from the teaching there given. That is the policy in regard to children in general; but in addition Clause 15 provides for the case of individual children. If it is found that a child on a particular day comes to school tired and obviously suffering from work done even in the time allowed by the Bill, the authority is empowered to say that work shall either be prohibited or that such conditions shall be attached to it as to ensure no injury to health. There is one modification of this general policy. Local authorities may, in special cases, make by-laws allowing children, under conditions where they are satisfied that no harm will result from it, to be employed by their parents for one hour before school opens in the morning, and, if so employed, for not more than one hour after school closes in the evening.
When this matter was under discussion in the House of Commons it was pointed out that from this restriction of employment on school days a tendency might arise for a considerable increase of employment on Sundays, which might result in injury to the children through excessive employment over the week end. This criticism was felt by the Government to be justified, and it was hoped to meet it. The President of the Board of Education himself drafted an Amendment which he hoped to introduce upon the Report stage.
1016
Unfortunately, however, the Amendment was considered out of order on that occasion and was never moved. If the rules of procedure in this House will allow of it, this is a direction in which we should be glad to see improvement in the Bill by the insertion of words which would make such a tendency impossible. You will see, my Lords, that by these clauses we hope to improve the health of the children when they come to school, and by other procedure to go on attending to and improving their health all the time they remain in the school.
Now let me explain how the Bill proposes to deal with this improved material in the schools themselves. Children now come to school at five years old; some earlier. Indeed, many parents are anxious that their children should go to school as soon as possible, owing to the difficulties of looking after them in their own homes. The policy of the Bill is that a good home is the best place for a child, and that so long as the home is a good one the child should remain there, but that a good school is better than a bad home. When I say a bad home, I do not necessarily mean a home which is neglected or badly looked after. I mean a home in which, from the parents' circumstances, it is difficult for the child to receive the necessary attention. Therefore in Clause 19 of this Bill the local education authorities are empowered to establish nursery schools, or to assist nursery schools established by others, for children between the ages of two and five, and when the supply of such schools is considered adequate the Bill authorises the authorities by by-law to increase the starting age for attendance at elementary schools to six years. This merely means that the obligation to come to school at the age of five will be removed. At the present time some of the very best teaching in our schools is done among these very small children, and it is in no way intended that the nursery schools should supersede them. The nursery school will be as much a playroom as a schoolroom, and the instruction given will be rather incidental than direct. They will in fact aim at securing the healthy physical and mental development of the little children attending them, and thus prepare them for the lower classes of the elementary school.
Between the ages of six and fourteen children will continue their elementary education as they do to-day, with the fol-

1017
lowing very important differences. First of all, as I have explained, the system of half-time is abolished. There will be no employment up to the age of twelve, and after the age of twelve only modified employment. Then there will be improved practical instruction. There will be classes for "practical instruction," and these words are defined in Clause 47 at the end of the Bill. There will be improved provision of advanced instruction for the older children, and this is a very important point, because at the present time we receive complaints from all parts of the country that the older children in elementary schools are not really filling their time, that they are not as usefully employed as they might be, and when this is pointed out to the teachers we are met by the answer that under existing conditions, with the half-time system in existence, with so many of the older children receiving exemption from school attendance in order to take employment outside, these older classes are so diminished that it is impossible to arrange a satisfactory system of higher elementary education. This, it is hoped, may be remedied be these classes.
Then, in special cases, the local education authorities are empowered to raise by by-law the age at which children shall attend at elementary schools from fourteen to fifteen, and at the same time they are empowered to continue giving education to children up to sixteen or beyond that age. Further, my Lords, instead of leaving school altogether at the age of fourteen, as they now do, all children will be required either to continue whole-time education up to sixteen or part-time education up to eighteen. This means that the children who do not go to secondary schools or junior technical schools, but go straight from the elementary school into employment, will hereafter be required to attend continuation school and receive instruction for 320 hours in the year, or an average of eight hours a week for forty weeks. This will mean in practice that a child in employment will have three half-days a week away from his work, two of which will be spent in the school.
I should like to say one word about a concession which was made in the House of Commons on Clause 10 which deals with the provision of continuation schools. As I have already explained we propose to abolish the half-time system. This in itself is an immense change. It will have most
1018
far-reaching consequences throughout our whole education system, and it will also very profoundly affect some of the largest industries in the country. It was accepted in the House of Commons without demur. The principle of Clause 8 was accepted, I think, almost universally, and therefore, when we came to this further change of the establishment of continuation schools, it was considered necessary to concede a liberal measure of time to the industries which would be mostly affected in order that they may adjust themselves to the change. It was, therefore, partly to meet their case and partly out of regard for the inherent practical difficulties of the problem that Clause 10 now contains a provision that it shall not come into operation as regards children over sixteen for seven years from the appointed date. This means that when the war is over we shall have seven years in which to prepare the buildings and teaching staff for continuation schools for young persons between the ages of fourteen and sixteen, and only after those seven years have expired will the obligation to attend those schools up to eighteen be enforced. Although, of course, we should have been glad to put the full scheme into operation at once, I think it must be admitted that the industries which will be considerably affected and which will have to adapt their conditions to these changed circumstances did deserve some consideration. Moreover, I think it is more than doubtful whether, even if we had those powers, it would have been possible to do more than we shall now be able to do in the first seven years. I think the whole of our time will be very fully occupied in preparing this new piece of educational machinery for children up to the age of sixteen.
To sum up, my Lords, by this Bill we hope greatly to improve the physique of future generations; we hope to get the children in a better condition to profit by their teaching; we hope to improve our elementary schools; we hope to supplement those schools by others which will carry education right up to manhood and womanhood; we hope to increase the staffs of teachers, to improve their status and perfect their training; finally, to bring our Universities within reach of a far larger number of persons than at the present time. It will be realised that these results depend for their achievement not so much upon the Bill itself as upon the spirit in which it is received and worked.

1019
If this Bill becomes law substantially in its present form it will give us the framework of an educational system superior to that of any country in the world, but this does not mean that in a few years time we shall necessarily become the best educated people in the world. The Bill, as I have said, is a framework, and unless that framework is filled in with living ideas and used for the best purposes we shall not derive the full benefits from it.
I think it well that we should have no illusions about this point—no illusions about what you can do and what you cannot do by an Act of Parliament. Your Lordships will remember that whenever we are discussing temperance we are always reminded that you cannot make people sober by Act of Parliament. It is equally true that you cannot make people clever by Act of Parliament, but you can, by legislation, very materially either assist or hinder the work which others are doing in the cause either of temperance or of education. Though we may have the best system of elementary schools, continuation schools, secondary schools, and Universities, we can never derive full advantage from them until the people as a whole come to have a faith in learning and a respect for those who have learnt most. This faith I think as a nation we lack to-day. We pride ourselves on being a practical people; we are apt to be impatient of academic knowledge—it may be very foolish, but there are, I think, reasons for it—and these engrained national prejudices cannot be ignored. It we are to value our schools they must give us what we want, and not what we despise. They do not give us all we want to-day.
Of the persons who take an interest in education there are, I think, two classes. There are the utilitarians and the idealists. Those whom I call utilitarians criticise the efficiency of our technical instruction. They wish to see education, in the main, vocational; they want to see the children trained in the profession of their after life, and they want to see learning have a market value. But the idealists also are critical, because they realise that our educational ideals are not altogether in harmony with the ideals of our national life. As a nation we are worshippers of freedom; as individuals there is nothing which we value more than our personal independence; yet in our schools (in too many of our schools to-day) our methods are still conducted
1020
upon quite a different principle—upon the principle of subservience to external authority. We see, therefore, in many of these schools, in place of the self-expression of the pupil the assertion of the teacher; in place of freedom, restraint; in the place of that active process—I think the most fascinating at any age, but more especially to children, the process of learning and acquiring knowledge for oneself—in the place of that we have the purely passive process of being taught (a very different thing), a process which is really only being informed of the knowledge of others. Thus it is that with many children, instead of their school days being a period of continual unfolding and development of those qualities most needed in after life, they come to look upon them as a time of enforced detention, during which they learnt a good deal which they were glad afterwards to forget, and were subjected to influences which arrest rather than stimulate their individual growth.
Both these schools of thought will, no doubt, find fresh arguments from the existing crisis with which to enforce their opinion, but I think both of them may derive some encouragement from a Bill which on the one hand makes provision for improved technical teaching in our schools, and on the other lays it down as the duty of the school authority to prepare their pupils for the freedom and responsibility of life. All that Parliament can do is to provide the nation with the instrument for its own use; with a system which it can fill in and develop itself for the highest end—the training of its younger generation in all the essential qualities of complete citizenship, as well as to fit them for the ever-increasing strain of industrial competition. The Bill makes ample provision for local initiative, for individual effort, for a variety of experiments, and when we have done this our duty is at an end. We prepare the soil and provide the seed; for the gathering in of the harvest we must look to the labours of others.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Lytton.)
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I hope that the noble Earl opposite will allow me, in the first place, to offer him my warmest congratulations on the manner in which he has discharged his task. The noble Earl's interest in all good causes is so well known, and his study of all social

