Sitting of 24 July 1918

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Nelson Corporation Water Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Scarisbrick Estate Bill [Lords],
As amended, to be considered Tomorrow.
Shropshire, Worcestershire, and Staffordshire Electric Power Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Commercial Gas Bill,
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. Whitley): The promoters of these two gas Bills have agreed to the Instruction which stands in my name, and I trust the House will see fit now to allow the remainder of the Bills to go forward to the 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.]
Portsea Island Gas Light Bill (by Order),
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
1778
statutory maximum price or to modify existing statutory provisions as to the relation of price to dividend.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 7) Bill,
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 8) Bill,
Read a second time, and committed.

MINISTRY OF MUNITIONS.
Copy presented of Report of Committee on the Production of Fuel Oil from Home Sources [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
NAVY AND ARMY SERVICES, WAR- LIKE OPERATIONS, AND OTHER EXPENDITURE ARISING OUT OF THE WAR, 1918–19 (SUPPLE MENTARY VOTE OF CREDIT).
Supplementary Estimate presented of the amount required to be voted during the year ending 31st March, 1919, for general Navy and Army Services, War-like Operations, and other Expenditure arising out of the War [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 93.]
ROAD BOARD.
Copy presented of Eighth Annual Report of Proceedings of the Road Board [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No 94.]

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (JOINT COMMITTEE) REGULATIONS.
Copy presented of Regulations, dated 28th June, 1918, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee and by the Insurance Commissioners, the Scottish Insurance Commissioners, the Irish Insurance Commissioners, and the Welsh Insurance Commissioners, acting jointly, entitled the National Health Insurance (Mercantile Marine) (Collection of Contributions) Regulations, 1918 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Regulations, dated 28th June, 1918, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee, acting jointly with the Insurance Commissioners, entitled the National Health Insurance (Collection of Contributions) Consolidated Regulations, 1918 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Regulations, dated 28th June, 1918, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee and by the Insurance Commissioners, the Scottish Insurance Commissioners, the Irish Insurance Commissioners, and the Welsh Insurance Commissioners, entitled the National Health Insurance (Approved Societies) Consolidated Regulations, 1918 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

CORN PRODUCTION ACT, 1917.
Copy presented of Provisional Regulations, made under the Corn Production Act, 1917, by the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.
    INDIA.

      STEAMSHIP "ABYDOS."
      Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the steamship "Abydos" was taken by the Government of India from its owners for use as a floating workshop in spite of protest that her minimum draught of 11 feet rendered her useless for that purpose; whether after much delay and expense the "Abydos" was on arrival at Busrah condemned as quite useless there; whether she was returned and at further large expense and delay reconverted into a cargo vessel; whether she is now used under requisition by the Indian Government; and whether the Indian Government has now agreed to pay the owners £10,000 for immediate attributable loss, which loss is entirely due to official incompetence in India?
      The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): As regards the first three parts of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answers made to the questions put by him on the 13th March, 10th April, and 26th June. As regards the fourth part of the question, I gather from the returns of the Ministry of Shipping that the vessel was again requisitioned in January last for the purpose of carrying supplies for pilgrims, and may still be so employed. The compensation mentioned in the last part of the question presumably includes the hire of the vessel at book rates for the five months of the first requisitioning, but as to this I am making inquiry.
      Mr. KING: I beg to give notice that if there be an Indian Budget I shall call attention to this grave scandal.

      PROPOSED REFORMS.
      Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India whether the recent statements of Sir Satyendra Sinha and the Maharaja of Patiala, published in the Press on the subject of the proposed Indian reforms, were made with his knowledge and approval; if so, whether statements of opinion and criticism, either for or against the proposed reforms, from other Indians will be equally permitted to appear, whether written in this country or in India; and whether cables to and from India relating to the proposed reforms are permitted to be published without alteration or delay other than telegraphic?
      Mr. MONTAGU: His Highness the Maharaja of Patiala and Sir Satyendra Sinha, who are my colleagues on the Imperial War Conference and Cabinet, have the same freedom to express their opinions as any other members of these two bodies. They informed me that they proposed to make a statement to the Press, but no question of my approval could possibly arise in such a case. As regards the rest of the question, the Government is anxious that statements of opinion and criticism, whatever they may be, shall be fully available to the public, subject to the ordinary rules of censorship.

      BRITISH OFFICERS (PAY).
      Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India whether, considering that nothing has been done to increase the pay of the British officers of the Indian Army or to permanently improve the conditions of service of those officers since the commencement

      1781
      of the War, he will instruct the Government of India to consider the question of a substantial increase in the pay of the British officers at the same time as they are considering the question of a substantial increase in the pay of the Indian officers and men?
      Mr. MONTAGU: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer I gave to the question asked by him on the 15th instant. Although the pay of British officers of the Indian Army has not been raised during the War, they have benefited substantially from various measures undertaken to improve the conditions of service. But I will communicate my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion to the Government of India.

      FIRMS WOUND UP.
      Mr. ROWLANDSasked the Secretary of State for India (1) whether he is aware that the firm of Schroder, Smidt and Company was closed down under the Enemy Trading Act, and that J. Frericks, who was the manager of the firm, has started in business for himself; can he say what is Frericks' nationality; whether Schroder, Smidt and Company were connected with the Calcutta Hide Trade Association; if so, what action has been taken in order to prevent the trade again going into the same channel; (2) whether he is aware that the firm of Smidt, Sanders and Company was closed down under the Enemy Trading Act and that Max Staub, who was the manager of the firm, has started business in his own name; can he say what is Staub's nationality; whether Smidt, Sanders and Company were connected with the Calcutta Hide Trade Association; and, if so, what action has been taken in order to prevent the trade again going into the same channel?
      Mr. MONTAGU: The two firms have been wound up under the Enemy Trading Act. They were connected with the Calcutta Hide and Skin Shippers' Association. The two individuals mentioned are Swiss by nationality and were in the employ of the firms. They have since started business in the trade on their own account, and are carrying it on to the limited extent described in my answer to my hon. Friend's question of the 10th July. I am asking the Government of India whether they are satisfied that they are not acting in any way on behalf of the liquidated firms or still associated with them.

      ROYAL MARINE LABOUR CORPS.
      Colonel ASHLEYasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that men are being recruited for the transport service in France up to the age of fifty-five, he will state what is the age limit for their retention on the active establishment?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): If my hon. and gallant Friend refers to the Royal Marine Labour Corps, there is no age limit, and the men are retained as long as they are fit for the work they are required to perform.
      Colonel ASHLEY: Can a man of sixty-five be kept on against his wish?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: I presume he will be recruited for hostilities for the duration of the War.

      COTTON PURCHASES (ADMIRALTY).
      Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Admiralty have during the last three years made any important purchases of cotton or cotton Waste from any firm in this country of which any of the partners are of enemy birth; and, if so, will he state the name of such firm and the total amount of business transacted with them?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: The firms on our list are, I am advised, all firms who were placed upon the list pre-war, and, of course, after careful investigation as to their capability and financial standing. So far as we are aware, the answer to my hon. Friend's question as to any of the partners being of enemy birth would appear to be in the negative. But I am making closer inquiry.
      Mr. PENNEFATHER: Have contracts not been given for cotton waste to a firm the very name of which indicates enemy origin?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot say. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give me the facts.

      NAVAL BUILDINGS (WATER SUPPLY).
      Mr. PERKINSasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, before deciding to lay on a supply of water to certain naval buildings from a local water company,

      1783
      he has considered the possibility of obtaining an ample supply from a stream in the locality at far less cost?
      The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE to the AIR MINISTRY (Major Baird): This and other alternative sources of supply were fully investigated and rejected in favour of the one adopted, after full consideration of the special circumstances of the case.

    RUSSIA.

      M. MILIUKOF.
      Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information that M. Miliukof, the ex-Foreign Minister of Russia, has gone to Berlin; and whether, in view of M. Miliukof's previous pro-Ally record, M. Miliukof's visit to Berlin was undertaken as an emissary of, or traitor to, the Ailed cause?
      The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Balfour): The answer to the first part of the queston is in the negative. The second, therefore, does not arise.
      Mr. KING: Are His Majesty's Government in relations with M. Miliukof, or have they been in relations with him recently?
      Mr. BALFOUR: If the hon. Member means have we received any communications from him, I am not aware that we have.
      Mr. KING: Have the statements that M. Nabokof has accompanied M. Miliukof to Berlin had the attention of the Foreign Office?
      Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should give notice.

      EX-EMPEROR'S DEATH.
      Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government has any official information regarding the fate of the ex-Emperor of Russia?
      Mr. BALFOUR: No, Sir; not beyond that which has appeared in the Press. We have received no authentic reports, but I am afraid all the rumours I have received confirm the unhappy news.

      MOSCOW (GERMAN INTERVENTION).
      Mr. KINGasked the Foreign Secretary whether, since the assassination of Count Mirbach, Germany has demanded the right to send a battalion of soldiers to Moscow to maintain order?
      Mr. BALFOUR: I have no information beyond that telegraphed through the wireless stations of the Russian Government, which has already appeared in the Press.

      MURMAN COAST OPERATIONS.
      Mr. KINGasked whether operations on the Murman coast have been undertaken on a clear and definite understanding embodied in any written memorandum or correspondence between the Allies or any of them and any Russian Government; and whether any statement on the Murman coast expedition will be made on the forthcoming Vote of Credit?
      Mr. BALFOUR: I can add nothing to the reply given to the hon. Member on the 18th instant.
      Mr. KING: Is the memorandum of agreement published in this morning's papers, which really is an answer to this question, not authentic?
      Mr. BALFOUR: I have no information upon that point. There are great difficulties of telegraphic communication with our officials on the Murman coast and Russia generally. I do not at all deny or affirm the accuracy of the statement which appears in the Press. We have not received any information on the subject.
      Mr. KING: Has the Foreign Office actually no knowledge of any agreement with reference to this matter, and is it quite in the dark with regard to the published agreement or alleged agreement which appears in the papers this morning?
      Mr. BALFOUR: I have given the hon. Member a precise answer to that question.

      BRITISH COMMERCIAL POLICY.
      Captain SHEEHANasked the President of the Board of Trade whether representations have been made to him by leading Russians having trading interests with Britain as to the necessity that exists for formulating a definite British commercial policy towards Russia; if so, whether consideration has been given to

      1785
      these representations; whether any steps are being taken to counteract the commercial penetration and exploitation of Russia by Germany; and is it proposed to organise the British commercial connection with Russia so as to place it on a safe, sound, and successful footing?
      The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir A. Stanley): I am fully aware of the importance of the matters to which the question relates, and all practicable steps are being and will be taken for the purpose, having regard to the difficult and rapidly changing conditions prevailing in Russia. If the hon. and gallant Member will put himself in communication with my hon. Friend, who represents the Department of Overseas Trade, he will be happy to give him further information as to the measures actually being taken.

      PALESTINE (GERMAN SCHOOLS).
      Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether German schools in Palestine are still working; whether Germans are not interned, and will he make inquiries to hasten the full Report?
      Mr. BALFOUR: As I informed my hon. and gallant Friend a fortnight ago, all German schools have been taken over, and all male adults interned. I will make further inquiries about the full Report.
      Colonel WEDGWOOD: The answer given to me a week ago, not a fortnight ago, stated that the right hon. Gentleman had no information on the point. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the German papers say that these Germans are still in Jerusalem and that their schools are still working?
      Mr. BALFOUR: I have copied out the answer given on the subject nearly a week ago.
      Colonel WEDGWOOD: You said a week ago that you had asked for a Report but had not got it. Have you no further information?
      Mr. BALFOUR: In the answer to which I have referred, it was stated, not by me but by the Assistant Secretary of State, that all the German schools had been taken over and all male adults interned. That is evidently quite inconsistent with the Report which my hon. Friend appears
      1786
      to have obtained from the German papers. I am making further inquiries about the full Report.

      CEYLON (ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS).
      Mr. MORRELLasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether a memorial has been received from Sir P. Arunchalam and Mr. E. J. Samerawickrame on behalf of the Ceylon Reform League and the Ceylon National Association asking for certain reforms with a view to the grant of a measure of responsible government for Ceylon; whether an answer, and, if so, what answer has been returned to the memorialists; and whether the Government will meet the demand for responsible government put forward by the people of Ceylon by extending to Ceylon the same reforms as are now proposed by the Secretary of State and the Governor-General for India?
      The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Hewins): I duly received the memorial, but only a formal acknowledgment was made pending the receipt of the observations of Sir John Anderson, which he did not live to complete. I have also received memorials from other sections of opinion in Ceylon, supporting different proposals. I shall give all these views my careful consideration, but I do not propose to form any conclusions until the time is more opportune for a full examination of the difficult questions involved, and until I have received the views of the new Governor.
      Mr. MORRELL: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether there is anything which makes a consideration of reforms in Ceylon at the present time any less opportune than the consideration of reforms in India's administration?
      Mr. HEWINS: I do not think that question is involved in the question on the Paper, and I do not propose to answer it.

    MILITARY SERVICE.

      MAN-POWER AND DENTAL SERVICE.
      Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Under-Secretary for War how many of the recommendations of the House of Commons Committee on Man-Power and

      1787
      the Army Dental Service, dated 12th December, 1917, have been wholly, and how many have been partially, acted upon already; how many will be acted on in the future; and if any are disapproved of on principle by the War Office and will not be acted upon?
      The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): In reply to a question by my hon. Friend on 23rd January last, I explained the views of the authorities at the War Office with regard to the recommendations of the Committee over which he presided. From that reply it will be seen that the suggestions of the Committee were already under consideration or had been acted upon. Since then, in answer to further questions, I have stated that the dental service in the Army has been reorganised and that the number of dental surgeons employed is being considerably increased, and I can assure my hon. Friend that additions have been, and will be, made to meet all requirements. Also, I stated, in answer to a question on the 4th July, that arrangements were being made for the dental examination of soldiers to be carried out in all cases by dental surgeons.

      WIDOWS' SONS.
      Colonel ASHLEYasked the Under-Secretary for War (1) whether he can take steps to have Signaller G. Chapman, No. 23878, Signalling School, British Expeditionary Force, transferred to home service, in view of the fact that he is the only son of a widow, has received four wounds and suffered from trench fever, and was quite recently operated upon for a disease of the ear and nose; (2) whether he can arrange that the last son, who was called to the Colours four months ago, of Mrs. A. Hughes, of 101, Rhodeswell Road, Limehouse, may be retained on home service, in view of the fact that her eldest son was killed at Loos, another son is a prisoner of war in Germany, a third is serving on the Western Front, and a fourth has been wounded in Egypt?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I regret that neither of these hard cases come within the ruling as to home service, and I cannot, therefore, take any special action.
      Colonel ASHLEY: Does not the case in Question 22 come within the rule and
      1788
      under the pledge which was given by the Minister of National Service in this House?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: No such pledge was given by the War Office.
      Mr. JOWETTasked the Undersecretary of State for War if he will consider the case of a widow, afflicted by sorrow and unable to work, who has lost her husband since the War began, has lost one son in the War, and has two sons serving, one in Salonika, one she has not seen for three years, and one son training in England, with a view to the release of one of her remaining sons?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I am afraid I cannot give any undertaking that either of the sons will be released, but if my hon. Friend will furnish me with full details I shall be pleased to have the case carefully and sympathetically considered.
      Mr. J. M. HENDERSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, in the case of a family where there were four sons, aged twenty-two, twenty, nineteen, and eighteen, and the first three have been killed in action, arrangements will be made to secure that the remaining lad will not be called up or, if called up, will only be employed in non-combatant service?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: The question of calling up any individual for military service is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of National Service. If, however, the lad referred to is called up, the case would receive careful and sympathetic consideration by the War Office.

      SIDESTRAND CAMP (TRAINING).
      Mr. MORRELLasked the Undersecretary for War if his attention has been drawn to the conditions now existing at Sidestrand Camp in the case of men of forty-five years of age and upwards now in training there; whether he is aware that these men complain of the severity of the training immediately imposed for those who are not used to such a life, alleging that they have not had their clothes off for a fortnight, that they have to sleep on the floor without oil sheets, and that their instructors are men of not more than twenty-five years who treat them with roughness; and whether, in view of assurances recently given in this

      1789
      House, he will have inquiries made into this case with a view to improving these conditions?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: Enquiries have been made, and I find that no complaints have been made to the commanding officer of the battalion or to the company officers. There are no grounds for the suggestion as to the severity of the training, and I am assured that the men receive sympathetic treatment. If any man complains or shows signs of distress during drill or training he is allowed to fall out to rest. No man does physical drill against his will; it is a voluntary parade for which 30 per cent. of the men have volunteered. There is no reason why men should remain in their clothes at night, and if any men have done so, it is of their own choice. An extra blanket is being supplied to the men and all are equipped with waterproof sheets, except in a few cases where there has been unavoidable delay. Steps have been taken to procure the sheets as quickly as possible. Instructions have been issued that older recruits should be drilled by older non-commissioned officers, but there are not sufficient non-commissioned officers over forty and some below that age have been employed only so far as this deficiency necessitated. I have seen a letter written by a soldier in this camp in which he states that the administration is excellent, and that the men receive every consideration.

      LABOUR COMPANY, FRANCE.
      Mr. JOWETTasked the Undersecretary of State for War concerning men of the Labour Company, France, who are classified B 2 or Grade 3 and who are forty years of age or approaching thereto, if he is aware that men of this age and class, whose daily routine until recently began with reveillé at 4.45 a.m., parade at 6 a.m., and was followed by a heavy day's task work with the Royal Engineers which, with a long walk in the interval, commenced at 7 a.m., have been supplied with rifles, which they are to learn the use of after their day's work and without any adjustment of their daily task; if he will make inquiries with a view to the day's work of the men in question being reduced so as to allow of rifle practice if the latter is considered necessary; and if he will further inquire as to the reason why this Order, increasing the day's work of the men of this company, is followed or preceded by the words, no reference must be made to this Order when writing home?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: Inquiries are being made, and I will communicate with my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

      FARMERS (CALL TO COLOURS).
      Mr. G. TERRELLasked the Undersecretary of State for War whether he is aware that Private Percy Read, No. 47442, Wilts Regiment, a married man with one child, farming 169 acres of land at Ashton Keynes, Cricklade, Wilts, has recently been called to the Colours; that this farmer has 60 acres of haymaking and 20 acres of harvest to be done; that he has twenty-eight cows in milk besides a variety of other cattle; and that he has no responsible person except his wife to take charge; and whether, in the interests of food production, he can see his way to at once release this farmer until the harvest is in?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: My hon. Friend has already drawn my attention to the case. I regret that I cannot take initial action. Representations should, in the first instance, be made to the Director-General of Food Production.

      YOUNG SOLDIERS.
      Mr. HARRISasked the Undersecretary of State for War if he can say at what age Canada, Australia, South Africa, and New Zealand, respectively, send soldiers into the trenches; whether they permit any men to be sent to Franco under nineteen; and what is the minimum length of training soldiers of the Dominions are subject to before being sent to the fighting line?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I cannot answer this question. The matter is one within the discretion of the Dominion authorities alone.

      EXEMPTION APPEAL.
      Mr. JOWETTasked the Prime Minister whether he is prepared to take steps for the protection of a man who has been wrongly advised by his employer in respect to the procedure for securing an appeal against the decision of a military service tribunal, in a case where the man in question has a wife and seven children under twelve years of age dependent on him, and honestly believes that if his case could be heard he would obtain exemption?
      The MINISTER of NATIONAL SERVICE (Sir A. Geddes): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. There is a regular procedure for dealing with cases

      1791
      in which a man through ignorance has allowed his tribunal rights to lapse. If the man referred to is still in civil life he may apply to the local tribunal for leave to lodge a late appeal, and if the hon. Member will furnish me with particulars of his case I will see that the facts are communicated to the National Service representatives concerned.

      ONE-MAN BUSINESSES.
      Mr. STANTON: asked the Minister of National Service if he is satisfied that his Department is granting the same equality of treatment to small private traders in regard to managers and business heads of departments as to those of the large co-operative societies; and are the military representatives instructed to be as strict with the one as the other at the tribunals?
      Sir ALFRED YEOasked the Minister of National Service whether he is aware that instructions have been issued to regional advisory committees in each division, with power to give or grant protection certificates to general managers, secretaries, departmental managers, buyers and managers of branch stores of industrial co-operative societies; and, seeing that these do not include owners of one-man businesses, will he say why the same instructions are not issued for the proprietors of one-man busnesses, and will he have the same instructions issued at once?
      Sir A. GEDDES: There appears to be some misunderstanding about the effect of the recent arrangement made with the industrial and co-operative societies. The procedure referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Tower Hamlets refers solely to certain indispensable men engaged in, or responsible for, the retail distribution of food, whose cases are considered by regional advisory committees, composed of equal numbers of representatives of the society and officials of the Ministry of National Service under the chairmanship of a representative of the Ministry.
      Food retailers trading on their own account have also received special consideration from the Ministry of National Service on the recommendation of the Ministry of Food.
      The difference in procedure is due to the fact that the co-operative societies are highly organised and can be dealt
      1792
      with as a unit, whereas at present the owners of one-man businesses are not organised on similar lines. I would welcome their organisation, so that their cases might be dealt with in the same simple way; and if they will organise by regions, we will at once form similar committees, so that the waste of manpower which arises from their unorganised state may be eliminated. The present arrangements do not, in my opinion, give any ground for the belief that one-man food retail businesses are less favourably treated than co-operative food retailers. They have been made not in the interest of the traders as such, but to maintain the effective distribution of food.
      Sir A. YEO: Does not the right hon. Gentleman see that this is preferential treatment, and that the little man has just as much right to be treated exactly in the same way as the multiple-shop trades or the co-operative society?
      Sir A. GEDDES: I think my hon. Friend is under a misapprehension.
      Sir A. YEO: Not at all.
      Sir A. GEDDES: The position at the present moment is quite clear. The one-man-business man is not receiving less considerate treatment in any way than the co-operative society. The whole question has arisen on the retail distribution of food, and the policy which is being followed is simply to maintain satisfactory retail distribution. As a matter of fact, because of the unorganised condition of the one-man business system of shops, the one-man business man engaged in the retail distribution of food on the average receives more consideration than the individuals engaged by, and acting for co-operative societies.
      Sir A. YEO: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform me of one co-operative society which has been shut down in comparison with the thousands of small shopkeepers who have had to join the Army? I would like an answer to that question.
      Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give time for research.
      Sir A. YEO: I should think so!
      Mr. PETO: Apart from the one-man businesses, which the right hon. Gentleman says are unorganised, why is there no representation of that part of the trade which is organised, and only representation of the co-operative societies on these tribunals?
      Sir A. GEDDES: These are not tribunals in the ordinary acceptance of the word. There is, as hon. Members are aware, a great deal of difficulty at the present time to maintain the retail distribution of food because of the heavy claims on transport. Advisory committees, of a type which has been established for two years, have been appointed to deal with the cases of employés of co-operative societies. There is no change in principle, and if in any case the one-man business is combined, as has been the case in certain instances, exactly similar treatment will be given. It is purely a matter of procedure.
      Sir F. HALL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if his reply is supposed to be an invitation to people to combine in order to get what is necessary from the Government, and that they can only obtain it by that means?
      Sir A. GEDDES: Far from it. We have done everything that we can to help and assist the one-man-business men consistent with the needs of obtaining men for the forces. This arrangement with the cooperative societies is designed to secure economy in the use of man-power. It is not designed to secure protection for individuals. Economy in the use of man-power is our aim, at the same time as we maintain a satisfactory distribution of food. It only refers to food distribution, and to nothing else.
      Sir F. HALL: May I ask if the economy of man-power is limited to being provided by the big stores at the expense of these people in the one-man businesses?
      Sir A. GEDDES: No; it is the other way.
      Sir A. YEO: Not at all!
      Mr. JOWETTasked the Minister of National Service if he is aware that loss and hardship is being inflicted in many instances by the refusal of military service tribunals to grant sufficient time to owners of small businesses who have been refused exemption from military service and who cannot find purchasers for their businesses or persons willing to occupy during their absence to dispose of their fixtures and stock; and whether, if such cases are brought to his notice, he is prepared to consider them, with a view to postponing the calling-up notices for periods of time according to his discretion?
      Sir A. GEDDES: No, Sir; I am not aware that the conditions are as stated by the hon. Member. Special instructions have been given to tribunals with regard to men engaged in one-man businesses, and even where exemption is refused I understand that they frequently recommend a period of delay before the man is required to report for service. Further, directors of National Service of regions have discretion to postpone calling up in a case in which exceptional circumstances appear to justify such a course.
      Sir A. YEO: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to receive evidence if we present cases of hardship where men have been given five days in which to sell their businesses of the value of £4,000 or £5,000?
      Sir A. GEDDES: Oh, yes; we are always only too delighted to receive evidence.

      ALLOTMENT-HOLDERS.
      Mr. JOWETTasked the Minister of National Service if he is aware that in the Bradford district there are allotments rapidly deteriorating and growing less food on account of the allotment-holders concerned being compelled to spend their time in drilling with the Volunteer Force; and if, in the interest of food production, he will recognise the right of exempted allotment-holders to claim relief from service with the Volunteer Force?
      The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): I have been asked to answer this question. Any man may apply to the appropriate tribunal to be relieved from the obligation to join the Volunteer Force, and I have no doubt that any such application will receive careful consideration.

      HEAD MASTERS (PRIVATE SCHOOLS).
      Sir P. MAGNUSasked the Minister of National Service if he is now able to state whether he is willing to accept the recommendations of the local education authorities, in place of those of the Board of Education, for the exemption from military service of the head masters of private schools on the ground of the urgent need of retaining the services of such head masters and of preventing the crippling effect on local education requirements of their being withdrawn from their scholastic duties; and, if not,

      1795
      whether he can make other arrangements for considering the claims of such applicants?
      Sir A. GEDDES: There are considerable difficulties in the way of accepting recommendations from local education authorities, but arrangements have been made which will, I hope, meet the needs of the educational position. The instructions issued are rather too long to read in reply to a question, and I propose to circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
      The instructions referred to are as follow:
      No man who is now whole-time engaged as a teacher of general educational subjects, whether literary, technical, or scientific, in any school which was established before the War and which provides a general education to boys or girls, and who was engaged as a teacher (not necessarily as a head master or at the same school) before the War, is for the present to be called up for service, if he falls within the following classes, namely:

      (a) Teachers of any grade born in or before the year 1872. (It will therefore be unnecessary for such men to be medically examined if this has not already been done.)

      (b) Head masters born in or before the year 1881 who are in Grade 2 or Grade 3.

      (c) Assistant masters born in or before the year 1877 who are in Grade 2 or Grade 3.

      Such men should be furnished with M.N.S.R. 3476, if or when they are not holders of any valid form of exemption.
      Teachers not covered by these instructions have, of course, the ordinary right of making applications for exemption to tribunals.

      CARL VORMBERGER.
      Major NEWMANasked the Minister of National Service why Carl Vormberger, alias Charles Vernon, resident at Carlsruhe, now Westwood, Edward Road, Bromley, Kent, has been hitherto held exempt from military service or from work of national importance, and is it proposed to continue this exemption?
      Sir A. GEDDES: I am making inquiries, and will inform my hon. and gallant Friend of the result.

      SALUTING ARMY OFFICERS.
      Mr. GILBERTasked whether it is proposed to issue to the Navy and Army any new Regulations as regards the saluting of officers by men; and whether anything will be done to stop the unnecessary saluting of officers of all regiments and branches by men of the Home and Dominion forces in London and other large towns?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: An Army Order was issued on the 1st July abolishing the left-hand salute, but no further Regulations are in contemplation.

      REMOUNT SERVICE.
      Mr. STANTONasked the Undersecretary for War if he is aware of the dissatisfaction that exists among the officers of the remount service reserve regiments, many of whom have now been abroad for years whilst others remain, apparently permanently, at home in the best and most desirable stations, nominally on the plea of health; and whether the latter officers will now replace the former, seeing that in one remount service the hardship to health abroad is not usually great?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. Applications for transfer to home service from officers serving with the Remount Department abroad are, when forwarded through the usual channels, dealt with on their merits.
      Mr. WATT: Is there any system at the War Office for interchange of home service and war service abroad in regard to these men?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I am not sure whether that system obtains in regard to the Remount Department men, but it does obtain in regard to the branches of the staff.

      ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS (PROMOTION).
      Sir PHILIP MAGNUSasked the Undersecretary of State for War whether any and, if so, what steps have been taken to arrange for the promotion of officers not only of the Royal Army Medical Corps but especially of the Royal Army Medical

      1797
      Corps, Territorial Force; whether he can say if any and, if so, how many promotions ofà-la-suite officers of Territorial general hospitals have been made since 1916; and whether, having regard to the services rendered by such officers, he will consider the question of making due arrangements for their promotion?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: The promotion of Regular Officers of the Royal Army Medical Corps is governed by the terms of the Royal Warrant for Pay, and no steps outside that Warrant have been taken. As regards Territorial Force officers, instructions have been issued which will provide for the promotion of approximately twelve lieutenant-colonels to the rank of colonel, Army Medical Service, and forty promotions to the rank of lieutenant-colonel. Promotion of à-la-suite officers are governed by establishment within their units only and all vacancies which have occurred have been met by promotion of the next senior officer.

      MIDDLESEX REGIMENT (CADETS).
      Colonel BURNasked what is the nationality of Privates Ortweiler and Kohnstamm, of the Middlesex Regiment, who have joined a Cadet battalion with a view to their being commissioned in the British Army; whether the battalion of the Middlesex Regiment to which they belonged is composed entirely of naturalised aliens of enemy origin who come under the Military Service Act; and if it is proposed that these men should be placed in command of British soldiers?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: These two soldiers are British-born subjects. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative. As regards the last part of the question this depends, as in all cases, on whether they attain the necessary standard of efficiency while in a Cadet school to qualify for a commission.
      Mr. REDDY: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me what is the difference between these men and Lord Milner?

      SOLDIERS' LEAVE (FRANCE).
      Colonel ASHLEYasked if, when a certain number of permits for home leave are issued to a division in the British Expeditionary Force in France instructions
      1798
      are given that they shall be allocated to officers, non-commissioned officers, and men in proportion to their strength in that division; and, if not, will orders be issued to that effect?
      Sir HENRY DALZIELasked the Under-Secretary for War whether he is aware that discontent exists among the forces at the front in regard to the manner in which leave is granted, more especially to the lower ranks; and whether, consistently with military necessities, he can give an assurance that in future leave will be granted on a more equitable basis than has hitherto prevailed?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: Since the German offensive began, in March, the facilities for leave which we had then secured have, unfortunately, had to be foregone for reasons which will be obvious to the House. I am assured that they will be resumed as soon as the situation permits. Meanwhile, new instructions as to the granting of leave have had to be issued to make it, though, as I have said, it is necessarily greatly restricted, as equitable as possible. From the 20th of this month the restrictions have been relaxed, particularly in the case of men who have come from another front after prolonged absence from home.
      Colonel ASHLEY: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the question—if when a certain number of permits are assigned to a division in France instructions are given that they shall be so allocated to officers, non-commissioned officers and men that they shall severally get their fair share?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: Before the German offensive in three months the War Office got back over 600,000 men, but since March the conditions of leave are entirely different. I will look into the point.

    IRELAND.

      Mrs. SHEEHY-SKEFFINGTON.
      Mr. KINGasked whether it was in pursuance of any War Office Instructions that, after the military control office in New York had granted to Mrs. Hanna Sheehy-Skeffington a passport to return home, she was stopped at Liverpool from proceeding further; and what were the military grounds which have been invoked

      1799
      to prevent this lady returning to her former employment as teacher of languages in Dublin?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: My hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. Mrs. Sheehy-Skeffington was definitely informed by the Military Control Officer in New York that an order prohibiting her from going to Ireland had been made by the Home Secretary under 14 E of the Defence of the Realm Regulations, and Mrs. Sheehy-Skeffington cannot, therefore, have left New York under any misapprehension. When she landed at Liverpool a copy of the order was served on her by the civil authorities.
      Mr. MORRELL: In view of the sufferings which this lady has already undergone, cannot the authorities take a lenient view of her case and allow her to get back to her home?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: My hon. Friend must address that question to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
      Mr. KING: May we conclude from the answer that has been given that there are no military reasons against her return?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: No, Sir.
      Mr. KING: If there are military reasons, why cannot they be stated as asked in the question?

      CAPTAIN BOWEN-COULTHURST.
      Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether Captain Bowen-Coulthurst, who was court-martialled at Dublin in 1916, is still a commissioned officer in the Army; if not, on what date did his commission terminate; and whether he is in receipt of any pension or allowance?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: Captain Bowen-Coulthurst was "gazetted" to the retired list under Article 537 of the Royal Warrant for Pay, which deals with officers who become insane. The date of his retirement was the 10th June, 1916. He is in receipt of retired pay.
      Mr. KING: Does retired pay continue as long as he is in his present condition?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: Yes.

      IRISH GOVERNMENT.
      Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether the proposals of Sir Horace
      1800
      Plunkett, chairman of the recent Irish Convention, for establishing without delay a responsible Irish Government, thus utilising the results achieved by the Convention, have been considered; and whether the Government will proceed on these lines instead of bringing in the promised Home Rule Bill?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I can add nothing to the previous replies on this subject.

      ROYAL AIR FORCE.
      Mr. CROOKSasked the Undersecretary of State for War whether he is aware that at No. 1 Stores Depot, Royal Air Force, Kidbrook, a notice has been posted up to the effect that sleeping-out passes are not to be granted to the men; whether he is aware that some of the men live within easy reach of the depot; and whether he will make representations with a view to the withdrawal of the notice?
      Major BAIRD: The facts are as stated in the question. The rule has been imposed as a temporary measure in the interests of discipline and efficiency.

      KUT (DISPATCHES).
      Colonel Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether a dispatch describing the defence of Kut was received by wireless from General Townshend; and whether the whole or any portion of this dispatch, other than the list of mentions already issued, will be published?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: Reports describing a portion of the operations during the siege of Kut were received by wireless from General Townshend, but as they were from a subordinate commander and the operations were dealt with in Sir John Nixon's dispatch gazetted 10th May, 1916, it was decided that they should not be published.
      Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked when a list of honours for the defence of Kut will be published?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: A few names have been received from the Government of India, and these are now under consideration.

      SOLDIERS' WAGES (FARM WORK).
      Mr. PERKINSasked the Undersecretary of State for War whether, in view of the stoppage of separation allowance to soldiers of Labour Battalions engaged in agriculture and living at home, he will see that the wages to be paid by farmers to such soldiers shall be at the rates proposed by the local agricultural wages boards; and whether, to meet the claim of these men that while they are retained by the Army they ought to be paid by the Army, he can see his way to allow these men their Army pay for weekdays in addition to whatever wages they may be paid as agricultural labourers?
      The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): All farmers are under contract to pay the full civil rates for the locality, and I shall be glad to make inquiries in any case brought to my notice in which a soldier does not receive the rate fixed by the wages board. I regret I cannot increase the amounts now allowed as Army pay.

    RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS.

      PLANT PATHOLOGY WORK.
      Mr. NEEDHAMasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is about to alter the policy of the Board in giving Grants for agricultural research hitherto made in accord with White Paper A 220/1, September, 1911; and what are the reasons for such alteration of policy?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir R. Winfrey): No change in the policy outlined in the Memorandum of September, 1911, is contemplated; the decision to transfer the plant pathology work to a new institute at Rothamsted being, in the Board's view, quite in accordance with that policy.

      ANNUAL GRANTS-IN-AID.
      Mr. NEEDHAMasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if he will give a statement of the annual Grants-in-Aid made to research institutions, showing the names of such institutions and the annual Grants to each of them, and the special research work carried on at each of them, in accordance with the White Paper A 220/1 of the Board, dated September, 1911; and whether the whole of the money so expended is obtained under the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909?
      Sir R. WINFREY: I will have a statement of these Grants printed in to-day's OFFICIAL REPORT. The whole of the money so expended is obtained from the Development Fund, with the exception of £450 of the £2,900 spent on research in fruit growing at the Bristol University.
      The following is the statement referred to:
      Estimated Grants in aid of Agricultural Research carried on at Research Institutions and other Research Centres in respect of the financial year ending 31st March, 1919.

      Subject of Research and Name of Institute to which the Grant is paid.

      Provision in respect of the financial year ending 31 March, 1919.

      Research Institutions.

      £

      Plant Physiology—Imperial College of Science & Technology

      1,700

      Plant Breeding—University of Cambridge

      1,400

      Fruit Growing—University of Bristol

      2,900

      Plant Nutrition and Soil Problems—Rothamsted Experimental Station

      2,850

      Animal Nutrition—University of Cambridge

      2,000

      Animal Pathology—Royal Veterinary College

      1,630

      Dairying—University College, Reading

      1,950

      Zoology (Helminthology)—University of Birmingham

      1,080

      Zoology (Economic Entomology)—Victoria University, Manchester

      650

      Agricultural Economics—University of Oxford

      1,500

      Other Research Centres.

      Fruit Growing—South-Eastern Agricultural College, Wye (East Mailing Fruit Research Station)

      500

      Animal Nutrition—University of Leeds

      1,000

      Animal Breeding—University of Cambridge

      190

      Glass-house Culture of Crops—Waltham Cross Experimental Station

      500

      Woburn Experimantal Station

      500

      Norfolk Experimental Station

      100

      Total

      £20,450

  SEPARATION ALLOWANCES.

    INCREASED RATES FOR CHILDREN.
    Mr. ROWLANDSasked the Prime Minister whether the Government can now state their scheme for increased allowances to the soldiers' wives and children?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The scheme has now been sanctioned by the Government, and, with the hon. Member's permission, it will be circulated with the OFFICIAL REPORT. [See cols. 1825–1830.]
    Colonel ASHLEYasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the amount represented by the increased separation allowances for children, plus the soldier's allotment, is being deducted from the civil pay of ex-postal telegraphists in the Army; and whether he will explain the reason for this action, in view of the terms of the Post Office circular No. 2187, of 1914, which stated that Post Office servants enlisting as office telegraphists in the Royal Engineers are allowed full civil pay in addition to military pay when called up?
    The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Pike Pease): I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given to the question on the same subject asked by the hon. Member for West Houghton on the 20th of March last. As my right hon. Friend then explained, the men in question enjoy special privileges in respect of pay. I did not consider that I should be justified in allowing their position to be still further improved. The amount of the increased allowance is therefore deducted from their civil pay, leaving the total emoluments the same as before.
    Colonel ASHLEY: In view of the Circular issued in 1914, ought not the Post Office to keep its terms?
    Mr. PEASE: There has been no breach of contract in regard to this, and we have not necessarily to cover all the increased charges.

    MINISTRY OF HEALTH.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUELasked whether the Government propose to introduce before the Adjournment a Bill for the establishment of a Ministry of Health?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The Committee of Home Affairs have made good progress with the consideration of the Bill, and
    1804
    hope shortly to get their proposals into shape, but it is not yet possible to say whether the Bill can be introduced before the Adjournment.
    Mr. WATT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that such a Bill will not be an incontentious measure in this House?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: If it is introduced, I hope that it will be a non-contentious measure.
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Is there to be any limitation to the size and the number of Departments that are created, which will create fresh offices in the House of Commons?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Is it not a matter of opinion?
    Captain SHEEHANasked whether it is intended that Ireland shall be brought within the scope of the measure setting up a Ministry of Health in this country?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: This is not at present proposed, but any suggestion which may be made by Irish Members on the subject will, of course, receive consideration.
    Mr. NUGENT: Has any effort been made to ascertain what is the opinion in Ireland in reference to this question?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: As far as I know no effort has been made. As a rule Irish Members do not require any effort to be made for us to find out what they want.
    Mr. NUGENT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Insurance Commissioners have already had communications on this matter, and has any effort been made to elicit the opinion of the people at all?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not aware of the fact.
    Mr. FLAVIN: Would not the provision of housing accommodation in Ireland do much more to benefit the health of the people than the establishment of a Ministry of Health?

    PEERESSES (RIGHT TO SIT IN UPPER HOUSE).
    Major NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether the question of the right of Peeresses to be summoned to the Upper

    1805
    Chamber is being considered concurrently with the question of the admission of women to this House?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer is in the negative.

    GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS (FIRMS OF ENEMY ORIGIN).
    Major NEWMANasked the Prime, Minister whether he is aware of a resolution passed on the 17th instant by the Council of the London Master Printers' Association recording its emphatic protest against the continued placing of Government work with firms controlled by persons of enemy origin and requesting that the names of all such firms shall immediately be removed from the list of Government contractors for at least the duration of the War; and what action does he propose to take?
    Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): I have seen a copy of this resolution. I am now in communication with the Stationery Office on the question of the placing of contracts with persons of enemy origin.

    OIL BORING (UNITED KINGDOM).
    Mr. G. LAMBERTasked the Prime Minister if the Government are prepared at once to take advantage of Messrs. S. Pearsons and Sons' offer to place their staff at the national disposal by immediately introducing legislation to enable this expert knowledge to be utilised in boring and exploring for oil, which is a vital motive power for the British Navy?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot add any thing to the answer which I gave on the 15th July to the hon. Members for Leominster and Leicester.
    Mr. LAMBERT: When is it hoped to introduce legislation to deal with this vital subject?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am afraid that it may not be possible to introduce it before the Recess.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the whole plan for boring for oil in this country has been delayed, while awaiting the settlement of
    1806
    a Government squabble, and that meanwhile the oil, which is vital for the Navy, is not being bored for in this country?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I hope that there will be no delay. Up to now there has been none.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Has there not been delay since March last?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I think not. I think that the machinery has not been ready.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it not a fact that the sole opposition comes from the landlord interest in this country?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: That is not my information.
    Major McMICKING: Is it not a fact that engineers and machinery are actually in this country?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I believe that they are now.

  ALIENS.

    ENEMY BANKS.
    Mr. MACLEODasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the advisability of creating an asset trust company, similar to that created at the time of the liquidation of the City of Glasgow Bank, to purchase all the remaining assets of the enemy banks, and so expedite the winding-up of the enemy banks.
    Sir A. STANLEY: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. The suggestion made by my hon. Friend shall be considered when the Official Receiver has had time to make himself more fully acquainted with the position and the nature of the outstanding assets.

    MACHINE-GUN AND LANDSCAPE TARGETS.
    Captain BARNETTasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether the firm of Weiner and Company, now supplying machine-gun targets and landscape targets to the Army through the Stationery Office, consists of one man, Joseph Weiner, an officer in the Austrian Cavalry, who was naturalised in this country in 1906; whether he is aware that Weiner was managing director of Weiner's Litho-graphic Printing and Advertising Company, Limited, which failed in 1910 with liabilities amounting to £8,708 and assets

    1807
    nil; and that the Official Receiver was of opinion that the failure was in great measure attributable to the large payments made to Weiner himself for salary, expenses, rent, and advertising; and whether steps will be taken to ensure that future contracts issued by the Stationery Office shall be given exclusively to British firms of standing and repute?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I understand that the facts are as stated, and that nothing is known as to Mr. Weiner having been an officer in the Austrian Cavalry. The Stationery Office was not till now aware of the previous history of the company, but before orders were placed with it inquiries which were made at the Board of Trade, the War Trade Department, and Scotland Yard elicited replies to the effect that nothing was known against it.
    Captain BARNETT: Can my hon. Friend give the House an assurance that these alien firms will be struck off the Stationery Office's list?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Enfield earlier.

    HOLZAPFELS, LIMITED.
    Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any of the persons concerned in the management of Holzapfels, Limited, or employed by them, are of enemy birth; if so, how many; and whether any of such enemy-born persons are allowed access to any docks or prohibited areas in order that they may carry out their duties in connection with the business of Holzapfels, Limited?
    Sir A. STANLEY: I am informed that three persons of enemy birth who are naturalised British subjects are employed by Holzapfels, Limited, that two are employed exclusively in London and do not visit any docks or prohibited areas, and that the third is employed in Cardiff, which is in a prohibited area, but that he does not visit the docks.

    COTTON AND COTTON WASTE PURCHASES.
    Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Minister of Munitions whether the Ministry of Munitions have, during the last three years, made any important purchases of cotton or cotton waste from any firm in this country of which any of the
    1808
    partners are of enemy birth; and, if so, will he state the name of such firm and the total amount of business transacted with them?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I have had inquiries made respecting our purchases of cotton and cotton waste, and I am informed that the answer to the question is—No, Sir.

    BRITISH WAR SECURITIES (HOLDINGS IN UNITED STATES).
    Mr. RUNCIMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state what are the approximate amounts of British War Loans, Exchequer Bonds, and War Bonds, respectively, estimated to be held in the United States of America on the 30th of June, 1918; and what was the amount of other debt held by persons and institutions in, and by the Government of, the United States on that date?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have no figures for the amount of British Government sterling obligations held in the United States, but the figure is believed to be insignificant. The amount of dollar obligations for which the British Treasury is ultimately responsible issued during the War to persons and institutions in, or to the Government of, the United States up to the 30th June was $4,245,418,000, or, say, £891,000,000 at the present rate of exchange. This includes any small amounts which may have been subsequently transferred to Canadian or other investors outside the United States.

    NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUELasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that it is now seven months since the Select Committee on National Expenditure recommended the appointment of an expert Committee to investigate the extent of the increase in the cost of living, and four months since a Committee for that purpose was appointed; and if he will say when the Committee will present its Report?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: My right hon. Friend will realise that this inquiry, if it is to be of real value, involves the collection and consideration of a very great number of household budgets, which must necessarily take a considerable time.

    1809
    The inquiry is being conducted as expeditiously as possible, but, as I stated, on the 16th instant, in answer to the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark, the Committee do not think that they will be able to report before the autumn.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    WHEAT STRAW.
    Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the Order recently issued by his Department forbidding farmers to use wheat straw for bedding; is he aware that wheat straw is practically useless for feeding purposes, and, that being so, will he explain the recent Order, which handicaps the farmers without benefiting the public; and is he also aware that wheat straw makes by far the best manure, and that, as corn cannot be grown without manure, he will see the advisability of amending the Order?
    Sir A. STANLEY: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. The Order recently issued by the Board of Trade, which prohibits the use of straw for the purpose of bedding horses, definitely exempts horses engaged in agriculture. The point raised in the question does not, therefore, arise.
    Mr. G. LAMBERT: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly tell us what the farmers are to do with their straw?

    CORN.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is now in a position to say what the price of corn is to be after the harvest?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD (Major Astor): I have been asked to reply. The matter is still under consideration, but it is hoped to make an announcement at an early date

    AUTUMN PLOUGHING.
    Colonel ROYDSasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that a number of tractors at the disposal of the Food Production Department for autumn ploughing are Fordson's with the Oliver plough attached; and, seeing
    1810
    that in the opinion of many practical farmers this combination is not the best suited for the work required in most counties, if he will say what provision is being made for a supply of a heavier type of tractor?
    Sir R. WINFREY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part of the question, there are already in the counties some 1,700 heavier tractors provided by the Food Production Department, which it is proposed to retain. It is anticipated that a further 200 heavy tractors will be provided. In view of the decision not to break up a large additional quantity of grass land, it is not proposed that the Food Production Department should supply more heavy tractors.

    CHEESE.
    Captain WRIGHTasked the Food Controller whether a resolution, passed by the Dinmore and District Farmers' Cooperative Society, Limited, Herefordshire, has been brought to his notice; whether he will reconsider his decision not to appoint local cheese factors in the county of Hereford, which involves unnecessary transport as well as denudes the county of a necessary and accustomed article of food; and whether, having regard to the increase in the price of milk, coal, and other articles used in its manufacture, and the rise in wages, he will at an early date announce the price for cheese made since the 1st of July, 1918?
    Major ASTOR: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. If upon further inquiry the amount of cheese produced in Herefordshire is found to warrant the appointment of a local factor, there will be no objection to such appointment, but this will not affect the ultimate destination of the cheese produced, for the reasons given to the hon. Member on 15th July. The prices for cheese made since 1st July, 1918, have already been announced.
    Captain WRIGHT: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether a certain proportion, at any rate, of the output will be available for the local consumers?
    Major ASTOR: I will see to that.

    SWEETMEATS AND POTATOES (IRELAND).
    Mr. FIELDasked the Food Controller whether his attention has been directed to the deputation attending the

    1811
    Dublin Chamber of Commerce respecting the complaints of sweetmeats and confectionery associations; and whether any arrangement has been made respecting the price and supply of potatoes in Ireland?
    Major ASTOR: The Sweetmeat Restriction Order of 12th April, 1918, did not apply to Ireland, but at the request of the Irish Food Control Committee an Order was issued on 31st May, which imposed in the case of Ireland restrictions very similar to those imposed upon the sale of sweetmeats in Great Britain by the previous Order. I gather that the Council of the Dublin Chamber of Commerce were not in favour of the extension of these restrictions to Ireland. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative, except that arrangements have been made for the purchase of the exportable surplus of sound ware potatoes at the prices which have already been announced.

    MEAT (IMPORTED).
    Sir F. HALLasked the Food Controller whether he is aware that over 100 tons of poor-conditioned imported meat, worth about £12,000, was condemned during the period from the 13th to 17th July; who was responsible for the purchase and exportation of this meat from abroad; what steps are being taken to obviate such mistakes in the future; whether instructions have been cabled that no further quantities of emaciated cow-meat are to be purchased in future; and what was the date when such instructions were given?
    Major ASTOR: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The meat in question was of sound quality, but became unfit for consumption owing to defective refrigerating arrangements in the vessel on which it was shipped. The contracts for purchase have always provided that the meat should be of good quality; the conditions of shipment are now being supervised by a special representative of the Ministry of Food.

    FEEDING CAKES AND CAKE MEALS.
    Mr. FARRELLasked the Food Controller if his office has complete control over the allocation of feeding cakes and cake meals as between Great Britain and Ireland?
    Major ASTOR: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. FARRELLasked the estimated monthly output of cattle-feeding cakes and cake meals made in the three Kingdoms?
    Major ASTOR: The estimated monthly output of cattle-feeding cakes and cake meals in the United Kingdom is slightly in excess of 50,000 tons. It must be borne in mind that this amount depends upon the finance being forthcoming for purchase of oil seeds and the shipping being available for their transportation.
    Mr. FLAVIN: What proportion of these cattle-feeding cakes goes to Ireland?
    Major ASTOR: I should require notice of that.
    Mr. FLAVIN: Is he aware that practically for the last twelve or eighteen months none went to Ireland, but all was kept in this country?

    MARGARINE TRADE (MEN OF MILITARY AGE).
    Mr. WATTasked the Food Controller how many of the expert staff of over military age of the various margarine manufacturers displaced by the Government taking over this trade have been employed in the London clearing house for margarine; how many men of military age are at present employed there; and was a promise made to employ displaced men if over military age?
    Major ASTOR: The total number of men previously in the employment of margarine manufacturers who were over military age at the date of their appointment on the staff of the Margarine Clearing House is twenty-two. The total number of men of military age now employed in the Clearing House is sixty-six; of these thirty-four have served in His Majesty's Forces, and a further eighteen were at the time of their appointment over military age. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative. Manufacturers were invited to nominate members of their staffs for appointment at the Clearing House, and the nominations received were carefully considered having regard to the needs of the Clearing House, the salaries required, and the qualifications of the nominees for the posts which had to be filled.
    Mr. WATT: Could not some of these twenty-two over military age who have not been employed be utilised to replace those in London who are of military age?
    Major ASTOR: I will have the matter looked into.

  POSTAL CLERKS (TEMPORARY).

    INFLUENZA EPIDEMIC.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction amongst the temporary staff at the different branches of the Accountant-General's Department on account of, the amount of pay; if he will state what is the rate of pay for temporary clerks in this Department; if he is aware that the temporary women clerks in this Department at Lincoln House, Holborn, are called upon to perform twelve hours' extra duty weekly; if he will state what the rate of pay is for this extra duty; and if he will state the number of resignations and dismissals from the staff at Lincoln House during the last three months?
    Mr. PIKE PEASE: The normal pay of temporary male clerks in the Accountant-General's Department is 42s. a week, plus 13s. war bonus, and for women the pay ranges from 21s. to 35s., plus 9s. war bonus. I am not aware of any complaint from the women, and a complaint from the men last year was met by an increase beyond 42s. in certain cases.
    Owing to shortage of staff at Lincoln House, and the epidemic of influenza, each clerk in good health has been called upon to perform up to twelve hours extra duty a week since the 15th instant, but the extra duty actually performed last week averaged only ten hours, and prior to that date the average was about six hours. The extra duty rate varies from 7d. to 10d. an hour.
    The number of resignations from the Lincoln House staff during April, May, and June was thirty-six. There were no dismissals.
    I may say that the influenza epidemic has been a serious matter in the Central Telegraph Office, where we have had as many as 700 people off in one day.

    DYESTUFFS (IMPORTATION).
    Mr. NEEDHAMasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in connection with the licensing authority for the import of dyestuffs which he proposes to set up, he contemplates forming a fully
    1814
    representative dye consumers' committee; and whether special regard will be paid to the interests of the smaller consumers of dyestuffs?
    Sir A. STANLEY: As I have already stated in this House, it is intended that the licensing authority shall consist of equal numbers of representatives of dye users and dye makers, who will be nominated by the respective interests, with an independent chairman appointed by the Board of Trade. Every care will be taken to secure that the needs of small consumers shall have full consideration.

    WAR AIMS COMMITTEE.
    Mr. RUNCIMANasked the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury whether he will have placed in the Library or newspaper room copies of all the newspaper supplements or pictorial sheets supplied by the War Aims Committee to such journals as care to accept them?
    Colonel SANDERS (Treasurer of the Household): The War Aims Committee are glad of the widest publicity, and, if it be the desire of Members, I will see whether arrangements can be made to have the publications referred to laid in the Library.

  MUNITIONS.

    STRIKE AMONG WORKERS.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Minister of Munitions, with reference to the unrest in the munition areas, whether, having regard to the fact that the vast majority of skilled workers recognise the necessity of some scheme of rationing skilled labour, he will not set up joint councils or committees, as recommended by the Whitley Report, so that employers and workmen may devise means of increasing the mobility of skilled labour?
    The MINISTER of MUNITIONS (Mr. Churchill): I have already stated, in reply to a resolution passed at Coventry, that it is open to a trade union advisory committee, or any branch of it, to discuss the administration of any scheme affecting labour. It is very difficult to express an opinion as to machinery without the necessary discussion with the responsible representatives of labour and also with

    1815
    the representatives of the employers. But if from these bodies we receive suggestions of a practical character, the machinery exists for their discussion, and it would be quite easy to carry any decision come to into effect.
    Sir F. HALL: May I ask whether, when the 12½ per cent. bonus was granted, that was done entirely in accordance with the representatives of Labour, whether they were consulted, and whether their advice was entirely followed?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Really, the difficulty of the 12½ per cent. bonus, I think, is past. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] We have enough difficulties to consider at the present time.
    Mr. TYSON WILSON: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman's Department, before issuing orders affecting the policy of the Government, and also the conditions of the workpeople, consult the people directly affected, and, if not, will he, before issuing these orders; consult the people, and therefore avoid this strike and the threatened strike?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: We do our utmost, as far as possible, to consult with the responsible representatives of the working classes as represented by the principal trade unions in the country. On the other hand, we do not try to make these men responsible for action which properly falls to the Government to decide. It would not be fair that we should do so. We hear their opinions. We take their advice. But we do not claim in all circumstances their support. In this case we have taken fully and thoroughly over a long period of weeks, even of months, the advice and the opinion of the responsible leaders of the trade unions. What is occurring now is action which is not supported—which has not been initiated—by those responsible leaders nor by the local leaders, but by other forces unorganised, or at any rate unofficially organised, which are below them, who have pressed forward their point of view. While one endeavours on all occasions to consult and keep in touch with those concerned, it really is not possible while administering the government of such an immense body of workers to deal with any particular section who happen, however unofficially and informally their constitution may be, to have put forward a strong view. If you
    1816
    were to do that you would really fatally weaken the authority of the recognised and responsible leaders.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Arising out of that, I wish to ask the Minister whether it is not the case that, in connection with a former dispute at Coventry, a promise was made to act in conjunction with the representatives of the shop stewards as well as the responsible trade union leaders; whether that policy has been pursued; and, further, whether it is not the case that the great majority of the troubles in the munitions areas in the country have been due to the Government policy of confining their consultations to those described as the responsible heads of the trade unions, and of ignoring others who really are entitled to represent the men?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir; I think that would be a most unjust charge. In the first place, so far as the Ministry of Munitions is concerned, we are always ready to meet the responsible leaders or any persons of a representative character that they may wish to bring with them. If, for instance, any trade union or skilled union affected said, "We should like to bring delegations of shop stewards here or there," we would readily meet them—that is in London. In addition to that, discussions have been proceeding between our representatives and the men in the local centres, and have proceeded with these very shop stewards and with organisations still more unofficial than they are. There has been absolutely no lack of touch or of discussion. I must say that I believe there is very little misunderstanding on either side, as to the issues involved.
    Sir F. HALL: Arising out of the reply to my former question, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman does not attribute the present trouble to the attitude which was adopted in November last, when he first gave this 12½ per cent.; whether he does not think that the system of granting these increases from one Department without consultation or co-operation with the other Departments concerned is a suicidal policy to adopt in this or any other country?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Certainly not!
    Mr. D. MASON: Is the right hon. Gentleman willing to-day to call a conference of all those concerned?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: To call a conference of all those concerned would mean many scores of thousands of persons. I cannot do that.
    Mr. MASON: No, no; I did not mean that!
    Mr. CHURCHILL: It is not practical machinery.
    Mr. MASON: Does not the right hon. Gentleman know that all those concerned have certain delegates who represent them, and will he not, therefore, call a conference of these representatives?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The difficulty in this matter is that one does not know who represents these persons. I should like to point out to the House that the local associations representing these trades—not the general trade union, but the local body—have themselves called upon the men to remain at their work, and they have been thrown over by the purely unorganised forces.
    Mr. MASON: Would the right hon. Gentleman try to find out?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: There is no need to do so.

    HEADQUARTERS STAFF (HONORARY WORKERS).
    Sir J. WALTONasked the Minister of Munitions how many honorary workers in the Ministry of Munitions receive no subsistence allowance of any kind when working in London; and how many of the forty-one honorary workers, so called, who receive a subsistence allowance of £1 1s. or £1 per day have received titles or honours since they became connected with the Ministry of Munitions?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY Of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): The number of honorary workers on the headquarter staff of the Ministry who receive no subsistence allowance when working in London is 205. Of the 41 persons who are paid an allowance of £1 or £1 1s. a day, 8 have received titles or honours since they entered the service of the Ministry.

    OIL PRODUCTS
    Mr. WRIGHTasked the Minister of Munitions if he will state what is the estimated tonnage of cannels, shales, jacks, batts, and gees now lying on the pit-heaps and being daily brought to the
    1818
    pit-head, all of which are capable of oil production and produce from 16 to 60 gallons of oil to the ton; and what is the number of retorts available to deal with this tonnage?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: The quantity of cannels, jacks, and the like material capable of producing more than 20 gallons of oil per ton at present being brought to the pitheads amounts to about 2,000 tons per day. The quantity of similar material of as high a grade lying on the pitheads is inconsiderable. No estimate can be given of the quantity of less valuable material of the like nature at present being brought to pithead or lying on the pithead.
    The quantity of shale daily brought to the surface is 8,876 tons. None is lying on the pitheads except what is kept as a working reserve. The Minister of Munitions has no difficulty in dealing with all the material available.
    Mr. WRIGHT: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if the figures he has just given agree with the figures of the Petroleum Research Committee's Report?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: Certainly. I am glad to say that the Report of Lord Crowe's Committee has been laid as a White Paper, and I hope my hon. Friend will read it and study it.
    Captain BARNETT: Is this material being utilised at the gas works?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: At present it is being used at the gas works.

    BRUNOLINUM (EXPORT).
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions whether he is aware that British subjects own 75 per cent. of the 2,000,000 acres in the world planted with rubber, which may be valued at £200,000,000, and is a great Imperial asset, that development is impeded by canker and pink and other diseases, that quantities of Brunolinum Plantarium are needed to cure such diseases, that no licence is granted for the purchase and delivery of tar-oils other than creosote, that such tar-oils are needed for the manufacture of Brunolinum, for which light oils, distilling not less than 50 per cent. at 200 degrees centigrade, are useless; that Brunolinum supplants a German preparation used before the War; and whether, in view of these considerations, he will remove, so far as possible, such obstacles

    1819
    as exist to the export of Brunolinum to rubber plantations in the British Empire and to plantations belonging to British subjects?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: With the approval of the Secretary of State for the Colonies permission has been given for the export of substantial quantities of products required for the purpose of preventing the spread of disease in rubber plantations, preferential treatment being given to the plantations of the British Empire.
    Brunolinum Plantarium is a proprietary brand prepared from such products. I can express no opinion whether it is more efficacious than other brands, but the firm producing it have received equal facilities with those accorded to manufacturers of other brands, who have raised no objections to the use of light oils.
    The policy of the Ministry in this matter has been controlled by the necessity of conserving tar oils as fuel for the Navy.
    Mr. FLAVIN: Can the hon. Gentleman say how many rubber companies the hon. Baronet who puts the question has been actually interested in by way of being a director or a chairman of a company?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I have not thought it necessary to make that inquiry.

    LONDON GENERAL OMNIBUS COMPANY (SUBSIDY).
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Minister of Munitions what were the grounds on which the London General Omnibus Company applied for a subsidy for their motor omnibuses in South-East London; whether the subsidy is paid yearly, half-yearly, or quarterly; whether it is paid on the total mileage run by the omnibuses per week, including Sundays, or if it is only paid on the estimated mileage run when carrying munition workers; can he state if the omnibuses have to give preference to the munition workers on all routes over all other passengers; and can he give any estimate of the total number of munition workers carried on the various omnibus routes since the subsidy has been paid?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: The original agreement with the London General Omnibus Company provided that the services in the Woolwich area should be supplied without charge to the Ministry, and it was only when the company stated that they
    1820
    were unable to continue these services without the aid of a subsidy that terms were arranged. The company renders quarterly statements of account. As stated by the present Minister of Blockade in his reply to my hon. Friend on the 18th June, the amount of the present Grant is based on the difference between the average earnings per mile of the omnibuses in the South-Eastern area as compared with the average earnings of the omnibuses in the remainder of the Metropolis, subject to certain conditions. The question of giving preference to munition workers was considered, and was found to be impracticable. The number of Arsenal and dockyard workers using the omnibuses is approximately 13,500 a day.
    Mr. F. WHYTE: Has the hon. Gentleman changed his former opinions regarding this company?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: We are all exposed to many permutations.
    Mr. WATT: Are we to understand that no fares are charged on these buses to munition workers?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: Certainly not. Fares are charged. It is not a charity.

  PRISONERS OF WAR.

    LIEUTENANT V. E. OSBORNE (OXFORD AND BUCKS REGIMENT).
    Major Sir B. FALLEasked the hon. Member for Sheffield (Central Division) if he can give any information as to Lieutenant Victor E. Osborne, Oxford and Bucks Regiment, attached Machine Gun Corps, who was made a prisoner of war and sent to Limburg on 3rd April, 1918, and who is reported by the Prisoners of War Committee to have been shot in the compound when he was, it was stated, attempting to escape?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I regret I have no information beyond that contained in an official German list of dead forwarded through the Geneva Red Cross, which is to the effect that Lieutenant Osborne died on the 7th April, 1918, having been shot whilst attempting to escape.
    Sir B. FALLE: Will the hon. Gentleman inquire into this matter?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: We have, of course, inquired at once, and we are now making full inquiries.

    FOOD AND CLOTHING TOE TURKEY.
    Mr. PETOasked the hon. Member for Sheffield (Central Division) whether he will give detailed particulars of the food and clothing to be sent to British and Indian prisoners in Turkey by the ship which is to convey Turkish prisoners to be repatriated under the Berne Agreement; whether the food will all be packed in airtight tins; whether the shipment will include medical requisites and comforts; when it will be dispatched; and whether he can say what prospect there is of the various consignments reaching their destinations and at what date?
    Mr. J. HOPE (Lord of the Treasury): The details asked for by my hon. Friend have been worked out by the authorities at the War Office, and I cannot give full particulars to-day. The date of shipment depends on when the Turkish Government gives the stipulated notification under the Berne Agreement, and that unfortunately has not yet been received.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: In view of the fact that the amount of food is not adequate for two months, will not my hon. Friend reconsider his decision not to give the details of the food sent?
    Mr. HOPE: I am afraid I cannot give that answer offhand.
    Mr. PETO: May I ask whether in this shipment any provision is being made for the Indian prisoners in Turkey?
    Mr. HOPE: Oh, yes, there is.
    Mr. PETO: Will it be adequate, and for how many months?
    Mr. HOPE: I understand that the first shipment will take two months' supply, but I have a great deal of material which it has been impossible to comprise in the limits of a Parliamentary answer.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Is it not the fact that the clothing for the Indians will not be taken in this ship?
    Mr. HOPE: I do not think so. Perhaps my Noble Friend will put the question down.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Will my hon. Friend make inquiries about that?
    Mr. HOPE: My Noble Friend had better put down a question.

    CORRESPONDENCE WITH RELATIVES.
    Sir F. HALLasked the hon. Member for Sheffield (Central Division) whether he is aware that British prisoners in the hands of the Germans are, in a number of cases, precluded from corresponding, either by postcard or letter, with their relatives and friends except at intervals of many months; whether the same system is adopted with regard to correspondence from German prisoners in our hands; and, if not, whether immediate steps will be taken to inform the Gorman Government that if there is not more freedom allowed with respect to correspondence of our prisoners in their hands the same course will be stringently carried out with regard to German prisoners in this country?
    Mr. HOPE: The correspondence of prisoners of war is one of the matters dealt with in the Agreement recently concluded at The Hague, and it is hoped that if the Agreement is ratified the abuses referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend will be removed.
    Sir F. HALL: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me whether, in the event of my putting this question down later in the Session, it will be possible for the Government to give me a reply?
    Mr. HOPE: I was under the impression I had given the hon. and gallant Gentleman a reply.
    Sir F. HALL: May I put it this way? When does the hon. Gentleman expect to receive any reply as to what is going to be done, owing to the representatives of the Government being at The Hague recently?
    Mr. HOPE: I really do not comprehend my hon. and gallant Friend's point.
    Sir F. HALL: I am sorry my hon. Friend does not follow it. May I put it this way? When will he be in a position to inform the House as to what arrangements have been come to with regard to prisoners of war in Germany, owing to the meeting of The Hague Convention?
    Mr. HOPE: I understand my hon. and gallant Friend wants to know when the text of The Hague Agreement will be published. I am afraid it cannot be published until ratified by the respective Governments.
    Sir F. HALL: Can he give me any idea when that will be?
    Mr. HOPE: That depends on the German Government as much as ourselves.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Is it likely to be before the House adjourns?
    Mr. HOPE: It is impossible to say. It depends on the German Government.

TITHE (AMENDMENT) BILL.
4.0 P.M.
The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Prothero): I beg to move, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Tithe Acts, 1836–1891."
4.0 p.m.
The House is no doubt aware that the value of tithe rent-charge has risen very rapidly during the War. In 1914 it stood at 76, to-day it stands at 109, and there is every prospect it will continue to rapidly increase in value. The increase is solely due to the War, and it has not been affected by Part I. of the Corn Production Act. The tithe rent-charge is now paid by the owner, but in most cases, except where the owner is also the occupier, he derives no benefit from the increase in prices, and, although it is true he is legally entitled to raise the rent as a remedy for the increased burden, generally speaking landowners have not resorted to that remedy, notwithstanding the fact that the increase of burden has been very considerable. Under these circumstances it is suggested that the tithe rent-charge should be fixed temporarily at its present height, and that there should be increased facilities for redemption. Most of the tithe rent-charge in this country is owned by ecclesiastical bodies, and so far as I have been able to understand, in consultation with the official representatives of the clerical tithe owners, they are disposed to consider favourably any reasonable proposal on the lines suggested. The present Bill deals with this question in this way: The tithe rent-charge shall stand at its present value for seven years, and tithe payers are to be enabled to redeem the rent-charge without the present limitation of 20s. and without the consent of the tithe owner. The redemption money instead of being, as at present, twenty-five times the original commutation figure will be such amount as in each case is agreed between the tithe owner and the tithe payer, and in default of such agreement it will be such sum as is considered by the Board of
1824
Agriculture to be reasonable compensation. An agreement by the incumbent will not require the consent of the bishop or patron, but must be approved by Queen Anne's Bounty. The Bill also provides greater facilities for the conversion of corn rents and for the redemption of such rent. Some day, of course, it may be desirable that Parliament should consider some larger scheme for the extinction of tithe rent-charge, but as a temporary expedient I hope the House will approve the proposals contained in this Bill, which it is intended to ask the House to discuss when we meet again after the Adjournment.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Prothero, Sir George Cave, and Sir Richard Winfrey.
TITHE BILL,—"to amend the Tithe Acts, 1836 to 1891," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 75.]

Ordered, That Mr. Brady and Mr. Mooney be added to the Select Committee on emergency legislation.—[Lord Edmund Talbot.]

CONSOLIDATION BILLS (JOINT COMMITTEE).
Report from the Joint Committee in respect of the Income Tax Bill [Lords] (pending in the Lords) brought up, and read;
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 95.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—
Parliament and Local Elections Bill, with an Amendment
Amendments to—
British Gas Light Company (Norwich) Bill [Lords],
Morcambe Corporation Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill intituled "An Act to confer upon the trustees of the will and codicils of the late John Graham Smith, deceased, further powers

1825
for the management, development, and improvement of the estates subject to the trusts of such will and codicils, and to extend the time for the exercise of the powers of such trustees; and for other purposes." [Smith Estate Bill [Lords.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
South Suburban Gas Bill,
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Smith Estate Bill [Lords],
Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

PARLIAMENT AND LOCAL ELECTIONS BILL.
Lords Amendment to be considered Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 76.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. DILLON: I should like to ask the Leader of the House whether he can now say if he will give time for a discussion of the Motion standing in the name of the hon. Member for East Mayo [Government of Ireland]?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes, Sir. I propose that the discussion should take place on Monday next.
  Mr. DILLON: I ought to have mentioned to the right hon. Gentleman, from communications which have reached me, that I fear it will be practically impossible to conclude the discussion on one day. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"]
  Mr. BONAR LAW: At this stage of the Session I should have thought it was hardly reasonable to ask for more than one day. I hope that one day will be found sufficient for the discussion.
  Mr. DILLON: On a point of Order. May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that we, the Irish party, have not taken any of the two or three days to which we were entitled for Supply?
  An HON. MEMBER: Where were you?
  Mr. DILLON: Well, we are here now.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I can assure the House that the Government have no desire to burke discussion on this subject—not a bit! If they found it necessary, we would consider the proposal of the hon. Gentleman to have another day. I would point out, however, that as regards the two days of Supply referred to by the hon. Gentleman, that that really does not affect the issue, because other subjects would probably have been taken. Of course, it is much easier to make arrangements at the early part of the Session than it is now.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: May I ask what Orders will be taken to-day, and whether the House will sit on Friday?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: We hope to take all the Orders down to No. 8 (Naval Prize Bill—Committee), inclusive, and, if possible, Order No. 12 (Corn Production (Amendment) Bill [Lords]—Committee).
  I am afraid it will be necessary for the House to sit on Friday. If, however, we have good fortune with our Bills, that may not be necessary.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I note that the Vote for the Ministry of Information appears as a Supplementary Vote. This is the first time that the Vote for this Department has been before the House. I am Chairman of a Sub-committee, and this afternoon we have been dealing with the matter. As the Report will be before the Committee on Tuesday, we may have the Report printed and in the hands of the Members of this House on Wednesday. May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will not, therefore, postpone the taking of this Vote until Wednesday or Thursday of next week, when the House will have had the advantage of seeing the Report of the Committee?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I think there is a difficulty about doing this which I cannot deal with on the spur of the moment. If it is to be included, as I think it must be, in the Consolidated Fund Bill, then it can be postponed. I shall have to look into the matter.
  Mr. KING: Is it intended to set up the Select Committee which stands on the Order Paper to-day (Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill)? It was not mentioned by the right, hon. Gentleman. There is likely to be some opposition to it.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: It is proposed, I think, to set it up. I do not think, however, that we are likely to have any opposition.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: In reference to the Vote for the Ministry of Information, I think it would possibly be for the convenience of Members of the House if the Vote could be taken after the Report of the Sub-committee, to which my right hon. Friend has referred, is available. So long as it is taken before Supply is completed would not that be in time?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: That is really a question which I cannot answer on the spur of the moment. We shall look into it, and it will be mentioned later in the day.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the Vote comes on almost at once? I understand the Government War Obligations Bill will take a very short time?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: It is the last of the Supplementary Estimates. There will be plenty of time after the others to mention our decision.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: Is it intended to make a statement as to the proposed expenditure upon the Ministry of Information? The right hon. Gentleman has, I think, promised to the House that in every case—as in this—where a Token Vote is put down that he would, by means of a White Paper, or some other method, bring to the notice of the House the intended expenditure of the Department.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am sure my right hon. Friend will understand that I cannot answer this question without notice. When the subject comes up all that will be answered.
  Mr. FRANCE: Will the Admiralty Vote for Shipbuilding (No. 8) be taken next week?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I understand it will be asked for next week, and, if so, it will be put down.
  Sir F. BANBURY: May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the Report will contain references to the estimates made by the Department which are considered of very vital importance?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot say more than I have said. Obviously we cannot now discuss the question.
  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."—[The Chancellor of the Exchequer.]

  GOVERNMENT WAR OBLIGATIONS BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  It will be within the memory of the House that Bills of this nature were passed in 1914, 1915, and 1916, and in each case they contained an undertaking that certain liabilities which had been incurred should be secured for the future. In the first Section of the first Clause of this Bill we continue the guarantee given in the three preceding Acts. With regard to the amount of the guarantee, I may point out that in the early part of the War we guaranteed to the holders of
  1848
  bills—discounters and acceptors—an amount which totalled up originally to a liability of something like £150,000,000. The House will be interested to hear today that that amount has been reduced to under £30,000,000, and there is no further charge now, because there has been no further obligation incurred since the year 1915, and whatever comes in now comes in in the nature of repayment. There was also an amount guaranteed in connection with bills of exchange drawn by traders having foreign debts, and amounting to something over £500,000. Only £180,000 of that is now outstanding. The money is being collected slowly, and in the event of any sum out of the total being irrecoverable, the liability of the State is limited to 75 per cent., so that if nothing more comes in under that guarantee the total liability of the State will not exceed £135,000. Beyond that, there were insurances given to shipping cargoes, and that, of course, is a figure which cannot be made public at present for obvious reasons. The next item, which is a continuing item, is money advanced in connection with the food supply of this country. That money, of course, has to be advanced regularly in large sums, but as it is advanced other sums come back. The policy of the Government throughout has been to try and control prices, with the object that the ultimate loss to the State on this account shall be at least negligible. There are other certain obligations impossible to estimate, but of a considerably less amount than those to which I have hitherto referred. There are also payments that have been or may be made for plant in connection with the production of munitions. In 1915 we incurred obligations for the relief of and compensation to fishermen and sailors of the mercantile marine, and in connection with insurances for these two classes of the community. Again, it is not possible at present to give any figure connected with that expenditure, because it would mean giving valuable information to the enemy as to the losses we have sustained by submarine warfare. But I am quite confident that whatever charge there may be on the Exchequer for purposes of that kind, it will be borne gladly both by the House and the country.
  The only other additional obligations incurred in the Bill of that year were expenses connected with the restriction of supplies to the enemy, and the expenses incurred in connection with foreign

  1849
  exchanges under the Treasury scheme for the deposit of securities. In 1916 there was a fresh obligation in the form of a guarantee for a Bank loan for £123,000 to Scarborough in connection with the bombardment, and a guarantee of £50,000 for ten years to the British-Italian Corporation, the money to be repayable by that corporation. That matter was debated at length in the year 1916 in this House. The Bill this year merely continues in force, the first Section of the first Clause of each of the preceding Acts, with a continuation, so far as is necessary, of the obligations to which I have referred. We have only one new obligation this year, and that, I am glad to think, will not involve any charge on the Exchequer. It is contained in the second Section, and it is a guarantee to indemnify the Portuguese Government for any claim that may arise on British-owned cargoes in interned enemy vessels, whether by shipowners, captains, or third parties. In each case we are secured by a corresponding indemnity given to us by the cargo owners, which indemnity in its turn is guaranteed by a British bank of substantial standing. I think this brief résume of the provisions of the Bill will show the House the nature and extent of the obligations contained in it, and I trust hon. Members will agree that the progress made in the liquidation of some of the earlier obligations incurred at the beginning of the War is satisfactory. It will also be a source of satisfaction, I think, that the only obligation we have incurred this year is one that will throw no ultimate loss on the Exchequer. I am reminded of one guarantee I have omitted, and that is the guarantee in connection with the scheme of flax pro-Suction in Ireland. It is limited to £600,000, and will only be called upon in case of need. It concerns an article which is absolutely necessary for the prosecution of the War, and, incidentally, we all of us may hope that the cultivation of the article will bring some prosperity to Ireland.
  Sir W. ESSEX: I should like to ask a question with regard to the taking over by the Government of the whole of the corn supply of the country, and with reference to their dealing with it at a profit. As to the monopoly established by the Government in this and other matters, a question arises which I think the House has not taken sufficient notice of up to the present. Certain articles are being dealt with
  1850
  wholesale by the Government, and the whole supply is being taken over. Army wants are supplied therefrom, and the balance is handed over for civilian uses. The price to civilians is controlled primarily by the Government. What I want to get at is whether the net profits are handed over, as has been the immemorial custom of this country, to the Exchequer, or whether the various Departments dealing with these monopolised articles are allowed to dissipate for the purpose of paying their own working expenses certain portions of the profits so accruing by the prices being fixed by the Government, and that only the balance, if any at all, is handed back to the Exchequer? My contention is that the proper method in accordance with precedent would be that the total difference between the cost to the Government—that is, the net cost irrespective of working cost, departmental charges, or what not—should be on the debit side, and the Exchequer should receive all that accrues between that and the price the public pay, and any expenses arising from distribution or other charges, departmental or otherwise, should be separate charges ascertainable by this House, and we should know how we stand and where the money is going.
  There is a very deep-rooted conviction that the making of these gigantic profits by Government Departments is having a serious effect in this way: It is said that it is making the Departments accumulating the profits careless in their distribution, and enabling them to be slovenly in their methods, whereas if the figures were clearly disclosed, their genesis and exodus alike set out in clear and distinct form, we should find in the result the public would have every reason to be satisfied. The public does not mind some margin of profit, but they want to know that those profits are not being dissipated by clumsy departmental handling or other means. Whatever price a civilian pays for these articles controlled by the Government they have to bear to other succeeding persons through whose hands in the course of trade or manufacture they pass additional profit, so that there arises by the time the goods or material gets to the consumer a steadily accruing profit upon profit, and the whole arises from an undisclosed difference between the original cost and the final charge. I did not know that this question was arising to-day and I stated my case baldly, but before the discussion closes, as

  1851
  I have addressed questions on this matter to the Under-Secretary for War, I hope the right hon. Gentleman may give the House some very explicit and clear guidance as to the policy of the Government with regard to these gigantic undertakings, which are making it to-day the greatest trading corporation in the whole world.
  Mr. WATT: I wish to ask a question of the Minister in charge of this Bill before he replies to the discussion. Sub-section (2) of Clause 1 extends the Schedule of Government war obligations, and it provides that
  "obligations incurred in connection with the present War in respect of undertakings given to any foreign State for the purpose of obtaining the release of cargoes on board enemy-vessels interned in the harbours of that State."
  I would like to know if that applies to the past or to the future?
  Mr. BALDWIN: I explained that point in my speech.
  Mr. WATT: I am sorry I did not follow this explanation, but that being so, I need not proceed further with my objection.
  Mr. D. MASON: I would like the right hon. Gentleman in his reply to make some reference to foreign exchange. Does he propose to do so or does he think it is not in the public interest?
  Mr. BALDWIN Mr. BALDWIN indicated dissent.
  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.]

  STATUTORY UNDERTAKINGS (TEM PORARY INCREASE OF CHARGES) BILL.
  As amended, considered.

  CLAUSE 1.—(Modifications of Statutory Provisions Affecting Charges.)
  (1) Where it appears to the appropriate Government Department that the financial position of any undertaking to which this Act applies has been adversely affected by circumstances arising out of the present War, the Department may, if they think fit, by Order provide for the modification of any statutory provisions regulating the charges to be made by the undertakers, and of any statutory provisions consequential on or supplemental to any such
  1852
  provisions as aforesaid, for such period during the continuance of this Act, in such manner, and subject to such conditions, as appear to the Department to be just and reasonable:
  Provided that—

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

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

  (3) The undertakings to which this Act applies are tramway undertakings, including light railways constructed wholly or mainly on public roads, and undertakings for the supply of gas, water, and electricity.
  Mr. DENMAN: I beg to move, in Subsection (1, b), to leave out the words "three-fourths" ["three-fourths the standard or maximum rate"], and to insert instead thereof the word "half."
  The House will remember the Debate we had a couple of nights ago on this subject, and I suppose that we are still in the same position that we were then, and the House will be able to decide once more this question. As the hon. Member (Mr. Anderson) who put down this Amendment is now in his place, I will formally move it and allow him to state the case to the House which he desires to put forward.
  Mr. ANDERSON: I beg to second the Amendment.
  We had a very full discussion on this matter on Monday evening and we were amply provided with facts and statistics which I have no intention of repeating. I do not believe that the Debate which then took place reflected a great deal of credit upon this House, because it developed very largely into a scramble as to the amount of dividend that was going to be apportioned to the various companies, first whether it should be half and then two-thirds, or three-fourths, and also whether it should be the full pre-war dividend. We had the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Neville) saying in one speech first of all that there was no need to weep crocodile tears over the consumer, and then he said, "If you give the shareholders the half standard, what will be the

  1853
  effect with regard to the company with which I am connected?" I do think it is lowering the standard of politics when hon. Members seem to speak less for their constituencies than for themselves and—
  Mr. NEVILLE: May I point out that my Constituency is not affected by this Bill because there the gas undertaking is in the hands of the municipality, and the stockholders get their full interest and dividend.
  Mr. ANDERSON: The hon. Member for Wigan on that occasion seemed to be more the Member for the gas companies and not the Member for Wigan. In order to justify the action we are taking in trying to put back one-half it is necessary to bring out one or two salient points with regard to what really took place. I regret that the President of the Board of Trade, who I believe desired to act fairly in this matter, appears to have had a great deal of pressure brought to bear upon him and he seems to have given way to the various interests on this question. I think it was very unfortunate that we should have mixed up the gas and the tramway undertaking in regard to which an inquiry had taken place. The conditions were different, and yet the measure of relief given is precisely the same. I would again point out that in regard to gas undertakings, at any rate, a Committee of this House investigated the whole question and heard the evidence put forward by exceedingly able advocates on both sides, and after hearing that the Committee unanimously decided to take the course which we are recommending in this Amendment. I believe that this House will get into difficulties when it begins to depart from the recommendations of an outside Committee, and we shall have all sorts of outside interests brought to bear to increase beyond what has been recommended by the Committee if we are not going to stand by the Committee's recommendations. If you proceed in this way, there is no reason why we should stop at three-quarters or why we should not go up to any amount dictated by the pressure of the interests concerned.
  Mr. WATT: The Government did not accept the Tramway Committee's recommendation.
  Mr. ANDERSON: I understand that that recommendation was so vague that it left it practically to the Board of Trade to determine what the amount would be.
  Mr. NEVILLE: Is that fair?
  Mr. ANDERSON: I am not arguing that, but that has not been done by the Board of Trade, and so far as they had guidance it has been thrown over in all other cases, and that, I think, is a rather strange policy on the part of the Government. I understand that very powerful interests were aroused in the matter, but I do think on a question of this kind, and equally on a wage question, it would be far better to be determined by some tribunal outside this House not subject to the political pressure that is brought to bear upon hon. Members. Otherwise you are opening the door very wide, and by-and-by you will have the class of politics in this country which has been condemned in the United States if you go on in this way. The whole Debate on the last occasion took place as to how much the companies were going to get. First, we debated whether they should get anything, then whether it should be half, then two-thirds, and afterwards three-fourths; and then some hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Wigan, wanted them to have the full pre-war dividend, and they put an Amendment down to that effect. That is not a very edifying spectacle so far as this House is concerned. It would be easy to give illustrations, if one desired, from the speeches to show that that was the whole trend of the Debate—to see how much could be extorted from the House; and I suggest that the only safe course is to get back to the recommendations of the Committee and to stand by them. That is the course that has been advocated by the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Denman) and myself upon this Amendment. I was very much surprised that a departure from that course should have been moved by a Member of the Liberal Front Bench, who moved his Amendment without putting forward one single argument in favour of departing from the recommendation of the Committee. His Amendment was moved with great brevity in a speech of twenty-five words, and it did not contain one single argument as to why the amount should be three-quarters instead of half, and the same argument would apply to the pre-war dividend or even to double the pre-war dividend.
  It is said that these various companies ought to be generously treated because they are subject to statutory Regulations and restrictions. That is true, but if we are going to act in that way, apart altogether from the recommendations of any

  1855
  Committee, there are any number of companies, like food companies, whose prices are governed either by statutory Regulations or by Regulations issued by a Government Department. The prices of food and the profits in regard to food are regulated, and if we once begin to guarantee dividends up to this or that amount it seems to me that the door will be opened very wide indeed. The Committee very carefully considered the matter, and it was anxious to act fairly as between the gas consumer and the gas producer. The voice of the gas consumer is not well heard in this House, and he is not so well organised as the gas companies. The result is that whilst there has been very powerful pressure put upon the Government to increase the amount only from the standpoint of the gas companies, the gas consumers have not been heard, and have not been able to bring the same kind of pressure to bear. The Committee on Monday night, without any real consideration of all that was involved, or the cost that was involved, decided to make this departure from one stage to the other. I venture to say that the interests of the consumers were not adequately considered by the Committee. It really seems to me to be the beginning of very corrupt politics if this principle is going to prevail. I do not want to see all kinds of interests swarming into the Lobby in order to put pressure upon Members to increase dividends, or to see the votes of Members reflected next day on the Stock Exchange. I therefore think it would have been wise if the Committee had decided to give the companies such a measure of relief as we are now advocating. It would have been quite sufficient to enable them to carry on. It is quite true that their future position will have to be considered when the War is over. That is another matter. Very big questions will be raised then. I wish, in conclusion, to enter my protest very strongly against Members who are interested in these undertakings taking a leading part in the discussions, the effect of which is to put money into the pockets of the companies with which they are concerned.
  Mr. PETO: I do not think many Members were aware when they came down today that it was to be seriously proposed to reverse the decision arrived at on Monday night after a long and exhaustive Debate, but since the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Denman) and the hon.
  1856
  Member for the Attercliffe Division (Mr. Anderson) have actually moved to reverse that decision, I think a word or two with reference to the speech to which the House has just listened, will not be out of place. The hon. Member talked about dividends being guaranteed to the companies and about sums being extorted by the companies from the consumers. He used phrases of that kind, showing exactly the frame of mind with which he approaches the subject. The dividends are not to be paid to the companies by the Board of Trade or by the public. It is a question whether it is reasonable that the shareholders in these companies, which are mostly people of very small means, because the Committee which investigated the matter stated through the mouth of their chairman, the hon. Member for South Leeds (Sir William Middlebrook), that they had found that three-fourths of the shareholders had less than £300 of shares, should be singled out and told that during the War, while the prices of commodities are at their present level, they must live upon half the income which they have hitherto received. I hold that the decision we arrived at—like most of these decisions, it was a compromise; there was no real logic in it—was really inadequate from the point of view of these small shareholders. I would ask the House to consider who are these shareholders. They are also consumers and ratepayers. Why should you single out one small fraction of the consumers of the country, people who certainly are not anything like so well off or wealthy as the average, and who have all the burdens in common with other ratepayers, and put upon them an undue share of the enormously increased wages paid to the colliers and of the other costs in the production of coal, which is the sole reason for the increase in the price of gas.
  The hon. Member tried to influence the House because the Members who spoke in the Debate on Monday night were those to whom the House would naturally look for some expert guidance in the matter, namely, those who had been or who are connected with gas and water companies. I am not connected with any gas company at all. As far as I represent any interests other than those of my Constituents, they are those of the provincial water companies, not because I am a director of any company, but because I happen to be the chairman of their

  1857
  association, an office which I took up in connection with the general duties which I think fall upon Members when they have no official duties to perform. It is true—this is the only point on which I agree with the hon. Member—that it is most unfortunate that the case of the water companies and the electric light companies should be lumped together with the case of the tramways and the gas companies, each of which have had a separate Committee to consider their case and had opportunities of putting their views before a Committee and the Board of Trade. The case of the water companies has never been considered at all. If I had known that this matter was going to be seriously raised I could have brought figures showing that the water companies have been as hard hit as any gas company by this increase in the cost of coal. There are water companies where the increased cost of coal and of wages in the last three years aggregate more than the total of the pre-war dividends. Under these circumstances, their case is, at least, as strong as—and, I think, stronger—than the case of the gas companies, and their shareholders are quite as small people, on the average, as the shareholders of gas companies. Therefore, I very much regret that this question has been raised again, and I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will not think of going back upon the decision of the Committee.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Wardle): I hope that the hon. Member who moved and the hon. Member who seconded this Motion will not think it necessary to divide the House again. The Seconder of the Motion said the Board of Trade had given way. The Board of Trade have not given way. They only said that it was a matter which should be settled by Parliament. The House of Commons decided what should be the exact fraction on the principle which the Committee itself laid down. This is not the first time, by any means, that the House of Commons have not accepted the Report of the Committee which it has set up. In effect, the House of Commons have accepted the principle which the Committee recommended, and the Board of Trade accept that principle. It is that the burden should be divided in some measure between the consumer and the producer. The exact measure which the Committee recommended was that half the pre-war dividend should accrue to the
  1858
  producer and that the rest should be borne by the consumer. I think I should be right in saying that the Committee itself had no accurate knowledge or facts by which they could precisely fix the half. They thought it was a fair compromise, and they came down to the House and frankly said that was the position. The House, looking at the whole of the facts, said, "We think that three-fourths is a proper thing." I do not think that either of those figures can be justified on logical grounds. I do not think anybody would attempt to justify them on the grounds of logic. It is not a question of principle which is at stake. I certainly join with the hon. Member for the Attercliffe Division (Mr. Anderson) in hoping that the House of Commons will never become a place of bargaining or of lobbying for mere financial reasons and gain. It would be a great pity if that ever came to be the fact. He said that so far as this particular matter was concerned they were seeking to persuade the House and the Government to adopt the principle of guaranteeing dividends to this or that amount. The Committee itself, of which he was a member, adopted the principle of guaranteeing dividends up to a certain amount, and it was only the amount which the House settled. I myself, with other Labour Members, have taken part in a good many Debates in this House and have attempted to defend the interests of labour and to get certain advantages for labour. I think that we were perfectly entitled to do so, and we ought not to be throwing stones too much at other people who attempt to do the same thing. The whole of this question must come up again, because this is only a temporary settlement of a very difficult and complex problem. When the time comes, I hope that the problem will be settled upon reasonable lines and that it will not be settled by a Debate in this House. Under these circumstances, I hope we may get rid of this Bill without any further division or controversy. I would like to add that the Committee which sat on this Bill performed a very useful service to the House. I hope they do not think that the House of Commons has thrown any slight upon them whatsoever. We are greatly indebted to them. I am sure I am speaking for my right hon. Friend and for the Government when I say that we thank the Committee for the labours they performed in going into this very difficult and complex question. The

  1859
  principle which the Committee recommended has been adopted, and it is only a question of the precise amount. That having been left to the House, and the House having decided it, I hope we shall not seek to reverse the decision arrived at.
  Mr. ACLAND ALLEN: I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken that the course which was taken was very lightly taken or was the usual course to take. What are the facts of the case? Here is a very complicated subject, which was referred to a Committee upstairs, which might be said to be fairly representative of all parties in the House, which included certain members of the Liberal party and of the Conservative party and one Labour representative, and that Committee spent a considerable time and took very great care in arriving at its decision. It is suggested that the House of Commons, in the course of a few hours' Debate, hearing no evidence, not hearing counsel, having none of the figures put before them or sworn to, as they were upstairs, is in a better position than the Committee was to arrive at a fair solution of a problem of this kind. That is an idle proposition to make. I am bound to say I think the Committee—although, of course, they have no grievance whatever against the House of Commons, because every Committee is a servant of the House of Commons—have some grievance against the President of the Board of Trade and the Government generally. The Committee presented its Report. It was accepted by the Board of Trade. It was embodied by the Board of Trade in a Bill which comes before the House of Commons for discussion. Great pressure is brought to bear on the Board of Trade by the various interests concerned—I do not hesitate to say that the pressure was brought to bear by those interests—and, in face of that pressure, the Board of Trade, with very little delay, ran away from their decision, and thirteen members of the Government voted against the provision in the Clause of the Bill introduced by the Board of Trade. I have had considerable experience in the House of Commons—more, perhaps, than the right hon. Gentleman—and I tell him that it will be extremely difficult to get people to serve on Select Committees if that is the way the Committees are to be treated by the Government which appoints them when their recommendations come down to the House of Commons. From that
  1860
  point of view it is a serious matter. I must say that I think the Parliamentary Secretary made a very poor case on the other side.
  Mr. FIELD: No case at all!
  Mr. ALLEN: With regard to what was said by the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto), who asked why these unfortunate gas shareholders should be picked out from the whole of the community to receive only one-half of their dividends during the War, I would put this point to my hon. Friend: There are many of us who are suffering from the War. I myself this morning have been presiding over a meeting of a company which has had to pass its dividend altogether, that being almost entirely due to the fact of the interference the Government has made with the business in which we are engaged. We do not come to the House of Commons and complain because we have not been guaranteed half our dividends during the War. [An HON. MEMBER: "Are they statutory dividends?"] Our dividends are not statutory, but the interference with the dividends is mainly due to the action of the Government, and, if anyone has a claim to consideration, we have!
  Mr. PETO: My hon. Friend uses the word "guaranteed." The right hon. Gentleman opposite said there was no guarantee of the half-dividend.
  Mr. ALLEN: The gas companies are allowed to make such charges on the public as will enable them to pay their prior charges and half their pre-war dividend.
  Sir J. WALTON: Half the standard dividend.
  Mr. ALLEN: We thought at the time that it was a fair arrangement, and I think it is now. We have to remember that the arrangement between the gas companies and the public was in the nature of a partnership, under which the consumers gained very great advantages. Now that the partnership begins to work seriously against the gas companies, they come down and say it is the fault of the Government and therefore something ought to be done to see that they do not suffer unduly. We quite agree that it is unreasonable that, through action taken by the Government, the gas companies should suffer unduly in this matter, but we have also to look at the position of the other parties to this partnership, and we ought to see

  1861
  that the consumers also do not suffer unduly through the action of the Government. We thought—and I still think rightly—that it was met by the arrangement we came to, which, I repeat, would have guaranteed to the gas companies half their pre-war dividends or half their standard dividends, and would have allowed them to charge the consumers a sufficient price per 1,000 feet to enable them to arrive at that figure.
  The House must remember that the complaint is really a complaint against the Government. If there is, as undoubtedly there is, a very great grievance on the part of the companies on such matters as residuals—I quite agree that the price of residuals has been kept down seriously by the Government, and that the gas companies have undoubtedly done excellent work in the way they have produced those residuals and the general work they have done for the Government; they have done splendid work in that connection, especially some of the London gas companies; the South Metropolitan Company, in particular, has done excellent work in that direction—if it be a fact that the Government has kept down prices of residuals, that does not seem to be any reason for putting the whole burden on the consumers of gas. That is really a case for going to the Government and saying, "Look at the State work we are doing; is it reasonable or fair that we should be forced to work at a loss because you refuse to pay us a reasonable price for residuals?" So far as residuals are concerned, that would have been the proper course for the gas companies to take. On that ground they had a very real claim on the Government. This matter was so fully discussed on Monday that I have nothing whatever to add to what was said, but I wish be close as I began, by saying it is not a good principle that, when matters have been carefully considered upstairs—matters of great intricacy and difficulty—when the conclusions of the Committee have been adopted by the Government and embodied in a Bill, the Government should come down and throw over the Committee, and throw over their own Bill.
  Sir C. CORY: I am not in any way connected with any gas or water company, and it is to my interest as a consumer to keep down the price of gas and water. But I have had representations from my Constituents, from local authorities and
  1862
  boroughs, and also from shareholders, in favour of putting up the dividend to a higher level. I have not had a representation from one consumer objecting to anything of the kind or objecting to any increase in the price of gas.
  Mr. FIELD: You are a lucky man!
  Sir C. CORY: I am here to voice the views of my Constituents, and those are their views. The consumers, apparently, do not object, but those interested in the gas and water companies do object to having their dividends brought down to vanishing point. I have had some pitiful letters from shareholders on the matter, from spinsters, widows, ministers of religion, and people of very small means, who claim that as their incomes are entirely dependent upon their investments in gas and water companies, their condition would be deplorable if their dividends were reduced, especially when the cost of living has so much increased. They have a claim to ask that their dividends shall be increased when they themselves contribute to the increase by means of the additional cost of gas. It is really in the interest of the consumers themselves that we should not make these investments bear such a low rate of interest. If you make it one-half, and you require money to provide additional water and gas facilities, I do not see how you can expect to raise that money if you only give people 1½ or 2 per cent. on their money. It will go against the interests of the consumers themselves, because they will not be able to get such facilities as gas, water, or electricity. As to what has been said regarding the Report of the Committee, although I have every consideration for the Committee who reported on this matter, I must say I cannot feel bound by the Report of a Committee with whose appointment I had nothing whatever to do, with whose Report I had nothing to do, and with whose appointment my Constituents had nothing to do. My Constituents have considered the Report, and have represented to me that they still want an increase in their dividend. As far as the price of residuals is concerned, the last speaker said he thought the duty of the companies was to press the Government to increase the price. I quite agree with him in that. There is nothing to prevent that pressure being put upon the Government now. If the price of residuals is increased, then the consumer will not be called upon to pay the increased cost

  1863
  of gas. I therefore suggest that that pressure still goes forward, so as to relieve consumers to that extent. I beg to oppose the Amendment.
  Mr. FIELD: I have had representations from the corporation of Dublin, the Black-rock Town Commissioners, the Kingston Urban District Council, and, in fact, from all the suburban districts, in regard to this matter. The last speaker occupied an extraordinary position when he said that on behalf of consumers that they wanted the price of gas to be raised.
  Sir C. CORY: The hon. Member is misrepresenting what I said. I did not say that they wanted it raised. What I said was that I had had no representations from consumers in regard to the matter.
  5.0 p.m.
  Mr. FIELD: As I said before, you are a lucky man. I am afraid there is a little gas about that somehow. The Government have behaved very badly in this business, because, in the first place, they have thrown overboard and entirely repudiated the findings of a Select Committee of practically their own choosing. I have served on Committees, and I am bound to say that if this becomes the rule of the House we shall have no Select Committees, because men will not serve on Select Committees in order to have their findings overthrown. The Government have not played the game fairly. The majority of the Members of the House were not informed of the change of front of the Government. This thing was rushed on Monday, and no information was given to the House that the Government intended a change and that they were going to repudiate the recommendations of their own Select Committee. It is not playing the game fairly, because a large number of Members would have been here to oppose that change if they had known of it. It was at the last moment that this change was mentioned in the House of Commons, and quite a large number of Members were away. We Irishmen are so accustomed to the Government violating their promises that we never expect them to keep them. Right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench hardly ever keep their word. There can be no question that there is a large amount of feeling throughout the country that this Bill ought not to be allowed to pass. In the whole of my twenty-six
  1864
  years' experience I have never known the House of Commons to be treated in such an extraordinary fashion as it was yesterday. The Report of the Select Committee was accepted by the Government and came before Members of the House as an accepted document, but we are all supposed to be under the orders of the Front Bench, and, like a flock of sheep driven before the shepherd, we are expected to take whatever the President of the Board of Trade says as gospel. If this kind of thing goes on in future, whatever credit remains to the Government it will lose entirely. The House of Commons has a right to be informed, but the private lights of Members have been altogether taken away. I hope the Amendment will be persisted in and a Division taken and the Government defeated.
  Mr. THEODORE TAYLOR: The hon. Member has informed the House that private rights are being taken away. I thought what happened on Monday was that the House was given an opportunity of saying what the amount should be. That is rather extending the recognition of the rights of Members than taking them away. I take it that the principle of the Committee's recommendation was not repudiated but adopted by the Government. The House is not a suitable authority to decide the amounts either of wages or percentages or anything else, but there was a great principle at stake. I put it rather differently from the way it has been put in any speech so far, and I would say that what has really taken place is a difference in the valuing power of the pound sterling—that is to say, prices based on the pound sterling as it was five years ago are not equitable as between buyer and seller to-day. It is on that root principle that advances of wages have been rightly claimed and granted. In other words, money has a less purchasing power; so much less as to be really robbing the investors in these undertakings of what they are fairly entitled to, namely, a moderate remuneration for their capital. I am only speaking for my Constituents. I have no penny in any gas, water, tramway, or similar undertaking, and never had any, but I have had some really pitiful letters. I have not checked them all, and they may not all be accurate in their details. The people who have invested their money in public utility businesses, which have been to the advantage of the public, have done so with the expectation of a very small rate

  1865
  of interest. The shares, I believe, have been sold by gas companies in years past on the basis of a return of about 4½ per cent. A moderate rate of interest violates no principle of equity, and I am speaking in defence of the rights of these people to continue to receive what I may call a small living wage in return for their capital. If I thought this was the case of some rich, greedy corporations, plundering the helpless public, I should be on the side of the public. It is absurd to speak as if these were corporations which had done something wrong and deserved punishment. The opponents of this proposal, to do them justice, do not put it forward on that line, but the result of voting for these people only to have half of what they formerly had, when they really had very little, is not very different from enunciating that principle.
  These companies are very much in the hands of the Government. My hon. Friend (Mr. Allen) said he knew of a company, and there were many others, whose dividends had been diminished in consequence of the War. I asked him whether the dividends were statutory. Had they this low limit which is very properly placed on the dividends of these public utility concerns? Of course the company he spoke of was one which had an opportunity to make 20 per cent. or 50 per cent. It was unlimited. These investors have spent their money in providing a kind of property which otherwise would have had to be provided at the public expense. I am in favour of municipal authorities having these monopolies. I am not in favour of private ownership, but so long as we have it we ought to treat them fairly. Let me give the House one figure. A large part of the income of gas companies is derived from the sale of residuals. I am very much interested, as a user of dyes, in seeing a colour industry established in this country, and I hope the Government will be able to do it on sound lines. But for the purpose of making mainly explosives, and possibly incidentally of helping the dyeing industry, the Government has artificially kept down the prices of these residuals, and whereas a certain gas-making company in 1913 derived 74.6 per cent of the cost of their coal back again in residuals, in consequence of the Government's control and artificial depreciation of the price of residuals in 1917 they only derived 43.3 per cent. I know coal was dearer also, but the dividends
  1866
  of the company, the price of their residuals and the price of the gas, has not been allowed to rise at all in proportion to the diminution in the purchasing power of money. The principle that ought to guide the House in a matter of this kind is that, as in all other affairs where money is the measure of value, we ought to recognise that the purchasing power of money is less than it was. It is a quite reasonable thing to allow these people to have three-quarters of their past dividends till there is a final settlement. These poor people's incomes have been reduced at a time when everything is dearer and other people's incomes are going up. I should not speak in favour of this if I did not feel that equity was on the side of the Amendment, which the Government did not itself propose, but allowed the House by a large majority to adopt.
  Sir J. AINSWORTH: I think the House has entirely lost sight of the ground of procedure on which this Bill has been brought before us again. I have not heard a single charge against the chairman or the members of the Committee. I have not heard a word as to whether there was any point on which the Committee omitted to take evidence. The House has no moral right, if it ever wishes to be served by a Committee again, to go back on its findings. Most Members present have served on Committees. I ask them to put themselves in the position of the members of the Committee whose Report we are discussing now. How would they like to have their patient work upstairs, in hearing evidence, in hearing counsel, in trying to save the House the trouble of coming to a decision on a question which the House allows it has not time to go in for, to be set aside? How would they like to be told that their work was not of the least use, that the House was going into the question itself and was going to make up its mind whether the shareholders were getting enough? You might as well go into a private individual's house and make up your mind whether he is spending too much. We are on a most vital question. How far are the decisions of Committees in future going to be adherred to? How can the House of Commons, which is at least bound to keep the head of the ship straight, for a moment profess to interfere with the decision of their fellow Members? If you do not approve of the action of the Committee,

  1867
  your only course, it seems to me, is to recommit the Bill. I should like, if the Speaker were here, to have an answer to that question, but I do wish to press upon the House that Members ought to support the Committee and the findings of their fellow Members.
  Sir W. PEARCE: I think the House is forgetting that we are dealing with the Reports of two Committees. My hon. Friend seems to be using the argument that the Report of one of the Commitees must not be disregarded by the House, but I would point out that the Tramways Committee, of which I had the honour to be chairman, also had to review the whole case, and their decision was that the compensation should be left to the decision of the Committee of the Board of Trade. It is very doubful, if it had been put to us, whether we would have made a recommendation of 50 per cent. of the statutory dividend. Therefore, the case it not quite so simple as my hon. Friend appears to imagine, inasmuch as we are dealing with the recommendations of two distinct bodies. I feel confident that the facts presented to the Tramways Committee might have led us to a different conclusion as to the percentage to be allowed. I am not complaining, but the House should remember that there were two Committees
  dealing with two problems both equally complex. With regard to the gas companies, I think it is only fair to remind the House—and I have never been a friend of the gas companies in this House—that the price of coal is a great factor in the price of gas. Residuals count for something, but they do not come to anything like equal to the price of coal, which, since the Board of Trade began to consider the question, has been raised 4s. a ton by the action of the Government. If by a stroke of the pen the price of the raw material of the gas company is put up 4s. a ton, I think it is a factor which the House cannot very well afford to ignore. At the same time, I feel that the interests of the consumers have to be safeguarded in this Bill. I know a great deal about the gas position, and I always felt that the original Report of the Committee was rather hard on the gas companies. On the other hand, if you give them any more it is equally hard on the consumers. Altogether, it is a very complex question, and I submit that, as the price of coal has, even since the Committee began considering the question, been raised 4s. a ton, that is a factor the House must bear in mind.
  Question put, "That the words 'three-fourths' stand part of the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 141; Noes, 97.