1021
problems is so familiar to everybody, that I feel certain the House will agree that his Majesty's Government has made a wise choice in entrusting to him the care of this great Bill instituting a system of national education—national education being, indeed, the one foundation upon which all our hopes of social improvement mast be based.
I can assure the noble Earl that, so far as I am concerned, I give a most warns welcome to this Bill as a whole. It fulfils to no small extent the high hopes that were formed by everybody, and not least by those who had been Mr. Fisher's predecessors at the Board of Education, either as President or Parliamentary Secretary, of the opening of a new era of educational progress when Mr. Fisher undertook the post of President of the Board. In one sense Mr. Fisher's task has been easier than that of some of his predecessors who endeavoured to get Education Bills passed through Parliament. He has very wisely, as I am sure you will all agree, kept clear in this great and comprehensive measure of those controversial subjects which took up by far too great a part of many former Education Bills. Thus, by the necessities of the times, he has been able to avoid those rocks and shoals on which so many tall ships have gone to pieces during the last fifteen years, the wrecks of which are still visible to those who care to visit the shores on which they lie. But, in Mr. Fisher's own words—
"He decided that in this measure he would not attempt to disturb the denominational balance or revolutionise the local system of education administration."
Some day it will be the task of somebody to grapple at any rate with a part of those difficulties; but I hope the experience we have all had will, when that day comes, lead everybody to approach those difficult subjects in a temper of greater harmony and moderation than was possible on many occasions when people attempted to deal with them in the past.
The President of the Board of Education also avoided not a little controversy by altering, in some important respects, the form of his Bill from that which it assumed when it was originally introduced in August of last year. At that time there was a feeling, deeply felt by some and expressed by not a few, that the Board of Education was taking to itself a number of new and somewhat formidable powers at the expense
1022
of the local education authorities, and in two respects Mr. Fisher has changed the measure from its earlier shape. In Clause 5, which deals with the preparation of schemes, and in Clause 6, which has to do with the possible combination of different authorities for educational purposes, Mr. Fisher has given up the final authoritative discretion which was originally left to the Board both for the preparation of schemes and for the establishment of these combinations, and has granted a further appeal to the local authorities, an appeal in fact to Parliament, which has, I think, tended to mitigate opposition to the proposals, and therefore the cry of bureaucracy, which was pretty loudly raised, if not altogether silenced, has at any rate been greatly weakened since that change was made.
It is no disparagement to the great gifts and powers of Mr. Fisher to say that the main lines on which this Bill is drawn are familiar to all those who have been concerned with educational progress for some years past. Such questions, for instance, as the improvement of the position of teachers and the enhancement of their salaries, the abolition or limitation of half-time and the raising of the attendance age at elementary schools, the establishment of a system of compulsory continued education up to the age of eighteen, the institution of nursery schools, and the consolidation of the number of different grants which have been established by Act of Parliament at long intervals, all represent the hopes, and in some cases the dreams, of education reformers. Even the figure of £10,000,000 additional cost on the Education Estimates is very familiar to some of us. During the time when I was President of the Board of Education and caused an inquiry to be made into the possibilities of shaping a Bill to cover some of these subjects, the facts and figures which were supplied to me led me to suppose that precisely that sum—a sum of £10,000,000, not expendable at once but certain to be required within a few years—represented the addition which would have to be made to the Education Estimates. I think that some of my colleagues to whom I explained that fact received the news with rather mixed feelings, but it is quite evident that the particular changes which we were then considering, many of which are embodied in this Bill, must mean a substantial addition to the year's Education Estimates, and the country has to face that fact.

1023
Where Mr. Fisher's credit, as I venture to think, stands so exceptionally high is in the masterly way in which he has been able to combine in this measure satisfaction of so many of the educational needs of the country, and in the equally forcible and skilful manlier in which he has been able to commend those reforms both to the other House and to the country generally. I say without hesitation that I cannot think of any statesman of any Party who would have been able to produce precisely the same effect of combined earnestness and persuasiveness which has so distinguished the President's advocacy of these reforms. It cannot be denied—and in some of the later passages of his speech my noble friend indicated something on the lines of what I am going to say—that although controversy in the technical sense may be kept out of the Bill, there does exist a marked and deep rift of opinion between two schools of those who would desire to call themselves educational reformers. There is a definite conflict of ideas between those who would proceed to institute a purely selective system for the brighter children, both boys and girls, and who—in a phrase which was used in the debates in another place—would institute for them advanced education which can be put to profitable use, clearly implying that the children have a definite career before them. That is one view, but it is not the view of the Bill, because the Bill, while assisting the selection of the most brilliant and suitable children by means of scholarships and similar aids, does attempt to make a definite provision for those average boys and girls who may not be considered striking or brilliant, but for whom at the same time it is desired to afford apportunities which at present they certainly do not enjoy.
The divergence that I mean is shown by a proposition which was made in another place, and which hailed, as it might have been expected to hail, from the county of Lancaster. That proposal was to agree to abolish half-time at the age of fourteen, but after fourteen the cleverer children—picked children—were to be transferred to some form of full-time education up to the age of sixteen. A further selection would then be made, a further sifting from sixteen to eighteen, with the idea that the fine flower at the end might, then proceed to the Universities. This, as your Lordships will see, is precisely not the system which the Bill desires to promote. By the Bill, as the noble Earl has explained, those who
1024
undertake a definite system of secondary education can do so, but all those who do not are subject to the new rule of the continuation schools or classes, compulsorily and taken out of working time, which is what those who go for the purely selective system would desire to repudiate.
Both parties, of course, have the same object in view—namely, the education of the nation. And also it is quite clear that all children, the slower as well as the quicker, cannot profit equally by education thus extended from fourteen to sixteen, sixteen to eighteen, and after eighteen; but the weeding process must be naturally carried out, and not carried out too soon. I think that our own public school experience would tell us that it would have been very difficult among our contemporaries of fourteen to say which boys were worthy of further education and which might then be put to work. I suspect that if we think of some of our contemporaries, of what they were then and of their subsequent careers, we shall reflect that we might have made some rather ludicrous mistakes if we had had to come to a decision, and I am inclined to think that the masters would have made a more ludicrous selection still; because I believe a boy's contemporaries are generally better judges of his capabilities than those whose business it is to teach him. The fact is that, in Mr. Fisher's words, boys and girls have to be picked out at various stages for the advantages of higher education, and it is a danger, I am certain, to attempt to begin the process of selection too early.
This brings me, for reasons which you will apprehend, to various questions that have arisen regarding the application of this measure to rural areas. In another place anxiety for the effect of the measure upon agriculture was very freely expressed by many hon. Members, and I have no doubt that here, too, its effects will be somewhat jealously watched. Some attempts were made, in Clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill I think, to introduce direct references to agricultural education as one of the new duties to be imposed upon the local authorities. But in my judgment Mr. Fisher was right in not acceding to such a suggestion, tempting though it might be from some points of view. If the needs of a special industry were once inserted in these clauses you may be certain that other industries—mining, engineering, and countless other industries which flourish in