  Division No. 72.]

  AYES.

  [5.20 p.m.

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

  Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

  Dalrymple, Hon. H. H.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Agnew, Sir George

  Denniss, Edmund R. Bartley

  Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

  Anstruther-Gray, Lt.-Col. Wm.

  Du Pre, Maj. W. B.

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Lonsdale, James R.

  Barnes, Rt. Hon. George N.

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Barnett, Capt. Richard W.

  Falle, Sir Bertram Godfray

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Barnston, Major Harry

  Fell, Sir Arthur

  McCalmont, Brig.-Gen. R. C. A.

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick, B.)

  Finney, Samuel

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Barran, Sir Rowland H. (Leeds, N.)

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. William Hayes

  Macleod, John M.

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Ganzonl, Francis J. C.

  Macmaster, Donald

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Gardner, Ernest

  McNeill, R. (Kent, St. Augustine's)

  Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

  Gibbs, Col. George Abraham

  Malcolm, Ian

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Gilmour, Lt.-Col. John

  Mallalieu, F. W.

  Bethell, Sir John Henry

  Goddard, Rt. Hon. Sir Daniel Ford

  Marks, Sir George Craydon

  Bigland, Alfred

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

  Hamilton, C. G. C. (Altrincham)

  Mason, Robert (Wansbeck)

  Boles, Lt.-Col Fortescue

  Hardy, Rt. Hon Laurence (Ashford)

  Millar, James Duncan

  Boyton, Sir James

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Luton, Beds)

  Morgan, George Hay

  Brassey, H. L. C.

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Morton, Sir Alpheus Cleophas

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Hill, Sir James (Bradford, C.)

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Bryce, John Annan

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Newman, Sir Robert (Exeter)

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverton)

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Cator, John

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

  Parkes, Sir Edward

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn Aston Manor)

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Parrott, Sir Edward

  Coats, Sir Stuart (Wimbledon)

  Jackson, Lt.-Col. Hon. F. S. (York)

  Pearce, Sir William (Limehouse)

  Colvin, Col.

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

  Pease, Rt. Hon. H. P. (Darlington)

  Compton Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire)

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Cory, Sir Clifford John (St. Ives)

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, E.)

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Cory, James H. (Cardiff)

  Lambert. Rt. Hon. G. (Molton, S.)

  Philippe, Maj.-Gen. Sir Ivor

  Craig, Col. Sir James (Down, E.)

  Lane-Fox, Major G. R.

  Philippe, Sir Owen (Chester)

  Craig, Norman (Kent Thanet)

  Larmor, Sir Joseph

  Pratt, Jonn W.

  Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Br'df'rd, E.)

  Seely, Lt.-Col. Sir Charles (Mansfield)

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

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel Sir E.

  Sharman-Crawford, Col. R. G.

  Watt, Henry A.

  Pulley, C. T.

  Shortt, Edward

  Weston, John W.

  Bandies, Sir John

  Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir F. E. (Liverpool)

  Whiteley, Sir H. J. (Droitwich)

  Rees, Sir J. D.

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Reid, Rt. Hon. Sir George H.

  Staveley-Hill, Lt.-Col. Henry

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Rendall, Atheistan

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, N.)

  Wilson-Fox, Henry (Tamworth)

  Richardson, Alblon (Peckham)

  Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, W.)

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

  Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)

  Talbot, Rt. Hon. Lord Edmund

  Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

  Roberts, Sir Herbert (Denbighs)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Younger, Sir George

  Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Tennant, Rt. Hon. Harold John

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Rutherford, Col. Sir J. (Darwen)

  Thomas, Sir G. (Monmouth, S.)

  Rutherford, Sir W. (L'pool, W. Derby)

  Tickler, Thomas George

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir W. Cowan and Mr. John M. Henderson.

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry (N'wood

  Walker, Col. W. H.

  Samuels, Arthur W. (Dub, U.)

  NOES.

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

  Gilbert, James Daniel

  O'Shee, James John

  Ainsworth Sir John Stirling

  Glanville, Harold James

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Hackett, John

  Peel, Major Hon. G. (Spalding)

  Arnold, Sydney

  Harbison, T. J. S.

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick

  Harmsworth, Sir R. L. (Caithness)

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, South)

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Boland, John Plus

  Hearn, Michael L. (Dublin, S.)

  Reddy, Michael

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Durham)

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehavan)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Hogge, J. M.

  Robinson, Sidney

  Byrne, Alfred

  Holmes, D. T.

  Rowlands, James

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W.

  Clough, William

  Joyce, Michael

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Shaw, Hon. Alexander

  Collins, Sir William (Derby)

  King, Joseph

  Sheeny, David

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lambert, Richard (Cricklade)

  Smallwood, Edward

  Cotton, H. E. A.

  M'Kean, John

  Smith, Albert (Clitheroe)

  Crumley, Patrick

  McMicking, Major Gilbert

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

  Cullinan, John

  Maden, Sir John Henry

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Davies, Ellis William (Elfion)

  Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

  Stanton, Charles Butt

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Martin, Joseph

  Sutton, John E.

  Dillon, John

  Meagher, Michael

  Thomas Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

  Doris, William

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir James B.

  Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Cs.)

  Wedgwood, Lt.-Commander Josiah C.

  Duffy, William J.

  Molloy, Michael

  Whitty, Patrick Joseph

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Morrell, Philip

  Wiles, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Muldoon, John

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

  Esmonds, Capt. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Nugent, J. D. (College Green)

  Wing, Thomas Edward

  Field, William

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Yeo, Sir Alfred William

  Fitzgibbon, John

  O'Dowd, John

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  O'Leary, Daniel

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Anderson and Mr Denman.

  Fletcher, John S.

  O'Malley, William

  Galbraith, Samuel

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Sir WILLIAM BEALE: I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), after the word "water" ["undertakings for the supply of gas, water, and electricity"], to insert the words "hydraulic power.'"
  The object of this Amendment is to bring within the ambit of the companies to which the Act applies the hydraulic power companies which may be looked upon as water companies. It may be that they would come within the scope of the Act automatically, but it is well to have an Amendment to make the point clear. I understand that there are five such companies, namely, Glasgow, Manchester, Hull, Birmingham, and Leeds, and one or two of them have the same maximum restrictions which are to be found in the case of water companies. It seems quite clear that if the principle is adopted these companies would be involved, and I hope some Member will second this Amendment.
  Mr. T. TAYLOR: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. WARDLE: I believe I am right in saying that this will only apply to one company for practical purposes, and, therefore, if the hon. and learned Member attaches any importance to it, we will accept his Amendment.
  Mr. ANDERSON: Will the hon. Member say whether it is a statutory company?
  Mr. WARDLE: Yes, a statutory company.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. WARDLE: I beg to move in Subsection (3), after the word "electricity," to insert the words
  "and in calculating the maximum charge which may be authorised under this Act in respect of such tramway undertakings fractions of one halfpenny shall be calculated as one halfpenny."

  1871
  I am sorry that this Amendment is in manuscript. It appeared on the Paper in the Committee stage, and we promised on the Report we would consider it.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—[Sir A. Stanley.]
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: I think that the vote we have just taken is probably the best protest than can be expressed in this House against this sort of legislation. On any measure brought forward which is to benefit a particular trade or industry, you might necessarily have a great deal of whipping of vested interests and a great deal of pressure brought upon Members of this House to support those vested interests, because, unfortunately, the vested interests are always more active than the public interests of the consumer, and I think this Bill is an example of the sort of legislation which ought to be kept out of this House. If anybody is losing money over this War, the idea that they should be able to come to the House of Commons and get the contract under which they are manufacturing a certain article revised by a vote of the House of Commons, appears to me to be monstrous. We are legislating, and by a simple vote of the House we are thereby sending up the price of gas shares on the Stock Exchange.
  Mr. BURNS: The gas shares have risen this morning.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: We have by our action added thousands of pounds to the capital value of the money of these shareholders, and have put large sums into their pockets, and we have done this at the expense of the silent mass of the community, who consume gas and water. That sort of speculation by House of Commons vote is an utterly new principle, and is one which I think everybody in this House deplores. To my mind, the fact that they should have been able to get 141 Members of the House of Commons to vote in favour of putting money into the pockets of a certain class of shareholders is the biggest condemnation that has been passed against this House of Commons. It has been said, over and over again, that this is an old, effete House of Commons, out of touch with the electorate. It has shown by this Vote that it is not only out of touch with the electorate, but that it is contemptuous of that electorate, and that it pays more attention to the shareholders,
  1872
  and the shares that are held in this House, as well as by corporations who have been circularising Members, than to the interests of the country as a whole. Against that I wish to raise my voice in protest. The Government appointed a Committee to consider this matter, and the Committee came to a decision. That decision was embodied in the Bill after mature consideration by the Government Department concerned, and then, because the shareholders lobby and because they circularise and because they clamour for their pound of flesh, the Government accepted a modification which puts thousands of pounds into the shareholders' pockets. That alone seems to me to be a condemnation of legislation of this sort. The next body of manufacturers that come along will demand a larger slice. Everybody will want their finger in the pie, and the bottomless pocket of the taxpayer and consumers of this country will gradually be fleeced by the various vested interests of this country, who can exercise—and, indeed do exercise—undue influence upon Members of this House.
  Mr. ANDERSON: I do not propose to carry the protest that we have made any further by means of any further Division, but I do wish to associate myself with what has been said, that I think we are introducing a very dangerous principle into this House. One might have imagined, from the speeches we have listened to, both on Monday and to-day, that the whole of the shareholders are made up of widows and orphans and fatherless children and clergymen. But behind these there are very powerful financial interests ranged who have been fighting this particular battle. I wish to say, therefore, that if a question of this kind does arise it seems to me, whether it be a question affecting dividends or wages, it is not a good thing that this House, subject to outside political pressure, should be the tribunal to decide such a matter. It ought to be settled by some absolutely fair and impartial tribunal not subject to political pressure. Unless we do that we are going to have corrupt politics, business politics, craft politics, brought into this country.
  We have had quite a number of Members taking part in this discussion who are Members of this House. I do not wish to make charges against my fellow Members, but they must have felt in an invidious position when they are

  1873
  associated with the very companies whose cause they are pleading. We had a speech on Monday from the hon. Member for the Maldon Division of Essex (Sir F. Flannery), who is associated with a very large number of companies of one sort and another, and he is the deputy-chairman of the South Suburban Gas Company. Therefore, as a Member of Parliament, he is fighting the battle of his company, and using his position as a Member of Parliament in order to fight the battle of that concern. We have had the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Neville) taking a leading part in these Debates. The Member for Wigan is the chairman of the Brentford Gas Company. I have been very frequently to Wigan, and I know Wigan very well, and Wigan is not a place that I associate with gas shareholders. Anyone who knows Wigan knows that it does not stand by gas shareholders. Therefore one can only assume that the hon. Member for the moment is not the Member for Wigan, but the Member for the Brentford Gas Company. The hon. Member for West Aberdeen took some part in these Debates, and I am very glad to see him in his place. He was a Teller in the recent Division. He was very virtuously indignant because somebody had suggested that he was associated with gas companies, and he rose in his place and said that he had never been a director of a gas company and had no connection with gas companies, and I believe that the hon. Member in saying that spoke what was quite true. But this Bill covers more things than gas companies. It deals with tramways and electrical undertakings, and the hon. Member for West Aberdeen is a director of the Lancashire United Tramways Company, Limited, a director of the New St. Helens and District Tramways Company, and a director of the South London Electrical Supply Corporation. So that in all these companies he has an interest so far as this particular legislation is concerned. He might have told us, when he was making a virtuous disavowal, that he had no connection with gas companies, that he had at least a connection with tramway companies and electrical concerns. The hon. Member for Ipswich '(Sir D. Goddard) also took a part, although a minor part, in these discussions. The hon. Member for Ipswich is a Gentleman for whom personally we all have a real admiration. I find that he is a director of the following companies: The Bournemouth Gas and
  1874
  Water Company, the Gas Light and Coke Coke Company, the Gas Purification and Chemical Company (chairman), the Ipswich Gas Light Company (chairman), and the Tottenham District Light, Heat, and Power Company.
  Really, what are politics coming to? I do not suggest that this raises very big issues, and for that reason I think that, although those hon. Members have a right as Members of this House to take part in discussion and Divisions, yet if their interests are involved so vitally, surely that is a very good reason why in future on questions of this kind they should be taken out of this House and settled by tribunals outside this House who will be able to adjudicate fairly as to the issues involved! I wish to enter a protest against legislation of this kind being taken from the Committee which investigated the facts of the matter and being brought down to this House and made the subject of violent agitation. We have been bombarded with letters from the companies, and we were lobbied by representatives of these companies. I do say that that is degrading the level of our politics. It is a serious thing for the purity of our politics, and I think it is not a matter that will be repeated in this House.
  Mr. J. W. WILSON: As I have not spoken before on this Bill, I would like to speak from another point of view. I deeply regret the course which the House has taken. The House, in its wisdom in the past, has dealt with these matters through Special Committees or Select Committees appointed with care, and one of the qualifications of those serving on those Committees has been that they have no direct association with the town, borough, railway, or company concerned in the Bill. It has always been the custom of this House, in the twenty years or so I have had experience of Committee work, to treat with the utmost respect every Report presented to the House by such Committees. In this case we had a unanimous Report from the Committee of nine or ten Members drawn from various sections of the House, who had gone into the matter very carefully, had heard evidence, and had heard the parties, who had the Lest and ablest counsel in the land to state their case, and after the labours of this Committee for days and weeks this House, in a moment of excitement, in a couple of hours, reversed that decision, and it is led into the Lobby by the President of the Board of

  1875
  Trade. That has not been the custom of this country and this House in the past.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Business management.
  Mr. WILSON: As a Member of this House who has endeavoured to take some part in the Committee work, I warn Ministers that they will not get hon. Members to give their time freely and their brains and energy to deciding these vexed questions, and questions which bring a great deal of opprobium upon those hon. Members, if this sort of thing is allowed. We get a good deal of criticism on the floor of this House in regard to the work of these Committees, and it has always in the past been the custom of the Chairman of Ways and Means, or the Minister of the Department concerned, to defend the Report of the Committee when it comes to be considered in the House. What happened the other evening? The House was stampeded by a lot of letters and circulars that were sent not only by the companies concerned to their Members and the Members for their constituencies, but by the shareholders in these companies by instigation of these concerns. There has been a good deal of it in the last year or two. Perhaps it is because we have been so far off a General Election, and possibly they think that Members of Parliament require more educating than they used to do. This bombardment of Members for the protection of particular interests is a custom which I think will be resented if it is continued to the extent which has prevailed recently. We do not object to having our attention called to particular grievances, but we do resent it when it is accompanied by entire misstatements. Apparently the companies concerned in many cases have circularised their shareholders to write letters to their Members. I have had some letters. One is from a very intelligent business man who apparently thought that Parliament was passing a Bill to cut down the dividends of gas companies, and the writers of these letters did not know that this was a Bill for the relief of the gas companies. These shareholders seemed to believe that Parliament was arbitrarily saying to gas companies, "You must not pay dividends at more than half pre-war rates," instead of which, if the President of the Board of Trade had taken the Bill as it came from the Committee and said to the gas companies,
  1876
  "Take it or leave it," does anyone suppose for a moment that they would have refused this Bill as it came from the Committee? Therefore I could not help rising to make a protest, not only in this particular case but generally as to the treatment of Special and Select Committees appointed by the House, and the treatment of Members by companies and shareholders in various interests all over the country.
  Mr. J. HENDERSON: As a personal attack has been made on me by the hon. Member for Attercliffe—
  Mr. ANDERSON: No.
  Mr. HENDERSON: I desire to say that I am not a member of the directorate of any gas company, and with regard to tramways we do not want any assistance. We are outside of this.
  Mr. ANDERSON: No.
  Mr. HENDERSON: Excuse me; we do not require it, and neither my co-directors nor I have ever asked a single word about it or put any pressure on a single shareholder. We do not ask for relief under this Bill. It was intended principally for gas undertakings, but the Board of Trade lumped the whole of them together. My right hon. Friend who talked about this Committee forgot to mention that, since the Committee issued its Report, the price of coal has risen by 4s. a ton. Would not that make some difference? Suppose that on the following day the price had been raised by 4s. a ton, would he not have been quite willing to raise the half to three-quarters? Would not that have affected his mind on the subject?
  Mr. WILSON: No.
  Mr. HENDERSON: Does it make no difference in your views?
  Mr. WILSON: No.
  Mr. HENDERSON: Supposing it were put up 10s. a ton, would that make any difference?
  Mr. WILSON: I was speaking of the Report of the Committee.
  Mr. HENDERSON: Since then coal has been raised 4s. a ton.
  Mr. WILSON: By whom?
  Mr. HENDERSON: By the Government.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Then it ought to be paid by the taxpayer, and not by the gas consumer.
  Mr. HENDERSON: When the Coal Mining Bill was brought forward we were told that there would be no charge upon the Exchequer. To avoid a charge on the Exchequer the price has been raised so many shillings.
  Sir F. BANBURY: That is no reason why the gas consumer should pay.
  Mr. HENDERSON: Somebody has got to pay.
  Mr. FIELD: You will not pay.
  Mr. HENDERSON: According to what my hon. Friend opposite says, if the gas company have to pay 7s. or 8s. more for their coal and from 50 to 100 per cent. more for wages, the gas company shareholder is to pay for it.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: The price has gone up.
  Mr. ANDERSON: The price has gone up from 2s. 6d. to 4s.
  Mr. HENDERSON: Since that time the price of coal has risen. Is it to be expected that, when the public are saving the millions that have been charged by the Government arrangements in reference to coal mining, it should be all thrown on the gas companies? So far as electric companies are concerned, I have practically ceased to be a director, and so far as tramway companies are concerned, they want no relief, and no pressure has been brought by them to bear on anyone with regard to that point. As to the gas companies, seeing that the Government have prevented them getting a proper price for residuals, and that 4s. a ton has been added to the price of coal since the Report was issued, I submit that if the Committee had known that that increase was going to take place they would have been willing to increase the proportion. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]
  Sir F. BANBURY: I do not agree with the hon. Member below the Gangway in his argument that because a Member happens to be a director of a company he has no right to express his individual view. If that were carried out, it would be impossible to get a class of Member who, I venture to think, is often very useful. No one will deny that my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. J. Henderson) is very independent in his opinion, but his argument is that when the Coal Regulation Bill was introduced the Government said
  1878
  that there would be no charge on the taxpayer. My recollection is that both he and I said that the Government were wrong. That is the fault of the Government. If the Government commit a fault, who is to pay for that fault? The people who put in the Government, the people of the country, and not any particular class, either shareholders or consumers, but the people at large who are responsible for the Government being here. Then my hon. Friend pointed out that the price of coal has risen. It has risen because the Government conceived, in the interests of the country, that certain things should be done. If there is a loss the people who are to pay are the people of the country, and not an individual class. Therefore, I maintain that the argument of my hon. Friend goes to prove that the gas companies have suffered, that they ought to have some remedy for their suffering, but that that remedy should be provided by the taxpayer as a whole, and not by the consumer—a small and isolated class. It must not be forgotten that statements have been made by gas companies which are not altogether accurate. I do not think that I have seen in any of the statements by gas companies an announcement of the fact that they have already increased their charges by something like 70 per cent. The general idea in this House was: Why should not the consumer, like everybody else, pay a little bit more? But the consumer is paying, as far as I can make out, 70 per cent. more than before the War. Those are the figures given by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. There has been an increase of from £6,000,000 to £10,000,000.
  Sir A. STANLEY: I made no reference to the figures at all.
  Mr. ANDERSON: There has been an increase of from 2s. 3d. to 4s. 4d. per 1,000 feet.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The gas consumer is already paying considerably more than before the War. Then the statement is made, How are they to raise money? They can raise money either by preference shares or debentures, and if they had accepted this Bill they would probably be in a position to pay 2 per cent. on their ordinary stock. There are railway companies who are paying only 2 per cent. on their ordinary stock. The statement for the gas companies in this respect is most misleading and would not appeal to anybody

  1879
  who has any knowledge of their finances. There is no allusion to the fact that a 2 per cent. dividend on their ordinary stock is equal to 4 or 5 per cent. according to the old figures, because in many cases the 10 per cent. on £100 has been changed, into 4 per cent. on £250 and nothing whatever has been said about that. During the many years I have been in this House I have always stood up for the rights of property and the rights of companies. My right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea has held me up to—what shall I say?—opprobrium, because I supported the rights of companies, as I hope I always shall do. But in this particular instance I think that the person who is in fault is His Majesty's Government, and it is His Majesty's Government and the taxpayer who ought to pay.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I agree almost entirely with the speech which has just been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City. I find myself so completely in agreement with him in many things these days that I have very serious hopes that he will shortly become a recruit of the advanced Radical party. But I think that it is advisable that the episode of this week in regard to this Bill should be stated in clear and definite terms, so that the country may appreciate what has been done. There are two reasons why that is so. In the first place we are face to face with a very serious condition of industrial unrest outside this House to-day. A strike has already begun which may extend all over the munitions areas in the country, and which may involve tens of thousands of men. These men are in a state of suspicion and distrust as to their treatment by the Government, and it is certainly not calculated to inspire confidence in these men's minds when they see to-day the Government and the House of Commons united in buttressing the vested interests of the great statutory companies. The other reason is this: We have been told in inspired quarters, or rather I should say in quarters which inspire the Government, that there is to be a General Election in the autumn. I think that it is well that the country, in view of that election, should know what the present Government and what the present House of Commons are doing—that they are giving every assistance in their power to all powerful interests to prevent them in any degree or substantially suffering from the War.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: It is because they are a business Government.
  6.0 P.M.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I am indebted to the hon. Gentleman opposite for his suggestion, but that moral will not be forgotten. It is true that the Government Press in these days endeavour to suppress all these things, but the platform will soon be alive, and opportunities will be taken to make known in every part of the country the sorry part which the Government has played and which the House of Commons have equally played in following its lead, because it has been its lead. It is true that the Government took off the Whips in the Committee stage, but we know how the friends of the Government voted for it. It is an open secret that the Government Whips practically told the votes in Committee. It was their assistance in the Lobby, and the log-rolling of the combined companies, that brought that vote about. What does it mean? I am prepared to accept the proposition of my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeen, that these companies have been prejudiced by raising the price of coal; but does it follow, because the price of coal has been raised by the Government, that the consequences of the rise of price to these companies should fall upon all the consumers throughout the country? This increase in the price has been caused by a gross miscalculation on the part of the Government. When the Coal Mines (Agreement) Bill was before this House a number of Members with whom I was associated, and my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeen, pointed out that the inevitable result of the guarantee arrangement in that Bill would be that the fund would not be solvent, and that in these circumstances it would be essential for the Coal Controller either to go to the Treasury to meet the deficit or that he should supply the deficit by making it a charge upon the consumers of coal. Both of these propositions were denied. But now, as a result of the guarantee arrangement, and now that the price of coal has been raised 8s. per ton, the Government, instead of shouldering the liability as they ought to have shouldered it if they had acted honestly—though that can hardly be expected with transactions of this kind—are seeking to disguise their own blundering by spreading the charge over the whole community.

  1881
  I am not greatly impressed by all these pleas for these suffering companies. There are a great many people who have been called upon to make sacrifices in this War, and it is largely upon the shoulders of people who have been called upon to make these sacrifices that this burden which you are imposing to-day will fall. The people who are working in munitions will not have to do it. They will go to the Minister of Munitions and get another 12½ per cent. Increases are not refused to them, and the Government send up the price of coal again. But there are people who do not share in these industries. There are the wives and dependants of men who are fighting in France and other theatres of the War; there are the pensioned widows of men who have fallen; they are not going to get any increase so that they may keep up the dividends of the statutory companies. What answer will the Government have to them? They have made great professions as to their anxiety to have the votes given to soldiers and sailors, but I am not so sure that they will be so eager when November comes. These things will be remembered against them. It will be remembered that they have made financial arrangements for the benefit of powerful interests which will bear with crushing weight upon the shoulders of all these classes I have just enumerated. This is a transaction to which I believe this House will only be able to look back with shame. It is exploiting the weak and oppressed, him who has no helper, but I am thankful that nearly a hundred of us in this House have at least had the conscience to resist it.
  Mr. FARRELL: I beg to move to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."
  I rise for the purpose of dealing with the case as it affects Ireland. This Bill, I understand, is to enable statutory gas companies to increase the limits fixed by the Acts applying to those undertakings. This Bill affects a number of poor towns and many humble people in Ireland. Since the year 1850 we have had gas companies of various kinds in that country, some of them owned by individuals, some of them built up by shares taken in small companies by the public, and so forth. One of these companies was formed about the year 1854, in the town of Longford, in which I reside. It conducted its operations as a private company with statutory powers until seven years ago. At that
  1882
  time an enterprising syndicate in London sent a committee over to Ireland to buy up gas undertakings there, and they succeeded in acquiring gas undertakings in about twenty towns, of which, unfortunately, Longford was one. I do not know what the particular designation of this syndicate is, but I believe the managing director is a Mr. Anderson, who lives in Victoria Street, not far from this House. I understand he is no relative of the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Anderson), who has taken part in this Debate. The syndicate started its operations by fixing the price of gas in the pre-war time at 4s. 6d. per 1,000 cubic feet. As the price of coal went up they increased the price of gas until they reached the limit fixed in their Act of Parliament, 6s. per 1,000. Those acquainted with the price of coal and gas in England will no doubt regard this charge as high enough in all conscience. What happened? About six weeks ago all the consumers in Longford Town were served with notice from London that the price of gas would be increased to 10s. per 1,000 cubic feet as from 1st September next. The right hon. Member for Battersea stated that the increase in London was from 2s. 4d. to 4s. 5d., or about 70 per cent. But the price is to be 10s. per 1,000 in the poor towns of Ireland. Why are people in the poor towns of my country to suffer any more than people in any part of London? The increase here is 70 per cent., but in Ireland the increase will be a long way over 100 per cent.
  The right hon. Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) dwelt on the responsibility of the taxpayer in respect of these increased prices, and rightly so, I quite agree. I have known him a long time in this House, and I agree with the hon. Member for Lanark that the right hon. Baronet is gradually changing his views. We in Ireland have had no responsibility whatever for the increase in the price of coal. It has been done from this side, and it has been done to such an extent that I am going to put a question to-morrow which will show that as a result of these increased charges you are depriving poor lunatics in the asylums of Ireland of the supply of coal necessary to keep them alive during the coming winter. As to the Coal Controller, I do not wish to say anything offensive about him. I believe he is a well-meaning man, but of course he has no more power than

  1883
  I have in these matters. He has to obey orders. You have cut down the supply of coal, and you take advantage of the consumers in the small towns of Ireland, who suffer for a national act, if I may so call it. The right hon. Member for the City asked why should not the responsibility be shouldered by the taxpayers as a whole, represented by the gentlemen on that bench? I strongly protest against this Bill, on behalf of the poor towns of Ireland, which will be robbed by this transaction. Something should be done, even at this late stage, to limit the operation of these statutory companies.
  I am not speaking so much of municipalities, or large corporations or tramways—we are unfortunately outside the pale in those matters—I confine myself solely to the question of gas undertakings, and especially to the question of gas undertakings by adventurous speculators from England, operating in Ireland. I say it is a monstrous thing that a London syndicate should be able to do this. They first take over local gas companies in which local people were given no control, and had no share at all in the companies. Then it was found that in some extraordinary way that course of action did not popularise the working of these gas companies, and they allotted people in the towns a certain number of shares. The curious part of it is that they are non-dividend-paying shares. They have been allotted for the purpose of putting a gloss on the undertaking, but under this Bill it seems that the London people will come in and scoop the pool. If I am in order, I want to submit to you, Sir, and to the House, a further Motion on this matter, and to move that the Bill be read a third time this day three months. I make that Motion as a protest on behalf of Irish consumers of gas and also in the interests of fair play, because we have had no opportunity hitherto to consider the effect of this Bill, and I ask the House again to mark their protest against this Bill by supporting the Motion which I now submit in the Division Lobby.
  Mr. BURNS: I beg to second the Amendment. In your absence, Sir, an incident has happened that I have not witnessed during my twenty-six years of membership of this House, an incident that reflects the greatest possible credit on two of the most capable—most useful and hardworking Members of this
  1884
  House for nearly thirty years. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Worcestershire (Mr. J. W. Wilson) has been honourably associated with Committee work in this House for at least twenty-five years, and, within his right and most honourably expressed, he said this afternoon that he thought the action of the Government in connection with this Bill was fraught with danger to the House of Commons, as it would tend, by the Government throwing over the Report of a Select Committee to whom they had submitted the subject-matter before the Committee was appointed, to discourage Members of this House to give their time and their ability to the consideration of technical subjects, such as a Gas Bill before a Select Committee must necessarily be, and although the right hon. Gentleman, in his private and personal capacity, has associated himself with many large commercial concerns, he used this opportunity, very properly, in the public interest—and he deserves great credit for doing it—of dissociating himself from the kind of conduct that the Government have displayed in appointing a Select Committee, overruling its Report, and first introducing and then contemptuously casting on one side the Bill based on the Report of that Committee. That is a very significant thing in the domestic life of the House of Commons, when a Privy Councillor, a great business man and an honoured Member of the House, makes that protest to the President of the Board of Trade. Last, but by no means least, what do we see in the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman who supported him from the same bench? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) said that occasionally I have differed from him in his representation of certain views on great commercial questions in this House. I have done so because I was within my right, and I invariably did it with directness, with simplicity, and with courtesy, and certainly expressing, as I then felt, what we all know, that notwithstanding the archaic views that the right hon. Gentleman has on some questions, he is a capable and a devoted Member of Parliament, and enjoys as much as any man I know in the House of Commons the personal respect of those who politically disagree with him.
  But what did the right hon. Gentleman say, and what does he represent on this question? In this matter he represents

  1885
  the City Corporation, who, identified with the London County Council, have petitioned and appealed against this Bill, and when we are told, and it is implied, that the only Members who oppose this Bill and the subsidy at the expense of the consumer, and probably later at the expense of the taxpayer, are men who have scant regard for property in general, it is not true, because the City Corporation and the London County Council, acting on behalf of millions of gas consumers in London, protested and appeared by able counsel, by chemists, and engineers before the Select Committee against this Bill. The implication that is made by one or two Members, gas directors, tramway share-holders, electric light promoters and directors, who have told and voted and lobbied against this Bill, is that these men who opposed this Bill are a type of Bolshevists, who want to rob property of its rights and privilege of its perquisites. The only Bolshevists who are here in this House are the financial Bolshevists, who do not with chaotic impulse, with disorderly intent, and with revolutionary and confiscatory measures, rob other people. They do it decently and in order. They turn on a Minister, the President of the Board of Trade, a business man, and this is the first instance we have had of financial, panoplied Bolshevism responding to the Government Whips at the instance of a vested interest's pooled and syndicated machinations in the Lobby, not against the State, which ought to have treated the gas companies more considerately in the price of their residuals, but against the widow and the orphan and the poor people who consume gas, and to whom the difference between 2s. 3d. and 4s. 4d., between 1s. 9d. and 4s. 5d., is a consideration which they will feel in cold and in pain and in inconvenience when winter arrives. I am glad to say that we have had a respectable Liberal from the Front Opposition Bench and an equally respectable Conservative repudiating the right hon. Member for Berwick's (Mr. Tennant's) conduct, whose programme on this subject and on this occasion seems to me to be mail-clad Imperialism abroad with iron-clad plutocracy at home. That is neither the doctrine of modern Liberalism nor of modern Toryism, and nothing has given me greater pleasure than to find the right hon. Member for the City of London and the right hon Member for North Worcestershire giving us an evidence of true Liberalism, a regard for
  1886
  the respects of property, and not making the House of Commons, which the President of the Board of Trade has, an appanage of the Stock Exchange and a perquisite of the commercial classes. Why do I say that? The reason is this: For the first time in my life I have got the "Financial News" in my pocket, and I apologise to the House for being found in possession of such a document. But see the effect of yesterday's decision and of the President of the Board of Trade intervening against his own Bill and against his own Select Committee. The "Financial News" says:
  "As a result of yesterday's Division, gas stocks advanced on the dividend allowance."
  That is that the increase from half to three-quarters has sent gas shares up this morning. Now I come to another paper, that is very often regarded as the pillar of honest financial journalism, although I sometimes have my doubts about that. What does the "Times" say of yesterday's proceedings, and I must ask the President of the Board of Trade and the Board of Trade to listen to this? The "Times" says:
  "The House of Commons, at the invitation of the President of the Board of Trade, threw over its own Select Committee's recommendations and substituted three-quarters for the one-half recommendation originally in the Bill. We hardly think, however, that the Board of Trade played a very brave part in this matter in leaving it to the House of Commons to decide, but eventually, after a good deal of fumbling. Sir Albert Stanley,"
  and so on. What did he do? This is what he has done, and that is why the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Worcestershire and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London and men like myself protest. When the gas companies expressed a desire to have their position improved they put forward a proposal, both in the Press and upstairs, that to keep their dividends at the pre-war rate they would want something like 2d. per 1,000 feet of gas, or, converted into terms of cash, £415,000 per annum more from London alone to maintain their dividends at their pre-war rates. Twopence per 1,000 feet seems in itself to be a small thing. So does a penny in the £1 on the Income Tax, but before the War that raised three millions of money, and when people heard of only 2d. per 1,000 feet they said, "This is a small thing," but convert that into terms of cash and it is £415,000. When the President of the Board of Trade saw this demand he said, "The Board of

  1887
  Trade on its own responsibility cannot decide this. It must go to a Select Committee." The Select Committee was appointed, and I am glad to say that there was no attempt, so far as those who act with me on this subject go, either to get on the Committee, to influence it, or to take any part in influencing its judgment. It would be grossly improper to do that. This Committee of nine members, composed of all parties in the House, after nine or ten days' investigation and deliberation, unanimously came to the decision that it would be unfair not to help the companies to some extent, but that it would be grossly unfair to help the companies to the extent that the companies demanded, and they recommended that they should be guaranteed as a minimum condition not less than half their pre-war dividend.
  Mr. NEVILLE: No; their standard dividend.
  Mr. BURNS: I will accept the view of the hon. Member for the Brentford Gas Works. It is a technical interpretation by him of the same cash fact. The Committee recommended half instead of three-quarters, whereat it was moved that the half should be withdrawn and three-quarters substituted. May I deal with the difference between half and three-quarters from the point of view of a London Member? Sec what this means to London! If the London County Council were to raise rates a 3d. in the £ for trams over Westminster Bridge or for a new park at Bermondsey or Deptford, the Yellow Press, led by the "Times"—and now Members must agree with my definition which I gave years ago of them—the Yellow Press, led by the "Daily Mail" and the "Evening News," and papers of that type, owned by blackguards, edited by ruffians, read by fools—
  Mr. SPEAKER: I do not know to whom the right hon. Gentleman is referring. If he is referring to a Noble Lord in another place—
  Mr. BURNS: On the contrary.
  Mr. SPEAKER: To whom is the right hon. Gentleman referring?
  Mr. BURNS: I said—and I repeat it—I was quoting a statement I made years ago in this House. I now repeat the actual statement. I said if the county council were to ask for a ¼d. increase in the rates
  1888
  for a park at Bermondsey or Deptford, or for the trams over Westminster Bridge, we should have the Yellow Press newspapers saying the county council were financial wastrels—that they were rascals who ought to be turned out of office. And this proposal of the gasworks and the gas companies—what does the difference between this half and three-quarters mean to London? Yesterday's Division put upon London £289,000, or a l¾d. rate, or 1¾d. per 1,000 feet; and on £28,000,000 of capital, which is watered and converted capital—actually on £15,000,000 of capital—it means 2d. per 1,000 feet, or over £400,000 increase in the price to the London gas consumer; and if we express it, as we have a right to do, in terms of London rates, it would mean to London a l¾d. rate levied on London ratepayers if they paid for their gas through the rates instead of through the meter to the gas companies.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I took no objection to any of that. The objection I took was to the expression of the right hon. Gentleman that a certain newspaper was "owned by blackguards."
  Mr. BURNS: The statement I made was that when an election took place the Yellow Press, which I described years ago—and recent events have amply confirmed my prescient definition and forecast—I said the Yellow Press, owned by blackguards, edited by ruffians, read by fools. That is the Statement I made in this House. I repeat it to-day. If you say it is unparliamentary, and out of order, I withdraw it.
  Mr. SPEAKER: It most certainly is unparliamentary. The leading English paper to which the right hon. Gentleman referred—the "Times"—is owned by a Member of the other House. To refer to a Member of the other House as a "blackguard" is an expression which is not permitted here, and it certainly would not be permitted in the other House with reference to the hon. Member himself.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Is it not the fact that the paper to which the right hon. Gentleman referred is owned by a company?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I do not know, I am sure. I have always understood that Lord Northcliffe was the owner of the "Times."
  HON. MEMBERS: No!
  Mr. SPEAKER: Then it makes it worse, because it is other gentlemen to whom he refers as well. There can be absolutely no justification to use that phraseology about anybody, whether he be a Member of the other House or not. I call upon the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.
  Mr. BURNS: I mentioned no Member of the other House.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I say the right hon. Gentleman has no business to refer to the owner or owners of such a newspaper as being blackguards. That is the point.
  HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!
  Mr. BURNS: I mentioned no Member of Parliaments—no Member of the House of Lords. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"] I shall obey the Speaker, and no one else. If you, Mr. Speaker, decide now—and it is a very serious decision, and I respect your decision. I have been twenty-six years a Member of the House, and never come into conflict with the Chair, and do not intend to, because I do my best to comply with its rules—but if you decide now—and it is a narrow interpretation, if you say I ought to withdraw, when I did not mention the name of a Member of Parliament, or a Member of the House of Lords—I, of course, respect your decision, and I will withdraw, but I mentioned no peers and no commoners.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I do most certainly say that for the right hon. Gentleman, of all people, to get up in this House and name certain newspapers, and then to say they are "owned by blackguards, edited by ruffians, and read by fools," is utterly disorderly, unparliamentary, and unprovoked—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!" and "Hear, hear!"]—and I am astonished that the right hon. Gentleman, with his great experience of the House, should have permitted himself to use such expressions.
  Mr. BURNS: I was under the impression that the Rules of this House allowed a Member a freedom of speech that, so long as he did not make a personal reflection on any Member either of the public or of this or another House, he was entitled to choose his own language in so doing. I had the honour of repeating a statement which I made when you yourself were in the Chair, and I thought I was entitled, having made it then, to repeat it now. But if during the War we are to have another standard, and have during the War—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman is contesting my ruling, and will not accept my statement. I have pointed out that I think those expressions are very improper. I cannot say at this time whether they were used before. I should like to have the reference. But I do suggest to him that he should withdraw those expressions. He would object to being designated in those terms, and I am sure he would not wish to apply to others terms by which he would not like to be designated himself.
  Mr. BURNS: I am too old a Parliamentary hand to damage my position in this House and the cause I represent by quarrelling or disagreeing with the Chair. I accept your advice, Mr. Speaker. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"] I do so. [HON. MEMBERS: "Say so!"] I have said so. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"] I withdraw, Mr. Speaker. That is what I meant by saying I accept your advice. The newspapers have been representing that this action of ours was in a narrow interest in defence of views that are against property. The President of the Board of Trade does not realise the harm he has done. He does not realise what he has done by appointing a Select Committee, bringing in a Bill, repudiating the Select Committee, opposing his own Bill, and not standing by his Bill in a Division in the House of Commons. I can assure the Minister in charge of the Board of Trade that we have taken this action in the interests of sound, clean, honest policy on private Bills in the House of Commons, and that he, by taking the side of the gas companies in the way that he has done, has inflicted a great damage upon Departmental control of public Bills. He has damaged the policy, procedure, and traditions of Select Committees, and has inflicted upon the poor gas consumers a considerable burden, from which they would have been saved had he stood by his own Bill. I repeat that the decision of yesterday is equal to a 1¾d. rate on the whole of London. It raises the price of gas to the consumer £298,000, or over 1d. per 1,000 feet. It gives to him that hath, and it takes away from him that hath not that which he seemeth to have.
  In a word, this Bill does for the gas companies what the Corn Production Bill did for the landlord, and the Coal Mines Bill for the coal-owner. What you do for the landlord in your Corn Production Bill, what you do for the coal-mine owner in

  1891
  your Coal Mines Bill, what you have done for the railway director, will all be quoted as precedents, standards, and examples by all those disinherited people who have no property, whose wages have been shortened by their being taken from their labour in pit, mine, and factory and sent to the trenches in Flanders. When these men come home there is sure to be political excitement, some social dislocation, perhaps economic disturbance of a serious character, and I am really a friend of the Government when I ask them not to erect so high a standard of generous compensation, at the expense of other people or the taxpayers, for people who have more than sufficient to carry on during the War. If you do, the poor, the demobilised, the unemployed, those upon whom the burden of the War has fallen disproportionately, will say that what is good enough for the landlord, the coal-owner, the railway director, and the gas company shareholder ought to be good enough for the men who sacrificed all their property, damaged their health in at least a million of instances, gave up their lives for their country, on whose behalf they have splendidly enlisted and gallantly fought—I say by the erection of this standard you are giving an incentive to disproportionate, perhaps outrageous, demands that no country will be rich enough to stand, and wealthy though we almost were beyond the dreams of avarice, thanks to the open door of Free Trade, it is even too much for our riches to pay. When that trouble comes, you must not blame the Labour Members, the leaders of the unemployed, the leaders of the disabled soldiers, the old age pensioners, and the wives and widows of soldiers who have been injured and killed The erection of this disproportionate standard of compensation for people who do not want it, at the cost of those who are unable to bear the burden of it, will rest upon the Government, and not upon those men who, to their credit, have honourably and persistently opposed this Bill. I am not at all hopeless that some farsighted earl or prescient peer, removed from the influences of financial lobbying and company promoting, will, perhaps, in the calmer atmosphere of the House of Lords, say:
  "If England is a land of just renown.
  Where freedom broadens down from precedent to precedent"—
  it is the business of the peers to correct
  1892
  undisciplined finance, and disordered, wild, anarchic gas shareholders who marshal their legions in the House of Commons to get out of the consumer, and ultimately the taxpayer, that to which they are not entitled. I do not despair that some Members of the House of Lords, when this Bill goes to the other place, will take the view that is, I think, the view to be taken upon this question, that when the War has imposed upon the community burdens to the tune of £8,000,000,000 of debt, it is not the business of those that are rich to give examples of stampeding a Ministry, raiding the Treasury, or robbing the poor by means of disproportionately high gas prices. If such a peer were to do what I have stated he would earn the respect of his fellows, the gratitude of the public, and, speaking for London, he would earn the gratitude of a community that has been burdened by this War as no other community has ever been burdened. London's contribution to this War is nearly £3,000,000,000. It has sent a million men into the Army and Navy, and it has at least 150,000 dead men as a result of its contribution to the War. You have no right to submit these people to the great sacrifice of this burden, hitherto cheerfully borne, by getting a Government Department to shift the burdens of the gas shareholders on to the widow, the orphan, and the wife of the soldier and sailor—burdens which each of us, rich and poor, in proportion to our means and our taxable and earning capacity ought equally to bear until the War is ended.
  I know of no more squalid proceeding, no meaner task that has ever been undertaken by interests that have been organised as I have never seen them organised on any other Bill. I know of no meaner task and no more squalid undertaking than that which has ended in giving the gas companies privileged protection at the cost of the gas consumer I should have been false to my duty as one of the Members for London on whom this burden disproportionately falls, had I not spoken as I have spoken. Never in my lifetime, in my opinion, was any protest more justified than the protest I now make against the Minister who appoints a Committee, throws over its recommendations, brings in a Bill to carry out those recommendations, then runs away from his Bill. The "Times" is right when it says that that is not the kind of thing that evokes admiration of any Minister or any Government.

  1893
  If he thought one half was not sufficient, it was his business, on his own authority, as the Minister, to give three-quarters as against one-half; to stand by that proposal, and to say it was right and the Committee was wrong. He had no right first to appoint a Select Committee, then to bring in a Bill, then to abandon both the Committee and the Bill, then to run away, and not to vote on either side, but leave it to the House of Commons. He knew, or he ought to have known, what I stated in my speech here the other day, that if this Bill had been confined to the gas companies alone, and they had been voted upon, the gas companies would probably have been beaten. What happened was that at the last moment tramways, electric light, and then water was added to the gas, with the result that we saw a pooling and linking of the four interests, the end being that they got a collective vote and a majority which, I am sorry to say, was larger than it ought to have been. Thanks, however, to the Irish Members, who in these matters have invariably taken the side of the poor in London, the side of the disinherited throughout the rest of the United Kingdom—besides Ireland—the Irish Members have helped us to raise the protest from 52 to 97. If we could continue the discussion on this subject for another week or two, here and in an impartial Press, if we could get the mind of the country and not the votes of well-manipulated gas company interests, this Bill would never get its Third Reading in another place. Whether it pass or not, I have made my protest on behalf of London.
  Colonel Sir F. HALL: One part of London!
  Mr. BURNS: I have never claimed to speak other than for my own Constituents, but in this case the hon. Member for Dulwich is making a mistake. I am in this matter doing what the City of London have unanimously decided to do by petition, that is to protest against any alteration of the dividend of the gas companies, and they have been joined by the London County Council. These two great bodies have united in sharing and expressing our view before the Committee upstairs. Added to that all the Liberal Members in London have voted with us on this particular subject. I regret to say that some London Members have not joined with us to the extent we had hoped. Certain it is that I am right
  1894
  in saying, with all respect to the hon. Member for Dulwich, that, speaking broadly and generally, the view of London is that if there is to be any increase in the price of gas, if there is to be any disability under which the gas companies should labour, it should not be shouldered wholly on to the gas consumers, which will be the effect of this proposal, but the shareholder, the Government, the consumer, the taxpayer, and the ratepayer should proportionately, decently, and in order, each bear their proper share of the burden. It is because the interests concerned are unloading this upon the gas consumer alone that I make my protest. If a Division be called against the Third Reading, I shall have the honour and the privilege of supporting the Amendment.
  Sir F. HALL: I intended speaking on this matter a few days ago, when the House discussed the Bill, and I intended to do so because I am desirous of saying here and now that I do not think it has been recognised, or sufficiently recognised, that the great bulk of the capital of the gas companies in this country is held, not by the large financiers to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea has referred, but to a great body of small investors who in many cases have paid for their shares of £25 or £50 a price perhaps double the price of the shares of gas stock at the present time. It is on their behalf, and as a Member for London, that I am supporting the Government in this measure. I can tell the House that, so far as I am concerned as a London Member, I have received an enormous number of letters from small investors—scores and scores—and I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Burns) whether his experience is the same as mine, or other Members, who have received a protest against the forced reduction; and in all cases it has been in favour of the increased dividend, of the dividend being maintained notwithstanding the extra cost that will have to be borne by the consumers who are also shareholders. In not one single case have I received from the consumers a letter of protest against the proposed increase of the price of gas. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the large amount that had to be borne, £289,000. I accept his figures, notwithstanding I have not checked them, because I know full well that when the right hon. Gentleman makes a statement in this House he is so known and recognised

  1895
  by all those who have the pleasure of knowing him that they are fully satisfied that at all events his figures are correct. What then does it mean?
  7.0 P.M.
  I should like to ask the House to consider what is the ordinary amount of gas that is consumed by the consumers. Is it a question of 10,000 cubic feet or 3,000 cubic feet per quarter? I think it will be found that it is more in the neighbourhood of 3,000, 4,000, or 5,000 cubic feet per quarter. We hear all these questions in regard to the great trusts and financial experts, and the question is perhaps 4d. or 5d., the cost of gas per quarter to each consumer. I think the whole question speaks for itself. Members of this House are able to get up and say, as I can say, that in no case has there been any protest received. On the other hand, I have been asked by widows, to whom the right hon. Gentleman referred, to support this, for they are relying for their entire income upon such securities as those we are discussing. They have carefully saved up their sovereigns in the past and invested in former times. Now you are to say, "Never mind what increase has been given to the labourer or paid to the miner; never mind at what extra cost the gas company has been compelled to continue to produce its gas—never mind all this, the consumer has not to pay it in order that a reasonable return shall be made to the shareholders." I congratulate the President of the Board of Trade of having the courage of his convictions, of having seen that he had made a mistake, and then of coming down to this House and practically saying that in the hurry and multiplicity of the things he had had to look into he had not been able to give this Bill that care and attention which in the ordinary course he would have done. That is really what it comes to. He has said to us, "So far as I am concerned, I throw the decision in this matter upon the House." To use his own expression, "Many Acts of Parliament have been passed in this House in regard to the gas companies; they have been carefully thought out, and discussed and voted upon by Members of this House; nevertheless, so far as I am concerned, I think, under the extraordinary circumstances through which the country is passing, that, at all events, the House should decide the question of what should be done in regard to the additional cost being thrown or not thrown upon the consumer."
  1896
  I think it was a courageous action on the part of the President of the Board of Trade, and if the Government would only have like courage in other matters when they find the Committee have done wrong—if, for instance, with regard to the Coal Mines Bill and other Bills they had taken the same course—it would have been to their advantage. I hope that this is going to be a precedent. May I say at once, I do not believe in the view that the whole of the legislation of this country should be decided in the Committee Rooms of the House of Commons. I am quite convinced that the members of Select Committees do give most careful attention to the subjects remitted to them, but I hold at the same time that a House of 670 Members should have the right to inquire into the matters which have been decided upon by Committees upstairs, and if in the opinion of a great body of the members the Select Committee's decision is not to the greatest advantage of this country, then it is the duty of the House of Commons not to endorse their Report, but to do, as has been done in this case, take the matter into their own hands, and decide what in their opinion is best for the community. The right hon. Member for Battersea told us that he was afraid that the power of Select Committees is likely to depreciate, in consequence of the action of the President of the Board of Trade. I hope that will not be the case. I believe in these matters being thrashed out by Committees, and I hope that will continue to be the practice in the future. I believe that members of the Select Committee who went into this particular matter, now they know fully the feeling of the majority of the people in this country, will accept the decision of the House of Commons in the way one would expect from good, capable, courageous men of business. I hold it is proper the House should be given a free hand to discuss these matters, and I hope that in cases of other Gas Bills, of Bills of a similar nature, the Government in the future will adopt the same course when there is any possible question as to the decision of the Committee being a right one—that they will take off the Whips and leave the matter to the vote of the House of Commons.
  Mr. FIELD: I only desire to bring before the House this fact, that the Corporation of the city of Dublin are as strongly opposed to this Bill as the Corporation of the City of London.

  1897
  Various urban and rural district councils in Ireland, also, have sent to me petitioning against this Bill. On the other hand, I have had no communications of any kind in its favour, except from some gas companies. I have no desire to go over the arguments which have been used, but I wish to make this one observation, that the Debate this evening shows that public utilities in England ought to be owned and operated by the public, and not by private companies, which obtain vested interest in connection with them, and are not subject to that jurisdiction which ought to be exercised over all public utilities. I hope this Debate, too, will prevent any Minister of the Crown in future acting in the manner of which we are now complaining. This subject was examined by a Select Committee, which duly reported, and whose Report was adopted by a Minister of the Crown. At the last moment that right hon. Gentleman changed his mind. The result is that the House of Commons really is not in possession of the information which it ought to have, before being called upon to vote for this Bill. I think, too, that in future when a matter of this kind is before Parliament, Members ought not to receive so many communications, or to be Lobbied in the manner they have been during the last few days. I remember that when a Bill promoted by the London and North-Western Railway Company was before this House, the directors of that company were not here to vote. In matters of this kind, where people have a personal and financial interest in the subject under discussion they ought to have the good taste to abstain from voting upon it, and if that attitude were adopted then the House of Commons would be recognised as an impartial assembly, competent to deal with public interests. I trust that this Debate will make Ministers more careful in the future in regard to upsetting decisions of Committees.
  Mr. GILBERT: I do not happen to represent an aristocratic villa district such as the hon. and gallant Member for Dulwich (Sir F. Hall) appears to do. I represent a working-class district where a great deal of gas is consumed. One would imagine from the hon. and gallant Member's speech that no gas is consumed in Dulwich, but I think that when an election comes along the hon. Gentleman will be surprised when he hears the views of gas consumers in his Constituency on this
  1898
  particular Bill. I understand him to say that there had been no feeling in London on this matter and that he had only been approached by shareholders and widows and people of that kind. The district with which I am connected is the Borough or Southwark, and the Southwark Borough Council unanimously passed a resolution asking the Members for the Division to support the Report of the Select Committee of this House. Further than that, as we have been told by the right hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Burns), the London County Council, which is not composed so far as the majority is concerned of members with those political views I am in sympathy, has also unanimously asked the London Members in this House to support the action of the Committee upstairs. Personally, with a very short knowledge of Parliamentary procedure, I am surprised at the action of the Government on this Bill. I certainly thought that when a Special Committee had been appointed to go into the matter, had taken evidence, and had examined the details, and upon an unanswerable case had come to a decision and reported unanimously in favour of the adoption of a certain course, and when the Government had brought in a Bill based upon the recommendations of the Committee, that Bill would have been carried into law. Speaking on behalf of the particular district in London with which I am concerned, I have had very few applications from shareholders in the sense indicated by the hon. and gallant Member for Dulwich. I know that one gas company issued a circular worded in a special way asking people who possess a small amount of gas stock to personally interview their Member of Parliament. Another company has a kind of profit-sharing scheme and a certain number of the workmen own a small number of shares, and the result has been that we were visited in the Lobby every day last week and pressed to vote for the gas companies' proposal.
  I was amazed during the Debate the other night to hear Member after Member who differed from me on this Bill get up and advocate increasing the dividend, not as Members of Parliament, but as directors of gas companies and in the interests of those companies. Public bodies with which I have previously been associated have always considered it ultra vires for persons connected with any concern to get up and advocate their own personal interest. It was quite new to me that a

  1899
  Member of Parliament should get up in this House and boldly advocate the interest of the company in which he is concerned, instead of safeguarding the interests of his constituents. In my part of London we have thousands of penny-in-the-slot gas consumers. These people have already been charged very much higher prices for gas. The quantity has been reduced and the calorific power has been lessened. Many of these people are munition workers, who are out all day and have to do their cooking at night by gas. They already have to pay a high price for that gas. But as the result of this Bill they will have to pay very much more in the future. I have no quarrel with shareholders of gas companies in seeking to maintain their dividends, but I would like to point out that there are shareholders in other commercial undertakings who would be very pleased indeed to have a guarantee that they will during the next two or three years get at least 50 per cent. of their pre-war dividends. Take the case of the rubber companies. For years before the War they paid very high dividends. Now, owing to the War, many of them pay no dividend at all, and I am sure their shareholders will be only too delighted if they could be assured of a percentage of their pre-war dividends in the same way as gas company shareholders are being treated under this Bill. I join with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea in saying that we strongly object to the gas companies obtaining these powers under this Bill. If they want to retain their pre-war dividends, let them do it in another way. It is not right, at any rate, that this burden should be thrown on the consumer. The part of London which I represent is strongly opposed to this Bill, and I feel pretty confident that when the gas consumers of Dulwich realise the fact that they are going to be charged extra prices for their gas the expression of their views will very much surprise their representative in this House.
  Mr. ROWLANDS: I want to refer to one remark in the speech of the hon. Member for Dulwich (Sir F. Hall), and as the President of the Board of Trade was not present at the time it was delivered, I desire to call his special attention to it. The hon. Member for Dulwich is so enthusiastically delighted with the action which the right hon. Gentleman has taken that
  1900
  he complimented him very highly on his courage, and so forth. As is usual in these cases he was evidently looking for favours to come because he said distinctly and deliberately, not once, but twice, that he hoped the President of the Board of Trade would make this a precedent in dealing with future gas and other Bills. I should like, if it is possible, to get from the right hon. Gentleman—
  Sir F. HALL: What I said was that I should like him to make it a precedent if he is satisfied that the decision of the Select Committee is wrong. In such cases I hoped he would act in a similar manner and take his action in this case as a precedent.
  Mr. ROWLANDS: The hon. and gallant Member stated that with regard to many other subjects, but when he used the word "precedent" he was dealing with this particular Bill, and the one thing he particularly used it in connection with was the Select Committee's Report. I seriously ask anyone who has had a wide experence of procedure, who is conversant with our Constitution and has had practical experience, whether he can look with satisfaction to the Reports of Select Committees being dealt with as this one has been dealt with. I put it to any constitutional authority in this House that there is no precedent for such a proceeding. The hon. and gallant Member for Dulwich; said that the President of the Board of Trade, with his multifarious duties, could not look into all these questions, but what did he do? He took the right course. He said, "I cannot go into all the details, and there is only one constitutional course for me to adopt. I have advised that we have a strong Select Committee to sit upstairs to deal with these questions," and that Committee sat and deliberated, and came to a unanimous conclusion, and presented its Report.
  There were three courses open to the Government and to the President in connection with that Report. They were not bound to accept, or they could have adopted part of it, but instead of that, they accepted the whole of the vital portion of the Report, embodied it in a Bill, presented it to this House, and supported the Second Reading, and then the Government actually comes down here and throws over their own Bill. Another precedent of such a kind could not be found. With regard to what the feeling

  1901
  is outside I have had letters from shareholders, and I happen to know that all the shareholders are not absolutely widows, and you will find the bulk of the shares in these companies is held by large holders. We have been told that we have not heard the voice of the consumers in opposition to this Bill, but I would remind the House that they are not organised. What I do say is that if this thing is going to go on in this way you will have a feeling and an organisation such as you had in the case of similar proposals by the Gas Light and Coke Company and the South Metropolitan Gas Company, when the Gas Consumers' Association was formed in London in 1894 An agitation like that would take time to organise on behalf of the consumers, but the organisation of the companies is there. They can turn out as many circulars as they like, and they have not to wait until you create a popular organisation. I know the feelings of the consumers. We must look for the organised expression of public opinion as representing the voice of the consumers. You have been told that the Corporation took up one position and the London County Council took the same attitude. Some of the borough councils took the same view with regard to the Select Committee's Report, and the Urban District Councils' Association took exactly the same view, and they asked hon. Members representing urban district council areas to stand by the Committee's Report. There is not a single representative of any of these local bodies which has asked any hon. Member to vote against the Report of the Select Committee. Therefore, as against the individual letters written by shareholders, we have the stronger case on behalf of the public.
  I do not desire to injure the shareholders, but I want it pointed out fairly that this is not an attempt to break down the dividends. This is really a relief Bill. The shareholders said that, owing to the War and the action of the Government, their dividends were disappearing, and they said they believed that they would entirely disappear, and they asked Parliament to come to their aid. The Committee heard their case, admitted they were in a serious position, and came to their relief, and they said, "We will see you do not lose beyond 50 per cent. of your dividends." Why did the gas companies not come out, by means of their organisations, to attack the Government with regard to
  1902
  what they considered to be their grievances? They say they have a grievance because of the price charged for coal and the calorific power of the coal, and they also state that they have not had a fair price for their residuals. Why did they not bring those grievances before the Government and ask the Government to meet them? They have not done so. When private legislation is promoted we have a right to see that the community is entirely and carefully protected by the Department concerned. The Deparment affected by that particular private legislation is the only stand-by between the community and the promoters of that legislation. We want to feel that in these matters the House will hold to its old prestige and honour, and we also want to feel that the community can look with confidence to the Government Department concerned standing between it and the demands of any of these promoters of private legislation.
  Amendment negatived.
  Main Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.

LAND DRAINAGE BILL.
Lords Amendments considered.

CLAUSE 2.—(Procedure for the Making of Orders.)
(2) A petition for an Order may be presented, in the case of a proposal for the definition of the limits of a commission of sewers, by the commission, and in the case of a proposal to alter or supplement a local Act conferring powers on a drainage authority, by that authority, or by the council of any administrative county or county borough in which any part of the drainage area of that authority is situate, and in other cases by—

(a) the proprietors of one-tenth of the area proposed to be constituted a separate drainage district, or of the area proposed to be added to or excluded from a drainage district;

CLAUSE 7.—(Power to Enter into Arrangements with Navigation Authorities.)
Lords Amendment: Insert the following new Sub-section,
"Notice of the intention to make an Order under this Section shall be given to the Postmaster-General."
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Mr. BOOTH: Might we have some explanation of this Amendment?
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir R. Winfrey): Yes; the Postmaster-General has a working arrangement, and he desires to have notice given to him.

CLAUSE 13.—(Definitions.)
Lords Amendment: Leave out the words,
"The expression 'navigation authority' means any person or body of persons having powers under any Act of Parliament to work or maintain a canal or other inland navigation."
—Agreed to.

CLAUSE 15.—(Powers of Board to Enforce Performance of Duties.)
(2) Where, in the opinion of the Board, any agricultural land is injured or likely to be injured by flooding or inadequate drainage which might be remedied wholly or partially by the exercise of drainage powers which are conferred by any general or local Act or an Order having the force of an Act of Parliament, or by any award made under any Act, or by any commission of sewers, and which are not being exercised or, in the opinion of the Board, are being insufficiently exercised, the Board may exercise any such power and also any power conferred by any such Act, Order, award, or commission for defraying the expenses so incurred or for any purpose incidental to the exercise of any such power: Provided that this Sub-section shall not apply to powers conferred upon any railway or canal company for the purposes of their undertaking.

CLAUSE 16.—(Schemes for Drainage of Small Areas.)
(2) Before executing any works under this Section the Board shall prepare a draft scheme stating—

(a) the works proposed to be executed:

(b) the area to be improved thereby;

(c) the estimated cost of the execution of the works and the maximum amount to be recoverable by the Board in respect of the costs thereof;

(d) the manner in which the expenses of executing and maintaining the works are to be apportioned amongst the lands comprised in the area;

and shall give to the owners and occupiers of land comprised within the area, and to any
1904
navigation authority or other body or person appearing to the board to be affected by the scheme, notice in the prescribed manner of the making of the draft scheme, and of the place where it can be inspected and of the time within which objections to the scheme may be presented to the Board, and the Board shall, before settling the scheme, consider any objections which may have been duly made.
(5) Any expenses incurred by the Board under this Section in the execution of drainage works to an amount not exceeding the amount declared by the scheme to be the maximum amount of expenses recoverable by them, or in maintaining any such works, shall be recoverable by the Board in a summary manner from the several owners of the lands to which the scheme relates according to the appointment in the scheme:
Provided that if any owner so requires in writing the sum payable by him shall be recoverable by the Board by means of a, rate to be made and levied by the Board in like manner, subject to the like provisions and with the like incidence, as are applicable in the case of a private improvement rate for private improvement expenses incurred by a local authority under the Public Health Act, 1875, with this qualification, that the Board shall, on the application of the owner or occupier of any land subject to the rate, determine the proportion of the rate to be borne by them respectively, having regard to the benefit derived from the works, the contract of tenancy, and all other circumstances of the case, but the local authority may on the application of the Board collect the rate and pay over the proceeds to the Board after deducting such reasonable costs of collection as may be agreed with the Board, or, in default of agreement, settled by the Local Government Board.
Lords Amendment: In Sub-section (2, c), after the word "works," insert the words,
"which shall not exceed an amount equal to five pounds for each acre in the area to be improved, or five thousand pounds in all."
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 have some explanation as to whether this is an Amendment of substance. This would appear to me to be a very important limit, and I should like the Government to justify it.
Sir R. WINFREY: The powers conferred by Clause 16 are only exercisable where the drainage improvements cannot be definitely dealt with by Part I. If the area is so small that the drainage authority cannot deal with it, then this Clause gives the Board of Agriculture power to deal with it. This is really a limiting Amendment and makes it impossible to deal with large areas.
Mr. WATT: This seems to me to be a most important Amendment, and I am surprised that the Parliamentary Secretary has advised the House to accept it, because it places a limit on the amount recoverable by the Board from landowners and it limits the amount of expenses which can be recovered from the owners of the land.
Sir R. WINFREY: It limits the estimated cost.
Mr. WATT: Surely my hon. Friend, although he is much more familiar with the measure than I am, is mistaken. This Sub-section deals with the expenses incurred and the amount of expenses which shall be recoverable. The limitation applies to the expenses which are recoverable by the Board. That is important, because the Board of Agriculture will lose the balance which they will have expended. It was part of the idea at the back of this measure that any expenses incurred by the Board in draining the land of landowners should be recoverable, whereas in another place a limitation has been put limiting the amount which the Board will be able to recover from the landowners to £5 per acre or £5,000 in all. That is a serious Amendment to the measure, and I am surprised that my hon. Friend has recommended the House to accept it.

CLAUSE 19.—(Crown Sights.)
Nothing in this Part of this Act affects prejudicially any estate, right, power, privilege, or exemption of the Crown, and in particular nothing therein contained authorises the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries to take, use, or in any manner to interfere with any portion of the shore or bed of the sea or of any river, channel, creek, bay, or estuary or any land, hereditaments, subjects or rights of whatsover description belonging to His Majesty in right of His Crown and under the management of the Commissioners of Woods or of the Board of Trade respectively without the consent in writing of the Commissioners of Woods or the Board of Trade, as the case may be, on behalf of His Majesty first had and obtained for that purpose (which consent the said Commissioners and Board are hereby respectively authorised to give).
Lords Amendment: After the word "Majesty" ["His Majesty in right of his Crown"], insert the words "in right of the Duchy of Lancaster or."
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Mr. BOOTH: I think we ought to have an explanation why the Duchy of Lancaster comes in and not the Duchy of Cornwall. I quite admit that there is a difference in their relations to the State, but I think we ought to have an explanation as to the four Amendments on this Clause, and I should be glad if my hon. Friend could say why the Duchy of Lancaster is mentioned and not the Duchy of Cornwall.
Sir R. WINFREY: I am afraid that I cannot explain exactly this point. These are saving provisions, and I understand that they are asked for by the authorities.
Lords Amendments:
After the word '"writing" ["without the consent in writing of the Commissioners"], insert the words "of the Chancellor of the Duchy or."—Agreed to.
After the word "said" ["which consent the said Commissioners and Board"], insert the words "Chancellor of the Duchy."—Agreed to.
At the end insert,
"(2) Nothing in this part of this Act affects prejudicially any estate, right, power, privilege, or exemption vested in or enjoyed by the Duke of Cornwall or the possessor for the time being of the Duchy of Cornwall."
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Mr. BOOTH: I should like to know what is the necessity for this Amendment. I presume it is a Government Amendment. The difficulty I have is that the lines named on the Amendment Paper are not the lines of the printed Bill. The Amendment Paper says, "Line 25, at end"—of Clause 19—"insert," but in the printed Bill that brings us to Clause 23, which simply says that this Act may be cited as the Land Drainage Act, 1918. This, of course, is the Commons' copy. I take it it would come in about Line 18, in which case it says:
"The principal Act and this Act shall apply to land belonging to His Majesty.…belonging to the Duchy of Lancaster, belonging to the Duchy of Cornwall, or such person as the Duke of Cornwall or the possessor fur the time being of the Duchy of Cornwall appoints."
Then we go on to say, "Nothing in this part of this Act affects prejudicially"—
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has the wrong Bill.
Sir R. WINFREY: The Amendment really comes in at the end of Clause 19.
Mr. SPEAKER: It is in quite the right place.
Mr. BOOTH: I am sorry. This is the copy that was given to me.

CLAUSE 21.—(Crown and Duchy Lands.)
The principal Act and this Act shall apply to land be longing to His Majesty, in right of the Crown, or the Duchy of Lancaster, and to land belonging to the Duchy of Cornwall, and as respects—

(a) land belonging to His Majesty in right of the Crown, the Commissioners of Woods;

(b) land belonging to His Majesty in right of the Duchy of Lancaster, the Chancellor of the Duchy;

(c) land belonging to the Duchy of Cornwall, such person as the Duke of Cornwall or the possessor for the time being of the Duchy of Cornwall appoints;

shall, for the purposes of the principal Act, be deemed to be the proprietor of the land.

CLAUSE 23.—(Short Title and Construction.)
(1) This Act may be cited as the Land Drainage Act, 1918.
(2) This Act shall be construed as one with the principal Act.
(3) In this Act the expression "prescribed" means prescribed by Regulations made by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, and the expression "drainage" includes defence against water.
Lords Amendment: At the end, insert the words,
"and the expression 'navigation authority' means any person or body of persons having powers under any Act of Parliament to work or maintain a canal or other inland navigation."
Agreed to.

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS (REMISSION OF DEBTS).
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it is expedient to authorise the remission of arrears of principal and interest due to the Public Works Loans Commissioners in respect of Eyemouth
1908
Harbour Loan, in pursuance of any Act of the present Session relating to local loans."—[Mr Baldwin.]
Mr. BOOTH: There is no mention of any limit in this Resolution. I think it would be quite easy to put in a financial limit. I take it that the Resolution refers to the Public Works Loans Bill which is on the Paper, and, if it does, the amounts are all set out in the Schedule. Unless, therefore, we can have some explanation, I think we must move to insert the amount therein named, or, at any rate, a reasonable margin. There is no doubt that we have the promise of the Leader of the House that wherever possible a Minister must insert this limit. I know that my right hon. Friend, for some reason or other, is very reluctant to obey his chief. Perhaps I ought not to put it so strong as that, but he and I do not quite see the position in the same way. At any rate, the Chancellor of the Exchequer did say that, wherever possible, a limit should be inserted. I should, therefore, like to ask why a limit is not suggested.
Mr. BALDWIN: I do not think my hon. Friend quite understands that the limit is actually incorporated in the Bill itself. This Resolution merely entitles the writing off of these amounts which are incorporated in the Bill.
Mr. BOOTH: I am very sorry, but the House does not seemed to have gained the point which it thought it had gained. This is a Financial Resolution, and it so happens that it applies to a Bill which passed the Second Reading yesterday. As a rule, a Money Resolution applies to a Bill which goes to a Standing Committee.
Mr. BALDWIN: Not this particular Bill.
Mr. BOOTH: I say that as a rule these Money Resolutions apply to Bills which go to a Standing Committee, and this is the opportunity that this House has of putting in a limit beyond which the Committee cannot go. The Leader of the House has expressed his approval of this House at this stage putting in a limit, and he has agreed that if the Minister in charge does not suggest a limit he shall inform the House why a limit is not desirable. There can be no objection to a limit here. It clearly ought to be the amount which is in the Schedule. I trust you will entertain the Motion limiting

1909
the amount to the sum total of these items in the Schedule. I cannot add them up on the spur of the moment, but to put myself in order I beg to move as an Amendment to insert the words "not exceeding £10,000."
The CHAIRMAN: I would point out to the hon. Member that in this case it is superfluous, because the Committee is already limited by the terms of the Bill to a much smaller sum than £10,000. The Committee is limited to the sums named in Clause 3 of the Bill. Therefore, the purpose which the hon. Member has in view would not be achieved by an Amendment to this Resolution.
Mr. BOOTH: Then I understand that you assure me that we are protected on this occasion, and that in Committee you could not admit any Amendment which extended or increased that amount.
Mr. WATT: The Eyemouth Harbour money is guaranteed by the Scottish Herring Branding Fund, which was instituted by the Fisheries Board. Fees have to be paid by fishermen, and they go into a fund called the herring branding account. I understand that particular account was set aside as a guarantee for the advances made to this harbour. The Eyemouth Harbour trustees got the Fisheries Board to guarantee that this particular fund should be utilised to pay back the Government loan. We are told in the terms of the Bill that this guarantee fund has been found wanting, and that it is no longer available for the repayment of this money. I intended last evening asking my hon. Friend how it came about that this fund was no longer there to be utilised for repaying this loan. As far as I understand the situation, herring branding still goes on, and fees are still payable. Yet the fund seems to have vanished in some way, so that the Government are in the position of having to write off a large portion of the loan advanced to the Eyemouth Harbour trustees. What has become of the Herring Branding Fund? How is it that it is not in existence now to serve the purpose for which it was instituted?
Mr. BALDWIN: There is no such thing as the Herring Branding Fund. The condition on which the loan of £10,000 was made was that the surplus of these fees should be devoted to paying off one-fiftieth part of the principal and interest
1910
per annum. Very favourable terms were given to the Eyemouth Harbour when the last arrangements were made. It was arranged that only in the case of there being a surplus in the herring branding fees—that is, if they have had a successful year—should the principal and interest be paid, but that in any year when there was no surplus out of which it could be paid, then the amount for that year should be written off. If there should happen to be at a later time a surplus, it is not made available for paying any back debts. Each year is treated by itself. In some years there is a surplus, and in some years there is a deficit. For the last few years there has been a deficit. We only write off this small amount each year, and not the whole of the balance, because we hope and anticipate that when the War is over there will again be a surplus, and that the trustees will be able to pay principal and interest.
Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

ASYLUMS OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION BILL.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Application of 9 Edw. 7 c. 48, to Officers and Servants of Certified institutions for Defectives.)
(1) Subject to such adaptations and modifications as the Secretary of State may by Order prescribe and subject as hereinafter provided, the Asylums Officers Superannuation Act, 1909, shall apply and shall be deemed always to have applied to officers and servants employed in certified institutions for defectives as if references in that Act to asylums included references to such institutions, and as if in relation to officers and servants of such an institution references to the visiting committee of an asylum included references to the managers of the institution:
Provided that—

(a) An officer or servant employed in a certified institution shall be treated as an officer or servant of the second class;

(b) The power under Sub-section (3) of Section two of the said Act to add years to the actual years of service shall not apply in respect of service in certified institutions;

(c) The rate of contribution for an officer or servant employed in a certified institution shall be two and a half per cent. of the salary or wages and emoluments for each year, except that in the case of an officer or servant who has removed from an asylum to a certified institution and who

1911
at the time of his so removing was liable to contribute at the rate of two per cent., the rate shall be two per cent. only;

(d) The superannuation allowance of an asylums officer or servant of the first class who has removed to a certified institution shall, in respect of his asylums service, be calculated by reference to fiftieths instead of sixtieths.

(2) In this Section the expression "certified institutions for defectives," means certified institutions provided by local authorities under the Mental Deficiency Act, 1913, or by district boards under the Mental Deficiency and Lunacy (Scotland) Act, 1913.
(3) In the application of this Section to Scotland, the Secretary for Scotland shall be substituted for the Secretary of State.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
Sir W. COLLINS: Clause 1 is the operative Clause of the Bill and applies the provisions of the Asylum Officers Superannuation Act, 1909, to the officers of institutions for defectives. As I had the honour of introducing, as a private Member, the Asylums Officers Superannuation Act, 1909, I should like to express my gratification that the right hon. Gentleman has seen fit to bring in this amending Bill. The principle of the principal Act was the securing to asylums officers assured pensions on a contributive basis. It provided for the principle of aggregation, whereby an asylums officer passing from one institution under one local authority to another, carried his pension rights with him. I understood that it was the intention of the Mental Deficiency Act, 1913, and of the Mental Deficiency and Lunacy (Scotland) Act, 1913, to apply the provisions of the Asylums Officers Superannuation Act to the officers of institutions for mental defectives. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will explain how it was that those powers failed to carry out that intention. Perhaps he will also explain why Clause 1 only permits the officers of institutions for mental defectives to be classed in Class 2, which gives them relatively less advantageous rights of pension than asylum officers in Class 1 would possess and whether, in regard to that power and the power in paragraph (b) of adding years of service for the purposes of superannuation, he has taken the opinion of any officers of institutions for mental defectives; and whether they are satisfied with those two limiting provisions in their particular case. In so far as this Bill enables officers in institutions for mental defectives to have the benefits of aggregation, which I understand
1912
they failed to obtain in the past, I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has found time to bring in this useful amending Bill.
The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Brace): I am sure the Committee and the country have felt themselves under a debt of gratitude to the hon. Member for Derby (Sir W. Collins) for the great interest he has always taken in this question. This Bill is intended to meet a defect in the Mental Deficiency Act, 1913. It was found in practice that, although it was thought that the Act of 1913 did provide for the aggregation of service, in fact it did not so provide. This Bill is intended to correct that grievance which the service, both men and women in mental hospitals of this country, suffer when they change their occupation from an asylum to an institution. When this Bill becomes law, a man or woman may leave an asylum to form part of the staff of a certified institution, and the whole of the service that he or she may have rendered in the asylum will be counted for pension purposes as if they had been in the employment of the institution all the time. It has been found to be essential that this should be done, because these institutions must grow as the days go by; and without giving an assurance to these officers in the asylums that their pensions will be aggregated if they change their occupation from an asylum to an institution, it would be quite impossible to get the nucleus for a trained staff for the institutions as they were formed. Sub-section (2) of the Clause is to make it easy to transfer these officers from Scotland to England or from England to Scotland, as the case may be. Consequently, we have the amending Clause dealing with the Mental Deficiency and Lunacy (Scotland) Act, 1913. As to the hon. Gentleman's question whether we have taken the opinion of the officers concerned, I am afraid I am not in a position to say Yes or No. It is because we have found as a Department that this grievance did exist, and that it is a grievance that the House of Commons, when its attention was called to it, would be likely to remedy, and in face of the growth of these particular institutions, which will be formed under the control of local authorities, that we have felt we ought to come down to the House and, as soon as possible, correct what was a defect in the Act of 1913. The Bill proposes to do nothing more than that. The

1913
reason why the officers in mental institutions will be classified as second-class instead of first-class officers is, that when they are in asylums they are in charge of patients, and that when they are in mental institutions the work will be neither so arduous nor so dangerous. Consequently, we have come to the conclusion that in classifying the officers in mental institution as second-class officers for pension purposes, we were making a fair arrangement as between asylums and mental institutions.
Mr. BOOTH: I remember the Act of 1913 very well. I am sorry we did not then have the advantage of the help of the hon. Member for Derby (Sir W. Collins). These points were then quite neglected. I was one who opposed and helped to kill the Bill of 1912—a horrible Bill—with the result that the Bill of 1913 was modelled on lines quite satisfactory to the House. Speaking for the critics, I would say that we told the Government time and again that this point would be raised. We were entirely ignored. We did not criticise them or offer opposition when it came to dealing with the staff. The Government were so engrossed in their quarrel with the Lord Chancellor about the legal members' £3,000 that they neglected to see justice done to the staff. All our efforts to get the Government to be more practical and to stop quarrelling about the legal members were in vain for twelve months. We did succeed in some measure in 1913. I am sorry we did not put this point right then. I am glad we are putting it right now. It is the Government's own fault that it was not attended to.

Clause 2 (Short Title and Appeal) ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

DEPUTY-LIEUTENANTS BILL [Lords].
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Qualifications of Deputy-Lieutenants.)
(1) So much of the Militia Act, 1882, as prescribes the qualifications to be possessed by persons appointed to be deputy-lieutenants in Great Britain, shall cease to have effect, and after the passing of this Act a person may be
1914
appointed to be a deputy-lieutenant of a county in Great Britain if he possesses the following qualifications:

(a) He must have a place of residence in the county or within seven miles thereof;

(b) He must be shown to the satisfaction of a Secretary of State to have rendered worthy service as a member of, or in a civil capacity in connection with, His Majesty's naval, military, or air forces.

(2) The Militia Act, 1882, so far as it relates to Great Britain, is hereby repealed to the extent mentioned in the Schedule to this Act.
Brigadier-General McCALMONT: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "Great Britain" ["deputy-lieutenants in Great Britain"], and to insert instead thereof the words "the United Kingdom."'
I do so for the purpose of giving the Under-Secretary of State for War an opportunity for explaining why Ireland should be left out of the Bill. I apologise for not having pressed this matter on the Second Reading, but I just happened to miss it in the House last night or I should have called attention to it then. The Militia Act, 1882, applied to the whole of the United Kingdom. Since then deputy-lieutenants have been appointed on the same footing in this country as in Ireland, with the exception that some ten years ago an Instruction was issued under which His Majesty expressed his intention of refusing to confirm any appointments of deputy-lieutenants unless they had served for ten years in His Majesty's Forces. That, I understand, was brought in in view of the new Territorial Force, which was then being formed, and in order to give the deputy-lieutenants some military significance and more status than they had had up to that time. I suppose that that provision will now be abandoned, and that the ten years' qualification will be cancelled. This Instruction was issued in 1908. I cannot see why, even if Ireland has no Territorial Associations, the deputy-lieutenants should not have the same status in Ireland as those on this side of the Channel. A deputy-lieutenant should be, for the purposes of his office, of the same status whether in Ireland or in Scotland or in England. The fact that there is no Territorial Force Association does not seem to have very much weight, because there are in Ireland a very large number of gentlemen, some of whom have served and some of whom have supported the armed forces of the Crown, who are fully qualified to become deputy-lieutenants, especially when we remember that similarly qualified gentlemen

1915
on this side of the Channel are entitled to be appointed. I do not see why Ireland should be left out. I have put down one or two other small Amendments. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us some good reason why Ireland should be left out, or accept my Amendments.
The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): I regret that I cannot accept my hon. and gallant Friend's Amendment. When this Bill was being considered, both in the other House and before the Association of Lords Lieutenant, the case of Ireland was carefully considered by the then Chief Secretary and the then Lord Lieutenant, and the conclusion arrived at was that this Bill should not apply to Ireland.
General McCALMONT: Was that last year?
8.0 P.M.
Mr. MACPHERSON: This year. My hon. and gallant Friend pointed out that it is as important to appoint deputy-lieutenants in Ireland as in any other part of the country. I am quite certain he will be the first to realise that the type of deputy-lieutenant we have in Ireland is as good as the type we have in this country. But it is not quite true to say that the same conditions and qualifications are applicable in both cases, because ten years ago in this country we introduced the definite qualification that he should be a man who has rendered eminent service as a member of his Territorial Force Association or who has been a member of one of His Majesty's Forces for ten years. Of course, the qualification of belonging to a Territorial Force Association never applied to Ireland, but I do not think the hon. and gallant Gentleman need fear that any man who is recommended for a deputy-lieutenancy by the Lord Lieutenant, and who gets the sanction of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and the Chief Secretary, will have to pass through a more difficult ordeal than any man in this country who becomes a deputy-lieutenant.
General McCALMONT: What is going to happen about the ten years' qualification? I do not follow whether that still stands or not.
Mr. MACPHERSON: It does not apply to Ireland; but if a man has been ten
1916
years in one Service or the other I feel sure this would add weight to the recommendation of the Lord Lieutenant.
Colonel Sir J. CRAIG: I have always felt that, as far as possible, there should be no differentiation made between England and the rest of the United Kingdom. Since the beginning of the War a great many measures have been passed where Ireland has been left out for one reason or another, or where a separate Bill has been brought in dealing with Ireland on a different basis from that in which she is dealt with in the English Bill. The effect of that has been on many occasions to teach the Irish people that there is a distinct difference between them and us over here, and that they are a distinct class, and they have widened the gulf between them and us in a way which has been quite unnecessary. It is not a great matter of principle, but in this case, if the Bill is considered a wise measure for England. Scotland, and Wales, I do not see why the wisdom should not also extend to my country. If the right hon. Gentleman is unable to accept the Amendment I have no desire to obstruct the Committee, but Ministers in charge of these measures should not invariably cast our country on one side and say, "This is a first-class measure; it is something which is wanted in the country, but simply because Ireland is Ireland we must cut her out of the Bill." I trust that in future, if there is any ameliorative legislation of this character, or anything affecting the status of citizens, we in Ireland will benefit as much as the rest of the United Kingdom.
Mr. BOOTH: That position has often occurred, and we have been in a painful position as English Members. We did not like to move to omit the Clause that the Bill should not extend to Ireland, being English Members, but, when there has been a point affecting personal liberty or the status of citizens, in have come a whole lot of Irish Members, not being in the least concerned, and they have voted as the Government wanted, just as now, if we have a Division, they will come in and vote against them, whether they are right or wrong. If the Bill was made to apply all round we should be saved from that, and Members, from whatever part of the country they came, would have to study it. Am I interpreting the Bill right that in future a deputy-lieutenant in England will be chosen because he is interested in the Territorials, but in Ireland, from some

1917
political motive? I think that is deplorable. There is far too much politics in Ireland. I hope I can be corrected on that, but it seems to me the idea in Ireland is to keep up political appointments. Is not that so?
Mr. MACPHERSON: No; that is not so. The Territorial Force Association does not exist in Ireland, but during the last ten years membership of an association has been a qualification in this country. In Ireland the appointment of deputy-lieutenants is based, I understand, largely upon such qualifications as I have mentioned, namely, whether a man has been in the service of the Crown or not, or whether he has given useful service to the Crown in time of national emergency.
Mr. BOOTH: Are they not all party appointments in Ireland?
Mr. MACPHERSON: Not at all!
Mr. BOOTH: Yes; they are!
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. WATT: I beg to move, in Subsection (1, a), to leave out the words "or within seven miles thereof."
This measure removes the necessary property qualification for deputy-lieutenants, and I think the Bill is in that respect acceptable to the Committee. In 1907 a Clause was put into the Territorial Force Bill that deputy-lieutenants should have to be members of the Territorial Force. That also was a good measure which commended itself to the House. The effect of my Amendment is that in future appointments deputy-lieutenants must have a residence in the county, and in support of that I call to my assistance my right hon. Friend's speech on the Second Reading last night. He said:
"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 property qualification at all, but who did reside in the county. The Government 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 who have done good service."
My Amendment will carry out my right hon. Friend's intention. On the very face of it it seems wise. The jurisdiction of these deputy-lieutenants will be confined to the county. Their office is distinctly a
1918
county appointment, and men can always be found inside the counties who are suitable for these positions, and the fact that they have residences inside the county surely makes them more acceptable and more suitable for the post.
Mr. MACPHERSON: I hope my hon. Friend will not press the Amendment. I agree in the main with what he has said, and our intention is now to make the provision the same for deputy-lieutenants as it is for county justices. They are men who are doing excellent service in the county and yet have not a place of residence in it, but just over the border, and it is in order to cover hard cases of that kind that we thought in common fairness it was necessary and wise to add "or within seven miles." After all, that is the traditional thing as it affects even county justices at present, and all we are doing is to apply that very simple and safe rule to the case of deputy-lieutenants.
Mr. BOOTH: I hope my hon. Friend will not press the point. The case continually arises in Manchester. Owing to the fact that in the adjoining county of Cheshire, within a few miles, is a good residential part and the London trains stop at one or two of the stations, it was found that a fair number of them actually lived over the border in Cheshire. I can quite see that there may be cases, especially where there is a river border, where there may be suitable men, identified for a long period with the life of the county, whose residence is just over the border.
Amendment negatived.
Commander BELLAIRS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1, b), after the word "State" ["to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State"], to insert the words "or Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty."
I think that simply bears out the spirit of the Bill. It has always been a very invidious position for anyone associated with the Navy that he has to go to a Secretary of State. I should be quite willing to accept the words "First Lord of the Admiralty," if those are preferred. When the Air Ministry Bill was introduced, the sponsor for the Bill said the First Lord of the Admiralty was a Secretary of State. That is not the ease. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to accept the Amendment, so that anyone who has been associated with the Naval

1919
service can obtain the recommendation of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty or the First Lord.
Sir J. BUTCHER: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept this Amendment. It seems only reasonable that a man should be recommended for service in the Navy by someone who is confident to speak of his work in the Navy.
Mr. MACPHERSON: I should have been glad under ordinary circumstances to accept the Amendment. When a man is considered for appointment as deputy-lieutenant his recommendation is considered by the Lord Lieutenant, who, I am sure, has no prejudice, and the recommendation of the Lord Lieutenant is given on the ground of naval service as well as military service It so happens that the Lords Lieutenant have to send the nominations to a Secretary of State, who at the present time happens to be the Secretary of State for War. Under the old Militia Act it was the Home Secretary, and, as I have said, it is now the Secretary of State for War. But I am speaking with certainty when I say that every possible consideration is given to a man who has shown that he has had any naval service as well as to a man who has shown that he has had any military service. I do not think this Amendment would help the Bill in any way, and I can give the assurance of actual practice, with which I hope the Committee will be satisfied, because I know from experience and personal knowledge that when a Lord Lieutenant sends in a recommendation which is backed by naval service it receives invariably the utmost consideration.
General McCALMONT: I should like as a member of the sister Service formally to support this Amendment. I do not think that my right hon. Friend has given us any reason why we should not include the Admiralty in the recommendation. I should like to put it from this point of view: I will not use the word "slur," but it is clear that, as any naval officer reads this Act, or as any question arises in connection with this particular point, he will naturally say that it is purely an Army question, and has nothing whatever to do with the Navy. Whatever assurance the right hon. Gentleman could give us as to practice is really not of the slightest use to this House. I have no doubt that if a naval officer were put forward he
1920
personally would give it every consideration. But he will not always have the office which he now holds, and neither will the present Secretary of State for War. I think that, as a compliment to those who have put this point forward, he might accept the Amendment, which I submit will do no harm to the Bill. I therefore hope that he will reconsider this matter.
Mr. BOOTH: I do not think my right hon. Friend quite dealt with the point which is raised. As it appears to me, it is not how the Lord Lieutenant's recommendations will be received, but is he likely to make any? If the Lord Lieutenant knows that he can make it either to the Army or to the Navy he will recognise that they are on an equality, but when he knows that all the recommendations go to the Secretary of State for War I suggest that he will be inclined to lean towards the military man. That is obvious if he knows that every suggestion he makes goes to the War Office. That is the point where I see a little unfairness to the naval service. I am perfectly certain that in practice if the Lord Lieutenant has to send all the names to the War Office it will be suggested to his mind that military men instead of naval men are desired. This Amendment, I think, will put that right.
Sir J. BUTCHER: May I suggest to my right hon. Friend that it would be desirable to have something on the face of this Bill to show that the naval authorities have a voice in recommending men? It is rather strange that a naval man's service is to be estimated by a soldier rather than by a naval authority. It may seem a technicality, but I think it is a bit of a slur on the naval man who is recommended to be a deputy-lieutenant. I am not suggesting for a moment that the Secretary of State would not give fair consideration, but that is not quite the point. What I really suggest is that the Bill ought to show that the recommendation for the naval man comes from the naval authorities. Would my right hon. Friend consider this, and would it not be possible by the Report stage to introduce words so that the Clause may read in this way:
"He must be shown to the satisfaction of a Secretary of State on the recommendation of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty or of the Army Council to have rendered great service."