1025
particular districts and particular parts of England—would put in a claim for nominal recognition which it would be difficult to resist.
I am bound to say that the provision of the higher type of elementary school, the central school, in rural districts, particularly where the population is much scattered, is bound in my opinion to cause a considerable difficulty. The point is one on which the noble Earl did not touch in the course of his most laudably concentrated speech. It is one probably more suitable to be discussed as a matter of administration than as a matter of Parliamentary debate, but one which must necessarily give some anxiety to those who are interested in rural matters. One provision which the noble Earl did indicate is, I venture to think, of somewhat far-reaching importance and one which, I hope, will prove to be in the right direction—I mean the tendency to blur the outlines between elementary and secondary education by promoting, or even encouraging, the retention of boys or girls at elementary schools, even up to the age of sixteen, and possibly even for longer. That will, as I believe, be found to be a most valuable provision in certain industries and in certain parts of England, and it is one which I heartily welcome.
The noble Earl spoke of the concessions which Mr. Fisher had thought it wise to make in the course of the discussion in another place upon continuation education. Those concessions fell as something of a surprise on the House of Commons, and some enthusiasts there were plunged into despair, wrung their hands and said, I think quite clearly, that they thought that the Bill was as good as done for, and that everybody might as well go home to bed. But I am bound to say, as regards the principal concession, which came with somewhat dramatic force upon the House (that is to say, the further postponement fur five years—for seven years instead of two—of the coming into operation of continuation education) that this cannot be said to represent any sacrifice of principle on the part of the Board of Education. Personally I feel that the main justification for it rests in the impossibility of obtaining the requisite supply of teachers before that time. The question of buildings also arises, but I think that this probably will be got rid of the more easily of the two. The creation of a large body of teachers, many thousands, for the conduct of these
1026
schools must take a considerable time; and nothing could be more unfortunate than that, when the system gets into anythinglike full operation, the teaching should be inadequate and imperfect for the special purposes for which it is designed, with the obvious risk of giving the whole scheme a bad name from the first. I confess I am myself somewhat more doubtful regarding the expediency of a reduction in some cases of the hours from eight a week to seven—that is to say, from 320 to 280, which is an option left to the local authority. But I freely admit that I have not seen the representations made to the Board on which the President no doubt founded that concession; it very likely was represented to him from some of the mining districts, I think very likely also from some agricultural districts, that power to make this small diminution—because it is, after all, a relatively small diminution—would be of advantage to them. But the figure of eight hours a week is not a very imposing one in itself, and therefore any paring down of that figure is unwelcome to those who are so keen to see the schools succeed.
Then the noble Earl mentioned another concession—that of the one hour's employment at home before school and an hour afterwards. This was a concession which in my opinion the President was wise to make. It is one of those small matters which will, I think, tend to lubricate the progress of the Bill in the minds of a great many parents who would otherwise conceive that they were being hardly treated, and some of whom probably might set themselves to evade the Bill in a manner which would in all probability defy discovery.
There are other items in the Bill, all of which appear to me to mark a steady progress forward. There is the provision for learning the real facts about the private schools, of which there are so many—some, of course, well conducted, a large number very fairly well conducted, and a minority, which I hope is small, very badly conducted; but the sharpening and smartening up of those schools is, I am certain, a matter of great national importance, and I am exceedingly glad that the Board is going to undertake it. Then the noble Earl mentioned the medical reports which have become so familiar through those admirable annual summaries of Sir George Newman—which I hope are read by many—that it is really difficult to believe that it, is only as lately as 1907 that any medical inspec-

1027
tion took place at all, and only since 1911 that any grants were made for the purpose. The merits of inspection and of treatment, which I am so glad is now going to be made compulsory, really need no arguing from me or from anybody else.
The noble Earl also alluded to nursery schools, which have been in the minds of many people for some time past. The subject is not altogether an easy one, because there has been a certain difficulty in defining the functions belonging to education and those which, more strictly speaking, belong to public health; but I hope that, on the lines which the noble Earl stated, a system not of uniform management but of co-operation will take place between those who look after the crèches, who look after the nursery schools for the smallest children, and those who begin to give, the child something like real education in the infant classes of the elementary schools. I do not dwell on the advantages of physical training, the institution of camps, and so on, because I am certain that in this House they meet with general approval; and the fears which were expressed by a very small minority in the other House that the institution of camps might lead to the inculcation of a disastrous military spirit in the boyhood of the nation, I think are not likely to be strongly pressed in your Lordships' House.
Nor do I desire to say anything about the great and important reform of the consolidation of grants, except on two points. The question of teachers' salaries does not, of course, arise directly in the Bill, but it arises indirectly because the salaries which it is possible for a local authority to pay are bound to depend to a considerable extent on the total grant which it receives. This question of teachers' salaries has been a burning one, and in some isolated instances the fire seems to be far from extinct at this moment. Nor, I think, is it altogether a matter of wonder. When you come to think that there are now many thousands of Manual workers—technically, perhaps, described as skilled, but a very large proportion of them not highly skilled—who find it easy to earn £1 a day (and there are many thousands of such) it is not surprising that the class of teachers find that a salary of £120, or £150, or up to £200 a year, is not a very grand living for those who have to work hard and use their minds and tire their bodies in the teaching
1028
of children. Nobody can be surprised, therefore, that the demand has been made.
But there is one small matter connected with grants on which I desire to say a word, and that is Clause 25 (I think it is) by which elementary school fees are altogether done away with. I think it is important that the reason for taking this course should be clearly understood. It ought to be understood that it is in no sense a breach of the truce, which it is desired to maintain, of abstention from anything like denominational controversy. As I understand—I have no doubt some member of the Government will correct me if I am wrong—the grounds on which it is proposed to do this are purely educational, and it would, I think, be unfortunate if a misunderstanding of the objects of the Government were to cause any attempt here to replace in the Bill a provision that fees might be charged. Of course, we all know that it is exceedingly disagreeable to working people, who live in a clean, well-ordered home, to feel that their children may have at a school to sit side by side with other children who are the opposite of clean, possibly verminous and perhaps foul-mouthed. But it is important to remember that the general conditions of the schools and of the children who attend them have enormously improved of late years. Those former conditions are now less likely to happen, while the objections to creating a separate class of rather superior schools are so strong that I hope His Majesty's Government will not be disposed to depart from the Bill as it stands in this respect.
This measure is designed to carry out great reforms, covering a very wide field. In some respects of its drafting, this Bill differs from most Bills which come before your Lordships' House for consideration. At one or two points it almost seems to be going to break into poetry, so enthusiastic are the terms in which it speaks of our educational purpose. But I confess that I do not mind this, because I feel, as the noble Earl opposite does, that it is positively right to take advantage of the somewhat high pitch at which the mind of the country is strung in this time of war. I am quite certain that the enthusiasm for education among the workers, which is so admirably exemplified by the operations of that excellent body the Worker's Educational Association, should not be merely encouraged but should be taken positive

1029
advantage of, as His Majesty's Government are now doing by introducing this Bill.
As the noble Earl said, there may be, some tendency to ask, Why is it necessary to touch this subject, which cannot be said to be directly concerned with the war, at this moment; why could it riot be postponed until the reconstruction period? I think it is fair to ask, in reply, whether any instance can be suggested, or any possible respect, in which the discussion of this Bill and its carrying into law through both Houses can he said to be adverse to the carrying on of the war in the most effective and energetic manner. Those who have been devoting their time and trouble to the preparation and the conduct of this Bill are obviously not those who are concerned from day to day with studying the immediate operations or progress of the war. But this I most cordially do feel, and I agree with the noble Earl, that all that we have seen during the progress of the war itself, all that we know of the conditions which must exist after the war, tend to stamp upon our minds the conviction that not a moment is to be lost in bringing the nation, and the coming generation of the nation, into a state, I will not say of more advanced instruction or the accumulation of endless facts, but of the acquirement of a suppleness of mind and ease in dealing with affairs which will enable us to engage to advantage in the competition of the future. Because, my Lords, of this I am certain, that where we have been legitimately out-stripped in the race, whether it be in commerce, or industry, or in any other branch of activity, it has been through the lack of that mental gymnastic of which I have spoken. We are apt sometimes, perhaps, to dwell too much on the unfair methods—the grossly unfair methods—by which it has been sought o promote German ambitions all over the world. But all their methods have not been unfair. We have been out-stripped, not only by them but by others in various parts of the world, for want of this mental suppleness of which I have spoken; and it is because I think that this Bill will do so much to create an atmosphere in which these mental changes can, in the course of a certain number of years—that is to say, of a certain number of school generations—be carried into effect, that I give my most cordial support to the Bill which the noble Earl has introduced, and will do my utmost to assist His Majesty's
1030
Government to pass it into law as soon as possible.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, there have in the last half century and more been a great many important debates in this House on the educational question. The thoughts of those of us who are familiar with the records run back to the amazing orations of Lord Brougham. I tremble when I open the pages to think what they must have meant at the time. So far as I can make out, some of them cannot have been delivered, if they were delivered as they are now printed, in less than three or four hours. These debates have been many, and there have been since his day many others of first rate importance; but I venture to say that the speech which has been made by the noble Earl to-night will take no unworthy place in the long records of speeches of Ministers introducing, or of Ministers opposing, Education Bills in this House. There was a lucidity of treatment of a complicated subject and a felicity of diction which will make that speech live for a long time.
For more than a century now each generation has seen some great endeavour, successful or unsuccessful, made to go forward in this educational field. There were great debatings just a century ago. Then eighty years ago, in the 'thirties, when the early State grants were made, the question both in this House and still more in the House of Commons was debated with much greater frequency. Half a century ago came Mr. Forster's great Education Bill of 1870; and in the opening years of this century—note each one in a generation—came Mr. Balfour's Bill of 1902; and now after sixteen years we have what is in some respects, though not the most novel or original in character, the most far-reaching, and, as I think, useful of them all. I do not know whether it is a mere coincidence—probably it is, but it is a curious one—that nearly all these debates have come during a great war, just when approaching its conclusion. It was during the last stages of the Napoleonic Wars that the great societies were founded in England for educational advance. It was during the Franco-Prussian War that Mr. Forster's Bill was carried through Parliament. It was during the South African War that Mr. Balfour carried his Bill through Parliament; and to-day we are again in the same condition. Would we could think that the passing of

1031
this Bill would herald, as in the other cases happened, the end of the war which is thundering upon us now.
Each one of these sets of debates and controversies has heralded a new departure in English history—in the social life of England, shall I say? This Bill heralds what I suppose beyond all question is bound to be the most remarkable new departure of them all, and there lies the real answer to the charge of inopportuneness to which allusion has been made to-night. It has not been made by any one suggesting here that this Bill is inopportune, but reference has been made to those—and they are not a few—who have said s. To me it seems that this war is a stimulus to effort of this kind which is irresistible. We are fighting through blood and tears to preserve our rights and the inheritance of freedom and righteousness for our children. This war has given us a revelation in a score of different ways of what are the needs and shortcomings of our education as it stands. Day by day those who have opportunity of observing it will find evidence borne by men fighting at the Front as to the difference there would have been to them in their lives had they had opportunities which we believe measures like this will give to their children, and who give therefore their enthusiastic and firm support to this Bill. The war establishes a claim upon us to see that when under the new franchise the men and women of this country are called upon to occupy a place in the novel life which must begin when the war is over, they and those who follow them immediately shall be equipped beforehand for what lies ahead in the manifold and most perplexing problems of those days. We are asked whether the education as given now to lads and girls, and as it has been in the last ten or twenty years, is adequate to enable them, beyond question, to discharge aright the responsibility which will now be theirs—women as well as men. There can be no doubt whatever that we must answer that it is not, and so we want a new Bill.
Your Lordships have been reminded in eloquent and forcible terms by the noble Earl of what the Bill does give us. May I re-state it in a sentence or two, looking at it from a slightly different angle and summarising it more briefly than he did. The purport to my mind, and the outstanding features, of the Bill are these: first, that we are recognising the wholeness
1032
and unity in the life of the boy or girl growing up to be manor woman, physically, mentally, and morally, and we must equip every part of that manifold composition—hence the nursery schools. If it is easy to talk of those schools lightly and flippantly as something which lies outside what we call education, it is only because we are unduly narrowing what education really means. Nothing could have been better than the way in which the noble Earl described the nursery schools. Then we have compulsory attention on a far greater scale to the health, not only of the little children, but of the growing boys and girls, and insistence upon rest and leisure, and the right way of using it. Nothing can be more interesting in the Bill than the endeavours which are systematically made to develop the physical powers of the boys and girls, not only in the schools but outside, by teaching them how to employ aright the leisure which will be more largely theirs than before.
All this may be said to be a mere administrative question, and I have heard the Bill described as a poor piece of work, because it is merely dealing with the bureaucratic and administrative side of the educational system. On the contrary, it makes the administrative side of the system less, bureaucratic and more elastic, and throws more responsibility upon local authorities, large and small, and allows them and individual teachers to range over a far wider field, within and outside the school walls. This is, of course, administration, but it is administration of a kind which we desire to encourage in all its novel features, and we are thankful to know that this new interest will be given to the administrative work of which some are apt to speak with scant respect. The noble Earl told us from his own experience how administrative work in the past had been apt to be of a mechanical and dull kind; but no one will be able to say that in the future administration will be either mechanical or dull. It will range over a wide field, and will offer opportunity for every sort of effort.
Then I would speak of how the Bill develops the whole make of a boy or girl by passing them on to the continuation school, so that what is gained before shall not be absolutely lost within an incredibly short space of time—sometimes but a few months—by a boy or girl leaving school at an age at which your Lordships began your school life. This Bill is going to

1033
render that quite impossible for the future, though the danger is to be obviated in more than one way, and there is more than one alternative as to how it is to be done. I think the whole problem of these continuation schools is one which will tax the resourcefulness and ingenuity of the administrators of the coming days in a way that we hardly realise at present. The very question of disciplinary control in schools of boys and girls between the ages of sixteen and eighteen, who are there not voluntarily—so that you can punish them by sending them away—is one that will call out the ingenuity of some of the very best of those who have gained experience in our clubs and institutes and other such organisations. All that this means morally, if rightly used, is a thought that fills me with hope, great as the difficulties undoubtedly will be.
I am also thankful for the unification, or correlation—I do not like the word—the unification of the whole of our educational system, getting rid of the watertight compartments and of the monotonous uniformity of a single type of school. The opportunity is now given to us of allowing experimental work of all kinds to be done. Mr. Fisher himself has called attention to the fact that these experimental possibilities are wide in their range, and he encourages teachers and educational authorities to use them to the full. Let the oneness of our education, in all its different grades and in different types of management and for different ages of boys and girls, be adequately developed, and we shall find no fear of a mere rigid or bureaucratic system being that which is set on foot under the provisions of the Bill when it becomes an Act. Mr. Fisher has told us more than once that he regards the system of new groupings and of central classes and the rest as being one of the cardinal principles of the Bill. That is, that all forms of education should be part of a single whole, and that the larger educational authorities—the county councils or the borough councils—should be allowed to frame schemes themselves on their own initiative to meet those parts of education to which the elementary school is only the preamble. Here is an opportunity and a field for ingenuity, resource, and thoughtfulness on the part of those who give their minds to educational work, which is a new departure in some respects in our system.
And in the background of the whole lies constantly the thought of the new status,
1034
the new dignity, and the higher qualifications of the teachers who are to be in charge of our schools. A teacher is to find his or her rightful place in our common life. Of course, as your Lordships know, this is not directly part of the Bill, but it is in the background of all that the Bill proposes to do. The work that is here described will be in the hands of men and women who are better equipped for the purpose, partly because they are better paid and partly because they have been better trained. It is of vital importance that this should be borne in mind when we are comparing what will be possible under the new measure with what has been possible under the Acts with which we are familiar. I think I am right in saying that nearly £4,000,000 a year more has been allotted by Parliament for the salaries of teachers in elementary and secondary schools, and in addition to this we have the prospect held out of an impending Bill for pensions which will give teachers further security still. That will not merely attract into the ranks of teachers men and women of a higher type, perhaps, than they have always been in the past, but also give them, when they are there, an opportunity of doing their work more fitly because of the better status and the provision made for them in every kind of way.
All these things will cost—they must cost—a great deal of money. That is absolutely as it ought to be. If there is anything on earth worth while, it is this. As Mr. Fisher himself said, the question is not, "Can we afford to do it?" but "Can we afford not to do it?" We cannot afford not to do it, at a time when the calls upon our people and the necessities that lie ahead are of the sort that they are. Obviously, my Lords, such a Bil had, in its passage through the House of Commons, to face considerable perils. You could not abolish half-time, you could not prevent early morning work on school days (even when such outrageous examples as the noble Earl quoted can be brought forward), and, above all, you could not insist on continuation schools, without encountering opposition and danger, but through the shoals and rocks the Bill has been steered by the skill of the President, whom every one is belauding to a degree that must recall Aristides; and he has been steering it through until the Bill is now, as we all believe, on its way to the Statute Book. Of course, Amendments will be moved here. I am not aware of