1921
That would bring in a naval authority. Would my right hon. Friend give a promise that he will consider this matter before the Report with the view to bringing in in some way the naval authority?
Mr. MACPHERSON: If I may be allowed to say a word or two in reply, I would point out that the Naval Forces of the Crown are specially mentioned in Section (b) of Clause 1. As I pointed out in the speech I have just delivered, the Secretary of State at present happens to be the Secretary of State for War. At any given moment it might be another Secretary of State, and it is only necessary that it should be one Secretary of State. If you are going to include the First Lord of the Admiralty you would also have to include the Secretary of State for the Air Forces, and you would also have to include somebody who would have to be the judge, so to speak, of the civilians who are not serving in either the military or the naval forces. I think that the procedure at the present time is far and away the best, the safest, and the soundest. Supposing you put in all these secretaries of State you will place the Lord Lieutenant in an extraordinary position, and he will not know to what Department to send a recommendation. A man might belong to both Services or belong to one Service or he might be a civilian who has been in both Services. I would remind the Committee that the Lord Lieutenant is just as proud of the naval forces as of the Army, and the moment he comes across anyone who has done any notable work in either the naval or the military force he would be prepared to recommend him, provided that otherwise he is of the right character.
Amendment negatived.
Mr. C. PRICE: I beg to move in Subsection (1, b), to leave out the word "worthy."
I propose this Amendment because the word "worthy" has rather a wide interpretation, and one does not exactly know what it means. I would like to have an interpretation of that word. Is the man to be an officer only? Has he to have a certain length of service? Or can it be a man who has been attached to the Territorial Force? I could give cases where men were quite unable owing to pressure of business to accept a commission in the Territorial Forces, but who at the same time believed it was their duty to qualify
1922
to defend their country. So they passed through the Territorial Forces, served their three years, and obtained their certificate. I understand that under the word "worthy" that might not be regarded as a sufficient qualification for a man to be created a deputy-lieutenant. I think that under the word "worthy" the War Office authorities might say that that was not a sufficient qualification to enable a man to be appointed a deputy-lieutenant. I have another Amendment later on, the comments on which I shall defer, and I only desire now to have a clear definition as to what is meant by the word "worthy," or whether, taking it out, you will simply say that he must show to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State to have a record of service. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept this Amendment, because I am anxious to include men who, in years gone by, have rendered service to the Territorial Force. There are a great many I know in business, and also the sons of first-class business men, who were pressed to accept a commission. In these cases they were quite unable to accept a commission, although strongly pressed to do so, and at great sacrifice they went for three years in order to qualify themselves to defend their country. By accepting this Amendment there will not be room or ground for the War Office to reject a man under these circumstances.
Mr. MACPHERSON: This particular Sub-section was very carefully considered by all the authorities, and particularly by the Association of Lord Lieutenants, who have to deal with the recommendation of deputy-lieutenants. I think it is wise to leave the word in the Bill. If we were to leave out the word the Clause would read, "rendered service as a member of His Majesty's naval, military, or air forces." I do not think it should necessarily follow that a man who is a member of one of these forces, and did not render worthy service, should be in the position to be considered for the office of deputy-lieutenant.
Mr. PRICE: The right hon. Gentleman has scarcely answered my point as to what interpretation the War Office is going to put upon this matter. Will a man who has rendered Territorial service be eligible?
Mr. MACPHERSON: Certainly, if he is recommended by the Lord Lieutenant.
An HON. MEMBER: I hope my right hon. Friend will not give way.
Mr. MACPHERSON: I do not intend to do so.
Amendment negatived.
Mr. WATT: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1, b), to leave out the words "or in a civil capacity in connection with."
This measure has two characteristics which the deputy-lieutenants of the future must possess, namely, residence and worthy service as a member of His Majesty's Forces. I think if the qualifications were limited to residence and worthy service the Clause would be very acceptable. Deputy-lieutenants have been appointed from members of the Territorial Force since 1907, and that has been a very good line to take, but in this paragraph (b) you have introduced a new type of individual, namely, the man who has in a civil capacity, in connection with the various forces, rendered worthy service. My desire is to leave out that gentleman from the possibility of becoming a deputy-lieutenant in future and to confine it to members of the three forces of the Crown mentioned. I need not enlarge on the gratitude we all feel towards the members of forces of the Crown for what they are doing for us, and among the rewards we desire to add this of deputy-lieutenant, although it is a very small reward. I think it is a mistake to bring in civilians who have busied themselves in any way in connection with these Services. These men will get the lion's share of the honours, because of their busy nature. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see that this Amendment is of quite a military character, and, although he has not been in an accepting mood up to the present, I hope he will accept this.
Mr. PRICE: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not accept this Amendment. I desire that the deputy-lieutenants shall come from other forms of life than those who have been members of the naval or military forces. There are men who, during the War, have rendered very distinguished service in their districts by assisting in recruiting and other ways. Possibly owing to their health they have been disqualified from naval or military service, but they have rendered enormous service in connection with the forces of the Crown in a civil capacity.
Mr. MACPHERSON: I have a great deal of sympathy with the speech of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Watt), but, unfortunately, I cannot meet his views,
1924
because I do not see how we can accept his Amendment. The hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. Price) has brought to the notice of the Committee the real point. Since the beginning of the War a great many men who are incapacitated from military or naval services on account of disability or unfitness of some sort have been rendering yeoman service in connection with the naval and military forces of the Crown for a long period, and I think the Lord Lieutenant should be allowed to nominate for the sanction of His Majesty the King a man of that nature. In connection with the Act of 1907 it was laid down that a man qualified to be appointed should have served in the forces of the Crown or should be a member of the Territorial Force Association. We all know the Territorial Force Associations of the country have been composed of civilians and military and naval men, and I see colleagues here who know very well, in their own experience, of civilians resident in the county who have been members of the Territorial Force Association of that county and have been the moving spirit of that association. I do not think it would be wise, and, in any case, it would be unjust, to accept an Amendment of this kind.
Amendment negatived.
General McCALMONT: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1, b), to leave out the words "in connection with," and to insert instead thereof the words "in support of."
It seems to me that there is quite a difference between gentlemen who have done service in connection with and gentlemen who has done service in support of the forces of the Crown. I notice that Lord Derby, in introducing this Bill in another place, used the words "in support of." There are certain hon. Members who have done a great deal in connection with the Army in connection with such things as conscientious objectors, and things which do the Army no good, and I suggest that this Bill is not intended to include those people. If my right hon. Friend would put in those words they would do no harm to his Bill, and it would make quite certain that we shall not have appointed people who do more harm than good.
Mr. MACPHERSON: I am afraid that I cannot accept the Amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend. The words he suggests would be advisable if we had not

1925
the earlier words, "worthy service." The two mean exactly what he says. I am afraid that he did not notice that these words must be read with the words "in connection with."
General McCALMONT: Surely there might be people who would consider that the gentlemen whom I mention were doing very worthy service in connection with the naval, military, or air forces?
Mr. MACPHERSON: I am afraid that that is not the point. My hon. and gallant Friend must realise that the Lord Lieutenant and the Secretary of State would take great care that men of that type would not be likely to have their names sent forward for appointment as deputy-lieutenants. I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend, with that explanation, will not press his Amendment, but will consider that his point is sufficiently met by the words in the Bill.
Mr. BOOTH: I raised the point on the Second Reading that I did not want men who have been making money out of munitions to come in. When I heard these words I thought that they would meet my point. Men making money out of supplies of munitions may be rendering very worthy service, and it might be thought that they, or men who had done some great business stroke, should be selected; but I do not think they should come in in this way. I presume that the real reason why the Amendment is not accepted is that the Government do not want the Bill to go back to the House of Lords.
Mr. MACPHERSON: To be quite frank with my hon. Friend, that is one of the reasons, but I can assure my hon. Friend who has just sat down that we have no intention of suggesting to a Lord Lieutenant to recommend for appointment any man who has amassed riches out of munitions and has done nothing else. Under the Sub-section as it stands a man must, first of all, have rendered worthy service. He must have rendered them to the naval, military, or air forces of the Crown, and he must have rendered them voluntarily.
General McCALMONT: As we have now got the real reason why none of the Amendments are being accepted, I have great pleasure in withdrawing.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. PRICE: I beg to move, at the end, to add the words "or in any civil capacity."
I consider that the announcement which has been made by the Under-Secretary for War, that when a Bill comes here from the House of Lords he will not accept Amendments because the Bill comes from the Lords, is grossly offensive. I resent very strongly the suggestion that when a Bill comes down from the Lords we are to make no Amendments. We have a perfect right to make any Amendments we like. The object of the Amendment, which we are told in advance is not to be accepted, is this: There are men who have rendered very distinguished services to the county, and are very well qualified to discharge these duties, but have been unable to render any military service. This is a very old subject, because when the Territorial Bill was introduced by Lord Haldane, Lord Rosebery—I have not read the speech lately, but I am familiar with it—referred to the fact that it was very unfair to prescribe qualifications for a deputy-lieutenant that you do not apply to the Lord Lieutenant. It is an extraordinary thing that you can make Lord Lieutenant of a county a man who does not fulfil any of these requirements, and is purely a civilian. It is absurd that you should have one regulation with regard to the Lord Lieutenant of a county and impose greater restrictions for the deputy-lieutenant. Surely you should have wider qualifications for the deputy-lieutenant than for the Lord Lieutenant. Lord Rosebery himself, I think, never rendered any military service, yet he is Lord Lieutenant of Linlithgowshire. Other Lords Lieutenant who were appointed not long ago have rendered no military service whatever, yet these men, when they submitted to the War Office—I am quoting a fact, because the Under-Secretary will recollect that I raised this question before—
Mr. MACPHERSON: No; I do not.
Mr. PRICE: I raised the subject of the Lord Lieutenant of a county. He said he had submitted to the authorities the names of men who, he thought, were very well qualified, and who had rendered distinguished service to the country, but these men were turned down because they had rendered no military service, while he himself had rendered no military service whatever. It is absolutely absurd to have a wider selection for a Lord Lieutenant than for a deputy-lieutenant. If my

1927
Amendment is accepted I am sure that no Lord Lieutenant will submit to the authorities any name that he is not satisfied is perfectly desirable. I know the case of a worthy man, one of the most highly respected men in the country, whose name was sent to the authorities and turned down because he had not rendered military service. He could not render military service—he was unfit for it—but there was no man in the locality who exercised greater influence or had done greater service than this man. Yet he is disqualified as deputy-lieutenant, while in the same county there is a man as Lord Lieutenant who has rendered no military service at all. I want to put both these men on precisely the same footing and to provide that the qualifications necessary for a Lord Lieutenant should apply precisely to a deputy-lieutenant. I trust sincerely that the hon. Gentleman will accept this Amendment. There is a great deal of feeling on the subject and letters about it have been received from different parts of the country.
Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: I should like to support my hon. Friend's Amendment. I do not imagine that we shall get any concession from the Under-Secretary for War on this point, but I do think that we are at least entitled to protest, at a time like this, when all the different sections of the community are invited to render the best service they can to the State, that there should be any distinction drawn between those who are associated with the Services and those who are not exclusively associated with them. There are at the present time civilians who, for the position of deputy-lieutenant, have qualifications as good, if not better, than some of the very gentlemen who may be appointed to this office. I am myself acquainted with cases where men of the highest standing in their own counties will be disqualified under this provision for an office for which they are eminently well fitted. The Government have drawn a distinction which should not have been made at any time between the different classes of the community, who are rendering the best services they can to the State. It is knowledge common to all of us that there are men at the present moment who are rendering the most splendid services to the State, but who are debarred, for one reason or another, by the provision in this Clause, from being appointed to the position of
1928
deputy-lieutenant. These gentlemen have done work of a scientific character, or have rendered other valuable services to the State, but they are ruled out by this provision. I do not think that it is in the interests of the country that such a distinction should be drawn between different classes in regard to these posts. A feeling has grown up on this subject which is not to be trifled with, and it is a feeling which is increasing to a great extent in many districts, and I do hope that the Under-Secretary of War will recognise the existence of that feeling, and do something if he possibly can to meet it.
Mr. MACPHERSON: I am sorry that my frankness to the Committee with regard to the Amendments has called upon me the condemnation of my old friend and colleague (Mr. Price).
Mr. PRICE: I was condemning the system, not the Under-Secretary for War.
Mr. MACPHERSON: I recognise that, but at all events I was frank with the Committee and I do not think it did any harm to tell the truth. With regard to the very particular Amendment which the hon. Member has moved very cogently, I will not go into the history of appointments to the position of deputy-lieutenant, but I would say that I regard this as a democratic measure. The scope under which these appointments may be made under this Bill will be larger than ever it has been before. The case which my hon. Friend brought to the notice of the Committee is considered, namely, men not associated with the Territorial Force Associations, and who have had no service in either branch of the forces. The Bill extends the scope of selection, and we say that if any man in any county has rendered worthy service in Red Cross work, Volunteer work, or recruiting work, his claim will be considered. I think I am meeting as far as I can the very point which my hon. Friend brought before the Committee, and I hope that he and the hon. Member who supports him will not press the Amendment.
Amendment negatived.
Bill reported, without Amendment.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
Mr. KING: I hope we can have an assurance on this occasion, before we pass the

1929
Bill, that the residential qualification will not be too rigidly insisted upon. If I can have an assurance to that effect, I will not trouble the House further.
Mr. MACPHERSON Mr. MACPHERSON indicated assent.
Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.

NAVAL PRIZE BILL.
Considered in Committee.
[Sir D. MACLEAN, Deputy-Chairman, in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Application of Proceeds of Prizes being the Droits of the Crown.)
(1) If His Majesty is pleased by Proclamation or Order in Council to signify his intention to make a grant of prize money out of the proceeds of prize captured in the present War, the sums which have been or may be received in respect of ships and goods captured during the present War specified in Part I. of the Schedule to this Act shall (subject as respects money in any Prize Court to the assent of that Court) be paid as and when the Treasury and Admiralty jointly direct into a separate fund to be called the Naval Prize Fund, and there shall be charged on and payable out of the Naval Prize Fund all such costs, charges, expenses, and claims as are mentioned in Part II. of the said Schedule, and any question whether any sum is payable into or out of that fund shall be determined by the tribunal hereinafter constituted.
(2) Subject to the payment of such costs, charges, expenses, and claims as aforesaid, such sum as may be required for the payment of prize money under this Act shall be a first charge on the Naval Prize Fund, and such prize money shall be of such amounts and payable to such members of His Majesty's Naval and Marine Forces as hereinafter defined, or in the case of their death their representatives, and in such manner, as His Majesty may by Proclamation or Order in Council determine.
Commander BELLAIRS: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2), to add the words "after the scale of shares for the different ranks has received the approval of a Select Committee of the House of Commons."
The reason I have handed this Amendment in is that under the Naval Prize Bill the House of Commons has no control whatever over the system by which this naval prize money shall be shared. It has been published in the form of a White Paper, which probably nine out of ten Members of the House have not seen. A very large sum indeed is involved. My right hon. Friend told the Committee that there is £9,819,000 in the Central Prize
1930
Court alone, and that does not include any of the large sums in the prize Courts abroad, nor any of the 251 detained ships, some of which may be allocated by the judicial tribunals which are to be set up, and which may be selected as droits of the Crown, and therefore come in as prize money. My desire is that the House should have some share in fixing how much of this money is to go to the admirals, the captains, down to the lowest ranks, the able seamen, ordinary seamen, and boys. The sharing system which the Admiralty proposes is set out in a White Paper which is going to be issued as a Proclamation. That sharing system we were promised would appear in the Bill. Lord Lytton said so in the House of Lords, and if my right hon. Friend disputes that, I shall be under the necessity of quoting the Debate, both at the beginning and at the end. I know that my right hon. Friend thinks that Lord Lytton qualified the words in the latter part of his speech, but it does not bear that interpretation. In my opinion, Lord Lytton never qualified the words which led this House to believe that the actual sharing system would be in the Bill, and therefore under the control of the House. I quite agree that it would have been undesirable to put the whole of the sharing system into the Bill, because it would have enabled any hon. Member to move an Amendment on any particular share. But that argument does not apply to a Select Committee of the House, and if reasons were put before a Select Committee there would be fair play between officers and men.
My right hon. Friend says this matter has been considered by a Departmental Committee, but a Departmental Committee is a very unsatisfactory body for this purpose. I believe it was a perfectly fair Committee, but a Committee presided over by a full admiral, and having on it a captain, a lawyer, a Treasury official, and a paymaster is not one to look after the interests of the men. Whatever good will they might have, the predominant influence is exercised by the admiral, who is an interested party. I do not suggest that Admiral Bethell acted as an interested party, but I do suggest that a Select Committee of the House of Commons will look at it from a different point of view, and would nowadays have but scant regard to what existed in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, but would have regard to what they considered to be the justice of the case. My

1931
right hon. Friend very truly contends that the men are getting better terms than they did in the 1900 Proclamation. It is true that they are getting better terms, but that Proclamation was based on what was the practice in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. If my right hon. Friend will only think it out, he will see that the men in the Navy is the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were not a permanent force. They signed on temporarily, and obviously the officers were very much better treated because they were a permanent force. They gave long service. That does not hold to-day, because now the men are a permanent force, and you may have men under this sharing system who have served quite as long as the Commander-in-Chief of the Grand Fleet. Why I think a Select Committee of the House would come to a different conclusion as to the sharing system can be illustrated by-one broad example taken from the two extremes. The Commander-in-Chief of the Grand Fleet under this sharing system set out in the White Paper gets 2,000 shares. I will not take the lowest rank, which gets two shares, but I will take the able seaman, who gets five shares. That is to say, the Commander-in-Chief of the Grand Fleet will get 400 times as much as the able seaman.
9.0 P.M.
I could come to a sort of working agreement with my right hon. Friend as to relative rate of pay. Take the pay and allowances into consideration. The Commander-in-Chief of the Grand Fleet gets about £3,000 a year, and the able seaman, taking his rates of pay with a wife and two children, gets about £92 a year. That is to say, the Commander-in-Chief of the Grand Fleet gets thirty-two times as much in the way of pay and allowances. Why should not this arrangement of prize money be simplified on the basis of pay, and then, instead of getting four hundred times as much, the Commander-in-Chief of the Grand Fleet would get thirty-two times as much as the able seaman? That, I think, is an argument which ought to be looked into by a Select Committee of the House of Commons, because if the House of Commons once parts with this Bill it will never have another opportunity of controlling these matters. The Admiralty will for ever afterwards be able to fix the rates by Proclamation, and the House of Commons will have parted with the control for ever.
1932
My right hon. Friend, I think, in the course of the Second Reading Debate, spoke of the great services the Commander-in-Chief of the Grand Fleet had rendered to the nation. I am sorry to have to make comparisons, because everybody recognises those great services that both the Commanders-in-Chief of the Grand Fleet have rendered; but I am obliged to illustrate my argument by taking those two extremes of the scale, the Commander-in-Chief of the Grand Fleet and the able-seaman, and my contention is that this prize money is not the reward of the Commander-in-Chief of the Grand Fleet for those great services that he has rendered. When the time comes to reward the Commander-in-Chief of the Grand Fleet this House, I presume, will vote its thanks and will vote a sum of money, as it did in the case of all the great generals in the past, and, therefore, the prize money argument does not come into the matter. We have had a series of successful generals in the last thirty years, like Lord Wolseley, Lord Roberts, and Lord Kitchener, and to all of them have been voted sums of money, so that really that argument is an argument for reducing the prize money rather than increasing it at the upper end of the scale. But I do not suggest that a Select Committee of the House of Commons would necessarily reduce the money at the upper end of the scale. What I think they would probably do is to raise the money at the lower end of the scale, so that when the whole pool is shared after the War those at the upper end, still keeping the same number of shares, will get less money. Anyhow, I do not really see how the Admiralty can resist the proposal that a Select Committee of the House of Commons should examine this matter. I am perfectly certain that they will deal fairly with the Navy. The House has a reputation, in regard to the Navy, that it is always generous to profusion where the interests of the Navy are concerned. I think Macaulay used those very words in his "History." That generosity nearly always leads them to believe that the Admiralty is in the right, and therefore the Admiralty, in my opinion, are in a completely advantageous position compared with the War Office, of which this House is suspicious, but it is never suspicious of the Admiralty, and I believe that if the Admiralty has a good case for the sharing system which they have decided the Select Committee would pass it through in one day. If my right hon.

1933
Friend cannot accept that proposal, I hope he will make some proposals himself which will meet the circumstances of the cage. I would not delay this Bill for one moment. It is a most necessary and a most excellent Bill, and that part of the Proclamation in the White Paper which deals with the sharing system is in no way essential to the other parts, and the right hon. Gentleman may be willing to make some proposal by which this matter of the sharing system will be more fully considered later on, if he objects to my proposal of a Select Committee of the House, which I still think is the fairest system that could be proposed.
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): This is a proposal that the scale of distribution now before the House in the draft publication shall be submitted to a Select Committee. I am sorry that I must trouble the House with a few words on constitutional history on this question. This is not a Grant from the Consolidated Fund or from any public exchequer. This is by grace of the Crown a Grant to the Fleet. All prize is the property of the Crown.
Commander BELLAIRS: Give us the date of the surrender of the Crown's rights.
Dr. MACNAMARA: Prize is the property of the Crown. By grace of the Crown, from time immemorial, there has been a Grant of prize money. Therefore, while I am a strong advocate for the control of the House of Commons, and, I trust, as good a democrat as my hon. and gallant Friend, I hope I show no disrespect when I say the House of Commons has not any control over this, and never has had. All the Navy Prize Acts that have ever been passed have had their concomitant in a Proclamation, which has proclaimed the pleasure of the Crown and set out the scheme of eligibility and the scale of distribution and has passed into law. My hon. and gallant Friend would have been on much stronger ground if he had raised it on a Proclamation providing for the award of prize bounty. Prize bounty is a Grant by the Exchequer out of the Consolidated Fund of £5 a head of the personnel of the enemy warships sunk. That has happened in this very War. We have had no less than three Proclamations providing for the eligibility and distribution out of moneys voted as prize bounty from the Exchequer. The
1934
Proclamation—or, rather, I should say, the Order in Council—of 2nd March, 1915, sanctioned the award of bounty, and the Orders in Council of 29th February, 1916, and 24th October, 1916, sanctioned a scale of distribution. There, if you like, was a case for House of Commons control.
As regards the scale of award, after all, that is a really substantial point we have in mind to see that fair play and equity are meted out to all ranks and ratings in the Navy. My hon. and gallant Friend admits that this proposed scale is a great improvement on the last, or I think he will admit that. But it does not go far enough in the direction he would desire; particularly, as I gather from his speech to-night and that of yesterday, inasmuch as it gives too many shares to the officers at the very top. That is his case.
Commander BELLAIRS: My real case is that you give too few shares to the people at the bottom.
Dr. MACNAMARA: If you have only a certain sum to distribute, surely, as my hon. and gallant Friend said in his speech, that comes to the same thing!
Commander BELLAIRS: No.
Dr. MACNAMARA: I have worked out a little sum which I think will show what I mean. Assume a quite arbitrary basis of distribution for 500,000 officers and men on the basis of a share being £1. First of all, to get these shares, these gallant gentlemen have to give thirty months' sea service, which is a pretty tall order in these times. On that speculative basis of a share being worked out at £1 and distributed amongst 500,000 officers and men, all the officers under this new scale would get 23.75 per cent. of the total and all ratings 76.25 per cent. Compare that with the previous scale; the officers would get 34.08 per cent. and all ratings would get 65.92 per cent. In other words, the ratings get three-quarters of the whole amount to be distributed. Take it another way. Suppose you take this scale and stop at 100 shares, the number for the junior captain, and let that be the top. You can cut the shares of the top down by one-half, but the number of persons concerned are so few, and the numbers concerned at the bottom are so many, that a most serious deduction at the top makes practically no difference at the bottom. To take the case I am giving. Supposing the scale of the senior captain, the commodore, rear-admiral, vice-admiral, admiral, and com

1935
mander-in-chief stop at 100 shares, the able seaman in that case would get £5 1s. 5d. as against £5 under our proposed scale. That is really an endeavour to reinforce the point I tried to make, that if you divide the scale at the top by one-half the numbers are so small that you do not seriously affect, except by a few pence, the scale at the bottom.
On the constitutional point, I am not sure that my hon. and gallant Friend does not come perilously near to interference with the prerogative of the Crown, because this is not a Grant from the Exchequer. This is what I am prepared to do: The first five paragraphs of this draft Proclamation raise no issue between us. They are the paragraphs announcing the pleasure of the Crown to grant prize money. We want that Proclamation now. As the hon. and gallant Gentleman said, we really ought to get this Bill as soon as we can. In order that the wheels of the Bill may go round, and that the tribunal may be authorised to start its work, we must have at once a Proclamation, so far as the first five paragraphs are concerned—that is to say, the part of the Proclamation which does no more and no less than declare the pleasure of the Crown to grant prize. It would be necessary to modify it a little towards the end, where it says the distribution shall be made in shares in the manner hereinafter mentioned, and later where it says, "in accordance with the Proclamation." That would have to be rounded off. I do not want those words in at all. What follows in the Proclamation, first of all, is the scheme of eligibility, and secondly, the scale of distribution. We do not want that at present. No time will be lost if that is left over. There is not going to be any distribution yet. I am quite prepared to seek the proper authority to issue a Proclamation embodying the first five paragraphs. I go further, and leave over the scheme of eligibility and the scale of distribution for a second Proclamation, or an Order-in-Council, whichever it may be. In relation to those who are interested in this matter, and think that the scale might be flattened still further, I say that we at the Admiralty shall be very glad to hear their views and to give every consideration to them. Quite honestly and sincerely, if this matter is left over in that way, when we meet again I shall be glad, on behalf of the Admiralty, to consider what in the meantime may be said
1936
by those various Service Members, and perhaps not only them but others—views to which we shall listen with care and to which we shall give every consideration. I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will feel that I have gone as far as I can in the desire that they shall have full opportunity of expressing their views.
Commander BELLAIRS: I am perfectly willing to accept the proposal of my right hon. Friend, more especially because the Bill is a good one, and I do not want to delay it.
Mr. KING: As an ordinary Member of the House who has no technical experience like that of the two hon. and gallant Gentlemen who have addressed the Committee, I think I am entitled to say that there is one point that we as Members of the House feel interested in, and that is control by the House. I quite understand that this Bill and this draft Proclamation are in a line with previous legislation, previous practice, and so on. I think also the concessions that have been made from the Treasury Bench on this occasion are all for the good in these days when so many popular and Parliamentary rights are being trampled under foot. It is very pleasing, indeed, to see that conciliatory and democratic spirit really operating as we have seen it this evening. There is also this point—we might even go further in this direction—that if we take too much note of the precedents set up and in our recognition of the prerogatives of the past we shall never make any progress at all. As one who stands up for the rights of the House of Commons and the rights of the people through their representatives to control the Army and Navy and even the operations of the Crown itself, I am very glad this discussion has been raised, and very glad of the spirit in which it has been met.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 2.—(Constitution of Tribunal.)
(1) For the purposes of this Act there shall be constituted a tribunal, in this Act referred to as the tribunal, consisting in the first instance of the following persons, namely, the Right Honourable Walter George Frank Baron Phillimore of Shiplake (who shall be chairman), Admiral of the Fleet Sir George Astley Callaghan, G.C.B, G.C.V.O., and the Right Honourable Sir Guy Douglas Arthur Fleetwood-Wilson, G.C.I.E., K.C.B., K.C.M.G., and if any vacancy occurs amongst the members of the tribunal it shall be lawful for His Majesty to appoint a person to fill the vacancy:
Provided that in the case of a vacancy in the chairmanship the person appointed to fill the vacancy shall be a person who holds or has held high judicial office within the meaning of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1876, as amended by the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1887.
(2) The tribunal may act by two of its members notwithstanding a vacancy in its members, and may make rules regulating its own procedure and shall have a seal which can be judicially noticed.
(3) The tribunal may appoint a clerk who shall receive such salary or other remuneration as the Treasury may determine.
(4) The tribunal shall have all such powers, rights, and privileges as are vested in the High Court or in any judge thereof, on the occasion of any action, in respect of the following matters:

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

(b) The compelling the production of documents; and

(c) The punishing persons guilty of contempt;

and a summons signed by the chairman of the tribunal may be substituted for and shall be equivalent to any formal process capable of being issued in any action for enforcing the attendance of witnesses and compelling the production of documents.
Mr. BOOTH: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words,
"Provided that in the case of a vacancy in the chairmanship, the person appointed to fill the vacancy shall be a person who holds or has held high judicial office within the meaning of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1876, as amended by the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1887."
I apologise for my manuscript Amendment, but I did give notice of it yesterday. We passed about ten measures in a sort of a scuffle, and I was unable to leave my duties in the place where I am sitting and skip round to the Table to put in my Amendment. Sub-section (1), after referring to the constitution of the tribunal, and the personnel, continues,
"if the vacancy occurs amongst the members of the tribunal it shall be lawful for His Majesty to appoint a person to fill the vacancy:"
"Provided," and so on in the words I propose to omit. I do not think the Government ought to tie its hands. It is not necessary. They are not, I think, likely to appoint an unsuitable person, especially if there is available a judge of the calibre of Lord Phillimore. But why should they be bound to appoint a man with this particular kind of experience? There are three instances that I can give—I do not want to discuss them, but only to name them—which, I think, will carry the Committee with me. For instance, take a man
1938
like the present Home Secretary. He has filled his office for a number of years, and is a distinguished lawyer and gentleman; yet all this would not give him any qualification for this post. The same argument applies to the ex-Prime Minister and to Lord Haldane at the time when he left this House and just before he became Lord Chancellor. One of the most distinguished and experienced lawyers in the country, he would not have been eligible. Many other names will occur to hon. Members. I do not challenge the three names in the Sub-section. Lord Phillimore is an excellent judge, but my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary must remember that the first chairman will have a responsibility devolving upon him which will be much more than that of the second and third chairmen. He will be the one who will lay down the original decisions and precedents which will settle, to a certain extent, the practice of the Court. The load he will carry will not be less—if I put it in that way—than any of his successors; it may be more. What is the use of the words which I want to take out? If it were the case of qualification for nomination in some election where you desired to restrict candidates I could have understood it. It is not a case where anybody can come forward and try to snatch votes. In the case of very important appointments in the Church, in the appointment of an Archbishop of Canterbury, say, the appointment is usually made from a certain kind of cleric. The Prime Minister is bound, as a rule, to appoint a bishop or an archbishop. So here. It looks as if we were trying, when you are creating an important post, to narrow down to a certain class of the community the right always to occupy it. I object to that. We do not know what is in store for us in the future. We may have elected judges, and all kinds of things. I have no doubt we shall have. Possibly there will be a revolution in a good deal of this procedure in the course of the next generation. Why the Government should tie this down in this way I cannot understand. My view is that the Government can be trusted, for they will act as a rule upon the recommendation of the Law Officers of the Crown or the Lord Chancellor. I cannot conceive the Prime Minister making this appointment without consulting them or his colleagues. I do not think there is any possible chance of harm being done and I do appeal that distinguished public servants such as

1939
those whom I have mentioned should be eligible for this post, although they may not actually have sat on the bench.
Mr. KING: I should like to support this, partly on the grounds adduced by the hon. Member who last spoke, and partly because I am going to venture on a personal argument. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty has held his present position longer than any other Minister, and it is a well-merited position, but do not let him think he is going to hold it for ever. I hope he will not. I trust that after the General Election, which we are told will come very soon, there will be a complete change of Ministers, and in that event I should nominate him as an excellent man for the presidency of this tribunal. I am sure the whole House would declare it to be a good appointment. The whole legal profession would admit that there is one man outside its ranks who knows more about the work of this tribunal than any lawyer, and most certainly the right hon. Gentleman would have the whole Navy at his back. Under these circumstances I am sure he will adopt this Amendment.
Mr. BURNS: I associate myself with the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth), and particularly With the excellent argument and the fine personal illustration which justified it, which the hon. Member for Somerset (Mr. King) has addressed to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill. I have another reason. I have no complaint whatsoever, and no one could have any complaint against the three distinguished gentlemen who have been nominated for this particular work. The first is Baron Phillimore, the second is Sir George Callaghan, and the third, Sir Guy Fleetwood Wilson. We all know these three gentlemen for their distinguished services to the State in many capacities. In any case, Lord Phillimore well merits selection; so does Sir George Callaghan, and certainly Sir Guy Fleet-wood Wilson stands in the same category, I wish to emphasise the case of Sir Guy because if he were not one of the original three composing this tribunal, he would, in the event of a vacancy occurring, be disqualified from being a member because he is not a judge. He is not a lawyer, but he is a most practical, distinguished Civil servant, and in every office he has occupied he has justified his appointment.
Dr. MACNAMARA: This proviso refers only to the Chairmanship.
Mr. BURNS: I see no reason why in the event of there being a vacancy in the Chairmanship Sir Guy should not become the Chairman. In this regard, in my opinion the Bill is fundamentally wrong, and the reason which induced the selection of this distinguished Civil servant to be one of the members of the Court is in itself a reason why the nomination for the first vacancy in the Chairmanship should be given to him. The case of the Secretary to the Admiralty has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Somerset, and there are other Gentlemen, not only in this House, but distinguished members of the Civil Service, who might well be nominated for the post—men of great technical knowledge, men who have distinguished themselves in the Civil Service, in the War Office, or in the Admiralty. They would be well acquainted with the administrative details of this work, and they ought not to be debarred from the Chairmanship. In my judgment, all careers ought to be open to all talents. We ought not to hedge round certain prominent positions, some of them well paid, many of them very honourable; we ought not, I say, to hedge round them class distinctions; we ought not to make them subject to naval or military inclusion or exclusion, and we ought not to add to the many privileges which the lawyers already enjoy by insisting that there shall always be a lawyer or a judge of the High Court as Chairman of the particular tribunal. I would just as soon give the Chairmanship to a sensible, practical, fair-minded admiral or general or Civil servant or ex-Member of the House as to any lawyer or High Court judge, however great his services may have been.
In these days when some of the services and interests of the State have been handicapped, and in some cases jeopardised, by the exclusion of men from certain ranks of certain classes—men who are not made eligible for particular positions because they do not happen to be members of a certain privileged service, it seems to me that that when the State interest is being jeopardised and endangered in some respects, as in recent years, by confining our selection too closely to a narrow, select coterie, we are doing no good either to the Army or Navy, who will be vitally affected by the administration of

1941
this particular Court. I plead with the Secretary to the Admiralty, who is in charge of this Bill, to be at least as open-minded in his consideration of the suggestion of the three hon. Members who have spoken as in my judgment he was tactful, just, and courteous in his acceptance of part of the suggestion just now of the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs), who, I believe, is going to speak on this proposal.
Mr. O'SHEE: I desire to support this Amendment. I cannot see why a judge should have a halo round his head or be regarded as specially fitted for beatification or canonisation. I think the instances given by my hon. Friend must convince the House that this attempt to confine the chairmanship of this body to judges of the High Court is uncalled for. There is no necessity for the chairman to have a knowledge of the law. If it be required it can easily be secured by the appointment of a legal assessor. But a knowledge of the law is quite unnecessary, surely, in the administration of naval prize money. The provision in the next Sub-section to that with which we are dealing is to the effect that any two members of the tribunal may carry on the work for the time being in the case of a vacancy, and that again shows that there is no necessity for a knowledge of the law, as those two members may easily be two laymen. Then Sub-section (4) lays it down that the tribunal is to have certain powers and rights which are vested in the High Court for certain purposes. The first is the power of enforcing the attendance of witnesses. Anyone can issue a summons for that purpose. The second is the sending for documents. That, too, only requires a summons. The third is the punishment of persons guilty of contempt of Court. That does not require any knowledge of the law. It therefore does not seem, even on the phraseology of the Bill itself, that a knowledge of the law is necessary for any member of this tribunal, and I cannot see, consequently, why the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill should not agree to accept this Amendment.
Commander BELLAIRS: My right hon. Friend behind me invited me to speak, and I wish to say that I agree with the Government proposal in regard to this matter. The tribunal has got to settle very intricate questions of law as to what
1942
are the droits of the Crown and what are droits of the Admiralty Sir Fleetwood Wilson is the representative of the Treasury, and his yardarm, if I may use the term, is to get as much out of the droits of the Treasury as possible, and, of course, the naval representative has to look after the interests of the Navy. The question is a very intricate legal one, and what better plan could the Government follow than to appoint a distinguished judge, and appoint the very best man who has been associated with the Navy, in order to get the matter on a sound footing and provide that such a judge will be appointed in the future! For these reasons, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will stick to his point.
Sir J. BUTCHER: The speeches we have just listened to, with the exception of that delivered by my hon. and gallant Friend who has just sat down, have been characterised by a good deal of prejudice, and, if the speakers will allow me to say so, by a very large amount of ignorance. The reason why it is necessary for the chairman of this tribunal to be a judge is because there are very difficult legal questions to be decided, and it is not a question of privilege at all. A member of the Bar is able to decide legal questions, not as matters of privilege but because he has made it his business to understand legal questions. Therefore, to talk about privilege attaching to the chairmanship of this body is to display complete ignorance of the work of the tribunal and the duties which the chairman is called upon to discharge. The Government have selected a man as fitted for dealing with these difficult Admiralty questions of law as any man that they could have possibly selected.
Mr. BOOTH: We have all said that!
Sir J. BUTCHER: That is the reason why he has been appointed, because he has special knowledge of this subject, and the Bill provides that if you want someone to succeed him you should get another man specially qualified in the same way. You make a man Commander-in-Chief of the Army because his knowledge and training fits him to discharge those military duties, and for the same reason you appoint a judge to discharge judicial duties. Consequently there is a proviso that when there is a vacancy in the chairmanship the person appointed shall be a person who has held high judicial office. This is not privilege for the Bar, but they

1943
have to select a person who has proved himself to be a distinguished and a learned lawyer. Therefore, I hope the Government will adhere to this provision, which to me seems to be based upon the most elementary common sense, in order to secure a man who is capable of discharging these important duties.
Dr. MACNAMARA: My hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) gave notice yesterday of his intention to raise this question, and I have devoted what time I could to it since then, and have taken the advice of those best qualified to assist me in the matter. If this proviso is struck out, you leave the Crown free to appoint any chairman. If the proviso is left out, you remove the limitation which we have placed upon the appointment in the case of a vacancy, and you set our hands more free. Broadly speaking, I am all for that. And I have got an additional inducement in the speech of the hon. Member for Somerset (Mr. King) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea (Mr. Burns), who have suggested that in some near but nebulous future I myself might be chosen for this position if the proviso is struck out. I am afraid in this matter I shall have to exercise a self-denying ordinance.
I am against freeing our hands in this matter and striking out this proviso, and I will explain why. In the first place I think my right hon. Friend misunderstands the extent to which this proviso does restrict our choice of a successor. My right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea spoke of the selection being limited to a select coterie and allowing only a very narrow range of choice. It is, however, really much wider than that, for it includes not only ex-judges but also existing judges of the High Court or the Court of Appeal in England or Ireland, or the Court of Session in Scotland, or a Lord Chancellor or ex-Lord Chancellor, or a Lord of Appeal present or past. Therefore, so far from being a narrow coterie or range of selection it is a much wider choice than my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract seems to think. Now, why do we simply thus prescribe the selection of a successor as chairman if anything should happen to Lord Phillimore? The hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone pointed out that this tribunal has to deal with very complex, very ancient, and very controversial points of law. It has to separate the droits of the Crown and
1944
droits of Admiralty, and that is a very difficult problem, and I cannot imagine anyone better qualified to do that than those who are provided for in such a position as chairman in this Bill. I observe that the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. O'Shee) says that the work the chairman has to do requires no knowledge of the law. I am sure he could not have been wider of the mark if he had deliberately tried. This tribunal has peculiar and difficult points of law to decide. It is not an attempt to glorify the legal profession or to find another job for the lawyer, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea seemed to suggest.
Mr. BURNS: I did not put it that way.
Dr. MACNAMARA: At any rate, my right hon. Friend did suggest that we were endeavouring to glorify the lawyer. But that is not so. Observe, there is no pay for this work. Now Jet me put this to my right hon. Friend. Observe the powers of this tribunal. Observe the authority that they have over the subject: "All such powers, rights, and privileges as are vested in the High Court or in any judge thereof in respect of the following matters." They can enforce the attendance of witnesses and examine them on oath, affirmation, or otherwise, and issue a commission or a request to examine witnesses abroad. They can compel the production of documents, and they can send a person to prison for contempt of court. I am not prepared to hand important functions of that sort, involving as they do the liberty of the subject, over to any person who is not very highly qualified in law. We have no desire to glorify lawyers, but only to make due assurance that we do get the right type of man with the right qualifications for this extraordinarily difficult task. While I sympathise with the purpose and aim of my hon. Friend and while I have no desire to seek to give any privilege to anyone, I do hope, for the reasons that I have stated, my hon. Friend will see his way not to press the Amendment.
Mr. BURNS: It is not because I narrowly interpret the class of people who will have access to this particular office as suggested by my right hon. Friend, but it is because I really want to let in very distinguished lawyers who themselves have not been judges of the High Court and have not held judicial office of any kind, but who in many cases are very great lawyers, even greater lawyers than some

1945
of the men who have held high judicial office, that I support the Amendment. I see no reason why some great and distinguished lawyer who has achieved a, great position at the Bar, but who has no ambition to be a judge and who has never held any judicial office should not, in the autumn of his days, if he has the leisure, the knowledge, and the public spirit, serve the community in this honorific post. In my judgment, such a distinguished lawyer ought not to be ruled out from being a member or the chairman of this particular tribunal simply because he has not been a judge or held other judicial office. There are some judges of the High Court that no man in his senses would nominate for this particular post.
Mr. O'SHEE: The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill and the hon. and gallant Member (Commander Bellairs) are, no doubt, plain, blunt men, but neither of them is a lawyer, and it is because neither of them is a lawyer that they have not seen what I, as an humble member of the legal profession can see, that questions of droits of the Crown and droits of the Admiralty will not arise for the decision of this tribunal to be set up.
Dr. MACNAMARA Dr. MACNAMARA indicated dissent.
Mr. O'SHEE: This tribunal is to administer the Naval Prize Fund. You get the Naval Prize Fund from various sources. First, there is any money in Court—this is not a Court—paid in respect of any ship or goods condemned by any Prize Court. I do not know whether there is any confusion in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, but there is in the mind of the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs). This is not a Prize Court. The Prize Court has to consider and decide what shall be deemed to be a prize and what shall be deemed not to be a prize. The Naval Prize Fund is under the control of the Admiralty according to Clause 1 of the Bill, and it is to be distributed by this voluntary tribunal that is being set up. This tribunal is not in any sense a Prize Court, and it has only got to distribute, under the terms of Proclamation that is to be issued, the money that is paid into the Naval Prize Fund from the various sources defined in the Schedule. I therefore see no reason whatever why the chairman of this tribunal should be a lawyer. The only justification which the
1946
right hon. Gentleman gave for his being a lawyer was by referring to Sub-section (4) of Clause 2. That is merely a question of issuing a summons for the attendance of witnesses, which any ordinary justice of the peace throughout the country is entitled to do. It does not require any training in the law to enable anyone to be a justice of the peace, or to summon a witness, or to compel a witness to produce documents. The third provision to which the right hon. Gentleman referred was the punishing of persons guilty of contempt. As we all know, judges have been criticised more for the exercise of their power under the law of contempt than for anything else. That is just where judges make mistakes. It is not a knowledge of the law that you want to administer the law of contempt, but common sense; and it is because some judges have not exercised common sense, but have followed the juristic dictates in which they have been trained or have sought to follow them that in many cases they have made mistakes in putting into force the law of contempt. Therefore, the rights of the subject are much more likely to be guarded and conserved under the jurisdiction of a Layman who has no knowledge of the law as chairman of this tribunal than under the jurisdiction of a lawyer.
Dr. MACNAMARA: It is due to the hon. Member to explain that the separation of the droits of the Crown and the droits of Admiralty is really a function of this tribunal. If he will look at the Proclamation he will see that it says:
"We do therefore now make known to all Our loving Subjects, and to all others whom it may concern, by this Our Proclamation, by and with the advice of our Privy Council, that Our Royal Will and Pleasure is and We do hereby order and direct that the net produce of all such prizes captured during the present War as shall be declared by the tribunal appointed under the said Act to be droits of the Crown, and of all other sums which under that Act shall be paid into the Naval Prize Fund," and so on.
There is this most difficult duty. It is their function to separate the two, and I confess, with such knowledge as I have at the present, that I cannot imagine a more difficult problem, and one more calling for high expert legal knowledge. I cannot imagine a case where high legal knowledge would be of more essential value than in this particular task, and I hope my hon. Friend will not press the Amendment.
Mr. O'SHEE: If the right hon. Gentleman were a lawyer, he would know that it is not essential.
Mr. BOOTH: If the hon. and learned Member for York (Sir J. Butcher) had heard me move the Amendment he would probably have made a little different reply. My object was a much more modest one than some of those who have followed me have had in view. There are instances where a distinguished lawyer, even the ex-Prime Minister, if he were available, could not be appointed. The Speakership of this House and the Chairmanship of Committees is not always occupied by a lawyer. My suggestion is that if a former Speaker of this House, or a Speaker of the House of Lords, or an ex-Prime Minister, or an ex-Home Secretary, who has often had to decide questions of life and death and make high judicial appointments, were available, he should be appointed. I never sought to appoint him. If a judge were available of the character of Baron Phillimore, the Government would appoint that judge with general approval. It might not, perhaps, appoint him to the chairmanship straight away, but could appoint him to be a member of the tribunal, and it might appoint an experienced Civil servant to take the chair until the new judge had become accustomed to the Court. I simply proposed the Amendment to give the Government bigger scope. The matter cannot arise for some time, and if the Government do not want to have this power and prefer to be tied up, I propose to leave them in that bondage, and therefore ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
General McCALMONT: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to add the words, "and provided that at least one member of the tribunal shall be an officer of the Royal Navy."
The Amendment provides that if a vacancy should occur in the naval representation on the tribunal, the substitute or the successor should be a naval officer. I hope my right hon. Friend will see his way to accept the Amendment. This is not a very important matter except from the point of view that I think he will agree it is essential that the tribunal should command the confidence, not only of the financial authorities, but of the Royal Navy itself. It would be some satisfaction
1948
to them to know that on the tribunal there would always be an officer of the Navy.
Dr. MACNAMARA: My hon. and gallant Friend has accurately interpreted our purport and intention as regards any vacancy, if such should unhappily occur in the naval membership of this tribunal. I said yesterday that if it should be necessary to fill the post which is to be filled by Sir George Callaghan, the Board of Admiralty would naturally appoint a naval officer. The last point made by my hon. and gallant Friend was a good one, namely, that you might as well express that in words so as to avoid any misunderstanding and not to give rise to any suspicion on the part of the officers and men of the Fleet that there might be any gerrymandering. It is our intention that one member should be a naval member and, in order that there may be no suspicion about the matter, on behalf of the Government I accept the Amendment.
Colonel LESLIE WILSON: Would it be possible to amend the Amendment to make it read "and provided that at least one member of the tribunal shall be an officer of the Royal Navy or Royal Marines"? This Bill applies as much to the Royal Marines as to the Royal Navy, and if there is to be appointment, an officer of the Royal Marines should not be excluded.
Mr. KING: Is not the gallant officer referred to a Royal Marine officer?
Dr. MACNAMARA: No.
Mr. BOOTH: Does not the term "Royal Navy" include the Royal Marines?
Dr. MACNAMARA: No.
Mr. BOOTH: I think it does. If the right hon. Gentleman looks at page 2 he will see that the term "Naval and Marine Forces" occurs at least twice. It occurs three times in Sub-section (6) of Clause 1.
Commander BELLAIRS: Might I suggest that the Amendment could well be inserted in another place?
Mr. BOOTH: Let us do our work!
10.0 P.M.
General McCALMONT: I am perfectly willing to meet the desire of my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel L. Wilson) and to add the words at the end of my Amendment. I would, however, enter the protest that I

1949
hope, if these words are added, another hon. Member will not propose to add a member of the Royal Air Force.
Dr. MACNAMARA: I am the last person to suggest any disparagement of the great Corps with which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Reading (Colonel L. Wilson) has been so long and so honourably associated, and I cannot see that I can do other than accept the phrase, "Royal Navy or Royal Marines." There may be some difficulty in the matter as regards phraseology, but if I give my hon. and gallant Friend an undertaking that the spirit of the proposal that an officer of the Royal Marines shall be an alternative, I hope he will be satisfied.
Mr. BOOTH: You can do it on Report.
Colonel WILSON: I understand that my right hon. Friend is willing to insert the words. I am not entirely satisfied with the spirit; I should like to see the words inserted. If he assures me he is willing to insert those words, I am satisfied.
Dr. MACNAMARA: I can do that, certainly.
The CHAIRMAN: It can be done here by an Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
Mr. BOOTH: I suggest that we can include the words already proposed, and then the hon. and gallant Member for Reading can move to add the words "or Royal Marines."
The CHAIRMAN: Certainly; or the words can be added to the present Amendment. Perhaps that will be the simplest way.
Colonel WILSON: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to add at the end the words "or Royal Marines."
Amendment to proposed Amendment agreed to.
Proposed words, as amended, there inserted.
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3 (Provisions as to Prize Bounty), Clause 4 (Payment of Prize Money and Prize Bounty in Certain Gases), Clause 5 (Short Title and Savings), and Schedule ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill reported; as amended, considered.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
Commander BELLAIRS: Before we part with the Bill I should like to congratulate the Admiralty on having at last introduced a Bill which will please all sections of the community. I beg them to consider this lesson, that we have introduced this peace legislation, for it is peace legislation and has nothing to do with the conduct of the War, after four years of war, and I hope in future these things will be settled in peace time when we, and certainly the Admiralty, have more time at our disposal. I think they have distinctly improved the Prize Law of the country. They have at any rate got rid of the legal difficulties which used to encumber the Prize Law. They have succeeded in helping naval officers in another direction, by reducing the agents' fees from 2½ per cent. to 1 per cent., and they have got the Treasury to surrender the 5 per cent. which used to go to it. Naval officers have benefited all along the line. The pooling system, which is the chief characteristic of the measure, is also distinctly good. It does away with the great legal conflicts which used to take place. It does away, again, with all the favouritism that used to take place. The favoured sons of families used to be sent to cruisers where they would be likely to get prize money because the capture belonged to the ships that captured it. In doing away with the disputes which took place they have conferred a tremendous benefit upon the community, because great admirals used to fight each other through Court after Court, and the whole comradeship of the Navy got ruined in consequence. St. Vincent and Nelson fought each other through all the Courts, and Collingwood fought three admirals for several years in succession, to all the Courts, and I thank the Admiralty for having introduced a measure which has conferred, and will confer, untold benefit on the Navy.
Dr. MACNAMARA: I thank my hon. Friends, particularly the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Commander Bellairs), who have met us with such kindly criticism and so sympathetically in their reception of the Bill. We have worked hard on this Bill, which I am glad to say has the approval of the representatives of the Overseas Dominions.
Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.

CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL [Lords] AND SEXUAL OFFENCES BILL [Lords].
Ordered, "That so much of the Lords Message [18 th July] as relates to a Joint Committee be now considered."—[Lord E. Talbot.]
So much of the Lords Message considered accordingly.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Select Committee of six Members be appointed to join with a Committee appointed by the Lords (as mentioned in their Lordships' Message of the 18th July) to consider the Criminal Law Amendment Bill [Lords] and the Sexual Offences Bill" [Lords].—[Lord E. Talbot]
Mr. BURNS: I do not know whether it is proposed to divide against this Resolution. I had up to this moment presumed it was not, but, if it is, I shall oppose it for several reasons. If it is carried, I sincerely trust the Government will not assume that its acceptance by the House implies that Members generally approve of what it contains, and, above all, what it implies, in the consideration of the question which this Select Committee is set up to consider. First, I trust the Government will understand that there is a considerable volume of opinion in the country against the question being touched at all at this moment, and the reasons for it are sound and unanswerable. No later than 1913 a Royal Commission was appointed by the Government of which I was a member, and it was in the appointment of that Royal Commission that, as President of the Local Government Board, I had a great deal to do with considering the subject, appointing the Commission, constituting the personnel, and taking a hand in the drafting of the Reference and the procedure. But it was never contemplated that when that Royal Commission sat, examined witnesses, and deliberated at considerable length and presented one of the best Reports I have ever known a Royal Commission to present on a delicate and difficult subject like this, that we were to have subsequently a Committee which would necessarily go over almost the same ground and deal with most of the problems to which the Royal Commission gave such detailed consideration. The Government specifically ruled out from the purview of that Royal Commission any reference to the re-enactment of the Contagious Diseases Act, and any idea of resorting to needless repression and to
1952
compulsion of a repressive, almost of a brutal, kind, and unless the Resolution is safeguarded by the common sense of the House of Commons, and above all by the careful judgment of the Committee itself, it may happen that we shall see in this country a revival of the agitation against a partial renewal of the Contagious Diseases Act; and what is more, if the Committee felt a desire so to do, it could, within the terms of reference of this Resolution, and within the four corners of the Criminal Law Amendment Bill and the Sexual Offences Bill, revive some of the most objectionable features of the Contagious Diseases Acts of 1880 and 1884, a thing that the Royal Commission would have nothing to do with, and which public opinion would not tolerate for a moment, and which the Governmet has tried to get a partial consideration of last Session, and has been soundly beaten on the Criminal Law Amendment Bill, when a very good Committee declined to have anything to do with this thorny, delicate, and repulsive subject, which is within the four corners of the two Bills to be remitted to this Select Committee.
First of all, the Royal Commission would not touch it, and the Home Secretary—one of the ablest of Home Secretaries I have ever known—in a most insinuating, persuasive, and positive way, did his best to get the Second Reading of the Bill through the House; and upstairs in Committee, after I believe fifteen or sixteen sittings, such opposition was evinced that the Bill, in my judgment, was killed. It was not dropped—that would technically, perhaps, be too severe. But it was not proceeded with, and we have heard nothing more of it for about nine months. But what has happened in the meantime is that what the Home Secretary could not do by the Criminal Law Amendment Bill which he introduced and did not proceed with, what the Royal Commission would have nothing to do with, the Government under Regulation 40 D under the Defence of the Realm Act have done. They have done one or two things which under those Bills were to be remitted to the Select Committee, and which, if the Select Committee were to approve, would, under the operation of Regulation 40 D under the Defence of the Realm Act, have created some precedent, so that they could use that Regulation as some justification for trying to put Regulation 40 D into the form of a Bill which would emanate from the consideration of these two Bills. They

1953
would bring that proposal in an amended consolidated Bill to the House, and we should then see an agitation against it. It does seem to me that the Royal Commission, having had nothing to do with this aspect of the problem, the Criminal Law Amendment Bill, which touched the subject matter of this Bill in several forms, having been killed by the House, and the subject having been so properly dealt with both by public opinion and the House of Commons itself, it is gratuitous and totally unnecessary that we should have this Resolution, the Select Committee or these two Bills at all. Under Regulation 40 which is within the four corners of these Bills there have been several cases—I think I am justified in saying many cases—of the grossest injustice to innocent, healthy, uninfected women who, under Regulation 40 D have been brought before the magistrates. They have been accused of solicitation, of prostitution, of suffering from disease which upon examination and upon the evidence of witnessess and their own confessions have been proved to be groundless. Gross injustice has been done to the women of the country in a way which I am positive the women will not tolerate if within the four corners of these Bills any attempt is made to stereotype Regulation 40 D, under which these abominable things have been done, and to incorporate them in an amended consolidated Bill with a view to putting them upon the women. There is an additional reason why this Bill and Resolution are unnecessary. Since the Royal Commission, since the Criminal Law Amendment Bill was killed, since Regulation 40 D was imposed upon a long-suffering community of women and these acts of injustice have come to light, the Local Government Board have taken a brave, wise, and sensible step, entailing much expenditure and money, by means of which all that this Bill seeks to remove will be disposed of altogether.
This Bill and this Resolution will in no way stop or mitigate this disease, but by free, secret, and confidential treatment, and in a more successful, practical, humane and scientific way they are actually at this moment engaged in combating the ravages of this disease, which does not prevail to anything like the extent that corybantic females who seem to be more angry with their own sex than men would have us believe. It is a small minority of females who are asking that these few
1954
women should be persecuted. The Venereal Diseases Bill, which was passed by the Committee upstairs, prevents the quack and unqualified people from prescribing medicines for the treatment of this particular disease. It insists that only qualified medical practitioners shall deal with these particular cases. Therefore, from all points of view—the Royal Commission, the Criminal Law Amendment Bill, the free and confidential treatment by the Local Government Board and the health authorities, the fact that quacks are unable to apply their trade to the extent of prolonging the incidence of the disease in people who are suffering from it—safeguards are being adopted to-day. It was to the profit of the quack the longer he kept a man diseased. The more money he made out of the poor fellow by the larger amounts of quack medicines and other bogus prescriptions that the poor victim of the disease was capable of paying for.
The ground for this Resolution, and, above all, the need of a Bill, in my judgment, does not exist. Say what you like, do what you may, whatever your intention may be, these two Bills and this Resolution imply differential treatment of women as against men. Whatever you do, you have no right to put upon women, however poor, however degraded, or however miserable specimens of humanity they may be, a differential and disproportionate penalty to that applied to men who are in a similarly diseased condition. Whatever you do you are differentiating against women, and thereby giving preference to men. For the first time in my experience, as a Member of the House of Commons, there are Clauses in both these Bills that mean compulsory detention for offences that hitherto have not been liable to penalties with imprisonment. In one of these two Bilk the compulsory detention can take a length of two years. It seems to me that these Bills will have to be very carefully watched. The Select Committee will have to have regard to public opinion. Above all, we must rejoice in the wonderful progress that has been made on sound, safe, decent lines without imprisonment or compulsion, especially when one realises the wonderful progress that has been made in the diminution of the disease without this Resolution and these two Bills.
Let us remember the simple fact that within the last fifteen years venereal disease in our Indian Army has diminished to such a large extent, through wise

1955
precautions and counter-attractions against undesirable places, which, to his credit, Lord Kitchener initiated, thereby deserving the gratitude both of the Army and the public. Owing to the counter-attractions, which kept men from undesirable places, and to the excellent way in which medical officers in the Army have done their best to persuade the soldiers to a better course of conduct, the figures of admission to hospital for venereal disease in the British Army in India have dropped from 550 per 1,000 to 50 per 1,000. In the home Army when you had the Contagious Diseases Act—a suggestion which is in both these Bills, and which is possibly within the ambit of this Resolution—274 per 1,000 of the British Army at Aldershot were admitted into hospital in the course of the year for venereal disease. That figure had declined to 42 per 1,000 before the War, and since then, when we had had as many as 200,000 men in the Aldershot command, I am glad to say that according to the latest information the figure has fallen still further to 29 per 1,000 per annum. In face of this wonderful progress there is no justification for these two Bills nor for this Resolution. And when one reads of the wonderful improvement in the control, moral discipline, and fine example of the officers, and in the wonderfully responsive conduct of the men, which has produced this marvellous change for the better in the Army, it is only right to say that the same ratio of decline prevails with regard to recruiting, and that while in 1884 there were 165 per 10,000 of recruits who presented themselves rejected because at the moment of recruitment they had venereal disease, that figure has dropped down to 16 per 10,000, a rate of progress which shows that it is not by means of detention, imprisonment, compulsion, repression, and penal treatment of the woman as against the man, which will be the programme if these Bills become law that improvement is effected. But there is a more excellent way in which we can grapple with this disease.
One last word to the Government is this. Beware the women! Since the Criminal Law Amendment Act was passed and the Royal Commission sat, the free and confidential treatment of venereal disease has been instituted, Parliament has given the vote to 6,000,000 or 7,000,000 of the women of this country. Is it fair, before these women have had an
1956
opportunity of expressing themselves at the next election and in kindred ways, to proceed by this Resolution and by these two Bills to prejudge the consideration of a problem on which every woman has a right to be consulted, and on which, if she was consulted, I am convinced she would support the view which I now respectfully put to the House, when I say that in the light of the progress which is proved by the figures that I have quoted, and in the light of the steps that have been taken during the last three or four years to combat this disease, it is not fair to prejudge what the women will do on this question. It is not fair to rule them out of the controversy as you are doing before they have had an opportunity of voting on the question. The Contagious Diseases Act of 1884 gave the women of this country, without the Vote, the opportunity of forcing upon the Government, the revocation of an obnoxious and oppressive measure, and it almost turned one Government out of power. I beg the Government, whatever the Select Committee does, not to finish these deliberations until after the next General Election, and the women have had an opportunity of voting. We shall have a lively, excitable, and in some respects a revolutionary election between now and the next six months, and the women will have an opportunity to see that you do not, by means of a Select Committee, re-introduce, either in shadow or substance, what was abolished when the Contagious Diseases Acts were taken off the Statute Book. Whether or not that will be done is for each man in his own opinion to decide, but on behalf of six or seven millions of women I respectfully submit that this question of compulsion should not be decided until the women have had a fair, open, and honourable opportunity of deciding for themselves, in a way we men are not capable of deciding for them, what their verdict is to be on this proposal. If the Government try, through the means of a Select Committee, to deal with this problem, they will be dealing with one that it is not at all necessary to handle during the War, and, above all, they will be inflicting disabilities on the women of this country, and denying to them equal rights with men, as well as the exercise of their votes to safeguard the liberties and wellbeing of their sex, with the possibility, also, of their being detained compulsorily in prison up to two years. That is a problem, with all the indignities to them which it involves, upon

1957
which the women of England should be committed, and which, I believe, they will unanimously reject.
Mr. DILLON: I shall certainly divide the House against the Resolution. I was a member of the Grand Committee to which the Criminal Law Amendment Bill of the House of Lords was referred. We sat for a very long time, and had twelve or fourteen sittings. We debated the subject at great length, and the Government Bill was riddled with criticism and cut up with Amendments. The Bill was not proceeded with; I do not think it was formally dropped; at all events, it was not passed. Another attempt was made to get it through the House by other means, but, meeting with opposition, it was again abandoned.
What I object to is that, having on two occasions failed to get the Bill in the face of strenuous opposition, the Government then resolved to do what I must describe as an attempt to enforce behind the back and without the authority of the House provisions which it is perfectly plain that, without the authority of a Coalition Government, they could not have got through the House, although they strained things to the utmost. In the first place, Regulation 40 D was introduced, and a more scandalous act of executive government in my recollection never was attempted. If it had been before this House, instead of being done under the Defence of the Realm Act, it would never have been allowed to pass without safeguards. Nobody who voted for the Defence of the Realm Act ever dreamed that it would be perverted to such uses as that. The outcry was so great against that Regulation that the Government, if they did not abrogate it, are certainly not putting it into force very actively. They were undoubtedly ashamed of it, and they were obliged to withdraw from that position. Then they take refuge in the House of Lords. Having failed to get this legislation through the House of Commons, they introduce two Bills, the Criminal Law Amendment Bill and the Sexual Offences Bill, into the House of Lords. Why did they not afford the House of Commons a proper opportunity of debating these measures after what had happened with regard to the original Criminal Law Amendment Bill? I want to know what the exact procedure is in this case. I am a little rusty in the procedure of the House, although I thought I understood it pretty
1958
well after all these years, but this is a novel proceeding. Two Bills come down from the House of Lords with a message, and we are invited to consider the Lords message and appoint a Select Committee of six Members to join with a Committee appointed by the Lords in order to consider the two Bills in question. There are a certain number of names in a subsequent part of the Resolution to form that Committee. I find no fault with the names, but it is a very small Committee, and I think it is a very bad practice that a Bill of this character, on the same lines as that which was submitted to a Grand Committee of this House, should now be withdrawn from the Grand Committee and sent by this circuitous method before a very small Committee of six or eight Members of the House of Commons.
It looks to me very much as if the Government propose to come, during the Autumn Session, with the Report of this Committee and try to rush the Bill through the House before the General Election. I say that that is a procedure that will arouse unquestionably the bitterest possible opposition in this House, and I certainly would do anything in my power to support that opposition. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea (Mr. Burns) that it is nothing short of a scandalous outrage that after what has occurred this should happen. I recollect myself, as a member of the Grand Committee, that we received, and I read out to the Grand Committee myself, protests from every women's association in this country. I do not think there was a single women's association of any standard in this country that did not protest, and in face of those protests you are by a circuitous and rather obscure method endeavouring apparently to smuggle on the very eve of the General Election an odious measure through the House of Commons which affects in a particularly unfair and one-sided way the women of this country before they have had the opportunity of exercising the franchise which you have given them. I think that is a mean proceeding, and it is ridiculous to say there is a war urgency in the matter. We debated the matter at enormous length upstairs, and we had experts there, and the conclusion forced home to my mind was that there was no case for some of the objectionable provisions. Even now, although this is a somewhat emasculated Bill and some of

1959
the objectionable provisions are amended, there are some provisions in it of a very odious character. There is one Clause in the Bill, which I think we defeated in the Bill upstairs, providing for the detention of any young women who are found to be loitering or walking about the streets in a riotous manner, and who are to be treated practically as if they are prostitutes. Was such a proposal ever heard of? Any of us might be arrested while walking in the streets. "Riotous manner" is a matter of opinion. Every woman in the country is placed at the mercy of a policeman who can swear he saw her walking the streets in a riotous manner. He would not have to prove she was a common prostitute, but simply that she was riotous in her demeanour. It was condemned in Committee upstairs.
There was another provision which, I think, we debated for two days, and it was simply riddled and turned into ridicule by every person with any expert knowledge, and that was the provision to make it a penal offence to communicate venereal disease to anyone. Any doctor—many years ago I was a doctor myself—knows what that means. Think of the enormous avenue you open to blackmail! If this Bill were denominated a Bill for the promotion and facilitation of blackmail, I think it would be a better title than the title it bears. I have never heard of such a proposition. Under the infamous Clause of which I have just spoken it was the women only who were to be prosecuted as criminals if they communicated venereal disease. A man could do it as much as he liked. The provision is disgraceful to any civilised country, but in this Bill the provision is that anyone who communicates the disease can be treated as a criminal and sentenced to two years' imprisonment. We debated that for many hours upstairs, and the result was that the Home Secretary, who is rightly described as one of the most persuasive Home Secretaries who ever occupied the office, was turned inside out and perfectly helpless. It is a monstrous thing that, having brought forward these proposals and debated them in this House, sent them before a Grand Committee, put on specialists in the subject, and had the thing thrashed out, the whole thing lapsed and turned into ridicule, then, by a circuitous method, you try to smuggle it through the House
1960
of Commons before the 6,000,000 women have an opportunity of voting at an election. I beg to warn the Government that at this stage and every stage I shall give it every opposition in my power.
Lord E. TALBOT (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): I have listened to the very forceful arguments brought forward by my right hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, and the very facts brought forward show the importance of the Committee to inquire into this matter. I think the hon. Member for East Mayo is wrong in supposing that the object of appointing this Committee is to legislate in any hurry on this question. The matter was explained by the Home Secretary the other night, and this Committee has been set up with a view to inquiring into these Bills. Unless I am very much mistaken the proposed members of the Committee very much share the views of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Burns)—
Mr. BOOTH: Oh, no!
Lord E. TALBOT: My impression is that way, and that the points made by the right hon. Gentleman will be most carefully considered, brought forward, and supported.
Mr. CHANCELLOR: I should like to add my voice to those already uttered against proceeding at all with this legislation. I was one of those who sat for many weary months discussing the Criminal Law Amendment Bill, and we tried again and again to devise a method that would be fair as between the sexes. We found it absolutely impossible. The new form these Bills have taken aim at the same thing. In practice it is absolutely certain that the women will be the sex that will suffer most. They realise that already, and probably every hon. Member has received word, or memorials, from the various women's organisations who are determined that this legislation shall not be put on to the Statute Book until they have had a say in the matter. They are right. They suffer disabilities under the existing law. Only a few days ago two perfectly innocent married women, the wives of soldier-husbands in France, were walking along the streets in the West of London when they were arrested by the police and accused of the foul charge of solicitation. They were taken to the police-station. There they were able to satisfy the magistrate—by

1961
no means an impartial judge from the accounts subsequently given of the way he led the police in their defence—that they were perfectly innocent. They have no remedy whatever against the police. They were victims of this outrage.
If these Bills become Acts of Parliament they will make things even worse for women than now. You have laws enough dealing with solicitation. There is also the law against grievous bodily harm, under which, I should have thought, the communication of disease might very well be brought. There is absolutely no need for any additional legislation to deal with this matter. There is less need to-day than probably ever before in the history of the country. In the Debate here on 40 B I gave figures somewhat similar to those given by my hon. Friend showing that really the high-water mark of this disease was reached at the time of the Contagious Diseases Acts, and that from the time they were abrogated there has been a steady decline; until quite recently, we were told by the Under-Secretary for War that cases in the Army had reached a point lower than ever before. The figures I gave showed that the disease had declined amongst the civil population and the recruits for the Army, whilst other evidence shows that the existence of Acts similar to those, abrogated in 1886, tend to increase instead of to decrease the disease. This kind of legislation is based entirely on false principles. It has a tendency to increase the practices which lead to the disease, and therefore to the increase of the disease itself. This House has more than once declared its opposition to this kind of legislation. The Government were behind the back of the House, under the Defence of the Realm Act, introduced Regulation 40 B as they at one time recognised maisons tolerées in France. They have been driven back by public opinion. That public opinion will be ten times stronger if this legislation is passed. It is a gross injustice to the women electors who have the vote to say that they shall not be allowed to give a judgment on the question. I sincerely hope that the Government will not proceed with this, although the personnel of the Committee is one to which I have no objection. Indeed, I have every confidence in the gentleman nominated, but my view is that this legislation ought not to be considered until women have a right to pass judgment upon it.
Mr. KING: I think the House has a right to-complain that there is no representative of the Home Office here, or, if there is, that he has only just come in, has not listened to the discussion, and apparently has no desire to reply to it. We have reason to complain of that, because the Noble Lord who moved the appointment of the Committee told us just now there is no intention on the part of the Government to use this Committee to hasten unduly any legislation. In fact, we are led to think that the appointment of this Committee is for the purpose of inquiry rather than to proceed as quickly as possible to legislate on the previous proposals. But only yesterday the Government gave quite a different answer to the same question. They were asked in another place whether in connection with this Select Committee it was going to lead to legislation with the greatest possible expedition, and the answer of the representative of the Home Office was:
"I can assure my Noble Friend it is our earnest desire to pass a Bill on this important subject as soon as the Secretary of State can manage it."
Therefore, while we are told here that the appointment of this Select Committee is not going to hasten legislation, but will rather delay and show caution, in another place it is stated it is being done with the object of getting everything through with the greatest possible expedition. The real fact is that the Government has not made up its mind. Some of its members would like to bury this subject altogether or to put it off for another year, while other members of the Government, disappointed at previous failures, want to legislate as quickly as possible and with as much hugger-mugger as possible. The Home Office is in the latter category, and the fact that that is so is quite apparent from this, that these two Bills received their Second Reading in another place in May, and on the 8th of that month a request was sent to this House to join in appointing a Select Committee. Yet for ten weeks no action was taken here.
Lord E. TALBOT: My right hon. Friend explained the cause of the delay the other night.
Mr. KING: And it was a very poor explanation. He said it was because he had been at The Hague. But he did not start for The Hague until the middle of June, and thus for six weeks after the request

1963
came down from the other place nothing was done, although he was here. I put it the true explanation is that the Leader of the House knew that our time was fully occupied with legislation, and that there really was no chance of getting this legislation through if it was to be fairly debated this Session. Surely the Government were sensible enough to know that a Bill to which they had given weeks of time last Session could not be carried through this Session. In taking this question up now, they are doing so in the hope that when the country is turning its mind and thought to a General Election, when hon. Members of this House are engaged otherwise and in other places, they will be able at the end of the Session to get this Bill rapidly through without fair consideration. I do not think that is treating the House of Commons or the country or the women electors we have just enfranchised in a fair and proper way. I warned the Government a week ago that they would not embark on this question in this manner without getting opposition and obstruction. They have got opposition now from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea, who has a peculiar right to speak on this subject, inasmuch as he set up a Royal Commission on Venereal Diseases, and we know his peculiar authority and interest in all these social and moral problems. I think the speech which the right hon. Gentleman made, and the fact that he told the Government at the very beginning of his speech that if there was any Division he would go into the Lobby against the Government ought to be a warning to them that they are embarking upon a policy which will only waste time and cause a great deal of disappointment in those quarters which were expecting this Bill to pass. It is going to make them become unpopular at the time of the General Election. If they persist, I believe it will be a real burden about their necks at the General Election, and on these grounds I hope they will have the good sense to delay and adjourn this Debate, and put this Motion on the Paper again if they think fit. But do let them consider carefully, not once, but twice, all the possibilities and all the facts of the case, and I
believe they will come to the conclusion that the wisest and safest course for them to pursue is to drop this proposal and not have anything more to do with it this Session.
11.0 P.M.
Mr. ROCH: I very much regret that the Government have decided to assist in this Motion. Its object is to get consideration for Bills which have passed the Second Reading, and whether the Government know it or not these two Bills will raise the old controversy of the Contagious Diseases Acts. It is necessary to point out that we have had speeches from members of the Government, which unfortunately show that there are members of the Government who hold opposite views on the question of the Contagious Diseases Acts. Therefore, these Bills do raise all that old controversy naturally will give rise to much discussion and suspicion. I really think that there is no reason at all at a time like this for raising this old issue. It is highly undesirable. There is one other point which the Government would be wise to take to heart and consider in this matter. I understand that we are within a very few months going to embark upon a General Election in which for the first time a large number of women will take part. Personally, I can think of nothing more deplorable and undesirable than that the first election in which women are going to take part they should be occupied to a large extent in discussing this old, worn-out controversy of the Contagious Diseases Acts. Everyone would regret that in exercising their vote for the first time they should be perplexed by that issue. For that reason, and seeing that there is no prospect of getting this legislation through this Session, I hope that even now the Government will think better of it and will not waste the time of this House appointing a Committee to explore ground which it is useless to explore.
Question put, "That a Select Committee of six members be appointed to join with a Committee appointed by the Lords (as mentioned in their Lordships Message of the 18th July) to consider the Criminal Law Amendment Bill [Lords] and the Sexual Offences Bill."
The House divided: Ayes, 50; Noes, 36.

Division No. 73.]

AYES.

[11.1 p.m.

Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

Baldwin, Stanley

Beck, Arthur Cecil

Ainsworth, Sir John Stirling

Barlow, Sir Montague (Salford, S.)

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

Barnett, Capt. Richard W.

Brace, Rt. Hon. William

Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverton)

McCalmont, Brig.-Gen. Robert C. A.

Samuels, Arthur W. (Dublin U.)

Colvin, Col.

Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

Sanders, Col. Robert Arthur

Fell, Sir Arthur

Mount, William Arthur

Shortt, Edward

Foster, Philip Staveley

Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

Spear, Sir John Ward

Gobbs, Col. George Abraham

Parker, Jomes (Halifax)

Stewart, Gershom

Gilmour, Lt.-Col. John

Pease, Rt. Hon. H. P. (Darlington)

Thomas, Sir G. (Monmouth, S.)

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

Perkins, Walter Frank

Weston, John W.

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray

Williams, Aneurin (Durham)

Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. (Midlothian)

Pratt, John W.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

Pryce-Jones, Col. Sir E.

Winfrey, Sir R.

Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

Pulley, C. T.

Wood, Sir John (Stalybridge)

Larmor, Sir Joseph

Richardson, Arthur (Rotherham)

Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

Roberts, Sir Herbert (Denbighs.)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Capt. F. Guest and Lord E. Talbot.

Levy, Sir Maurice

Russell, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W.

Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

Rutherford, Sir W. Watson (W. Derby)

NOES.

Anderson, William C.

Jowett, Frederick William

Reddy, Michael

Booth, Frederick Handel

Kilbride, Denis

Robinson, Sidney

Byrne, Alfred

King, Joseph

Roch, Walter F.

Chancellor, Henry George

Lambert, Richard (Cricklade)

Rowntree, Arnold

Devlin, Joseph

M'Ghee, Richard

Scanlan, Thomas

Doris, William

MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

Sheehy, David

Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

Marshall, Arthur Harold

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Mason, Robert (Wansbeck)

Toulmin, Sir George

France, Gerald Ashburner

Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co.)

Watt, Henry A.

Harbison, T. J. S.

Morgan, George Hay

Whitty, Patrick Joseph

Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, South)

O'Shee, James John

Hearn, Michael L. (Dublin, S.)

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Burns and Mr. Dillon

Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Durham)

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Message be sent to the Lords to acquaint them therewith and to request that their Lordships will be pleased to add a Lord to the Joint Committee."—[Lord E. Talbot.]
Mr. BOOTH: I beg to move "That the Debate be now adjourned."
Mr. KING: I beg to second the Motion.
I do so in the Government's own interest. The Leader of the House does not really appreciate the position at all. I warned him at Question Time that there was going to be opposition. He seemed perfectly surprised that any such state of things should arise. There is serious opposition if the Government can only summon fifty Members as against thirty-six. There is a number of Members in this House who would not vote. I think that the Government would be very well advised to reconsider the position, and I earnestly ask that the Debate may be adjourned in order that the Government may reconsider the position, and save the House and themselves from a position which is most undesirable, and certainly will lead to no good result.
Mr. DILLON: I rise to support the Motion. I really think that the Government in common decency ought to agree to it. It is manifest now that to persist with this attempted legislation will be a pure waste of the time of the Committee and of the House, and it is a wanton thing to do. Then there is another aspect of the
1966
matter to which attention has been called. Here is an important subject which has been before the House over and over again. We have had a Division in which the Government only carried their Motion by fourteen votes, and there are sixty-seven paid Ministers in the House. We are entitled to assume that of the fifty votes, thirty at least were those of paid officials, and therefore of independent Members there was nearly a two-to-one majority against the Motion. The sensible and decent thing for the Leader of the House to do would be to agree to the Motion and drop the matter until an election takes place and the country has an opportunity of expressing its views.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): I am grateful to the hon. Member (Mr. King) for the kind interest he takes in the welfare of the Government. Very likely he is right, but I do not happen to take his view. It seems to me there is no reason whatever why this Committee should not be set up. The fact that there is not a large attendance is what happens at this stage of the Session. There is not the slightest doubt in my mind that if there had been any suspicion that this kind of opposition would take place, there would have been plenty of Members here.
Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman analyse the Division List to-morrow and see how many of the fifty Members—that typical number; it was

1967
once called the "Devil's Half-hundred"—are paid officials of the Government, coming in to say "No" when he says "No," and "Yes" when he says "Yes" I The right hon. Gentleman is like the centurion in Holy Scripture, who says to one man, "Go, and he goeth." Seventeen of them were allowed to go, and they went, and fifty remained. We want to know something about the lost Ministerial sheep. Surely he will see that, after all,
Question again proposed, "That a Message be sent to the Lords to acquaint them therewith and to request that their Lordships will be pleased to add a Lord to the Joint Committee."
Mr. BOOTH: I think that the Government should explain why we are making a suggestion of this sort to the other House. I think that originally they suggested five—
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has already addressed the House on this topic.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Sir William Collins be a member of the Select Committee."
Mr. BOOTH: We are now considering six names.
Mr. SPEAKER: We are considering the name of Sir William Collins.
this House still bears the name of the House of Commons. It is still representative of the people, and that you are decidedly committing a shameful insult on every honourable woman. You will have Women Suffrage very soon, and I wish you joy of it. We will take care that these fifty heroes are immortalised.
Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
The House divided: Ayes, 26; Noes, 50.

Division No. 74.]

AYES.

[11.15 p.m.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Roch, Walter F.

Devlin, Joseph

McGhee, Richard

Scanlan, Thomas

Dillon, John

MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

Sheehy, David

Doris, William

Marshall, Arthur Harold

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Mason, Robert (Wansbeck)

Watt, Henry A.

Harbison, T. J. S.

Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

Whitty, Patrick Joseph

Hearn, Michael Louis

O'Shee, James John

Jowett, Frederick William

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Booth and Mr. King

Keating, Matthew

Rattan, Peter Wilson

Kilbride, Denis

Reddy, Michael

NOES.

Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

Pulley, C. T.

Ainsworth, Sir John Stirling

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

Allen, Arthur A. (Dunbartonshire)

Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. (Midlothian)

Rutherford, Sir W. (L'pool, W. Derby)

Baldwin, Stanley

Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

Samuels, Arthur W.

Barlow, Sir Montague (Salford, South)

Larmor, Sir J.

Sanders, Col. Robert Arthur

Barnett, Capt. R. W.

Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

Shortt, Edward

Beck, Arthur Cecil

Levy, Sir Maurice

Spear, Sir John Ward

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

Stewart, Gershom

Brace, Rt. Hon. William

McCalmont, Brig.-Gen. Robert C. A.

Thomas, Sir A. G. (Monmouth, S.)

Bryce, J. Annan

Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

Weston, Col. J. W.

Carew, C. R. S.

Mount, William Arthur

Williams, Aneurin (Durham)

Collins, Sir W. (Derby)

Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Colvin, Colonel

Parker, James (Halifax)

Winfrey, Sir Richard

Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n)

Wood, Sir John (Stalybridge)

Fell, Sir Arthur

Perkins, Walter F.

Foster, Philip Staveley

Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord Edmund Talbot and Capt. F. Guest.

Gibbs, Col. George Abraham

Pratt, J. W.

Gilmour, Lieut.-Col. John

Pryce-Jones, Col. Sir E.

Question put, and agreed to.

Mr. BOOTH: I have no objection to the hon. Member, but I do not think the method of selecting these names can be considered satisfactory. Apparently these Members are selected, even including this hon. Gentleman, on party considerations. There are two Liberals, two Conservatives, one Labour representative, and one Nationalist. This hon. Member, I suppose, is nominated by the Liberal Whips. Although I have nothing against this particular name—I would far sooner see him appointed on his merits than certain other gentlemen—yet my objection is on the ground that he is nominated by a party Whip. I think the party Whip's nomination should be done away with, since we are a united Government.
Question put, and agreed to.
Sir Willoughby Dickinson also nominated a member of the Select Committee.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson be a member of the Committee."
Mr. KING: Although I do not intend to oppose this name, I would call attention to the fact that so many members of this Select Committee are officials directly connected with the Home Office. I think there are two in the Upper House, connected with the Home Office, and it is now proposed that a private secretary should be appointed. As this is a Committee which ought to have obtained independent opinion, I must call attention to the fact that undue weight and influence is being given to the official element, especially the official element connected with the War Office.
Question put, and agreed to.
Mr. Neville, Mr. John O'Connor, and Mr. Tyson Wilson also nominated members of the Select Committee.
Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
Ordered, That Three be the quorum,—[Lord E. Talbot.]

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) [GRANTS].
Committee to consider of authorising the payment out of moneys to be provided by Parliament of such additional Grants as may become payable in pursuance of any Act of the present Session to make further provision with respect to education in Scotland, and for purposes connected therewith—(King's recommendation signified)—To-morrow.—[Mr. Munro.]
The remaining Orders were read and postponed.
Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 13th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
Question put, and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-six minutes after Eleven o'Clock.

SEPARATION ALLOWANCES.
  INCREASED RATES FOB CHILDREN.
  INCREASED RATES FOB CHILDREN.
  I.—WIVES AND CHILDREN.
  I.—WIVES AND CHILDREN.
  II—ISSUE OF ALLOWANCES TO THE PARENTS OF UNMARRIED APPRENTICES, STUDENTS AND YOUTHS ON PROGRESSIVE WAGES.
  II—ISSUE OF ALLOWANCES TO THE PARENTS OF UNMARRIED APPRENTICES, STUDENTS AND YOUTHS ON PROGRESSIVE WAGES.
  III.—SUPPLEMENTATION OF SEPARATION ALLOWANCES.
  III.—SUPPLEMENTATION OF SEPARATION ALLOWANCES.
  LAND FOR IRISH SOLDIERS.
  LAND FOR IRISH SOLDIERS.
  RE-HOUSING AFTER WAR (IRELAND).
  RE-HOUSING AFTER WAR (IRELAND).
  HOSPITAL SHIPS (SUBMARINE ATTACKS).
  HOSPITAL SHIPS (SUBMARINE ATTACKS).
MILITARY SERVICE.
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  OPTICAL INSTRUMENT MAKERS.
  OPTICAL INSTRUMENT MAKERS.
  LOCAL TRIBUNALS.
  LOCAL TRIBUNALS.
  DAMCROFT MILLS, PEEBLES.
  DAMCROFT MILLS, PEEBLES.
  SOLDIERS' LEAVE.
  SOLDIERS' LEAVE.
  LONG MOOR CAMP.
  LONG MOOR CAMP.
  GAS FOR WARFARE PURPOSES.
  GAS FOR WARFARE PURPOSES.
  ARMY FORM STORES (TIME- WORKERS' PAY).
  ARMY FORM STORES (TIME- WORKERS' PAY).
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
MUNITIONS.
  CUNARD SHIPBUILDING COMPANY.
  CUNARD SHIPBUILDING COMPANY.
  DISCHARGED SOLDIERS (INSTITUTIONAL TREATMENT).
  DISCHARGED SOLDIERS (INSTITUTIONAL TREATMENT).
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  SPECIAL CONSTABLES (RATIONS).
  SPECIAL CONSTABLES (RATIONS).
  FARM IMPLEMENTS.
  FARM IMPLEMENTS.
  METROPOLITAN POLICE (PAY)
  METROPOLITAN POLICE (PAY)
ALIENS.
  CASINGS COMPANIES (EMPLOYES).
  CASINGS COMPANIES (EMPLOYES).
  ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
  ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  WHITCHURCH POSTMASTER.
  WHITCHURCH POSTMASTER.
  PETROL (LICENCE).
  PETROL (LICENCE).
  FRENCH CARGO CONFERENCE.
  FRENCH CARGO CONFERENCE.
  National Council of Education.
  National Council of Education.
  School Teachers (Salaries and Superannuation).
  School Teachers (Salaries and Superannuation).
  Training Ship "Exmouth."
  Training Ship "Exmouth."
LORD GLENARTHUR.
Sir Matthew Arthur, Baronet, having been created Baron GLENARTHUR, of Carlung, in the county of Ayr—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

LOTTERIES (WAR CHARITIES) BILL [H.L.]
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I beg to present a Bill to legalise in certain cases lotteries promoted by war charities.
Moved, That the Bill be read 1a.—(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

PRIVATE BILLS
[From Minutes of July 23.]
MAIDENHEAD GAS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
BRITISH GAS LIGHT COMPANY (NORWICH) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
CALTHORPE ESTATE BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 2) BILL.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
Reported without amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

MORECAMBE CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.
SMITH ESTATE BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order) and passed, and sent to the Commons.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL (ORDERS No. 1) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 2) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

FOOD PRODUCTION.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE THE EARL OF SELBORNE rose to call attention to the prospects of food production in Great Britain in the harvests of 1918 and 1919; and to move for Papers.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the Motion that I have upon the Paper may be considered as a supplement to the debate which we had in this House during the proceedings on the Corn Production (Amendment) Bill. I do not, of course, propose to repeat what I then said, except to remind your Lordships that I look at this question exclusively from the point of national safety and of winning the war. I should like to remind your Lordships that the importance of this matter of feeding the people will not end with the termination of the war. The problem will be with us, altogether apart from any question of future policy, until normal conditions can be restored and our shipping has again risen to its proper tonnage. Therefore the period of stress, in my judgment, will be prolonged long after the war; and the importance of that observation consists in this, that some of my noble friends who

1057
have felt it their duty to criticise the ploughing policy of the Government have seemed to me to forget that the value of a ploughing is not to be measured only by the results achieved in the first year. It is very possible that some of the ploughings that took place this year were completed too late, and that the crop to be derived from that arable land this year will represent a smaller production of foodstuff than the hay gathered from that land this year would have represented if the land had not been ploughed. But that land will be most valuable next year, and the year after that, and the year after that. Therefore I would make, as the first point, that every ploughing has great importance beyond this year's result.
I hope that the speech which the President of the Board of Agriculture made in the House of Commons last week has been widely read, because I do not think any noble Lord can fairly judge the policy of the Board of Agriculture or its results unless they have read that speech. I can only say that in my opinion the story which the President was then able to tell is the story of a great performance, and also, I think, it has been done at an extraordinarily cheap rate—that is to say, cheap as measured not by our standard of economy before the war but as measured by any of the performances of any other Government Department during this war. If you contrast what the Food Production Department has done, and the cost, with what the Food Control Department has done and the cost, I venture to say that the comparison is very greatly in favour of the Board of Agriculture.
I only here want to draw your Lordships' attention to one sentence in Mr. Prothero's speech. He said—
"The result of the work of the executive war agricultural committees has been not only a great increase in the area of arable land, but a most substantial improvement in the general standard of farming throughout the country.
I draw attention to that because it certainly is contrary to the impression of many critics of the Government, but it entirely tallies with the result of my own limited observations. I would say that the pressure of the Department, of the war agricultural committees, and the help which we got from the Army last year by the intervention of my noble friend now sitting on the Front Bench—the Secretary of State for War (Viscount Milner)—com-
1058
bined with an extraordinarily favourable season last autumn, winter and spring, resulted in the raising of the standard of cultivation very greatly throughout England and Wales.
My noble friend Lord Chaplin the other day asked Lord Clinton to give the figures of the increased acreage of wheat, barley, and oats and we have those in Hansard. I have endeavoured to form an estimate of what that means as an addition to the produce of the land last year in the three same crops of cereals. I think that we may fairly take an estimate of an average crop of wheat and barley, but I am convinced that we ought to be very cautious in our estimate of the yield of oats, particularly because a very large proportion of the oats—a far larger proportion than the additional acreage—will have been grown on the freshly ploughed land Forming the best estimate that I can make on that basis of those three crops, wheat, barley, and oats, we should get about 30,000,000 quarters of corn from England and Wales alone, and that not reckonng the rye, the beans, or the peas, or anything from Ireland or Scotland. I think this is a very remarkable performance, and I do not think that the result will be very far short of that, on one condition—that the Government find the labour for the farmers with which to get in the harvest.
I am glad to see the Secretary of State for War here, because it really comes back to him, and to what the Army can do. There is no other source from which the men for the harvest can come. These men will be wanted more than ever owing to the result of this wet weather. These three weeks of wet have done far more good than harm, but the result has been to log a great quantity of the oats and the wheat, and the harvest will be difficult. Therefore the help of men from the Army to get in the crops will be as important this year as it was last year. I want again to remind the Government of the results of their action in helping us last year. Had it not been for the help coming from the Army last year the harvest never could have been got in, nor could the cultivation which has resulted in the harvest of this year have been undertaken. Therefore I date the success of the policy of the Board of Agriculture so far— and I think it has been successful—from the moment when Lord Milner came to our assistance, and in our dire need gave us the men who

1059
alone have made these results possible. On the top of that help came the good season.
Since then a difficulty has been caused which really is at the root, I do not say of all but of a very large proportion, of the criticism levelled at the ploughing policy. It is the sole cause of the sudden stopping of that ploughing policy. I refer to the withdrawal of 30,000 men from the land, of whom a great proportion were key men. I shall have something to say about that presently. What I want to bring to the notice of the Government now is the matter that I have privately mentioned to the Secretary of State, and that is the extraordinary difficulty of getting back on to the land men who are no longer fit for fighting. When the Government decide that they must take away our men they can act very swiftly and effectively, as we found only too well to our cost last month and the month before. But when it comes to getting back on to the land men who are classed as no longer fit for fighting, it is an extraordinarily difficult thing. I personally have been trying to get back three men from my parish for three months past, and I am no nearer getting one of them to-day than I was when I started. I know that this is the experience of other people. There is no reason why the process should be as cumbersome as it is. I have had a correspondence on the subject with my noble friend Lord Stanhope, and he knows the points to which I wish to draw his attention and the attention of Lord Milner; but I assure you the process is as cumbersome and slow as the process of taking the men from the land is rapid and direct.
Having now given the Government my own estimate, I want to ask them if they will give us a cautious estimate of the extent of our national self-sufficiency in the matter of food, after the coming harvest and for the year 1918–19 in wheat, barley, oats, potatoes, hay, meat, and milk. Then, if possible, I want them to go further and to give us their estimate of the degree of sell-sufficiency that will be required after the harvest of 1919. I ask for that quite irrespectively of any suggestion as to whether the war will be ended or not, because I believe that the national need of homegrown foodstuffs will be almost, if not quite, as great if the war has come to an end as if it has not come to an end. I want also to ask—a matter intimately connected with that question—for any information
1060
that the Government can give us as to the prospects of shipbuilding. Of course I do not ask for any figures that will convey information to the Germans which it is not to the interest of our country that they should have. But I do ask for any information which can be properly and safely given, because we have great misgivings on the subject. We have had large promises from time to time here and in the United States, and the fulfilment of those promises, so far as I know, lags very far behind.
But I would make this prophecy with confidence—that whatever estimate the Government may make now of tonnage to be created in the immediate future, the results of that forecast are sure to be disappointing. In the first place, these estimates have a wonderful way of not being fulfilled; and, in the second place, if the estimate is fulfilled, what is going to be the first use to which that tonnage is put? Why, to support the American Army in France. That is going to be the great military problem of the immediate future —not getting the American Army over to France, for that has been solved so far in a most astonishing way owing to the efficiency of the British Navy and the American Navy. But the problem of feeding that Army and supplying it when it is in France is a tremendous problem, and I venture to prophesy that all the increased tonnage that can be created both here and in America will be utilised in that task, and not mainly in bringing food for the people of this country.
I wish also to reiterate my warning against any estimate that we are at the end of the submarine trouble. I believe nothing whatever of the sort. That trouble has from the very commencement gone in waves, and it will continue to go in waves. At the present moment, apparently, the defence has got the better of the attack; it is more than likely that before the end of this year the attack will again get the better of the defence, and you will see the figures of tonnage loss mount high. For these reasons I suggest that the estimate of self-sufficiency for the future must be put at a high level by the Government if they want to exercise the ordinary prudence of statesmen in a national crisis. It is for this reason that I said the other night, and I repeat again to-night, that I think the Government would be very rash if they made any promise now that they would

1061
require no additional ploughing in the future. I see that the President of the Board of Agriculture guarded himself in the House of Commons, and I hope Lord Clinton will guard himself to-night. I believe that more land will have to be ploughed before we come out of this trouble safely. But it all comes back to the question of labour, as I will show presently.
Before I deal with the question of labour I want to touch on the auxiliaries of labour. Take the question of motor tractors—a subject about which Mr. Prothero spoke at length in the House of Commons and gave a very interesting description of what has been done. We must all admit that the use of motor tractors and the question of the best type is still in the experimental stage, and the whole organisation has to be started from the beginning. But I want to make this point to the Government, and it is made as the result of personal observation, that a very great deal can be done by better organisation of the tractor service. With all these tractors at work I do not think nearly as much work is being got out of them as ought to be got out of them, or can be got next season by better organisation; and the service has cost a great deal too much. Up to now the Government have charged the farmer £1 an acre for the use of a tractor.
I had two of those tractors at different times. One of them was run by two men, and better men I could not wish to see. They knew their job, they worked very hard, and did their work excellently. The other one was run by six men, and a more scandalous exhibition of waste of Government money and of time I have never seen in my life. Four of these men were sent to learn. The man who was sent to teach them was a wholly unfit man to have anything to do with a tractor at all. He simply took as long over his job as it was possible for him to take; he had relations a few miles away, and I cannot describe to you the scandal of the way that this team worked, or the waste of public money. I do not say that this was typical, but it was a very bad case. It has not been the only case, and the question is ones of organisation—who is to control these men, and how are they to be controlled? Up to now these men have been hired out to the county council but not controlled by the county council; they have been under military control, and that control was really no control—perfectly worthless.
I think that the remedy lies in giving somehow the control to the county councils, with properly appointed officers in charge of each group of tractors. I suggest to the Government that the remedy is not to raise the price to the farmer to a high figure. I do not say that it might not be necessary or fair to increase the price from 20s., but I am sure that if the price is raised (as I understand it is to be) to nearly 40s. an acre—well, the farmers will not use the tractors. I am certain that it cannot pay a farmer to use these tractors at a price of nearly £2 per acre; therefore, however the organisation may be improved, or however many tractors there may be, if the Government charge what a farmer will consider to be a prohibitive price the tractors will not do the work which we hope they will do. Then I should like to ask my noble friend to tell us what arrangements have been mate for the supply of fertilisers, of feeding stuffs, and of machinery. All those things are essential if the greatest production is to be got out of the land next year.
I want to say one further word about prices. I hope the new Food Controller will remember that the really important thing is to get a maximum of production at a reasonable price to the consumer. It is a great mistake, I think, to look too closely at the profits of the best farmer. The best farmer will always make the best profits in any given circumstances, and it may well be that, at present prices or at prices which may be fixed, the best farmers will do very well for themselves. But the best farmers, the men of brain and of capital and of energy, are a very small proportion of the whole farming class, as they are of any other class; and if you want to get the maximum of production out of the average farmer, who is usually quite a small man—remember that 80 per cent. of the farmers of this country farm under 150 acres—you must give them what they will consider to be a fair price; because what might be a fair price to the best farmer might be a price out of which they could not make a living; therefore to get the maximum production of the country you must think of the average farmer and not of the best farmer.
Now, if the Government cannot ensure us the labour, the fertilisers, the feeding-stuffs, and the machinery, then I admit that they are right in stopping their policy of additional ploughing; because without

1063
those things there will be no use in ploughing fresh land. If more production is required, the first thing to do is to clean and to fertilise the land that is ploughed. There is, in my opinion, much less foul land to-day than there was a year ago. Mr. Prothero evidently thinks the same, and he has a far greater opportunity for judgment than I have. It is only after we have done this, that, if the labour is forthcoming, the policy of additional ploughing could be safely resumed. I have already said that I believe we shall come to that; but I am entirely with my noble friend Lord Chaplin and others—although there are some points of disagreement between them and me as to the general policy—in thinking that without the labour the thing is impossible.
I wonder whether the Government are altogether pleased to-day about having taken away those 30,000 men from the land. They acted in a crisis, and the responsibility was on them to decide whether those men were mostly wanted on the land or in the Army. I wonder whether they realised as completely then as they probably realise now that, when they took those men in the very critical days of May, they would not be available for the fighting line for three or four or five months; and I also wonder very much whether they would not wish that those men were now on the land rather than in the training depôts. However, the responsibility was on them and they had to come to a decision; but the decision was absolutely fatal to the policy which up to that moment we had been told on the authority of the Prime Minister was essential for the safety of the country.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: The life of the country.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Yes. That was to get to the nearest point of self-sufficiency possible. I believed the Prime Minister then, and I believe now that this is true; and it is for that reason that I bitterly regret the loss of these men from the land, with the consequent necessity of suspending for the time the policy of additional corn production.
My last question to the Government is to ask for the programme of 1919. That programme, of course, cannot be as ambitious as it would have been some weeks ago, now that the policy of plough-
1064
ing more land has been suspended. But it does not follow from this that there must not be a policy. We want to know what crops are mostly required. We want to know what steps the Government are going to take, on the lines that I have indicated, to assist the farmers to make the utmost they can of the land that is ploughed. On that subject Mr. Prothero was silent in the House of Commons. He told us only that the policy of ploughing was suspended for the time. He indicated very clearly his view that the point of national safety had not yet been reached, although we were much nearer to it than we were a year ago; but he did not tell us what he was expecting the farmers to do next year—what crops to grow and at what to aim.
Now, it is very necessary for the farmers to know this. They are, as my noble friend and the whole House know, most anxious to do all they can to help the Government, and they have shown it in every way; but at the present time all they know is that a policy which they had been told to expect—and which I admit was not very popular with them—has been suspended. They have not been told what is expected from them. If the Government are to get the most they can out of the land, they must not only make their own organisation and their own preparation, but they must take the farmers into their confidence. I beg to move.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: My Lords, I ask the special indulgence of your Lordships, not merely because I am addressing you for the first time, but because the speech that I have to make has to be something in the nature of a personal explanation, dealing with a subject in which I fear I am not likely to elicit the sympathy of at any rate the majority in this House. At the same time I feel that it is only respectful to your Lordships' House that I should take the earliest opportunity of explaining why it is that I have felt it my duty to resign the office [Director-General of the Food Production Department] which I lately held. I have already indicated in the Press that it was owing to serious difference of opinion with regard to policy with my right hon. friend the President of the, Board of Agriculture; and I am glad, as I said in that letter, that this difference of opinion should not in any way have affected our cordial personal relations.
But I may, perhaps, be allowed to explain this with regard to what I have

1065
been doing. For the past year and a-half I have been responsible for the administration of the Food Production Department, and for carrying on as an executive officer the food production policy which was settled by the War Cabinet a little over a year ago. I am well aware that that policy is not popular—cannot be popular—amongst either landlords or tenants, and it certainly has been no pleasant duty for me to override in many cases the wishes and interests of others of my fellow-countrymen; but I should like to make it plain that I have not been engaged in any sort of private piratical enterprise, but in carrying out what was described at the time as an absolute national necessity. My orders were within the limits of the programme to push the production of corn and potatoes to the utmost limit that was possible—not as a measure of good husbandry or of the improvement of agriculture in this country, but in order to avert what was then felt to be a grave national peril—the peril of scarcity and possible famine.
The programme which was drawn up by the Food Production Department and approved by the Board of Agriculture and the Cabinet was frankly a war measure, and I have always proceeded in the belief that whilst the situation may have eased a little now and again—it is not only at this moment that it appears to be easier, but there were moments last year when the hopes and fears fluctuated with regard to the food position—one ought to aim at nothing less than in the last resort making this country as nearly self-supporting as possible in the matter of food-stuffs, and particularly of bread-stuffs. I have en-deavoured to carry out these orders, and at any rate to a certain extent I think the Food Production Department may claim that it has, to use a common phrase, "delivered the goods." That is so far as the programme of 1917 and 1918 is concerned.
Now I come to 1919. I would ask your Lordships to note somewhat carefully the sequence of events, because they very much affect not only my personal position but the causes which led to my resignation. The Proclamation cal ling up the 30,000 men was issued on April 28. The maintenance programme, by which I mean a programme which provided that the corn production of next year should not fall below the corn production of this year—my noble friend, Lord Selborne, asked what was the pro-
1066
gramme? That was the programme. Not a very ambitious one, but necessitated by the labour conditions—this was approved on May 30, a month after the Proclamation calling up the labour. The Food Production Department and county committees at once set to work to carry out that programme. A re-organisation was effected, and various requisites to carry out the programme were ordered. Towards the end of June, so important was the programme considered to be, that certain additional powers and status were conferred upon the Director-General of the Food Production Department, and incidentally at about the same moment I had the honour of becoming a member of your Lordships' House.
This brought us to the beginning of July, and during the whole of the first week of July I was in full belief that the programme was to proceed full steam ahead; that I was entering upon a new spell, I will not say of usefulness but at any rate of activity, in connection with this work; that whilst the programme was necessarily elastic in its scope according to the supply of labour, there was a minimum which was approved by the Cabinet as well as a maximum; and the minimum was the maintenance programme, and it had also been approved that the Defence of the Realm powers which had hitherto been exercised by the agricultural executive committee should, of course subject to the consent of Parliament, be continued until the end of the war. It was on those understandings that I proceeded.
Now, my Lords, the first shock to me came on July 10, when I saw my noble friend Lord Clinton's Amendment on the Paper, put down on behalf of the Board of Agriculture, agreeing to modify the Corn Production (Amendment) Bill in such a way as to deprive agricultural executive committees of a very large part, if not the greater part, of the powers which they now exercise. That step seemed to me disastrous from the point of view of the work of the committees; but it was done, and I will say no more about it at the moment; because I see from what took place in the other House last night that the Board of Agriculture is, I think, alive to the danger, and is proposing to do what it can in order to put the matter right.
The second blow that came to me in connection with this matter was on July 15, when I received in a very curious way the intimation that the programme was