1035
very many, but I have no doubt there will be some. There are Amendments which I myself feel might reasonably be made. I want a reconsideration of the question of Sunday labour, and possibly a reconsideration of the question about fees, but neither of these questions looms large in comparison with the Bill as a whole, and in its main features the measure as it stands has, so far as I can judge, the whole-hearted support of nearly all good men who understand this subject.
I want to say one word upon the fact that we have this general agreement, for I think the question has been sometimes a little misrepresented. The noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, referred a little while ago to it, and asked, as others have asked, why the Bill has not had the rough weather that earlier Bills usually had to encounter. I think that this wants a little careful statement if we are to avoid widespread and perhaps mischievous misunderstanding. It is ordinarily said, and truly said, that it is because it has avoided the religious question. Some people draw the inference that it is admitted that religious people—some would say "Church people"—are those who have hitherto been obstructing educational advances. That is again and again brought forward, and it is supposed that it has been prevented now by the skill with which the subject has been avoided in this Bill. Speaking generally, I deny that view altogether, root and branch, either in past history or in present fact. What has happened is this. The country as a whole has for years past, all through its history, desired that education from the very beginning upwards should include for all who were willing (through their parents) to receive Christian teaching as an essential part of education. Again and again educational reformers have tried so to arrange their schemes as to avoid the difficulties which arise out of that question. Those who are keen in their belief that no education worthy of the name can be given in our country unless religion is at its core and its base have, in that respect, opposed particular parts of other measures before, and similarly they might be called upon to offer opposition again. But this Bill is going to improve our educational system administratively, if you so call it, in a hundred different ways, without embarrassing in the least its existing religious character or basis, and without touching it in any way Therefore, we can support it whole-heartedly.
1036
This is nothing new. Whenever a Bill was one of genuine educational progress I maintain that those for whom I am here supposed to speak have supported it. It is constantly said—it was said in the House of Commons only a week or so ago—that the clergy, and especially the Bishops, have again and again set themselves against educational advance. I deny that absolutely, subject to the fact that in every profession and walk of life there are cranks, obscurantists, and stupid men, and that neither the clergy nor the Bishops are exempt from possibilities of that sort-Speaking generally, I maintain my statement to be absolutely true, and if any man challenges it I am ready, at whatever period, to take up his "glove" on the subject. Looking into it quietly and thoroughly, and going back to the original facts and documents, not to mere summaries in handbooks, you will find how great were the difficulties which had to be encountered by the clergy, and by those who have been foremost in promoting educational advance during the last couple of centuries.
It is worth dwelling upon this for a moment or two, because this charge is very often brought forward, and I am anxious to bring the true facts before the notice of your Lordships. Going back to the beginning of modern elementary education, the real beginning was in the Sunday-schools of the eighteenth century—Sunday-schools which were not such as we are accustomed to now, but in which reading, writing, and arithmetic were taught. These were mainly established by the clergy, in England at all events. I do not speak for Wales; but in England they were mainly established by the clergy, and what they had to face was the opposition, not of clerics and Bishops, but of the laymen who objected to them, and who put their opposition in forms which read almost incredibly now. Within about twenty-five years of the end of the eighteenth century, 7,125 Sunday-schools were established in England, mainly by the clergy, and they had to meet formidable foes.
Let me give your Lordships an example. In one of our southern English counties the Sunday-schools promoted by the clergy stirred the wrath, or the anxiety, of the magistracy and a number of the leading laymen in the county. I have here an ex-

1037
tract, which I hit upon quite accidentally in a Report drawn up by the then Quarter Sessions of that county. It states—
"It is with limitations only that Sunday or other schools for the poor are beneficial. So far as they have any tendency to raise an idea of scholarship, to make those who attend them conceive they are scholars and thence to place them in their own conceit above common labour, they become prejudicial instead of serviceable to the community."
Those were the objections we had to fight, and we fought them successfully. Sometimes the opponents went much further and objected to the "ward schools," or "charity schools," which had been formed, and in which the clergy, as they described it, "spoilt and retarded the growing industries of the country." I was reading the other day a pamphlet, which apparently had a wide circulation at the time, on the educational controversies of those days, and I find that the writer, who seems certainly not to have been a clerical person, says—
"In the metropolis of this kingdom I have heard there are five or six thousand of the children of the very lowest of the people, clothed and educated at the expense of private persons. The males, I apprehend, are generally instructed in reading, writing, and arithmetic; the females in reading, knitting, and needlework; and I presume both of them may be continued in those places of education until they arrive at the age of fourteen. The males during the whole time of their reception are, I fear, too seldom engaged about anything which has so much as the appearance of labour. The females, indeed, I believe, are generally kept, as was observed above, some considerable part of their time to knitting or needlework. But if some meaner and more laborious employment, especially when they are a little grown up, could be found for them and take the place of, or at least be joined with the other, it would undoubtedly be much more suitable to the lowness of their birth and station, and have a natural tendency to fit them for those servile occupations which in the ordinary course of Providence are most likely to fall to their share. …These poor children are certainly taken out of that rank and order wherein Providence had placed them. … What must be the consequence should this mistaken charity prevail universally? Who will be left to do the labour and drudgery of the world?… Young persons, so educated, will generally have other and higher views; but how are these expectations to be satisfied? It is impossible they should; there is not room left for that."
Those are the kind of things we have had to meet; those are the things we did meet, and to a large extent conquered.
One more quotation. In the early years of the last century a very far-reaching Bill indeed was introduced, and with some difficulty got through a small House of
1038
Commons after much opposition. It did not pass this House. It is said that it was opposed by the Bishops, but if you will look at the records you will find that the Archbishop spoke to this effect—
"This Bill is on the lines of what we want done, but it is impossible to do it in the way here proposed. You are starting a school in every parish, but make no provision for teachers or the training of teachers. The thing must be done much more deliberately. We have the matter now in hand."
This was two or three years before the foundation of the National Society; the Archbishop was Charles Manners Sutton, and that is what was called opposing the Bill. He was engaged at the time in founding the Society, and the number of schools became enormous. In the House of Commons the Bill was strenuously opposed. Let me read a quotation—
"However specious in theory the project might be, of giving education to the labouring classes of the poor, it would, in effect, be found to be prejudicial to their morals and happiness; it would teach them to despise their lot in life, instead of making them good servants in agriculture, and other laborious employments to which their rank in society had destined them; instead of teaching them subordination, it would render thorn factious and refractory."
This would be of no importance if it came from a person of no consequence. The speaker, however, was the President of the Royal Society. He was a man who, during a long life is described as one of the most assiduous members who ever sat in the House of Commons—Mr. Davies Giddy, afterwards he changed his name to Gilbert—a friend of Sir Humphrey Davy, and who is said to have made the calculations on which the Menai Bridge was constructed. He was also a large employer of labour. That was the kind of opposition that had to be met; and when we are told that the progress of education has been retarded by the clergy and the Bishops, I ask your Lordships to remember what they have had to meet. The National Society and the British and Foreign Schools Society were founded almost at the same time, and by 1830 the number of the schools established in England was literally thousands, supported entirely by religious people and largely by the Church of England. Within twenty years of its foundation the National Society alone had 2,609 new schools started.
A little later came the great debates on giving Council grants for the promotion of education, and these were opposed on the

1039
ground that it was not the State's business to educate the people. If you look at the debates it is extremely interesting to see who were the spokesmen. A great conference or gathering of delegates was held in London to protest against the theory that it was within the province of the Government to educate the people, and the spokesman who voiced that opposition was not a Bishop, not an ecclesiastic, but John Bright. John Bright's great speech in the House of Commons in 1847 was against the theory that it was the duty of the State to educate the people, and when he wished to use the redactio ad adsurdum he asked what it would lead to, and said—"Imagine what comes next; you might have compulsion." That was the reductio ad adsurdum of the whole matter.
It is worth remembering what it was that those who on the other side were trying to promote education had to contend against. The gathering that I have spoken of formulated their resolution. The conference was attended by members from different parts of England, and they resolved—
"We hereby lay down the rule that the State ought not to assist in the education of the people."
That is a thing that is worth remembering. Of course, I am not contending that the discussion was all one way, or that we had no obscurantist or stupid person on the side on behalf of which I speak to-night. There were such people, and plenty of them; but speaking generally I am quite certain that no fair investigator will fail to find that the main efforts made by the clergy especially, and the Bishops with them, was in the direction of the kind of educational reform which, under changed circumstances, we are trying to bring about to-night. When the Act of 1870 came, new conditions arose, but in the debates on that Act what the whole country owed to the labour of the clergy was recognised in speeches by Mr. Forster, Mr. Gladstone, and by speaker after speaker, day by day, throughout the debates. That is something to which those who have voiced views of the kind of which I have spoken would do well to give a little attention.
Then came the long years during which them were the struggling schools in town and country, with the undoubted fact that in many of the country schools it was extremely difficult to keep things alive, and
1040
you constantly heard—it is within the recollection of myself and many here—that the school had become a one-man affair, a "one-man show," as it used to be called. Why? Because in the rural parishes there was only one man who cared. Farmers were against it, labourers were against it, and the squires were apathetic. The one man who cared, who pinched himself and his household, and struggled through thick and thin to keep the school going, was the clergyman, and he was taunted with the fact that it was "a one-man show." What was done was not always done wisely or in the best way that it could be done. I am not contending that it was, but that accusation, made in the wholesale way in which it is sometimes made, is a thing which, upon an occasion like this, when we are dealing with a new departure in education, ought to be looked into. I am anxious to put on record what I am quite certain are the facts, and I am prepared to support them through thick and thin if they are challenged.
We have learned now a more excellent way. Those kind of voices are not heard. We are now all one in supporting a Bill which gives educational progress in a hundred new and varied ways, without emasculating or imperilling the religious element which we believe to lie properly at the basis of all the best education that can be given. I thought it not quite unimportant to call attention to these matters upon an occasion such as this, because of the constant reiteration of things of that kind, which are apt sometimes to lead perfectly innocently to something more than a misapprehension of the facts, because those who misapprehend have not studied the subject. These controversial points have been referred to to-night only to say that they do not here arise, but they must come some day under discussion. I am, however, sanguine enough to believe very firmly that we shall find that we can discuss them in a somewhat new atmosphere of friendliness and mutual understanding, much wider and stronger than that which we were accustomed to a few years ago. All the efforts that we are making at this moment—and they are many—to get into touch with religious men who have been opposed to other religious men (Non-conformists and Churchmen taking different sides in this matter) and to bring about quiet discussion of these problems, lead me at least to a very sanguine belief that we are on our way to a different atmosphere

1041
and a calmer sea than we have been accustomed to for many years.
Those for whom I speak, at least, believe in this Bill. It enlarges the responsibility of the authorities. It leaves, therefore, a great deal more freedom of action for development. In different ways it gives us what we have been waiting for—namely, the means of overcoming some of the moral limitations, some of the intellectual apathy, and some of the material difficulties which have hindred us hitherto. Prosaic some of its provisions may appear, but once this Bill has become law it will, I am certain, assist our children as they grow to be men and women by quickening their intelligence in a hundred new ways. Allusion has been made to-night to the phraseology of Clause 1, "With a view to the establishment of a national system of public education available for all persons capable of profiting thereby, it shall be the duty of the council," to do so and so. The noble Marquess said that it almost fell into poetry. I am not sure that poetry is how I should describe it. It is common sense and common sense exceedingly well put, and I think most wholesome in the place where it stands in the first clause of the Bill. We believe that we are doing what will lead not only to a quickening of the intelligence, but to the enrichment of character, for there is much in this Bill which deals with character-building as well as with brain furnishing; and it is for that reason, among others, that I so heartily support, it. I think that without much exaggeration we can apply at this particular hour in the history of this Bill the words that were used in the seventeenth century by Milton. We are doing what will set forward the education that he described—education, as he put it, of the sort "to fit our men and women to perform justly, skilfully, and magnanimously the offices both private and public of peace and war." The words are not inappropriate coming at this moment. They are not inappropriate in connection with the present measure, which I hope your Lordships will read a second time.
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, I venture at this early stage of the Bill, and perhaps not uunaturally, to intervene in order to say a few words in connection with these proposals. Speaking in the House of Commons as far back as July, 1913, I outlined similar proposals for a Bill which had then passed the Cabinet and which, but for
1042
the war, would have been passed through all its stages in 1914. It is somewhat remarkable that whilst the outbreak of war in 1914 prevented the Government of that day from proceeding with an Education Bill, it is the war itself in the year 1918 which has created a situation that has made this Bill more than ever necessary.
Your Lordships are aware that Bills are now so drafted that as a rule they contain the gist and pith and principle in their first two or three clauses, and perhaps I may be permitted to make good my claim to the authorship of similar proposals by reading, if I may, the first two or three sentences of a Bill which I outlined when I spoke in 1913, so as to sustain the charge which I make in a very friendly spirit against Dr. Fisher of plagiarism, but also in order that I may convince your Lordships that I have some parental rights which justify my interest in this offspring. Clause 1 of the Bill of the Liberal Government of 1914 began as follows, and if your Lordships would care compare it with the first clause of this Bill you will see how similar they are—
"With a view to making education of every kind available for all persons capable of profiting by it, it shall be the duty of the council of every county and county borough to provide for the development and maintenance of a complete and progressive system of education in their county or borough so far as they have power to do so. For that purpose the council shall submit to the Board of Education a draft scheme, and shall furnish to the Board such information as the Board may require respecting the existing provisions for education and the relation of that provision to the provision made by the councils of adjoining counties and boroughs."
The second clauses in the two Bills are almost identical. The words of the Liberal Government Bill of 1914 were—
"It shall he the duty of every local education authority under Part III of the Education Act, 1902, to make adequate provision for affording to children during the latter years of their elementary school life an opportunity of obtaining instruction of a more advanced character."
As I could go on reading several other clauses which were taken from the Bill of 1914 and incorporated in this Bill, I think that your Lordships will realise that I have some right to take an interest in the proposals which are now before you.
There are, of course, variations. There are variations in the proposals in connection with they employment of children, in connection with the compulsory attendance of children after the age of fourteen, and

1043
also in connection with finance. I recognise to the full the magnificent labour of the present President of the Board of Education in the way in which he has helped to popularise these proposals in the country, in the way in which he has overcome a great number of obstacles placed in his path, and in the way in which he has vitalised public opinion in favour of this measure. I think the Government are to be congratulated on their evasion of controversy in connection with the proposals of this Bill, and the very fact that the most rev. Primate has just now blessed the Bill in no unmeasured terms speaks volumes for the skill of the Government in steering a course of an uncontroversial character. I am glad that we are all at one in hearty support of this measure, although we all feel that some points must have been waived which might have been of benefit to the people, both in connection with civil and religious education if they could without controversy have been incorporated in the measure.
I think the case for this Bill rests not merely upon the necessity of repairing the losses of the war; it also rests on the fact—and I speak as an ex-Minister of Education who was longer in occupation of that office than any other individual has had the privilege of being—that the local education authorities have proved themselves fully capable of being entrusted with such powers as the Government propose to confer upon them. The local education committees especially have proved themselves capable of managing their educational affairs to a much greater degree than the Parliamentary lowers have permitted, and it is due to them to give them the opportunity of managing a full system of education in their own areas. This Bill is also necessary because in our present system there is a lamentable waste of public money. It is also necessary because we have failed to secure anything like an organised system of intermediate education between the elementary schools and the Universities, and we have failed to bring our children physically fit into the elementary school. The Bill is necessary because the teaching profession, which is really the foundation upon which most education rests, has become less and less popular in this country, and it is to-day almost a dying profession.
The system which exists at the present time allows a majority of children to leave the elementary schools under the age of fourteen, and out of 600,000 children who
1044
leave our elementary schools every year only 40,000 stay until they have completed their fourteenth year, and only one in seven proceeds to the secondary schools. You have a very large number of authorities—1,196, if I remember correctly—many of whom do not even put into force the powers which they possess in connection with higher education at all. There are 138 which may rate up to 2d., and 180 which may rate up to 1d. in the £. I am glad that the Government have seen their way to abolish all this limitation, and that they will confer upon the various local education authorities full power to deal with education out of the rates, with the increased assistance which they will now get from the State, in order that they may secure a thorough system of secondary and higher education for the children in their various areas.
I want to say a word or two in connection with the physical condition of children. The noble Earl (Lord Lytton) in that eloquent speech to which we all listened with so much interest, testified to the importance of physical training being antecedent to the instruction of children. Over 100,000 deaths occur of children under five, which are said to be preventible, and that they are preventible is proved by the fact that, while 160 in every 1,000 die in pitmen's families, only 39 out of every 1,000 die in doctor's families. As the noble Earl has said, the education medical authorities estimate that there are about 1,000,000 children who are suffering from preventible ailments which deprive them of the full value of the education which they receive.
I believe that much more could be done in teaching mothercraft. In February, 1914, I was giving a grant of £5,000 per annum, but I do not know what is spent now. I believe a very large sum could be well spent in encouraging such teaching in order to reduce the ailments of children, and so make them physically fit in their subsequent school life. I know that there have been Departmental jealousies, and disputes as to which Department should look after the health of the infant children. I do not care what Department looks after their health so long as it is looked after, and I could only welcome the establishment of a Health Minister if it got rid of those inter-Departmental jealousies which have occurred in the past. I welcome all the clauses which deal with the establishment of crèches,