1067
dropped, and not only that, but dropped without consultation with me. It was not communicated to me that there had been any change of decision on the part of the Cabinet, but it was indicated to me in the form of a draft letter addressed to the county committees which was put before me and which I was required to sign and issue to the committees at once, in order that it might be sent out before the President of the Board of Agriculture met the Parliamentary deputation which was headed by Sir Frederick Banbury. I am afraid that I am not sufficiently flexible to do business in that way, and I had respectfully but firmly to decline to sign that letter. That was taken very properly as equivalent to my resignation, and I accepted it as such.
The reason for this sudden decision is unknown to me. It cannot have been the labour situation, because any change which there had been in the labour situation since the Cabinet had come to its decision to strengthen my powers had been, if anything, in the direction of improvement, because it had been agreed not to call up the whole of the 30,000 men at once, and some 16,000 additional hands of various kinds had been supplied to the land as against the 30,000 that were being taken away. It was not represented that the food position had become suddenly safe, nor was it represented in any way that the extra production was not needed. The sole reason, as far as I am aware, was the approach of the formidable deputation. And, if I may, I would like to extend my congratulations to the noble Lords and my late colleagues in the other place who blew such a mighty blast upon their trumpet that the walls of Jericho fell flat without further action. That I was myself buried in the ruins is only an incident. These two reversals of policy, as I take them to be—whether they were justified or not, they were reversals of policy combined, and they seemed to me not to be justified by the facts either of the labour situation or the Parliamentary situation—seemed to me so disastrous from a national point of view as well as from an administrative point of view, that, with the deepest regret, I felt myself unable to accept any responsibility for them. There I was not only the material effect, but the moral effect upon the whole organisation was, I venture to say, deplorable, and I should have been required in addition to everything else, to have demobilised to a large extent the new organisation which
1068
the Food Production Department had just been completing in order to carry out its task in a better and more expeditious manner.
With regard to the two specific points upon which I announced my resignation—namely, the questions of the relief land programme and the powers of the committees—I will not deal with the latter, because I assume there will be a further opportunity when the Bill returns from the Commons to your Lordships' House. I will only say this, that I believe those full powers to be absolutely necessary. There are, I know, a great number of people in this country who believe that if only the farmer is let alone he will achieve greater results. Well, my Lords, we tried the policy of letting the farmer alone for the first two years of the war, and the result was that the curve of production went steadily down until it reached a very low point indeed at the end of 1916. Then the policy of control was brought in under these Regulations, and there was at once an enormous rise in the scale of production until it has reached a point now which it has not touched before during this generation. This may be merely a coincidence, but I rather doubt it. I think that it is the result of control which, on the whole, has been fairly and intelligently exercised by the war agricultural committees; and certainly, if the policy for next year is to concentrate on existing arable and to raise the standard of farming, those powers of control in respect of the bad farmer are more necessary than ever they were, and should be continued.
At any rate, I only wish to say this—and I do ask the most earnest attention of your Lordships to this point—I know intimately the feelings and the position of these committees, of which there are over sixty throughout England and Wales, and I have received from every one of them during the last fortnight protests, couched in the strongest terms, against this proposal to limit their powers. I believe the results of crippling the committees for the period of the war will be to dishearten and destroy those bodies and cause the good men to leave them. They are all volunteers, after all. I do, therefore, most earnestly appeal to your Lordships to give fresh consideration to that most crucial point when the Bill returns.
Now, may I deal for one moment with a point with regard to what is called the

1069
relief land programme, about which there seemed to be some misapprehension in your Lordships' minds in the recent debate. The other day the President of the Board said that he stood between those who wished to plough up nothing and those who wished to plough up everything, and I see it is suggested that I belong to the school which wishes to plough up everything. There is really no foundation for that. I do not believe that, in the conditions which now exist with regard to labour, anything more than the maintenance of the programme is practical politics at the present time. We have at present 60 per cent, of our arable land growing corn as against an average of 51 per cent. That is too high a percentage to maintain, and we must endeavour to restore the proper rotations, as land which has been for two or more years growing corn crops must be cleaned and rested and roots grown upon it, or, in cases of some heavier land, must lie fallow. That process entails less corn next year unless fresh land is provided upon which to grow more corn, and that really is the need for the relief programme.
It has been said many times—I think my noble friend Lord Selborne said it to-day—Why not concentrate on the existing arable? But to produce the same amount of corn on the existing arable land requires a great deal more labour and a greater quantity of fertilisers than we possess, and every one knows, I think, that high farming means a heavy labour bill, and continuous corn growing means either high labour or very foul land. Therefore, if production is to be maintained—and that was the whole point of the programme—a certain amount of relief land must be provided. I think that this was agreed—in fact, I know it was agreed—by Mr. Prothero, but it was held (as I think it was by my noble friend Lord Selborne) that this is impracticable on account of the labour position. No one deplores more than I do the labour position, or rather the calling up of the 30,000 men. We did everything we could to avert it, and only when it was made clear to us that the military position required it did we acquiesce.
But, serious as the position is, there is no need to exaggerate it. After all, there are at the present time 830,000 men on the land in England and Wales, or there were before the 30,000 were called up, so that 800,000 remain and only one in twenty-
1070
eight have been taken. If we agree that one half of these 30,000 men are. "key" men, which I think is a fair assumption, and that the taking of any one of these key men from a farm means that that farm is rendered incapable of doing anything additional in the way of cultivation, that will only demobilise, so to speak, for further cultivation one and a-half million acres out of a total of 27,000,000. Twenty-five millions must be unaffected by this call-up of men. There are some 15,000,000 acres of grass remaining, and if we assume that only one-third, or 5,000,000 acres, is of a suitable kind for breaking up, our maintenance programme only suggested 500,000,, which is one-tenth, and I venture to believe, after receiving reports from the committees who are in touch with the problem, that that amount could have been found without any great difficulty or hardship. At any rate I am confident of this, that ii a call had been made on the farmers of this country they would have responded if they felt it was the national need.
It seems to me that the country has always been ready to make greater sacrifices than the Government have demanded of it, and the farmers are no exception. They have risen magnificently on every occasion to every call made on them, and I believe they would have responded successfully to this small additional call. Of course if this production is no longer vital, if it is not needed, then my whole case falls to the ground; but there I am entirely unconvinced. It is true that we have had some exceedingly comforting speeches during the last twenty-four hours. At the best we are relying very largely for our food upon America. It is not only a question of the submarine; there is only a certain surplus in America. If the next harvest in America is a bad harvest there will be no surplus, no food to send to this country. Lord Selborne mentioned the problem of feeding the American Army in France. Surely we ought to do what we can to save shipping in connection with that problem also. Therefore nothing has been said, or proved, which will sufficiently convince me that we ought not still to be striving for the maximum production that is possible, not as an agricultural policy but as a war measure of the greatest urgency.
Meanwhile what is the position of the farmer? I have the utmost sympathy with him in his trials, but, after all, his

1071
work is well in hand. Crops this year are very promising. As Lord Selborne has said, the land is as clean as it has been at any time since the beginning of the war, and we have an addition of over 2,000,000 acres growing corn and potato crops at the present time. No other country in the world has made an increase, and the farmer has every right to be proud of what he has done, and has earned his country's gratitude. I know it will be said that what we require are quarters, not acres. It has been said many a time, and I would really ask your Lordships to believe—only yesterday, or two days ago, I had facilities for getting reports from every part of the country—that it is really sad nonsense to say that the condition of the crops on the new land, speaking generally, is bad. The consensus of qualified evidence is exactly the reverse. It has been a bad year in some respects—slugs, leather jackets, and spring drought—but on the whole the Spring corn is perhaps better on the new land than it is on the old. And remember this, the failures (of which there are always some) have been exceedingly well advertised. They have lost nothing in the telling or enumeration, whereas, generally speaking, the prospects of the crops are increasingly promising. Wheat is better than it has been for a generation, and it is quite as much above the average as oats and barley can be below. All the evidence of all the Departments concerned—I saw it in The Times this morning—is that this year's crops will be, if anything, above the average in yield.
I must apologise to your Lordships for detaining you at such length, but I have very little more to say. With regard to the yield of crops, Lord Selborne asks the Government to make known the conservative estimate as to what that means in the way of food. I am aware that certain criticism has been directed against the Food Production Department on account of the estimate which it made itself some few months ago, and in which it said that, given certain conditions (which were clearly defined) and the emergency was great enough, there would be forty weeks bread-stuffs, probably, available from the harvest of this year. I say that this was not an exaggeration, although it was deliberately an extreme estimate. It was based on a series of assumptions, which were given, and it represented what could be done in case of dire necessity—what, for example, Germany could do under similar circum-
1072
stances, and what she will have to do if she is to avoid starvation. It was a calculation which is full of significance for her, and was largely framed for that purpose. The assumptions were extreme; it is possible to take extremely conservative assumptions—that all the barley, or only a small portion of the barley and oats, will be used for flour, and none of the potatoes; that the standard of milling will be lowered in order to provide more stuffs (a very proper policy), the scale of consumption will be less restricted, and allowing a large margin for disappointment and accident. If you make that kind of estimate you may produce one of twenty weeks. The two things are quite compatible, and I make no apology for the estimate which was issued. In fact, I make no apology at all for the food production policy or the Food Production Department. Lord Selborne was good enough to say that it had been carried on very cheaply. I thank him for that. But if it had been very expensive it would have been thoroughly justified.
In this connection may I say that a great deal too much credit for what has been done in the Department has been given to me, and a great deal too little to my colleagues with whom I have worked. They have discharged an extremely difficult, delicate, and unpleasant task, for a year and a-half with the utmost ability, and scant justice so far has been done to their achievements in any public speech, statement, or Report, that has been issued. As between them I cannot pick and choose, but I do say that they have been engaged in a national work, the greatness of which will, I hope, some day be known; and I cannot refrain from testifying to the energy, the efficiency, and the single-minded zeal with which their arduous task has been cheerfully undertaken and successfully carried through by every section and grade of the Department over which I have had the honour to preside. I venture to say that a more patient, indefatigable, and devoted body of men and women have never served the State, and my deepest regret in resigning my office is in parting my co-operation with them.
The last word I wish to say is this. Speaking as a strong supporter of the Government, I regret deeply that I have felt it necessary to dissolve my partnership with my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Agriculture. The differences between us on policy were serious, but I

1073
shall always feel grateful for the opportunity and the privilege of having assisted him in the great crusade with which his name will always be associated, and which will find its triumphant vindication in the harvest which is now approaching.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (LORD CLINTON): My Lords, may I, in the first place, offer my congratulations to the noble Lord who has just sat down on the admirable speech that he has delivered on his first appearance in your Lordships' House. We are all sorry that this speech has had to be made in respect of his own resignation. That resignation, I know, is very much regretted. We, at all events, in the Board of Agriculture—and I think that generally throughout the country it is so—acknowledge to the fullest degree the great service which the noble Lord as head of the Food Production Department has rendered to the country. He has been indefatigable in his work, and we shall be very much the poorer for his loss.
There is, perhaps, one word that I might say with regard to the details which the noble Lord gave leading up to his resignation, because I think that there may have been some misunderstanding upon that point. I do not know that it is very important, but he told your Lordships that at the end of June, or during the first part of July, he received his first intimation of the change of programme. It certainly is understood that notification was sent to the noble Lord of the meeting between the President of the Board and the Government on June 26, in which it was plainly shown what the full consequences of the comb-out of the 30,000 men would be. The Government were fully acquainted with the situation. They knew the amount of skilled labour which would be taken, and it was made quite clear to them that the output of food in 1919 could not be increased, and possibly could not be maintained. But in spite of that the decision to take the men was confirmed on account of the imperative military necessity. Of course, this at once put the programme out of gear. I allude to this fact because there seems to be some discrepancy in dates between the time at which the noble Lord was first acquainted with the alteration in the programme and the time at which it was understood that notification was sent to him.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: May I ask whether there was any further decision of the Cabinet?
LORD CLINTON: At that date?
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: At any time.
LORD CLINTON: I am not aware of any further decision. It was made quite clear at that time what the result of taking these men would be, and it was shown that as a consequence the programme which we had in view for the next harvest was permanently put out of gear.
The Notice of the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, covers a great deal of ground, and goes into questions upon which I may say beforehand that I have not the fullest information. It deals with several different Departments, but so far as information is at my disposal I shall be happy to give it unreservedly to your Lordships. With reference first of all to self-sufficiency. The outlook for the harvest of this year is on the whole very satisfactory. There has been a season of prolonged drought which has been broken by the very heavy storms during this month, and it is certain that the result of those storms must be that a considerable amount of crop has been laid or lodged. Consequently there is reason to fear that the yield which we anticipated may have been affected. Up to the present our reports show that there is no reason to think that this lodging is anything very serious, but it exists, and it must affect to some degree the reliability of any estimate which I am able to put before the House.
Dealing with the cereal crops, the wheat crop is the crop of the year. It is generally very good. There is an increased acreage of 39 per cent. The winter wheat is especially satisfactory. There are some failures in the spring wheat, but it is hoped that they do not amount to any serious loss. A yield generally above the average is expected, and the production should show an increase of at least 4,000,000 quarters. The oat crop is very variable. The acreage is increased by 35 per cent. There has been some injury from drought on the lighter soils, and also on the newly ploughed-up heavy land. There has also been a certain amount of damage from insect pests, and the yield will be a little under the average, but there is an estimated excess of 2,000,000 quarters. Barley is a fair crop. The area

1075
is 11 per cent. increase, and the estimated excess about half a million quarters. Generally speaking it is considered fair, so that the increase due to the over-average crop of wheat will at least make up for any deficiency that there may be in oats and barley. Consequently the yield all over should certainly be up to the average.
The degree of self-sufficiency as shown by these figures will be the total amount of grain grown. The noble Earl's own estimate is not, I think, very wide of the mark. The noble Lord, Lord Lee, spoke of the estimate which had been given hitherto of forty weeks. We understood fully upon what ground that estimate was given. But that is not the ground, I think, upon which the noble Earl would like to have his estimate, and it is probable that, looking at the self-sufficiency in a very ordinary way, we may say that we shall approach at all events something near half of what the noble Lord, Lord Lee, spoke of in his former estimate. That is as regards cereals. As to hay it is a smaller area in consequence of more land being ploughed up, and on the whole it is not a very satisfactory crop. We shall be at least a million tons less than in former years. The potato crop is very difficult indeed to estimate at this period of the year. The increase in acreage is 25 per cent.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Twenty-five per cent. over last year?
LORD CLINTON: Twenty-five per cent. in acreage over last year. Drought probably has affected the yield of the main crop, and though that has been very much alleviated by the recent rain, it is not considered safe to estimate for any increase over the big crop of last year. Within a few weeks I may be in a position to give a more reliable estimate.
With respect to milk, the dairy cattle are approximately the same in numbers as in 1917, but the milk supply will probably be less this winter owing to the smaller root crop, to less hay being available, and to the lower value of feeding-stuffs. Some set-off may be anticipated in the arrangements which have been made by the Government for the better distribution of the supply. Moreover, we have a very fair stock of condensed milk in hand. With regard to meat cattle and other stock, there is a slight decrease in the number of cattle, and there is a decrease in sheep of 4 per
1076
cent., or about a million. There is also a small decline in pigs, but on the whole the position is considered fairly satisfactory. It should be remembered that herds are slightly younger than they were last year owing to the lessened feeding-stuffs, and the carcases will certainly be lighter, and it may be that there will be a total decrease for slaughter. However, it is hoped that the ordinary ration may be maintained, but, supposing it is necessary to reduce that ration, we have, I understand, very ample supplies of bacon.
Those are the crops about which the noble Earl asked for information. He then asked me a very much more difficult question, and that is about the degree of self-sufficiency after the harvest of 1919. I am afraid it is quite impossible to give anything like an accurate estimate of that. It obviously depends on so many matters. It depends upon the nature of the growing season, the labour question, the amount of land we are able to maintain under crop, our ability to enforce a high standard of production, harvest risks, and many other matters.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: The noble Lord misapprehends my question. I knew he could not foresee those things. I asked him whether the Government had laid down a degree of self-sufficiency to be aimed at as a matter of Imperial strategy.
LORD CLINTON: I did not apprehend the noble Earl's question. I dare say that would be an easier question to answer, but I am afraid I have not got the reply. With regard to shipbuilding, the noble Earl knows something of our present position. I am sorry that I cannot give him any satisfactory information. All I am able to say is that a statement about shipbuilding is now being prepared by the First Lord of the Admiralty and will probably shortly be made public. I am not at present in a position to give any information about shipbuilding.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Is that because it is not in the public interest?
LORD CLINTON: I gather that it is because it is not ready. It is at the moment being prepared for the First Lord, and he will make it public shortly. The next question of the noble Earl's was in regard

1077
to the organisation of the motor tractor service. The noble Earl described it as "costly and inefficient." There perhaps should not be too much surprise at that criticism. It was, of course, brought in as a war measure, an emergency scheme. We were faced at the time with a great, possibly a very great, shortage of food, and the circumstances were such that it was impossible to act with due deliberation, and it was impossible to regard too much the cost. I need not go into the details of the tractor service, although I have plenty of information here for the noble Earl, if he requires it.
At the beginning of the season the Government had to find tractors where they could. Some were lent by the Russian Government; there were a few hired in this country. We gradually accumulated a supply of Government-owned tractors from overseas, and a considerable amount of work was done, of course largely of an experimental nature. It was necessary in a very short period to cram in experimental work which under ordinary circumstances would probably have taken years. We had, I think, in addition to steam tractors, something like twenty-four different types of motor tractors. These have now been reduced to six types, which of itself will add very largely to the ease of management and to efficiency. The supply of tractors from overseas has been good, and the Government own now, I think, something like 7,000, of which they are in process of disposing to tenants of between 3,000 and 4,000. It is quite clear that tractors owned by the farmers themselves will probably be cheaper and more efficient than they will be if owned by a Government, because every one will recognise that it is almost impossible for a Government Department, with its labour and machinery spread all over the country, to conduct any agricultural operations with economy or without some failures.
The noble Earl has anticipated the great changes in organisation which the noble Lord, Lord Lee of Fareham, has made. He has gone in largely for a scheme of decentralisation; he has placed a great deal more control in the hands of the executive committee and the local organisation. The executive committee appoints a chief executive officer, who is in charge of all the work in each county. Other officials are appointed under him—a tractor representative, a labour representative, a horse representative, and others. He is respon-
1078
sible for the carrying out of the general work of the executive committee with regard to cultivation. There is also a cultivation committee, which has control of the horse and tractor schemes which are now amalgamated, of the survey, and of the cultivation orders. In each district under the district committee there is another executive officer who generally carries out the schemes of the district, but who is responsible to the county executive officer. The tractors themselves are divided up into units of ten, and each unit is in charge of a mechanic whose duty is to keep them at work, to inspect them and overhaul them when required; and also of a supervisor who has the control of all the labour and all the drivers, and who has a store from which he issues his spare parts, fuel, etc. That is a very rough outline of the new organisation, and it seems to me to be somewhat on the lines which the noble Earl himself indicated.
The last question, I think, was about the programme of cultivation for the harvest of 1919. This has already received a considerable amount of discussion. Your Lordships are aware that at one time it was proposed to break up a largely increased area of grass. It was desired to increase our production; it was desired also to bring in a considerable quantity of "relief" land. But that scheme has fallen away; it has been made impossible owing to the call up of the 30,000 men, and I am bound to say that the President of the Board has abandoned the scheme with a great deal of regret, because he believes, and I think we all believe, that the importance of increasing the food supply is as great now as ever it was. But though the programme is for the moment given up on account of the scarcity of labour, and for that reason only, if the labour ever again becomes sufficient then I hope that we shall start on a fair-sized programme again. Meanwhile no more Ploughing-up Orders will be issued. It is hoped that a certain amount of additional grass may be obtained from the areas which we believe are going to be improved under the drainage scheme. It is, of course, impossible to say how much of such areas will actually be suitable for arable cultivation, but there is an estimate brought out which shows that there will be a considerable number; and if it is possible for sufficient prison labour to be obtained to work these areas, then they will be a very valuable addition both to our cropping areas and for use as relief land for the

1079
harvest of 1919. But while we have, for the reasons which I have stated, been forced to give up the programme of additional ploughing, it is, of course, all the more necessary for us to concentrate as fully as possible upon our existing land.
The noble Earl asked for some information as to fertilisers. It is hoped that there will he a considerable additional quantity of sulphate of ammonia and also of basic slag. There is an apparent shortage of potash and super-phosphate, but every effort is being made to increase the supply of these commodities before next spring. The other Departments are co-operating as far as is possible in our endeavours to increase the supply of fertilisers, which supply is of very great importance to us.
I think those are the main questions to which the noble Earl asked me to reply. The programme being abolished temporarily, the concentration on all our arable land becomes more important; and I paid special attention, as I hope your Lordships did, to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Lee, in which he pointed out the absolute necessity, if that were to be done, of the Government retaining the necessary control over the cultivation and the enforcement of the rules of good husbandry. I do not want to dwell upon that for the moment, as there will no doubt be opportunities for discussing it again; but it is a matter of such very great importance that I have no doubt your Lordships will take it into careful consideration.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: My Lords, I shall not detain you for more than a moment, but I should like to say that I agree entirely with what fell from my noble friend who introduced this subject on two points in particular. One of those points is that the change which we are making, or are endeavouring to make, in our agricultural practice and methods at the present time is not by any means a temporary change of any kind. I entirely agree with the noble Earl that what we have to do is to make this country self-supporting in the future, at all events in regard to our essential foods—that is to say, in the main as regards bread and meat and milk and other things which we can produce in great quantities here if we choose to do so.
The other point is that, unless we make up our minds to do this, in the face of all the modern inventions which have deprived us of the advantages that we previously
1080
enjoyed by being an island, we shall have to make up our minds to something much worse—namely, that we shall cease to be a great country among the nations of the world. That is the real position which we have to face now; and although some of us may differ—as we undoubtedly do differ—as to the methods by which this object is to be accomplished, there the object remains. We ought to come to a full agreement as to how it can be attained, and only if we do that with all our hearts and souls shall we in this country attain an object which is, as the Prime Minister stated not long ago, "vital to the safety, to the life, and to the very existence of the nation."
LORD HARRIS: My Lords, I am sorry that I feel it my duty to throw out a warning note. I was unable to be here at the commencement of the debate, but so far as I have heard the speeches they appear to have been very congratulatory on the prospects of this year. As far as one can judge from one's own observations in one's own neighbourhood, those congratulations seem to be justified.
But the noble Lord who replied for the Department said, I think, that it was absolutely essential, given labour, that we should largely increase our production. Now, there is one factor which is a not unimportant one but about which I have not heard a word said as yet—namely, Is the product of the land going to be remunerative to the cultivator? If the farmer is going to produce but is not going to get a profit, something will certainly have to be done; and here it is to be noticed that whereas when the Corn Production Bill was passed the Government inserted a minimum wage of 25s. and a price for wheat of approximately 75s., the wages have now been approved in many counties by the Wages Boards giving something like from 30s. to 33s. for the ordinary able-bodied man, which wage has to be increased in the case of the skilled men—that is to say, the stockman, the horseman, the shepherd, and so on, up to more likely 39s.—I am told on very good information that the Government have resolutely set their faces against any increase in the price of wheat.
One is disposed to wonder whether the Government, who we know are supplying wheat to the public for the purposes of bread at below market price, are giving a longer price to the foreign producer

1081
than they are giving to the British producer. That is merely a query which passes through one's mind. But is is unquestionable that there are some lands—probably some lands in every county—which cannot possibly pay these wages. What is going to happen in their case? If the occupier is compelled by the Government to produce wheat, but to produce it at a loss, either the landlord must largely reduce his rent—and any good farmer will tell you that rent is an infinitesimal factor compared with the labour bill—or the Government will have to step in, oust the farmer and possibly the landlord, and produce themselves at a cost greater than the value of the produce: that is to say, the taxpayer will have to pay the difference. That is an inevitable result on certain lands of these measures which I admit have been forced upon the Government—the compulsory alteration of land from pasture into arable, the compulsory fixing of the price of corn, and the compulsory fixing of the rate of wage. I am afraid that it is a forecast which is likely to prove true; therefore I thought it was justifiable to throw out this note of warning that all is not as perfect as the speech which the noble Lord in charge of the Department in this House has delivered would lead us to believe. I believe that the present prospects are extremely favourable, but I do think that there is a cloud on the horizon.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): My Lords, the debate to-day has proceeded very largely from the point of view of home production, but Lord Selborne clearly showed in his speech that he appreciated that for the moment at any rate self-sufficiency cannot be fully attained, and therefore we must continue to rely upon imported food for a percentage of our bread-stuffs. It is from the overseas aspect that I should like to address a few words to your Lordships. Before doing so, I admit that what Lord Harris has said is very pertinent indeed. It is outside the reference which Lord Selborne was good enough to give to my noble friend beside me and to myself, and I am not prepared to make any statement on the subject; but I think Lord Harris may be sure that the Government, megalomaniac as it is popularly supposed to be, has no desire to control farms in the manner which would follow if the results which he forecast matured.
1082
I must say that Lord Selborne has put very pertinent questions to the Government, but they are extremely difficult to answer unless one analyses very closely what he desires to know. He asks, for instance, as to the degree of our self-sufficiency next year in wheat. It is impossible to answer that unless we settle the extraction at which we are going to use that wheat. If we are going to use it at the old pre-war extraction of 72 per cent., clearly we shall be very much less self-supporting than if we use it at the present extraction of 92 per cent.
Then he asks us what would be the degree of self-sufficiency in barley. I have to give an analogous and equally unsatisfactory answer. Our self-sufficiency in barley next year will depend upon our ability to import maize into this country. The two are allied and indeed interchangeable, and the answer altogether depends upon a variety of factors which cannot be predicted—climatic factors, economic factors, all irrespective of the great factor of tonnage. Everybody knows, and during these days everybody is giving great heed to, the contribution made by the United States to the food-stuffs of the European Allies, but who during the spring of last year would have predicted that during the autumn of last year hundreds of thousands of tons of Canadian wheat would have had to be imported by the United States of America?
During the spring of last year, or two years ago, who could have contemplated that the United States of America would have found it necessary to import large quantities of Australian wheat? Yet both those two things have happened. Surely it must make one very reluctant to prophesy about a series of conditions which are not merely doubtful with regard to our own locality but affected by so vast a concatenation of economic factors which take place in every part of the world. Therefore when one is asked what British crops are to be harvested in the summer of 1920, circumstances vary so greatly that really one must he very cautious in offering any reply.
Certain factors, however, in the food situation exist, and they remain unchangeable, and I will briefly run through some of them. First of all, I think everybody is agreed that home production must be stimulated as much as possible. It seems to me that, apart from labour, the only difference of opinion is as to technical methods—whether we should extend the ploughing of

1083
fresh land or concentrate our efforts upon the cultivation of that which is now arable. There is a controversy about relief land. I do not desire to enter into that; but I am quite sure that whether more land is cultivated, as Lord Lee would desire, or whether owing to labour and other shortages concentration must take place upon the existing arable land, everybody must agree that the need for stimulating home production remains unchangeable. In spite of that, and however successful that policy may be, the need to continue importation into this country must also remain. No country can say that it is self-sufficing in the matter of foodstuffs until for at least five years in succession it has been able to place itself upon an exporting basis, so great are climatic dangers and variations.
I wish from the bottom of my heart that I could accept the optimistic estimates of Lord Lee. The forty weeks' breadstuffs that he hopes to make available in the coming cereal year is, I admit, conditional upon a variety of factors to which he has drawn your Lordships' attention, but those who are responsible for overseas supplies must take the most cautious estimate of all these things. It is no comfort or consolation to those who find themselves short of bread-stuffs at Christmas to be told that there was a fine acreage in the month of May, and no estimate for October should be based upon the acreage of May.
I could give your Lordships two very concrete examples. A month ago the estimate of the Canadian crop amounted with variations to something between 250,000,000 and 300,000,000 bushels. The promise had been good, but, as occurs from time to time, there has been a succession of hot dry winds, and that yield of the Canadian crop to-day is estimated by some to have been reduced during the last four or five weeks only by anything varying from fifty to eighty million bushels, and some actually put it higher. That is the effect of adverse weather for four weeks—five weeks at the outside. There is another particular case, which I do not propose to state publicly to your Lordships but which I should like to state privately to Lord Selborne afterwards, wholly analogous, in some ways still more significant, and all tending in the same direction—firstly, that we must continue to rely on imports from overseas; and, secondly, that we must do our utmost to maintain home production.
My noble friend Lord Lee said that his forty weeks' estimate was not an exaggera-
1084
tion and that it was partly—indeed largely, I think he said—framed for German consumption. Well we should leave propaganda to the Propaganda Department. I do not mind a bit what the effect upon German opinion has been. I am afraid it has had a very bad effect on other persons who are more influential in controlling foodstuffs. But his estimate was based upon conditions which I fancy cannot be fulfilled. Your Lordships are aware that during the last eighteen months our bread has not been wholly made of wheat. We have used maize, we have used rice, we have used barley, oats, and beans, and, lastly, not so many potatoes as many would have desired. Potatoes have the advantage of giving a whiteness and at the same time a moisture to bread which is at times unpalatable.
As I say we have had this definite policy of admixture and dilution. My noble friend Lord Lee, in order to arrive at forty weeks supply of bread-stuffs, puts more than twice the quantity of non-wheaten cereals into the loaf than we have hitherto enjoyed, bringing up dilution of the bread to well over 40 per cent. of our flour extraction, which has been lately 92 per cent. of the berry going into the bread. Our bread, I am afraid, has not been considered palatable, though I am prepared to argue with anybody that it is quite as wholesome as that flat bread which we used to have before the war. Then, again, my noble friend assumes that the whole of the barley crop, with the exception of seed corn and I think 5 per cent, tailings, is to go into the loaf. But I do not think this can be done consistently with maintaining our live stock, and if you put the whole of our barley into the loaf it means that, unless we are to wipe out certain branches of our live stock, we have got to bring maize from South America. It would be much better surely to bring more valuable foodstuffs from South America and use the less valuable of our own crop here. If all the barley is to go into the loaf clearly none of it can go into beer. I do not happen to drink beer myself, but persons are attached to beer, and you cannot say offhand that no barley is to be put into beer without considering the reflex action which anything of that character must have on the life and happiness of our artisan population. Finally, he suggested putting two and a-half millions tons of potatoes into the loaf. Once more I am not quite sure if it can be done. What has been the result of this

1085
estimate? I hope it has had a salutary effect on the Germans. I am afraid here it has had a serious reaction against the policy of increased cultivation, because so many people have said—your Lordships must have heard, as I have heard, people say—If we are going to produce forty weeks bread-stuffs in this country why need we plough up any more of our old pasture? Therefore I impress upon your Lordships that, reluctant as we may be, we must continue the policy of importing breadstuff.
Then, of course, there is the question to which Lord Selborne paid brief, though very marked, attention—that of maintaining our shipbuilding policy. There, I think, everybody agrees with him; but I am cautious myself. I am just as cautious about the output of ships and the menace of submarines as I am about the yield of an acre of wheatland. The way to meet the submarine danger is, I take it, universally acknowledged. I have every reason to believe that the Admiralty is making great efforts to increase output, and I am likewise aware that the Shipping Controller is also making very great efforts to economise the use of tonnage at his disposal.
I wish to mention to your Lordships one other point, and that has reference to the question of feeding-stuffs. It has become more and more difficult to separate the problem of animal fodder from that of human bread-stuffs. They are, in many aspects, indissolubly linked together. There is no doubt that the country as a whole during the last twelve months has been lamentably short of animal feeding-stuffs. Last autumn the Cabinet settled that priority of tonnage was to be given to breadstuffs, and that animal feeding-stuffs should not be imported except where local conditions made such a course advisable. I do not quite know yet how far, or in what a degree, that policy of giving priority to bread-stuffs over animal feeding-stuffs can for the moment be revised, but it is very, very important indeed. There seems to be a prospect, certainly in my part of Scotland, of short root crop. Millers' offals during the last year in this country have, of course, been shorter than, I was going to say ever before in history, but certainly shorter than they have been since the middle of the Napoleonic Wars. I think I am right in saying that. All this reacts upon the cattle.
Again, the bread-stuff policy, which has
1086
carried admixture with it, which has put one-third of our barley crop into the loaf instead of giving that third of the barley crop to the animals, has again exacerbated this unfortunate state of things. I am quite sure of this, that the Government has every desire to ease the situation as regards fodder if circumstances—in other words, if tonnage considerations—permit, but I am also certain that here in this country we occupy a position far stronger, from the point of view of the population of live stock, than that of any Allied country in Europe. Substantially our cattle population is as great as it was twelve months or two years ago. Other countries have made their contribution towards solving the fodder problem by reducing their head of live stock, and it is a matter of which we should not ourselves lose sight.
I have detained your Lordships longer than I intended, but I should like to offer a word of general exhortation before concluding my remarks. We are agreed, I think, that we have to stimulate home production; that we must continue importation; that shipbuilding must be promoted, and that foodstuffs must be used with caution and with economy. But the great and the dominating note of all is to avoid waste in bread-stuffs. I am glad of this opportunity of saying so. I notice in clubs, hotels, and restaurants, and in the privacy of my own home, that there is this wave of optimism going over the country which is reflected in bread being used with less care and less economy than was the case last Christmas. Last Christmas people did not waste their bread; at midsummer this year our people are wasting their bread. I see it everywhere. Everybody who likes to take a walk down streets in the early hours of the morning and look into the dustbins will realise that bread is being wasted. It is as criminal an offence to waste bread to-day as it was six months ago. It is based on a variety of reasons—partly on the freedom with which vegetables are coming into consumption, partly on the idea that things are going better and care and caution may therefore be relaxed, and it is unfortunately reflected in the greater expectations of the public, which cannot be fulfilled unless every factor (and there are many of them in the food situation) synchronises in taking the turn for the better. I am indeed grateful to you for allowing me the opportunty of saying this.

1087
I most strongly advise a cautious attitude. We must run no risks. We heard about the submarine menaceending, I think, in August, 1915. Those responsible for the food supply mean to run no risks. We have strengthened our position enormously, incalculably, but much, very much, remains still to be accomplished. And, above all, we must remember that our obligations are not going to end with the termination of the war. The food obligations of this country, great as they are towards ourselves, are not confined to His Majesty's subjects within these Realms. They extend very much wider, and our obligations will not, and cannot, cease with the end of the war. It is therefore incumbent upon producer and consumer alike to do his utmost to maintain this, the vital strength of this country.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I wish to congratulate my noble friend Lord Lee of Fareham on the speech he made this evening. I am sure it will be a great pleasure to us to bear him whenever he is disposed to take part in our proceedings, and, if he will allow me, I should like to say that I think his eighteen months as Director of Food Production has enabled him to do a great service to his country and make a real and substantial contribution to victory. I have also to thank Lord Clinton for his courteous and full answer to my Question, and particularly I thank my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal for the speech he has just delivered. He has tried to bring the people back from a wilful strain of wholly unfounded optimism. This food question is still a potential national danger, and still it is our duty to do all we possibly can to produce the maximum amount of foodstuffs from our own island. It really is the fault of the Government that this optimism has begun to glimmer. Had they not taken 30,000 men from the land at a critical moment nobody would have begun to think that our position was secure. On the top of that you see statements that, in order to do a popular thing, bread is going to be made more and more of wheat flour only; and then other speeches, all tending in the same direction, are made. I thank my noble friend for having endeavoured to bring us back to our senses at a moment when our fate is still in the balance, and when this question of food supply remains one of the controlling factors in the ultimate success or failure of the Allies.
1088
I am very glad the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, is in his place, because I was not at all satisfied with the answer which Lord Clinton brought from the Admiralty. I wrote to him more than a week ago to say that I should ask for figures about shipbuilding, and the answer given the noble Lord by the Admiralty certainly does not seem to me to be, as I understood it, consistent with what is due to this House. If the First Lord of the Admiralty cannot give figures for reasons of public safety, I have nothing more to say; but that was not what my noble friend said. Nor did he, as I understand him, say he really had not got figures to give, or would have them later. I understood my noble friend to say that the First Lord of the Admiralty did not choose to give the information.
LORD CLINTON: I think I told the noble Earl that the figures were not prepared, but that when they were prepared they would be made public. That was my information.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Is it that they could not have been prepared within a week, or that there was no attempt to prepare them? Such a reply as that would never have been given in the House of Commons, and we have just as much right to get information from the First Lord of the Admiralty, and I have as much right to put a Question as any member of the House of Commons. I ask Lord Lytton to ascertain whether it was that the information did not exist, or that the First Lord did not choose to give it, and be good enough to let me know.
THE ADDITIONAL PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE ADMIRALTY (THE EARL OF LYTTON): My Lords, may I intervene for a moment? I should he very sorry if the answer that was given showed any discourtesy to the noble Earl, or to the House generally. Perhaps the position is not quite understood. The figures for which the noble Earl asked are now being prepared. If they had been given to the House this afternoon they could only have been given in an incomplete, and therefore not wholly accurate, form, and the First Lord of the Admiralty felt that it would not really be courteous, or right, to make in this House a statement which, in an incomplete form, would be misleading and inaccurate, and which in the course of a few days would have to be corrected elsewhere. The First Lord, therefore felt—and instructed my

1089
noble friend to say—that as these figures were not yet ready, he was not in a position to give them to the House. It is not that the information was refused. The information is not ready, and as soon as it is ready he will give it to this House if asked for, or anywhere else.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

EXCHANGE OF PRTSONERS.
VISCOUNT DEVONPORT VISCOUNT DEVONPORT rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they are able to make any general statement as to the negotiations for the exchange of British combatant and civilian prisoners interned in Germany and elsewhere; whether their attention has been called to the exceedingly high death-rate of British and Indian prisoners in Turkey; whether efforts are being made to alleviate the condition of prisoners in Turkish hands; and whether any negotiations are in progress to effect an exchange of these prisoners on some basis analogous to that concluded by the Franco-German Agreement.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I am quite sure that I shall be expressing the feelings of every member of this House when I say that we are glad to have Lord Newton with us again after the weeks of strenuous work that he has put in at The Hague. We hope, indeed I think I may say we believe, that he has had success in his mission, and that he has brought back an Agreement which will be in accordance with public expectation and desire, and which will, we hope, fix a term to the sufferings of many who have endured so long and harsh a confinement. I presume that to-day Lord Newton will make something in the nature of a general statement, probably on broad lines, to give us at all events a definite outline of the terms and conditions which he and his colleagues have succeeded in negotiating, and of course it will be necessary for us to hear what he has to say before we can administer to him any of the interrogations which will necessaruily follow, if not to-day, then at some early moment.
But I venture to put to him one, and only one, interrogation, and it is of importance. This Agreement, I assume, is in good form, and awaits ratification. Perhaps he will tell us, in his reply, how soon he expects that ratification will be effected. I submit this question to him,
1090
because, as he will remember, at the time that the Franco-German Agreement was adjusted ratification followed immediately. He has had experience of a great interval elapsing between the signing of an Agreement and its ratification. We hope at all events that if this Agreement is in good form, ratification will not be delayed. That is all that I have to say at the moment with regard to The Hague Convention. It is impossible to say more, and therefore I pass on to the portion of my Question which refers to the position of British and Indian prisoners in Turkish hands.
About a fortnight ago, in the House of Commons, the Leader of the House, Mr. Bonar Law, expressed the hope that indirectly The Hague negotiations would be of material advantage to the prisoners in Turkish hands. He submitted the point that if we succeeded in concluding an Agreement with the Germans it would make it more easy, and possibly more certain, that we should succeed in accomplishing something of a more definite character as affecting our prisoners in Turkish hands, and he advised those who were pressing him on the point in another place to await the return of my noble friend and his colleagues. Therefore what I have to say to some extent has a considerable bearing on these recent negotiations, because it has been generally understood—in fact, I think it has been stated on behalf of the Government—that several matters bearing directly on the position of our prisoners in Turkey would be discussed at The Hague. For obvious reasons the Germans more or less hold the key of the situation as to what their Allies do or do not do; consequently if we could bring a reasonable amount of pressure on the Germans at The Hague it would react elsewhere.
As long ago as December an Agreement was reached at Berne between our delegates, of whom Lord Newton was the chief, and the Turkish delegates, for an exchange of prisoners. The scope of the Agreement was very narrow and restricted, because it provided only for three things. The first was the exchange of civilians, the second was the exchange of doctors, and the third dealt with invalid prisoners. The civilians are insignificant in number; the doctors, of course, are not very numerous, although all-important. As regards the invalids, the Agreement provided that 300 British invalids and 700 Indians should be exchanged forthwith for 1,500 Turks, and

1091
those exchanges, it was laid down I believe in the negotiations, should be effected by ship sailing from Alexandria across the Mediterranean to a small port just smith of Smyrna called, I think, Scala Nuova, and that this ship should carry on the outward passage our Turkish prisoners from Egypt, and should return with British and Indian prisoners now in Asia Minor and Upper Mesopotamia. It may be a surprise to those who have not followed these matters to learn that no effect has been given to this Agreement, and that nothing whatever has happened. It was concluded in December, but only ratified in April. No ship has sailed, and the thing is a dead-letter, I am informed. I do not know whether it is a Government determination, but I assume it is, that unless and until they get some guarantee of immunity from submarine action the ship will not sail. This is one of the questions that I understand has been dealt with recently at The Hague. We were certainly given to understand that it would be raised, because we should require the guarantee from the Germans and from their Austrian allies. I would be very glad if my noble friend could inform us first as to whether that question was raised, and if so, with what result.
I shall give some figures and facts in a moment which I think will convince your Lordships as to the urgency of the exchange of prisoners being brought about speedily. First I would say, as regards the Berne Agreement, that it stands and should be made effective. Whatever the difficulties may be, it is the duty of the Government to overcome them. But there remains the larger question upon which I hope we shall receive some assurance this afternoon. The Government are already dealing with, or intend to proceed to deal with forthwith, negotiations for a general exchange. Let me say a word or two as to the condition of the prisoners as we note it from information that percolates through. I will give a figure or two bearing upon the mortality, and I think your Lordships will agree that these figures, which are not disputed by the Government, are simply appalling. Mr. Hope, in another place, dealing with the British non-commissioned officers and men who are in captivity, stated that of all the British captured on all the Fronts—that is to say, on the Palestine Front, on the Gallipoli and Mesopotamia Fronts—55 per cent. are either known to have died, or, not having been heard of since their capture, are presumed to be
1092
dead, and I think that is a true assumption. Of course, so far as the British noncommissioned officers and men are concerned there is no proscription as to the writing of letters, whereas among the Indians I understand there is some. Therefore if these men have not been heard from since their capture I think it is fair to assume that they will never be heard from again. And it is not surprising that the mortality has been so immense when we consider that the men of the Kut garrison, who surrendered because they were starved, within seven days of their surrender set out to march 600 miles over the desert in the hottest period of the year to railhead at a place called Ras-el-Ain. Of course, the mortality was fearful. These men at that moment ere in a weak and debilitated condition. In the circumstances it is not really surprising, when we look back, that the mortality has been so heavy.
Before I pass from this I have a figure or two here which will illustrate, perhaps, in a more illuminating way what this fearful mortality has been among the British regiments. These figures have been collated from the British regiments at home, where records are kept of the happenings in Kut of some of our well-known regiments. Take, for instance, the Oxfordshire Light Infantry. At the time of the surrender there were captured 286 men; at the present moment there are only 77 of these believed to be alive. Of the Norfolk Regiment 253 were taken at the surrender; of those, 89 only are believed to be still alive. Of the Royal Artillery, Regulars, 731 were taken; of those, only 159 survive to-day. And of the Territorial Artillery 72 were taken, and 14 survive. Summarised, the figures are these:—Out of 1,342 captured, there are only 339 alive; that is to say, 74 per cent. are believed to have died.
As regards the Indian non-commissioned officers and men, Mr. Hope stated in the House of Commons that out of 6,238 men. 3,946 were dead or had not been heard of since their capture. I do not assume that they are all dead in the case of the Indians, because, as I mentioned just now, I understand there is a restriction placed on their correspondence—I do not know why, but it is so; but, assuming that all those who have not been heard of are dead, it would be 63 per cent. But I prefer to assume, and I think we can do that without possibility of question from any quarter, that 50 per cent. of them are dead.
This is not going unnoticed in India. I observed the other day, and I dare say many of your Lordships did too, a communication that was published in The Times and possibly in other papers, that came from Madras. It stated this—
" A strong feeling exists throughout India that on effort should be spared on behalf of the men who became prisoners of the Turks on the fall of Kut. There is danger in the great events which are occurring in the other theatres of war that these men may be forgotten. There is another danger. Such are the hardships that the defenders have been made to undergo in captivity that, in default of prompt and vigorous action on the part of the British and Indian Governments, none of these heroes may live to be restored to liberty."
Of course, that is what we feel with regard to the English prisoners. The telegram adds:—
" A petition is now being circulated in the Madras Presidency asking that arrangements may be set on foot for the exchange of these men."
Is it not obvious that if this remnant is to be saved some immediate action must be taken? There is no time to lose. I hope we shall hear—we shall be disappointed if we do not—that the Government have already taken action to resume negotiations with the Turkish Government, fist of all, so that the Berne Agreement, for what it is worth, may become effective; and, secondly, for the negotiation of an Agreement formulated on the lines of the Franco-German Agreement, or perhaps of the Agreement that my noble friend (Lord Newton) has brought back from The Hague.
It is, I am told by those who know, of the utmost importance that steps should be taken, if they are to be taken, to bring about this exchange before the winter comes again. As your Lordships know full well, in Asia Minor and in Upper Mesopotamia the winters are very severe, and the supply of clothing that the men have at the present moment is most defective and deficient. The Dutch Government, I believe, have supplied some, but from what I hear it is not of very good quality, and is lacking in quantity too. And of course, coupled with this, the inadequacy of the food supplies is calculated to drain the strength of these men so that they cannot sustain any further hardships that are associated with a severe winter.
With regard to the food position itself I do not like to over-state it, but I do not think I do when I say that it is really
1094
desperate. There is a great shortage of food there. Take, for example, the officers' position. They receive no rations all from their captors. They are compelled to feed and clothe themselves. They have to go into the open markets to purchase their supply, and the prices are fabulously high; indeed, they are famine prices. Bread is 2s. 6d. per lb. We think we are badly done by if we pay 9d. for a 4 lb. loaf, but their bread is 2s. 6d. per lb. Meat is 5s. per lb.; butter, 20 s. per lb.; and sugar 10 s. per lb. Now, that is bad enough. But you will agree that it has a worse aspect when I say that the pay allowed to the officers to make these purchases is, first of all, that which they receive from the Turkish Government. They make them a payment, not as we do to prisoners who come here from Germany and elsewhere, on the basis of their rank and on some agreed basis, but they make a payment of £6 to £7 per officer; nothing higher than £7. I do not know why there is that small difference, but there it is. An officer of the highest rank does not get more than £7, and an officer of the lowest rank does not get less than £6.
LORD GAINFORD: £7 a month?
VISCOUNT DEVONPORT: Yes, £7 a month. Then the British Government remit through the Netherlands Government—which is the Government looking after our interests at Constantinople—a further amount of the value (at all events when it leaves here) of £10 or £15 per officer per month, according to rank. But when this money gets there, what is its value? The £10 or £15 has shrunk to a value of £2 or £3, because, although the money is paid in here in good British sterling, it is paid out at the other end in depreciated Turkish currency—paper. To give one example of what it really means, £16 sent from this country will provide only £3 worth of purchasing power when it gets into the hands of the officer, because the paper currency there has shrunken by nearly one-sixth of its original value. Therefore the predicament of these men is terrible to contemplate.
Further than that, unlike prisoners in Germany, these men cannot rely upon receiving parcels. At one time there was a parcels-post open, but even then 70 per cent. of the parcels sent from here failed to arrive; and since last March the parcels-post has been entirely closed at the instance

1095
of the Austrian Government. The parcels to get to Constantinople and thus into Asia Minor must go through Austria for some reason which I do not know. But perhaps my noble friend will be able to tell me—because this was a matter which was to be discussed at The Hague—why it is that the facilities for the transmission of parcels has been brought to an end at the instance of the Austrian Government.
Then as regards the rations for the men, the Turkish Government claim that they are receiving precisely the same rations as the Turkish soldiers. That may be true; I do not doubt it; but it is totally inadequate and insufficient for these men who are engaged on very heavy work. The bulk of the men are engaged on the Baghdad Railway, some of them on straightfoward construction work near Mosul (I think the place is), and others are in the Taurus Mountains engaged in tunnelling work. These men have always been accustomed to a meat dietary and they find it impossible satisfactorily to sustain themselves; hence the mortality amongst them is large. I am going to make an appeal to LordNewton on this question of helping the officers to keep going whilst they are in captivity, because many of them have not only their immediate wants to provide, but they have responsibilities at home; they are married and have families to sustain here; and as long as the drain on them is so heavy, owing first of all, to the enormous prices, and secondly to the depreciated currency, it is impossible for them to make both ends meet. Those who represent them feel strongly that the Government ought to make an announcement that this abnormal expenditure to which these men are put should be made good to them on their return, This would make a very great difference, and relieve them from a great amount of anxiety; it would also enable them to finance the position in some way which it is now impossible for them to do.
The great need at the moment is to get the whole of these men away. There are very few of them compared with what there were two years ago. I am going to state the numbers, and I will overstate them; if I were to give the figures that were given to me I should place them much lower than I am going to do, but I prefer to be over the mark rather than under it. I am told that there are only 2,000 British officers, non-commissioned officers, and men in the hands of the Turks, and 3,000 to 4,000 Indians;
1096
whereas we hold 50,000 Turkish prisoners. With 50,000 Turks in hand I think we ought to manage to get away 5,000 of our subjects. I do not suggest how it is to be done, but it ought to be done. Before I forget it, I may say that I promised to mention the 600 British prisoners in Bulgaria; I hope they will not be forgotten.
All I have to say, in conclusion, is that I think we are entitled to ask for some declaration of the intention of the Government in this matter. We want to hear whether the Government are determined to act; not to say to us, "Well, the difficulties are great; we have concluded an Agreement but nothing has materialised; what more can we do?" I do not think that this will satisfy public opinion. The Government will really have strenuously to apply themselves to saving this situation. There are shipping difficulties, of course, in connection with the Berne Agreement, but is it impossible to get these men back? Is it not possible to exchange them in some other way? I am told—in fact, it is not disputed—that immediately after the fall of Kut 1,000 men on each side consisting of the very worst cases—men, I suppose, so bad that there was no possibility of their marching—were exchanged and passed through the respective lines. It occurs to those who are watching this matter that there may be some possibility of effecting an exchange in that way.
My last word is straying, perhaps, a little away from the Question I have on the Paper, but it has an all-important bearing on the subject of the exchange of prisoners; it relates to the administration of all matters appertaining to prisoners. As your Lordships know, there is at the present moment divided authority controlling matters. We have first of all Lord Newton's Department, which is housed at the House of Lords, near by; then we have General Belfield's Department at the War Office. and Lord Sandwich's Department at Thurloe-place. They are all interested in the same individual. There is no concentration or co-ordination of organisation. It has been objected to and protested against repeatedly in the last two years. The noble Lord, Lord Newton, himself was good enough to say, in a speech which he made here prior to his departure for The Hague, that if we had known that the war was going to last three years we probably should have seen the wisdom of establishing a Ministry to deal with this all important