1045
of nursery schools for the bringing forward of infant life and making children strong and healthy.
My only criticism of this Bill is that even these clauses, great advances as they are, do not go far enough. I think the obligation on the local education authorities might be strengthened, and I hope it may be possible to do that in your Lordships' House at the Committee stage. There are some admirable clauses which deal with playgrounds, with the erection of baths, with the provision of playing fields; and I am sure that your Lordships will agree that we cannot over-state the benefits which can be derived from proper attention being given to the physique of children in the playgrounds, from organising games for them, and through games producing a manly and sportsmanlike spirit in the rising generation. Then in connection with domestic subjects there is considerable progress going to be made in respect of cookery classes, housecraft, and other domestic subjects, as well as manual and gardening instruction. As I have said, my anxiety is to see something more done in the direction of the prevention of to the exploitation of child labour. I welcome to the full the proposal that children under the age of twelve shall not be employed in general employment. But I think that even this clause needs strengthening. In my judgment there should be a limitation on the total number of hours for which children may be employed, when they are called upon to attend school, in every twelve hours. They ought to be limited to the number of hours in which they have to do work and in which they have to be taught. I am of opinion that ten hours employment a week is ample for any child of from twelve to fourteen years of age who has to attend an elementary school, and thirty hours a week is ample for any growing child during the holiday periods; and, if they are employed, the provision of their meal times ought to be safeguarded. It should be the duty of an education authority to make by-laws to prevent children being exploited. That duty has not been placed on the education authority, but I think it ought to be.
Under the proposals of this Bill, children from the age of twelve to the age of fourteen may be taught for twenty-seven and a-half hours every week, and they may be earning money thirty-one and a-half hours in
1046
addition; in other words, they may be at work, either earning wages or being taught in the schools, fifty-nine hours every week. When the working classes believe that forty-eight hours a week is economically sufficient and that they can produce the best results whilst working for that period, surely no law ought to be permitted which enables a child to be employed fifty-nine hours a week when the school is open and eighty-four hours a week when the school is closed. I believe also that there ought to be efforts made to prevent children of this age from carrying heavy weights. It is as detrimental to children to have to carry heavy weights when they are employed as it is for them to have to work long hours. The French have a law which prevents any boy carrying a weight of over 10 kilogrammes and any girl from carrying a weight of over 5 kilogrammes; and it seems to me that if we could strengthen this Bill in that direction, we should not only be doing a humane act but doing a great deal to make our children fitter for the education which will be imparted in our elementary schools.
There is only one other subject on which I wish to touch, and it is the most important of all—namely, the difficulty of securing school teachers. What is the position? In 1908 each year about 16,000 new school teachers were wanted in the elementary schools in order to obtain an adequate teaching staff, but we were then receiving as entrants each year only 9,614, of whom 2,722 were boys. In 1917, when, I suppose, we wanted 20,000, only 6,158 proposed to enter the profession, of whom but 919 were boys—about one in twenty boys have proposed to enter the teaching profession out of those who are required. Salaries vary enormously. A headmaster in Manchester can earn from £200 to £360 a year; in Cambridgeshire he may begin at £90 and go up to £200. To take another type, an assistant mistress in Manchester can get from £120 to £220; in Cambridgeshire she can get from £90 to £115. The salaries are too low to-day; and I believe that the policy of the National Union of Teachers, which has always hesitated to-encourage too generous a number of people coming into the teaching profession because it would tend to depress salaries, would be removed if the State would come forward and further raise the maximum. We should thereby secure a sufficient number of teachers entering the profession. A

1047
career must he guaranteed, and satisfactory pensions must be secured.
I need not dwell on the points in connection with the differentiation between men and women in regard to salaries, but there are, of course, practical arguments in connection with the expenditure of the average household of a male teacher which makes it desirable that he should be paid higher if you are going to attract more men into the teaching profession. There is also this to be said with regard to women. However able they are as teachers, their average period of service as teachers is very much less than the average period of a man, owing to the fact that so many of the women marry at an early age and leave the profession which has been supported very largely out of public money during their college training career. With a view to securing teachers we must not reduce the standard of the certificated teacher. No doubt the difficulties are considerable. The war has prevented recruiting for the teaching profession; and several teachers who have gone out to the Front have told me that when they come home after the war they do not propose to re-enter the profession. The position, therefore, is very serious.
Though the child population has increased, yet there are fewer children attending our schools than was the case formerly, very largely due to the temporary partial exemption from attendance. In 1915, 5,636,000 attended our schools, and there are now 100,000 less; there were 5,516,000 on the books in 1917. The number of schools has been diminished; twenty-five have been closed, and only four new schools were opened last year. Therefore we are going to be put into this situation, that immediately at the end of the war we are going to have a large number of additional children attending the schools. We have now classes consisting of from forty to sixty children, which classes ought to consist of not more than from twenty to thirty; yet we have no teachers coming into the profession who will be able to be utilised by the local education authorities to cope with the increased attendance, and the diminution in the size of the classes.
I have great faith in the education authorities. I do not think that the grant of three-fifths of the salaries will do everything that is necessary to solve the problem. It may help, but we must rely upon
1048
the education authorities setting themselves to the task of encouraging pupil teachers, and encouraging the children to come forward into the teaching profession in order that they may be properly trained. The Government wisely gave time. I hope they have not given too much time, as by extending some of these provisions for seven years. But, at any rate, it will take time to build the additional schools which are required. It will take time to establish a proper system of continuous education, from the elementary school up to the University, for those who are fit to undertake that education. But I believe that the education authorities may be trusted, and I hope that the whole country will encourage the in to go forward with their task.
If I have spoken somewhat egotistically, I ask the indulgence of the House. I have been identified with school boards, with voluntary schools, as well as with a County education committee for a great number of years before I entered the Board of Education, and I naturally take a keen interest in the subject. I feel it a privilege to have been identified in the past with these proposals, and the Government certainly can count on my whole-hearted support in connection with this measure. The moment seems to me peculiarly opportune. The nation realises that it cannot neglect the education of its children. The country is anxious that knowledge should be widespread; the industrial world realises that technical and trade work must be taught in our schools; and the nation desires an easy route for all those who are fitted for its use to have access to the highest education. Personally, I cannot exaggerate the advantages which I believe will arise under the blessings of this Bill. I believe it will create a thorough system of national education, and will promote the character, the intelligence, the vitality, and the happpiness of our race.
LORD SHEFFIELD: My Lords, I move the adjournment of the debate.
Further Debate adjourned accordingly until to-morrow.

PARLIAMENT AND LOCAL ELECTIONS BILL.
Amendment reported (according to Order).

ENEMY INTERESTS IN TRADE.
LORD SYDENHAM LORD SYDENHAM had the following Question on the Paper—
To ask His Majesty's Government—

1. Whether steps are being taken to obtain the "further legislation" stated by the Committee appointed by the Board of Trade to be "desirable" in order to enable businesses carried on by "recently naturalised Germans" to be wound up.

2. On what grounds the Board of Trade has refused the offer of the Board of the South West Africa Company, Limited, to buy out the enemy registered shareholdings, although the Parliamentary Committee, which reported on this company in 1916, advised the Board of Trade that enemy interests should be eliminated.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have several times drawn attention in your Lordships' House to the proceedings of Messrs. Ettlinger, and the replies I have received to these questions have never been, to my mind, wholly satisfactory, because the licence to these firms as regard manganese and chrome has been very difficult to understand. It was admitted that the firm had a monopoly of certain chrome sources for sale in France and Italy. It is not in our interests or in the interests of our Allies that this should be allowed. I have since been informed of some further ramifications of this firm. The firm claims a mortgage and control over the Anglo- Espanola Company, which one would not believe to be a German Company, as it really is. We have now the verdict of the Board of Trade, which has dealt with no less than 960 firms, and has gained great experience. This Committee had the advantage of seeing the contract made in 1912 between the Ettlinger firm and Beer, Sondheimer and Company, of Frankfort, who, as we all know, are the greatest agents of the German system of pentration in the metal trades
If your Lordships will pardon me, I would like to read exactly what the Committee said, because it explains the whole situation—
"'There are two partners in this firm—Ettlinger, a German, naturalised in 1888, and Bernstein, a German, naturalised in 1903. The deed of partnership is dated 1st July, 1910. The business consisted in buying and selling ores and
1050
metals, including those used in the steel and iron industry. The firm was before the war closely associated with firms with German interests, particularly with Beer, Sondheimer and Company, of Frankfort. Following upon other agreements with the last-named firm an agreement was entered into, in June, 1912, to last till June, 1918, and, if no notice to determine was given, to 1921. By Clauses 1 and 2 Ettlinger and Company were bound to act only for Beer, Sondheimer and Company in buying and selling minerals and other materials suitable for the iron and steel industry, and to carry out such business on joint account. Beer, Sondheimer and Company were bound to conclude business in those articles only for joint account with Ettlinger and Company. Clause 7 contemplated financial operations outside the sphere of buying and selling to be shared in equally. It was under this clause that the arrangement came about with Schroeder, Schmidt and Company, which for the present purposes need not be referred to. By Clause 9 any business could be vetoed by either of the parties to the agreement, which means that Beer, Sondheimer and Company had a power to veto the sale by Ettlinger of any of these materials to English buyers. No comment is needed."
The Report goes on to say—
"It is a case of enemy association in which the Committee would recommend winding up without hesitation if it falls within the Act, and the Committee submit that, if it does not fall within the Act, further legislation would be desirable to enable them to deal with it."
My Lords, I think that, as the Committee say, further comment is not needed, and I hope that the noble Lord will be able to say that the Government is determined to take the advice of this expert Committee.
My second Question deals with a very simple matter. The South West Africa Company has a large capital, much of which has always been held in German hands, and again I am afraid I must trouble the House with a quotation, which expresses the whole thing in as few words as I think it can be put into. The chairman of this company, at a meeting of the shareholders on June 26 last year, said—
"The Parliamentary Committee which inquired into the affairs of the company in 1916 expressed a desire to see the enemy interest in question as far as possible eliminated, and advised the Board of Trade accordingly. We have done all we possibly could to give effect to this decision, and have not only interviewed the President of the Board of Trade on the subject, but have also offered to buy out the enemy registered shareholdings, but have so far met with nothing but refusals to the proposals put forward. It is with great interest that we have noticed within the last week the action of the Union Government of South Africa, which has unhesitatingly dealt with enemy holdings in a South African registered company, and thus followed the lead of another of our Colonies, and it may not be unreasonable to suppose that such a decision may, perhaps, tend

1051
to alter the official attitude in our case, an attitude which is somewhat difficult for us to fathom, but is no doubt due to some special reason that we are not yet able to understand."
I beg to ask the noble Lord what is the special reason in question.
LORD SOMERLEYTON: My Lords, on behalf of the Board of Trade I would say that the Board is most anxious to carry out in all these matters the policy which has been already laid down by the Prime Minister and the President of the Board elsewhere. I am very glad to have an opportunity of replying to my noble friend, who is ever zealous in the public interest. The Board of Trade is most anxious to deal with all the cases of this nature, such as those brought forward by the noble Lord, to the best of their ability.
With regard to the first part of the Question, may I say that legislation is being introduced in order to extend the power of the Board of Trade to wind up businesses under the Trading with the Enemy (Amendment) Act, 1916, to cases in which the partnership with persons residing in an enemy country has been dissolved by the outbreak of war, and to extend the provisions of the Trading with the Enemy Acts in certain other respects which experience has shown to he desirable. It is not proposed to provide for the winding-up of businesses carried on by recently naturalised Germans apart from the general question of withdrawal of certificates of naturalisation on which legislation has been introdued recently. If under the provisions of that legislation the person is by the revocation of his certificate remitted to enemy nationality the Trading with the Enemy (Amendment) Act, 1916, will become applicable to any business carried on by him, so that it can be wound up under the provisions of that Act. I trust that in answering this part of the Question it will be quite easily understood that further use will be made of these powers in that respect.
With regard to the second part of the Question, the South-West Africa Company, Limited, is incorporated in England, and its capital is mainly in the form of bearer warrants. There is no absolute evidence that the greater part of the capital of the company is held by enemies, but there is little practical doubt that it is so held. Although the company is incorporated here its operations are carried on mainly in German South-West Africa, where it holds a large tract of land. In these circumstances
1052
the company is in substance a German Colonial concern, and the Board of Trade, after consulting other Departments concerned, came to the conclusion that it should be so treated, although incorporated as a British company, and that to deal with the company or its shares in accordance with the compulsory powers contained in the Trading with the Enemy Acts would in effect be disposing of property in hostile territory in allied occupation, and that such a course was inexpedient. As the Company is registered in the United Kingdom it might not be contrary to International Law to deal with the company or its shares under the powers contained in the Trading with the Enemy Acts, but to do so would afford a pretext to the Germans to dispose of property of great value in their control belonging to subjects of Allied powers in territory in their occupation. Some of the directors of the company applied for leave to negotiate with the German shareholders for the acquisition of their shares in the company, and the chairman of the company proposed that he should be allowed to send a letter to the Disconto Geseellshaft in Berlin opening negotiations adn suggesting a possible meeting in some neutral town. In the case of a voluntary arrangement for the purchase of the German shares no difficulty would have arisen as regards compulsory disposal of property in hostile territory in our occupation, but the Board of Trade, after consulting other Departments, considered that there was no sufficient reason to justify permission being given for negotiations of this kind with the enemy during the war. I trust that if the answer which I have given is not considered wholly satisfactory by the noble Lord he will understand that it is my desire as far as I can, representing the Board of Trade here, to give him the fullest information possible, either privately or in this House
LORD SYDENHAM: I thank the noble Lord for his reply. I am afraid that I can not say it is absolutely satisfactory, but I will not trouble him any more now in the matter. I cannot help contrasting, however, the proceedings taken in America with our proceedings in this country. Only to-day I saw it announced that the Americans have taken action which will put an end for ever to German penetration into the metal trade in America. Here it seems to me that we are leaving means for German penetration after the war.

CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL. [H.L.]
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE LORD MUIR MACKENZIE rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether the necessary steps will be taken immediately to complete the constitution of the Joint Committee on the Criminal Law Amendment Bill [H.L.]; and whether the Government will give an assurance that they will proceed at once with legislation as soon as the Committee shall have reported.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am sure my noble irfend will not be surprised at my asking this Question. A Motion was passed in this House unanimously asking the other House to concur in the appointment of a Joint Committee for dealing with the Bill mentioned in the Question and the Sexual Offences Bill [H.L.], and there was a very strong feeling expressed in this House that it was desirable to take a course which would enable this matter to be dealt with with the greatest possible expedition. Tea weeks elapsed from the time when that Motion was passed in this House before it was placed before the other House. Directly it was placed before the other House, although a Division was called, the whole House with the exception of four voted for concurring with this House in the appointment of a Joint Committee. It therefore appears that the other House as well as this House was anxious that the matter should be expeditiously proceeded with. I do not think I am unreasonable in suggesting that we should have some assurance that the matter will now be proceeded with as quickly as may be possible, and that at any rate there will be no danger of so great a space of time as ten weeks again elapsing. I beg to ask the two-headed Question which stands in my name, and I shall be much obliged if my noble friend will give me an answer.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: My Lords, I am not at all surprised at my noble friend's Question, and I can assure him that I regret as much as he does the delay which has taken place. I can speak in the same terms for the Secretary of State. My noble friend will have observed already that the names of the Peers who are good enough to serve on the Committee have been passed by this House, and I believe a Message has gone to the other House of Parliament. Owing to the business in the House of Commons and owing
1054
also to the Secretary of State's somewhat protracted absence in Holland this delay has taken place which we all so much regret, and I may thank the noble Lord and his friends also for what I must say has been great forbearance in regard to this matter. In regard to procedure, I believe it to be this: There are two Bills referred to this Joint Select Committee. They will be dealt with by the Joint Select Committee, and after having been amended they will come back and go through in this House their various stages, the House being asked to agree to the Amendments; but the Secretary of State desires me to say that he could not give a definite pledge as to legislation or the form of legislation before he has been able to scrutinise the Bills after they emerge from the Joint Select Committee and also from this House. I can, however, assure my noble friend that it is the earnest desire to pass a Bill on this important subject as soon as the Secretary of State can manage it.
LORD SYDENHAM: Would it be possible to give an Instruction to the Joint Committee that it should take certain clauses which are very urgently required and not controversial, and put them into a separate Bill to be dealt with before the larger questions come up, which may take some time? There is real urgency in regard to Clauses 5, 6 and 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Bill. Shocking cases have been brought to my notice of late which show the real need for the kind of protection that will be given, I believe, by Clause 5.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: It would be hardly possible, I am afraid, to give the Instruction which the noble Lord desires, but no doubt the Committee in its deliberations will take its own course and suggest what it thinks right; but I cannot say that I quite agree with my noble friend that there will be an absence of opposition, on which matter I think he is rather over sanguine.

TO-MORROW'S SITTING.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn until 3.30 to-morrow.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at ten minutes before eight o'clock.