1097
question. Well, I say now that it is more important still that it should be done. We have been dealing with small counters in the past as regards exchanges; now we are going to deal, not with hundreds but with thousands, tens of thousands and probably hundreds of thousands of men, and if we have this divided authority, as sure as I stand here, before many week, are over there will be an outburst of public indignation from the relatives, and from those who are interested in the prisoners, because they will be wanting to ask all sorts of questions, and they will be expecting to get all sorts of information, and if we are to send them, as often in the past, from pillar to post before they get it I think it will lead to trouble. So, my Lords, I hope we shall hear something as to whether there is a possibility of a Ministry being established. We have had a good many Ministries set up, and people have objected to them. This will be one, I think, which they would cordially approve of, so that the whole question of prisoners could be co-ordinated and dealt with in a concentrated form. I beg to ask the Question standing in my name on the Paper.
LORD BERESFORD: My Lords, I should like to support Lord Devonport in his efforts to get further information about the prisoners. The noble Lord, Lord Newton, has returned from The Hague, and I hope he will have some sort of good news, or better news with regard to the prisoners in Germany. But what I wish to bring before your Lordships is the question of the prisoners in Turkey. Lord Devonport has explained their condition. There is really only about one-third of them left. The question is most immediate. If we cannot supply these prisoners with food, clothing, and drugs before the winter I do not believe that one single man of them will come back.
Think of the brilliant action that these prisoners carried out at Kut-el-Amara and at Ctesiphon, which the Prime Minister of that day described as the one bright spot in the war. It was not their fault that they had to give in; they had to give in owing to the superiority of numbers and lack of food; but their heroic defence has not been beaten in any tradition in history. That is my view of the situation. I want also to ask Lord Newton whether he can tell us anything about the brilliant Commander of that Expedition. We have
1098
heard nothing about Sir Charles Townshend lately. Has any effort been made to obtain his release or to get him exchanged or brought home? We should like very much to hear what has happened to Sir Charles Townshend, where he is, and what efforts the Government are making to get him back to this country.
I agree with Lord Devonport as to the question of finance. The relatives of these unfortunate prisoners, not only those who have died but those who are alive, should be assured by the Government that they will get some sort of pension or a sum of money to make up for the extraordinary drain on their resources owing to the rate of exchange and the difficulties they have of getting money out there. One more point which Lord Devonport mentioned was the question of putting the whole of the establishment under one bureau. It is a very difficult thing, if you have to refer to three or four different heads, as I understand it is at present. If Lord Newton were given commission or authority to undertake the whole of this business he might do so. As it is at present it appears to be under different Departments, which entails very great delay.
I once more plead for these men in Turkey. They did their duty as well as duty has ever been carried out by British soldiers. There have been any amount of conferences with regard to the German prisoners, but we have not heard of any conference, or any efforts—they may have been made, I cannot say—but personally I have not heard of any effort that has been made particularly on behalf of these prisoners in Turkey. We owe them a debt that we cannot repay; the least we can do is to try and save the lives of the deplorably small remainder of these men now prisoners in Turkey.
LORD SYDENHAM: My Lords, may I say a few words in support of the definite proposition with which the noble Viscount, Lord Devonport, concluded his speech. There is a very widespread feeling throughout the country that the question of the handling of the prisoners has left much to be desired from first to last, and the terrible account which the noble Viscount has given to the House of the gradual dying of these fine men who are prisoners in Turkey will go very far to strengthen that feeling. The reason has been, I am

1099
sure, that from first to last there has been no proper machinery set up to deal with this great question. It began on a very small scale, but it has now grown to very large dimensions, and may still expand to larger dimensions before the war is ended.
This question has really got quite out of hand. Lord Newton, as we know, feels the keenest sympathy with these much suffering men, and we know that he has done his best, but from first to last he has never had sufficient power. There are far too many Departments and too many offices which are sharing the responsibility and not properly fulfilling it. I am quite certain that the only possible course is to put the whole matter of the prisoners—prisoners at home as well as prisoners abroad—under one responsible head. We have lately been told that we have now got ninety-one Ministers, and one more Minister cannot matter very much. I think the general feeling against creating new Ministries arises from the fact that it is assumed at once that some enormous new hotel will be taken and a staff of three or four thousand people will be gathered together in that hotel. But that is not the least necessary, it seems to me, in this particular cases. It is only required to bring certain Departments now working apart together under one distinctly responsible head. It was believed before the war that under the Convention of The Hague due provision had been made for the humane treatment of prisoners in future wars. All the hopes that sprang from that Convention were dashed to the ground owing to the vile conduct of our enemies with regard to these helpless men. I feel that no efforts can be too great, and no sacrifice of a larger number of prisoners on our side can he too great, to get these men out of the sufferings which they are now enduring. I believe we can only succeed by appointing one single Minister responsible directly to the War Cabinet for the whole question of prisoners at home and abroad.
THE ASSISTANT UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD NEWTON): My Lords, the three noble Lords who have spoken have introduced a question which in reality has little relevance to that which appears on the Paper—namely, that concerning the administration of prisoners of war in this country. I have frequently explained the position to the best of my ability, and
1100
all I can say is that the decision upon this point does not rest with me. It is a question for the Cabinet, and if the Cabinet choose to appoint a Ministry of Prisoners it is for them to say so. But I would venture to point out, without attempting to defend myself personally, that the system which prevails in this country with regard to prisoners is precisely the same system, so far as I know, as that which prevails in every other country, and I am myself, I admit, somewhat sceptical as to whether any marked results would be effected by the proposed change. I quite agree that the addition of, say, a ninety-second member of the Government is not in itself an addition of much importance, but if you are going to withdraw all the requisite officials from the Departments concerned, then it is obviously a large question which requires considerable consideration. I can only repeat that it is a question on which, happily, I have not myself got to decide.
Now, my Lords, with regard to the Question on the Paper. The first portion of the Question relates to the Agreement which has recently been signed at The Hague with Germany, and of course the House will understand that, that Agreement not having been ratified, I am precluded and forbidden from entering upon any details, but it is now public property that the Agreement of which I speak is one of a very far-reaching character, which involves the exchange of a very large number of combatants, and which also involves the exchange, or rather the repatriation, of all such civilians as wish to return to their respective countries; and, of course, the Agreement also deals largely wit h all questions relating to the treatment of prisoners. The negotiations, I may say, were not only protracted but extremely difficult, and I might add that they were in no degree facilitated by the active campaign which was being waged simultaneously in this country against enemy aliens here; but these difficulties were fortunately surmounted at the last moment, and an Agreement was arrived at to the mutual satisfaction of both sides. The noble Lord asked me when the ratification was likely to take place, and whether speedily, and he instanced, not for the first time, that the Franco-German Agreement had been ratified very quickly. If the noble Lord had been engaged in these negotiations himself he would have realized

1101
that an Agreement between the German Government and the British Government is a very much more difficult matter than negotiations between the German and the French Governments.
In this particular Agreement there is a vast number of details, and a great number of points had to be considered. They are points of great importance, and candidly, although I am naturally more anxious than anybody else that the Agreement should be rapidly ratified, these points will, I expect, require a good deal of consideration on the part of His Majesty's Government, and if they require consideration on the part of His Majesty's Government they will in all probability require longer consideration on the part of the German Government. I may add, too, a warning note—that there is a reservation on the part of the German delegates which may in itself occasion considerable trouble; but the noble Lord may be perfectly satisfied that, as far as I and my fellow delegates are concerned, we shall naturally do our utmost to expedite the process of ratification. I do not know that there is anything that I can add with regard to this particular Agreement to-day. I shall, of course, be only too pleased to give the fullest details as soon as I am in a position to do so.
I would pass from that portion of the noble Lord's Question to the part which relates to Turkey; and here let ire observe that I do not think the noble Viscount, or many of the other critics of the Government, have realised how very much more difficult is the position with regard to Turkey than it is with regard to Germany when you are dealing with prisoners. At all events, when you are dealing with the German Government you are dealing with a Government which knows what it wants and to a certain degree is anxious to effect exchange; but the Turkish Government neither knows what it wants, nor in the least degree is anxious to effect any exchange at all. I wish to emphasise that fact. Ever since the war began there has been only one Turkish prisoner in whom the Turkish Government has taken any interest, and that man has ceased to take any interest in his own fate. As to the rest of the prisoners in our hands—the 50,000 of whom the noble Lord spoke—I honestly believe that the Turkish Government does not care one fig whether any of them are ever released or not. That really
1102
constitutes the whole difficulty. I have observed a tendency on the part of critics to blame us for the failure of these negotiations because we are supposed not to have employed experts for the purpose—I mean experts on Turkey. I really would ask the noble Lord to believe me when I say that we are not quite so simple, or foolish, as we are supposed to be.
VISCOUNT DEVONPORT: I never said anything about experts.
LORD NEWTON: Possibly not, but it has been frequently alleged that we have been unsuccessful because we have not employed the right people. We have employed experts and made every use of them, and I can assure the noble Viscount and the House that no means have been neglected to impress upon the Turks the advisability of coming to an agreement with us. No means have been neglected at all.
Now let me endeavour to deal with the complaints made by the noble Viscount—when I say "complaints," it is hardly the correct word to use, because so far as I remember the facts that he gave are almost absolutely correct. I will deal first with the question of mortality. The noble Viscount was perfectly right in saying that the rate of mortality has been excessive and that it is deplorable, but what I want to point out is that, this excessive mortality took place in consequence of the sufferings which the unfortunate men had undergone who were transported from Kut to their respective camps. That is the fact which accounts for the very excessive mortality, and it is known that after the men arrived in the permanent camps the rate of mortality decreased, although I admit that unfortunately it is much higher than it ought to be. With regard to treatment, the information that we receive from time to time tends to show that there has been an improvement, and that this improvement may most certainly be attributed to the result of the conference which took place between the two Governments in the winter at Berne. When the reports are eventually received from the inspectors who are to be sent by the Dutch Legation to the camps in question we shall be able to judge how far this improvement has extended. I regret to say that it has not yet been possible to despatch these inspectors on their work.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Why not?
LORD NEWTON: The noble Marquess might as well ask why many other things have not been done, and if he had to deal with-the Turkish Government he would, perhaps, realise the extreme difficulty of getting things done. With regard to relief allowances, it is perfectly true that there has been a very great depreciation, but recently the Netherlands Minister has been authorised to send remittances more than double as great as those previously allowed, and at the present moment something between £50,000 and £60,000 a month is being spent upon these allowances. Whether these allowances should be increased or not is a matter for the War Office and for the Treasury, and I have no doubt that the arguments of the noble Viscount and his friends will be borne in mind.
Now with regard to food. The noble Lord complains that the food parcels do not reach these prisoners, and that they are consequently inadequately fed. This is another of the difficulties which have to be faced in dealing with prisoners in Turkey. All parcels have to go through enemy countries. The noble Viscount asked me why they could not be sent in some other way. There is no other way that occurs to me.
VISCOUNT DEVONPORT: I did not suggest any other arrangement with regard to parcels. I made no suggestion, but I said that parcels to Constantinople and Asia Minor must necessarily go through Austria.
LORD NEWTON: I am sorry if I misunderstood the noble Viscount, but I understood him to suggest that there were other methods of enabling parcels to reach the prisoners than through enemy countries. That, unfortunately, is not the case, because the only other method of enabling parcels to reach the prisoners would be by sea, and it is obviously impossible to send parcels by sea to an enemy port. At the present moment the reason why fool parcels are not reaching prisoners in Turkey is that they are stopped in Austria, and, in consequence of this stoppage of our parcels by the Austrians, we have stopped Austrian parcels being sent to Austrian prisoners here. We hope that this will remedy the situation. The only really satisfactory way of providing for the needs of the prisoners, either as regards food or as
1104
regards clothing, was the method which we agreed upon at Berne—namely, that a ship should take Turkish prisoners to Turkey, bring back British and Indian prisoners, and at the same time convey food and clothing for the use of British prisoners. The noble Viscount seems surprised that the ship has not yet started. Ever since the Agreement has been ratified we have been endeavouring to secure the despatch of this ship, but it must be perfectly obvious, in the first place, that you cannot despatch a ship until a guarantee against attack has been given by the enemy, and, in the second place, that it would be very unwise to do so until we knew that the Turkish Government had collected the British prisoners at the place where they were to be picked up.
The Turkish Government have not carried out either of these two provisions. So far as we know they have not—or, at any rate, they have done very little in that direction—collected the men at the port at which it was agreed they are to be collected, and I very much doubt whether they have taken any real steps to obtain the necessary safeguards from the German Government with regard to the safety of the ship. When we were at The Hague we received directions to approach the German Government with regard to this particular question, and I personally approached one of the chief German delegates upon it and he gave me an assurance that he would take the matter up immediately upon his return to Berlin. I trust, therefore, that we shall shortly succeed in obtaining some assurance, but the noble Viscount may be satisfied that we have been continually pressing to obtain this assurance, up to now unfortunately without any success.
The noble Viscount asks whether His Majesty's Government were prepared to make any definite proposals with regard to further exchange. The House is probably familiar with the terms of exchange already agreed upon with regard to invalids; and "invalid," let me explain, is a very wide term and ought to cover a very large number of men. I understand that the Cabinet are quite prepared to make further proposals with regard to an exchange, and I hope to be able to announce in a few days exactly what has been decided. For my part, I have always been firmly convinced—I have never altered my opinion at all—that the only solution of this question so far as Turkey is concerned, is the ex-change of prisoners. We have done our

1105
best up to now to exchange invalids only, and in view of our failure to do that, I am afraid that the prospect of the Turkish Government agreeing to a total exchange is even more improbable. But I should like to make it perfectly clear that there has never been any opposition on our part to anything of the kind, and that all the opposition has come from the side of the Turkish Government, which, I can only repeat, has never shown the smallest disposition to an exchange or to meet our demands in any sort of way. As far as I am concerned, I can assure the noble Viscount that I will do my utmost to bring about an exchange on as wide a scale as possible. What particular form the proposal will take depends upon the decision of the Cabinet, but I can only say again that in a wide, far-reaching exchange I personally see the only satisfactory solution of this question.
LORD BURNHAM: What about the prisoners in Bulgaria?
LORD NEWTON: I am coming to that. The noble Lord, Lord Beresford, addressed a question to me with special reference to General Townshend. It has always been the practice of His Majesty's Government—and in my opinion it is a thoroughly sound practice—not to entertain the question of what are known as individual exchanges, and I do not think that any-body asserts that, so far as exchanges are concerned, General Townshend has any higher claim to be exchanged than any other officer who has been taken prisoner by the Turks. I have always understood that his position is not considered to be different from that of other officers who have the misfortune to be prisoners at the present time, and that all cases must be dealt with on the same basis. With regard to Bulgaria, when we were at The Hague I was able to get into communication with the Bulgarian Minister there, upon instructions from His Majesty's Government, and we have ascertained that the Bulgarian Government are quite ready to negotiate an Agreement with us upon the lines of that which has just been signed between ourselves and the German Government.
LORD BERESFORD: May I ask my noble friend whether any effort is being made at this moment for Sir Charles Townshend and the rest of the officers by way of exchange?
LORD NEWTON: The whole course of ray speech, or of a large portion of it, was made with the object of showing—I am afraid I have lamentably failed—that we have been consistently trying for a long time to exchange not only General Townshend but the other officers and all the combatants in Turkey.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: May I ask my noble friend if it has been considered whether it would not be possible to exchange prisoners either by way of Baghdad, or, better still, by way of Jerusalem? That would not necessitate the use of any shipping. Of course, no provisions could be sent, but it would do away with any danger of the submarine menace.
VISCOUNT BRYCE: Before the noble Lord answers I should like to ask another question. He is aware, and the House is aware, that the United States is not technically at war with Turkey, and I have some reason to think that objects destined for relief have succeeded in finding their way into Turkey, and I do not think it is certain that they found their way in through Austria. I would like to suggest to the noble Lord whether it is not possible that this fact that the United States is not at war may not be used to enable some other way than the way through Austria to be found for sending parcels into Turkey for the benefit of our prisoners, As regards what he has said about Turkey, it is perfectly true, and any one who has any knowledge or dealings with Turkey knows, that their total want of humanity extends to their own people, and therefore we, as a civilised Power, have nothing to offer them. Barbarians like the Turks do not care what becomes of their own prisoners, and they naturally do not feel the same desire to get them back as a civilised Power would feel. I sincerely hope that the Government will do all they possibly can for these unfortunate fellow countrymen of ours in Turkey. Like all who have spoken, I feel that the noble Lord has done all in his power, and we are grateful to him fur the efforts he has made.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I should like to emphasise one or two points. I am under no illusion as to the character of the Turks. I have not, perhaps, the same experience as Lord Bryce, but I know, during the course of

1107
foreign policy for many years that the Turks are quite impossible to negotiate with, but that there are, sometimes, means of approaching them which they value (not of a kind we generally talk about) and which is often very effective, and would certainly be justifiable in the case of the relief of prisoners.
A good deal has been said of the difficulty of getting parcels through Austria. It occurred to some of us sitting on this bench to ask why parcels should not be sent by sea. The noble Lord opposite dealt with the question of using the sea route in respect of prisoners, but he did not deal with it in respect of parcels. He was dealing with the difficulties and the objections to the sea route as regards prisoners, and one of his reasons for hesitating to adopt the plan was that the Turks have shown no signs of collecting British prisoners at an appropriate Turkish port, and therefore it would be premature to send a ship with Turkish prisoners to meet them. That may be perfectly true, but that criticism does not apply to parcels, and I do not see any reason, on the face of it, why parcels should not be sent by sea to a Turkish port and delivered there. At any rate they would have a better chance of arriving than if they were stopped in their passage through Austria. I make that suggestion to my noble friend for his consideration. I ventured to interrupt (and I hope the noble Lord did not think I was rude) when he was speaking of the despatch of the Dutch inspectors to the Turkish camps where British prisoners are found. I think that was an arrangement come to as far back as December of last year.
LORD NEWTON: Yes, but not ratified until April.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: At any rate, it was ratified in April of this year. That is several months ago, and I should like to ask where the difficulty of getting these Dutch inspectors has arisen. It may arise from the difficulties raised by the Dutch Government, but I do not think my noble friend suggested this. He suggested that the difficulty was always with the Turks. I should certainly think that, as the Dutch Government is neutral, they would be likely to have much more effect in pressing the point upon the Turkish Government than we should ourselves, and I should hope the Dutch Government
1108
would have been willing to use all the pressure in their power for so humane a purpose as sending their inspectors to Turkish camps where British prisoners are found. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he thinks everything has been done to induce a friendly Government like the Dutch to do their utmost on behalf of prisoners and, in particular, in obtaining the authority for these inspectors to visit Turkish camps.
Lastly I should like to press again the point, which has been already mentioned by Lord Devonport, as to the pecuniary compensation of our wretched fellow-countrymen in these circumstances. I confess it was impossible for us to listen without emotion to the account Lord Devonport gave of the terrible sufferings of these officers and men, and if it is merely a question of money, trifling and trivial, in order to enable them to buy the necessary provisions to keep body and soul together, there is nobody, not a single man, in either House of Parliament, or the country, who would not spend ten times the sum to achieve that end. I am quite certain that my noble friend has only to represent this to the War Office, or to the Cabinet, to get an immediate assent, and that any sum of money which is necessary to be sent to our officers and men under these distressing circumstances would be readily and instantly granted for so great and noble a purpose. I desire to press that point very much upon my noble friend.
In the course of his speech Lord Newton said that. he was afraid the Agreement which he has brought back—I 4m glad he has brought it back—from The Hague would require a good deal of consideration in its details. That may be so. I should he very sorry to criticise that, but I earnestly hope, so far as the British Government is concerned, the consideration will he got through in the shortest possible time. There has been—shall I say—perhaps a little too much consideration. We want things done promptly, and so far as this Government is concerned we earnestly hope they will not allow any unnecessary delay to take place.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I want, not for the first time, to say a single word about part of the answer which the noble Lord has made to-night. We all believe he has done his best in an extremely difficult

1109
matter, but what does seem to me to be somewhat strange is that, time after time, when this question comes up, the noble Lord has said, "I have done this; the rest does not rest with me; it rests with the Cabinet." We do not care who it rests with. The Question is not addressed to the noble Lord; it is addressed to the Government, and we have been told, at last on five different times, that the noble Lord has done what he could, but that the rest is the responsibility of His Majesty's Government. It seems to me to be a strange mode of treating this House. I think we are entitled to have a direct answer from the Government to the Question asked. It is really an important matter, and this is not the kind of way in which the answer should be given.
LORD NEWTON: I am very sorry if my answers do not give general satisfaction in this House, but I think the obvious reply is that all really important matters concerning prisoners have to go to the Cabinet, and they will continue to do so, so far as I know. That really is not my fault.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: Certainly not. I make no imputation against the noble Lord.
LORD NEWTON: I do not very well see what else can be expected. Differences of opinion must constantly arise, and, if they do arise, they must be eventually decided by the War Cabinet. I will endeavour, shortly, to answer the questions put to me by the noble Marquess. I should like to assure him that the additional arguments which he suggested might be used with respect to the Turks have not by any means been overlooked. I thought that I had already conveyed that in my speech. With regard to his proposal that the parcels should go in the ship, I do not think that he quite realises that that ship would not be going to a neutral port, but to a belligerent port. And what are the prospects of its getting there?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It would be a neutral ship.
LORD NEWTON: It might get there, but on the other hand it is extremely probable that it would be torpedoed. It would have to he protected, and even then it might not arrive. The other point was
1110
as to the inspectors. Inspectors exist. I saw one the other day on his way out there. In addition, there are inspectors at Constantinople, at the Dutch Legation, but the Dutch Legation cannot get permission from the Turkish Government to send them to inspect the camps. I have no doubt that the Dutch Legation do their best with the Turkish Government, but, like ourselves, they are not so successful as they ought to be.
One further suggestion was made by my noble friend upon the Cross Benches, Lord Oramnore and Brown—namely, that in view of the difficulties attending transport by sea the prisoners should be exchanged over land. That is a solution which has constantly occurred to me, and probably to many other people, but I have always been told that it is a thing to which the military authorities on every side refuse to consent. It was carried out immediately after the capitulation of Kut, but that, I believe, is the only occasion on which it has been done, and I presume that the military objections with regard to it are insurmountable. At all events, whenever I have approached them on the subject I have always been told that they would not consider it.

STATEMENTS BY RETURNED PRISONERS.
LORD BURNHAM LORD BURNHAM rose to ask the Parliamentary Secretary of the War Office what are the Regulations in force as to statements made for publication by prisoners of war returning to this country as to their treatment by the enemy; whether such statements have to be submitted to the military authorities; and whether the Army Council will issue further authorised communications on the subject.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a Question put down purely and simply for public information. I want to clear away the haze of ignorance, and possibly of misunderstanding, that exists not only in the country but I believe in the forces of the Crown as to the conditions under which statements may be made by returned prisoners of war as to their treatment—and in nine cases out of ten it is ill-treatment—in enemy prisons and in enemy camps. Prisoners of war returning are of two classes. There are the exchanged prisoners and there are the escaped prisoners, and it does not follow that the

1111
same rule ought to apply to the one class as to the other, but at the present time there is an impression that such Regulations as exist are not applied equally in all cases, and that there is an amount of restraint imposed upon returned prisoners of war which is not justifiable either in their interests or in the interests of the country.
So far as I understand, my Lords, the only Regulation that bears upon this matter is the well-known Army Regulation No. 453 which lays down that "an officer or soldier is forbidden to publish in any form whatever, or communicate, either directly or indirectly, to the Press, any military information, or his views on any military subject, without special authority." It goes on to say that he is not to prejudge questions which are under the consideration of superior military authorities by the publication of his opinions, and even if they approve and sanction publication they do not in any way endorse the contents of the statements that he may make. I think that has not been evenly applied in some cases. Statements are made in the Press in some cases, and statements are made from the platform in other cases, and it is said that there has been an official refusal to sanction any sort of publicity being given to these experiences.
I dare say that there are a certain number of people who are afraid that the full statement of what our men have undergone in enemy countries may further exacerbate and enrage public opinion. I do not think that we need fear that public sentiment can be more embittered and more enraged than it is now, and I believe that the best thing that can be done is that the whole truth shall be stated so that the public can see into the dark places of the organised and systematic brutality which we know them to have been. I do not think that the statement can be too full, but I admit that it is quite right that the military authorities should exercise a certain authority as to the mode of publication, and as to the time of publication. For example, it is undesirable that statements should be made such as we react from a Fleet paymaster which were afterwards repudiated by the authorities. These things are greedily seized upon by the directors of enemy propaganda in order to discredit the whole of the indictment that is drawn up against the barbarous ill-treatment that our men have suffered abroad. Therefore I do not question that the military autho-
1112
rities are right in insisting on all statements being submitted to them.
I distinguish, however, between ex-changed prisoners and escaped prisoners. I think that in regard to escaped prisoners there is not the same reason for a strict elimination of what might be undesirable in the case of exchanged prisoners, for obvious reasons. I am told on good authority, by a member of your Lordships' House, that escaped prisoners feel very bitterly the manner in which the tales that they have to tell have been received in some official quarters. Whether that is justifiable or not I cannot say, but I am told it upon the authority of one whose word would have credence with your Lordships. If that is so, the impression ought to be removed. In any case, it is desirable that sailors and soldiers who come back after their woeful experiences should know where they are. At the present moment there is very little to guide them, and I can assure my noble friend who is about to answer this Question that there is a feeling of great resentment that they have been muzzled from impressing upon their fellow-countrymen the horrors that are going on, especially, as we know, behind the lines and on commando in enemy countries.
I am not going to trouble your Lordships with any further observations, because I am looking forward to the reply of the noble Lord who I hope will not only be able to answer in the way that I , but will also be able to say that in due time the Army Council mean to make a further and authorised publication on this subject of material acquired from all the sources within their knowledge, and carefully sifted as to the veracity of the statements made. Public opinion requires it, and I venture to think that such publication can, in spite of any difficulties that there may be, do nothing but good, and it is for that purpose that. I put the Question.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE WAR OFFICE (Earl STANHOPE): My Lords, I am glad that my noble friend has put this Question, because I agree with him. I think that there is a certain amount of misunderstanding on the subject. The only Regulation which deals with this subject is the one which he quoted, No. 453. The attention of our men as they come back to this country, whether escaped prisoners or repatriated, is rawn to this paragraph of the Regulations for several

1113
reasons. I think your Lordships will agree with them all. In the first place, I may say that as far as the War Office is concerned—and I should imagine every other Department of His Majesty's Government—we feel that the more publicity is given to these statements the better. They are just exactly the things that we feel the country ought to know; we feel that any idea of an unsatisfactory peace or of accepting any statement which is made by the Germans without question is far less likely if the truth as to the treatment of our prisoners in Germany is understood.
The reasons why we imposed these rules on repatriated prisoners is this. As regards those who escape, we are anxious that no information should be published which might give away the method by which they escaped from the German camps and—perhaps even more than that—that nobody who assisted them in their escape (either our own prisoners or possibly civilians or neutrals) should be discovered and be prevented from helping other men who may succeed in escaping later on. As regards those who are repatriated, there again there is a possibility that information might be given which would be detrimental to prisoners still in German hands. We are very anxious, as your Lordships will agree, that that should be safeguarded with great care.
In addition, we feel that cases such as the noble Lord quoted should be safeguarded and that a case which, alas, is only too strong should not be spoilt by exaggeration or statements which are difficult to substantiate. Therefore we are anxious that every statement which is made should be carefully investigated before it is published. What is done is this. Every escaped and repatriated prisoner on arrival in this country is interviewed by a Government Committee which is formed for that purpose, called the Government Committee on the Treatment by the Enemy of British Prisoners of War. Its chairman is Sir Robert Younger. If depositions have already been taken in neutral countries then prisoners do not attend, but in other cases I think every prisoner, escaped or repatriated, is interviewed by this Committee. There are several barristers on the Committee who are skilled in taking evidence, in sifting it carefully, and in bringing out the points which we think should be given prominence, and to which public attention should be
1114
drawn. A copy of the evidence so produced is then sent to the War Office purely for the purposes of censorship, to safeguard those three points to which I have already referred, and the censorship, I think, takes only a very short time.
In regard to the last part of my noble friend's Question, the Army Council itself is not responsible for issuing statements in regard to these prisoners. It is done by the Committee. I understand that further reports are already practically complete and will very shortly be issued, and, as we get more evidence, it will be produced and published. I am sure that if there has been any case of lack of sympathy with any prisoner who has escaped or been repatriated it is a most unusual instance, because I am sure the noble Lord needs no assurance that everybody has the deepest sympathy with them and is only too anxious to find out everything they can tell us.
We hope shortly to be able to arrange further lectures by officers who have escaped and who have returned to this country. As the noble Lord knows, a few have been given, and we are arranging to extend the system of lectures and generally to let the public know as much as is possible of the way in which our prisoners have been treated in Germany and the manner of their escape.

EDUCATION BILL.
Order of the Day read for resuming the Debate upon the Motion for the Second Reading.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, I should like to ask the present Leader of the House, the Lord Privy Seal, whether he proposes to take this Bill at this hour. It is very unusual to take a Bill of this magnitude as the 8th Order of the Day and after four hours of debate on some very interesting Questions have preceded it. I think your Lordships will see that the House is not in a condition for effective debate, and to bring on in such conditions a debate on a Bill of this magnitude at the dinner hour does seem a very unusual occurrence. If the noble Earl insists upon carrying it on now, I think he must understand that we shall seek an opportunity on going into Committee. There are many Peers who desire to take part in the debate when it is possible to obtain some audience and also some public notice of whatever arguments may be used.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, I wish to express my entire agreement with what the noble Viscount has said. Here is, perhaps, the most important Bill that has been brought in this session, and one of the most important Bills that have been brought in for a long time. Is it to the credit of this House that it should go forth to the public that we scamped the discussion and did not adequately consider the Bill? Would it not be better to put down a notice of Motion for to-morrow, giving this Bill precedence over the other Orders and devoting to morrow to a proper discussion? Unless we can have an adequate attendance during the dinner hour and then time tomorrow, I do not see how we can possibly give the Bill the proper consideration that it deserves.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I very much regret that it should be necessary to resume the discussion of the Bill at an hour which is apparently inconvenient, but I must remind your Lordships that ten days ago my noble friend Lord Curzon warned the House that your Lordships would be invited to sit on Tuesday and Wednesday evening to deal with this Bill—public warning given to your Lordships on July 17. Yesterday certain very important speeches were delivered, and I have every reason to hope that we may get the Second Reading today. Lord Sheffield is prepared at once to resume the discussion of the measure, and Lord Haldane was prepared, if necessary, to resume the discussion after the dinner interval; and I have to inform you that, assuming that the debate will go on after dinner into the evening sitting, dinner has been ordered for your Lordships tonight.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: There are other Peers. Will the noble Earl understand me? It is a complete misunderstanding if the noble Earl thinks we propose that there should be no discussion after dinner. What we suggest is that a Bill of this kind is too important to be scamped. It needs another day.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I really demur to the view that because the House is small the debate is therefore scamped.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: Well, we cannot speak.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: The House is small, and will be small, no doubt, for the rest of the evening, but Lord Sheffield's remarks will be very direct and to the point, even if there is a small audience to hear him. That equally applies to the noble and learned Viscount opposite (Lord Haldane) and to the most rev. Prelate the Archbishop of York.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: We quite agree, but there are other Peers who wish to speak.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Will it not be better to proceed and allow those Peers who are prepared to make their speeches, which may not receive much note in the Press, but of which due note will be taken by the Official Reporters of this House. Nothing we can do to-night can prejudge the right of any Peer on the Motion for going into Committee to reopen what are commonly called Second Reading questions, but I really submit that we ought to get the Second Reading to-night, especially in view of the fact that more than adequate notice was given that we should have to sit late. I think it would be very unfortunate to carry over the discussion from this moment till to-morrow, and so put off whatever measures are on the Paper for to-morrow, some of which have been down for some time.
LORD SHEFFIELD: I believe I am now in possession of the House, in spite of this conversation.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I think it is rather unfortunate that the Government have taken this view of things. This discussion on the Second Reading is a purely friendly discussion; it is not as if it were a Bill which is going to be savagely contested, or anything of that kind; and if I might conceive myself to be—which I never shall be—in the position to guide the deliberations of your Lordships' House, and I found the House in that condition, I should have studied the convenience of the House in every way I could, and I should not have said that the House had been warned of this or that or the other; because it is for the House to decide, and not for the Government to do so. That is the proper attitude which Ministers ought to adopt in addressing your Lordship's House. It is not a question of warning the House as if we were common soldiers to be

1117
warned for duty. The proper phrase is, whatever is convenient to your Lordships in the conduct of the business of the House.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: May I ask my noble friend whether he is blaming me for saving that ten days ago it was foreseen that it might be necessary to sit after dinner? Surely I did no act of disrespect to your Lordships in saying that this was foreseen ten days ago and was announced to your Lordships.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am not going to resist the wish of the House. If the House wants to sit after dinner it is proper that it should do so, of course; but I did not think that, considering the importance of the Bill, the deliberations of your Lordships' House would have been such as would have been worthy of the importance of the occasion. My noble friend says that after dinner the audience will be select. I think that is true; it will be very select. The debate will not be reported. It will be in Hansard, an important consideration, no doubt. But I confess that, considering the great distinction of the noble Lords who desire to address your Lordships—I know several who have been mentioned already—I must say that I think it would have been far more suitable if this debate had been allowed to take place upon a day when it would have been really unhampered by other very important Orders. Nobody can complain of what has happened this evening, because the debates which have taken place have been very important; we could not have been any shorter in dealing with the other Orders of the Day. However, as the matter has been so decided, there is no more to be said; but I do not think that the result will be to redound to the credit of your Lordships' House.
LORD SHEFFIELD: My Lords, I will now proceed, although the House is not a very full one, to address my remarks to your Lordships upon the Second Reading of this Bill. I may say that I do not think the House is much emptier than it was towards the latter part of the debate last night; but, whether the House is full or empty, I think that those who take an interest in this question will attend and will take part either to-night, or, if they think it necessary, on some later occasion.
1118
I do not propose to detain the House at any great length. I do not intend to pay any more of those well merited compliments to the mover which he received last night; he may take those for granted. Nor do I propose to pass any elaborate eulogium on the Bill, because the best eulogium one can pay is a determination to support it; and I am here with the intention of supporting this Bill most heartily, which course indicates a general approbation of its aims. The noble Earl who introduced the Bill, and others, will not expect me to say that I accept it as a matter of verbal inspiration; and I recognise, as other speakers have done, that there are many important aspects of the education question which had to be left out of this Bill if, at a time of great national stress, an important step towards the establishment of a proper system of national education were to be taken with the consent of all parties, and without raising those elements of controversy which have so often delayed the progress of education.
Further, I hope the noble Earl in charge of the Bill will not think that it detracts from my approbation of the Bill if the whole of my speech is directed rather to criticism of points in it; the more so as I can assure the noble Earl that I do not intend to give him any trouble in Committee. I might put down an Amendment or two in Committee in order to define my position, but I have no intention of doing anything to delay the progress of the Bill; because I agree with the Leader of the House, and with all who have spoken, in the extreme importance of getting through a measure which the whole country expects and looks for; and it will be a bitter disappointment to the people of this country if the Bill is delayed or shipwrecked. Therefore my observations will be directed to calling the attention of the noble Earl in charge of the Bill and of His Majesty's Government to points which I think will have to come up later, possibly in some amending Bill or in administration, rather than to any alteration of the text of the Bill at present.
May I refer briefly now to one or two of the points made by the speakers last night? The first point of regret I have as to this Bill is regret for an absence of proposals which was unavoidable. The noble Earl in talking about education, and of his activities on the Hertfordshire Education Committee, regretted that the debates were so dull and the topics so uninteresting;

1119
and that he never had an opportunity of giving scope to his enthusiasm in education and to his interest in the more intellectual and interesting parts of it. But may I point out that this dulness connected with the administration of education is the dulness which is coupled with all administration. If you care for education itself, however, behind the dulness of daily administration you will find the interest of the cause you are a promoting; and if the noble Earl had had the benefit of serving on a body elected ad hoc and not on a body which is a mere adjunct to a body elected for purely local affairs he would have found persons coming on it more interested in education than those who give but a fragment of their time to it as well as to county roads, to county police, and to sewers and sanitation. I mention that because I recognise that it would have been idle to raise the question of ad hoc bodies in this Bill. But the noble Earl will allow me to record my permanent and persistent adhesion to the belief that, until you have a body specifically elected for the purposes of education, you will never get that wide interest in education which we had under the old School Board. What I say is not in any way obstructive to the Bill but merely a record of opinion.
The noble Earl referred last night to the Statement of the Medical Officer of Health of the Education Department that there were 1,000,000 children who, through lack of stamina or want of health, did not profit by education. I have seen that statement before, but in my opinion it is a grossly exaggerated one. Anybody who takes the trouble to read these Reports will find that, interesting as they are, they have a great bias. I have not the slightest doubt that amongst the 7,000,000 children in our schools there may be 1,000,000 who are below the average standard in stamina, in health, in eyesight, in physique, and all the rest of it. Of course, in so far as the child falls short of a proper, healthy, vigorous development he is likely not to get the full profit of the system of education. But it is an enormous stride from that to terrify the public with the suggestion that we are having a very costly system of education and that the children will get no profit from it. The cause of education is endangered by exaggerated statements, and I wish to put in that caveat. We all wish every child to profit as much as possible, but do not let us, because some children fail to get the full benefit, speak
1120
as though those children got no benefit at all. There were some other points which I might have mentioned in the noble Earls' speech, but they will rather arise when I come to one or two Clauses in the Bill, such as the nursery schools, continuation schools and other things.
There was another remark of the noble Earl which I should welcome very much if I thought the Bill was doing much for it. He hoped the Bill would bring our Universities within the reach of a far larger number of persons than at present. I am sure we all desire that, and that education should spread to the very highest ranges of systematic teaching as well as the lowest, but I cannot see anything in this Bill which deals with the Universities at all or in any way brings a larger number of persons within their range. If there were any chance of it, I should be glad, but I do not see that there is. I pass on. The noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, in speaking in defence of retaining the principle of free schools throughout, made, I thought, too large a concession to the critics of the universal free schools when he spoke of the verminous child, or the slum child, and of the dislike of the clean child to coming into contact with him. In the first place, no person has the right to send a verminous child to school. He can be summoned for cruelty to the child, and the child can be excluded from the school. But does anyone suppose that the existence of free schools brings the respectable child into contact with the child of the slums? In the whole of London there is not a single fee-paying school nor in the whole of Wales. The fact is that these schools are to be found in isolated spots, and have no relation to the general education scheme. If there is an Amendment to be moved as to the free schools as to fees, I shall reserve my remarks until we come into Committee.
The most rev. Primate treated us to a brief sketch of two centuries of the Church in its relation to popular education, and he spoke with the greatest confidence when he said that he was perfectly certain he could defy contradiction. I do not want to do anything so abrupt in this House as to contradict the most rev. Primate, but I would say that if there were a proper amount of time I would not allow his statements to pass unchallenged. But as they seem to me to be a little outside the scope of this Bill, I will take no further notice of

1121
them. The noble Lord below me (Lord Gainford) who was for some time the head of the Board of Education, spoke on several questions with an authority which he had the right to assume as having been the head of that Department. He laid special stress on the health question, on juvenile employment and the falling off in attendance. I agree, and we all agree with the noble Lord about the question of health. Every one is agreed that the health of the children, which will include the sanitation of the premises, good lighting and air, adequate playgrounds, and all the other things, and what has been put in by the House of Commons—namely, continuous medical attendance as well as medical inspection—are of the greatest importance. The only point on which I join issue is when he intimated that the Bill might be strengthened in Committee. I wish to say that I am opposed to anything which will endanger the rapid progress of this Bill.
While questions might be raised which, if there were a sympathetic indication of approval of the principles, might be taken as memoranda and noted with a view to future legislation, we ought not, as the French say, to make that which is better the enemy of that which is good by putting proposals into this Bill which would delay its passage into law and its coming into operation. But I do agree with the noble Lord in reference to school attendance and child labour. He pointed out that a child or a young person between twelve and sixteen might be at school twenty-seven hours in the week and thus might be at work for nearly sixty hours in the week. Every one will agree that that is an unreasonable tax to put on the body and brain of a young, growing child, and we hope, in factory legislation, and in other legislation on child labour, to see some material limit put on the employment of children and young people. With reference to those who have left the elementary school, the children who, as a rule, will be between fourteen and eighteen years and the bulk of whom go into the continuation classes, I think there should be a reasonable interval of time between the hours of school and the hours of work, in case the child becomes fagged. That should be an indication for future legislation, and there is not the slightest doubt there will be an effort to limit the hours of work for young people between the age of fourteen and eighteen. If the working man now
1122
agitates for eight hours of labour, and we are told in the colliery for six hours, then young people under eighteen, who are under the obligation to study, ought to have some maximum time allotted to them such as is not provided for in the Bill. Here again, that is a matter I desire, but I do not wish to force it into the Bill, as we want to get the measure through.
If Lord Gainford will allow me to put it so, I should like to make a correction in one thing which he said. He talked of the falling off in the attendance of the children, but he must know quite well that substantially the whole of the falling off is in regard to children under five years, where the local authorities, for the sake of economy and to avoid building schools—and the Board of Education have encouraged them—have been able to exclude by resolution all under five years from the schools. That has nothing to do with a want of interest in education, but with the action of those who administer education. That is a thing which I very much regret. To come at once to the children under five and the nursery schools, I consider that the enactment about nursery schools is a serious blot in the Bill. Not that I object to a more intelligent, free and happy system for young children under five in our schools, I have some doubt myself with regard to children from two to thee years, even if you called it a nursery school and made it more like a crèche than a school. What I feel is this, that if you are going to put upon the local authority the power to establish these schools, such schools ought to be within the purview of the Education Acts Public Elementary Schools. What are the notes of a public elementary school? There must be public management, there must be a conscience clause, there roust be no fees. I agree with the President of the Board of Education that there is not much importance in a conscience clause for children from three to five years, though I remember a very strongly ecclesiastical colleague of mine on the School Board for London who, when fighting for more definite instruction, said it was a great mistake to think that children could not appreciate dogma, but that you could teach an infant dogma long before you could teach him anything else. You may teach there to repeat words. You may teach a child words involving the most mysterious doctrines of the Christian faith, but thereby you do not make him a dogmatist any more than

1123
you make him a conjuror by teaching him to say abracadabra.
I object very strongly to allowing the local authority to subsidise with money or otherwise the school which they do not manage. That is a blot on the Bill. I only record my sense of the blot and I pass on. I was very glad to hear the noble Earl in charge of the Bill speak highly of the need of the suitable training and bringing up of these young children, because we know that some of the opponents of infant schools wanted to leave the children out altogether; until they were five years old. I should like to see as many infant schools as possible.
The Board of Education consider that a smaller amount of superficial feet or cubic space is needed for an infant than is needed for an older child. I say that he should have more space, and I hope that if nursery schools are established by the Board of Education they will insist upon ample space, light rooms, plenty of floor space where the children can have their action songs and games, and cots where they can go to sleep in the afternoon, and roomy playgrounds, and that that will be the ideal. If you cannot have comfortable homes with roomy nurseries these nursery schools will afford the best opportunity for these young children to grow up like flowers in the sunlight. That should be done also in the infant schools. There is no reason why the Board of Education should invent new schools under private management and which will not be subject to control, when they can do the same thing in their own infant schools.
There is another thing, and here again I do not think it will be very important in practice, although it is a blot in principle. These nursery schools not being public elementary schools will be free to charge a fee. It is clearly contemplated that these nursery schools should be established in the crowded and poorer parts of large towns, and the children from such districts will not be the children for whom such nursery schools will be prepared to charge a fee. Therefore these schools will practically be free, although no doubt there may be a small charge made to go towards the cost of providing milk and similar food. I expect that these schools when started will be started by benevolent people who will first of all take an interest in schools for mothers and then crèches and so develop a desire to give as bright and happy a life as possible
1124
to these infants until they are able to pass into the ordinary elementary schools. Therefor my expectation is that these nursery schools will be very little used. I doubt whether it will be possible to run them at a less cost than £5 per child, and therefore I fear that they will be too costly for any general adoption.
I come now to one or two points on which I hope the noble Earl will be able to give some fuller explanation on the committee stage. The first is as to the definition clause (47) which says that a child is a person who is under an obligation to attend school and who has a right to attend school up to the age of sixteen. I think the Government and the noble Earl in his speech has made it quite clear now that there is every intention not only to empower but to encourage children to stop on until they are sixteen years of age in the elementary school, and practically under Clause 2 it has become the duty of the local authority under Part III to provide adequate instruction where these children over fourteen stop on. My point is that in the Bill a child is defined as a person under a legal obligation to attend school. Hardly any local authority, I think, will adopt a by-law raising the age to fifteen. The great majority therefore of children will remain under compulsion to attend school only up to the age of fourteen. Now under this Bill a child will be a person under a legal obligation to attend school, and therefore it might be contended that the right to continue at school up to the age of sixteen disappeared because that right only extended to children and a child was defined as a person who was under a legal obligation to attend. I think that could be amended by saying, "a child is a person who is attending a public elementary school," and then when you come to the definition of young person you can say he is a young person over fourteen who is not attending a public elementary school. It is rather a question for the draftsmen and the legal officers of the Board of Education, and if on the Committee stage the noble Earl assures me that I have found a mare's nest, or that I am hypercritical, and that the right to attend school survives at the age of sixteen, I shall have nothing more to say.
The next point is as to the compulsory continuation schools. Until the Cockerton judgment and the Act of 1902 evening schools were under the control of the

1125
people who had, charge of the elementary schools. They were held in the same buildings, taught by the same teachers, and the children were canvassed to go on. Now that these schools are made compulsory and part of the compulsory system I think it is still more important that they should be managed by those who have charge of the elementary system of the district. That will not interfere at all with what I call advanced continuation education for adults, which I hope will not be extinguished by this compulsory continuation. I hope that by the compulsory continuation up to eighteen you will develop such a desire for learning that you will increase the demand for adult schools, hut I very much regret that these compulsory continuation schools are not part of the system administered by those who have charge of the elementary schools. These compulsory continuation schools are going to cost a great deal. I believe that Mr. Fisher estimated it at £10,000,000 a year, but I am quite sure that it is going to cost a great deal more than that. It is going to be very costly, but I am not going to elaborate criticism on these continuation schools. I think it is one of the most difficult parts of the Bill, that it will be the most difficult to introduce and administer, and that it will cause the greatest amount of friction hereafter socially, and I regret that they will not be part of the elementary school system but part of the system administered by the Higher Authorities. Under the Act of 1902, which is not repealed, the Higher Authority has power if it pleases to inflict the whole charge for the cost of the building and education of these continuation schools upon the minor locality, and yet the minor locality will have practically no effective power in determining the structure and cost or staff of the schools. It is true there is provision in the Bill that the minor authorities—the urban authorities—are entitled to put some managers on, but we know what a manager is. A manager is a man who does the drudgery work for the authority and has no power at all, and even if they appoint the manager there is nothing in the Bill as to the proportion of the managers or as to the substantial authority. Here, again, I do not propose to move any Amendment. In fact, I think I should be out of order if I did, because any proposal to deal with finance—and to say that if the central or county authorities decide to give the direct management to a subordinate authority
1126
they should bear, as a county, at the very least one-half of the cost would be a financial amendment—would be out of order.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Not out of order.
LORD SHEFFIELD: It would be a breach of privilege. The noble Marquess is right. We can move anything we please, but the mischief arises when we get our snub down below. Still, practically, it is one of those things which are thought to be outside our province to shift the burden and incidence of taxation or the rate of payment. As I plead for ad hoc so I plead very strongly in this matter. I quite agree that, the larger area must have a controlling voice in the higher education and secondary education. If we retain those urban districts or boroughs with populations of ten or twelve or fifteen thousand, they are good for local interest in elementary education, but their interest is not sufficiently wide for advanced education. Therefore, I agree that the county should have a voice, though I do not think that these continuation schools for young people step so completely into the region of secondary education but what they will fall more naturally to the local minor authority. There, again, I hope the counties will very largely see the wisdom of consulting and co-operating with the minor authorities. They can if they please. In my own county of Cheshire, so long as the local authorities would raise the penny rate which they were entitled to raise, the county gave them an equal amount and encouraged them very largely to organise their own affairs. In Lancashire, I am quite sure, with big towns like Ashton-under-Lyme, Leigh, and other places with between 40,000 and 50,000 inhabitants, the county would have plenty of trouble if they did not try to co-operate with the local authority, and I think it would be an undesirable thing if in the county of Cambridge the county authorities treated the borough of Cambridge as of no account and did not give it a large voice.
Therefore, I hope that in future legislation—I do not ask for it now—we shall deal with subordinate authorities in their relation to the county and in relation to the burden of expense which it is in the power of the county to throw upon them.

1127
There is another thing I regret very much—again it is a thing upon which I record my regret and do not go further—and it is that in all the Bills which the Government have introduced, including the Bill of 1906, there has been a proposal, in regard to the charge for buildings of elementary schools in a county, that there should not be the obligation to put a substantial part upon the parish, but the obligation it proposed should be in every case on the county as a whole. That charge is most burdensome and oppressive upon a small parish. You have a parish of about 600 people which has to put up a school and the county cannot pay more than one half. It may be, I think, only one third or one quarter—I am not sure which. It would be quite inappreciable to the county as a whole to merge that into the general county rate, which would save much trouble. There is a greatdeal of complicated calculation when you levy a rate and make demands for the outstanding loans upon the various parishes, and I think it is a great pity that the Government have shrunk from their own policy of several years running and have turned this into an option and permission, whereas before it was an obligation.
The result will be that the churlish county will let the parish pay, but I think the liberal counties with a go-ahead policy will take the burden. It is a bad thing, and it is a very bad thing in this way—it gives the strongest inducement to a rural parish with an atrociously bad school, which ought to be closed, to fight tooth and nail against the action of the Board of Education and the authorities which demand that a new school should be built. These people will say "Why, if we submit to this we shall very likely have a rate of 1s. in the £ for forty years before the debt is paid off. That is too oppressive. We cannot afford it." And they will bring pressure to bear on the county. Many atrociously bad schools exist in the rural districts because of that obligation on the minor authorities to pay at least one half, and even three-quarters of the cost. Once more I regret it, but I utter my word of protest, and pass on.
There is one small point now which I really think the Government might deal with in Committee. It is very small as respecting the number of people it affects and it is small also as regards the charge it involves. It has to do with the instruction of the deaf The noble Earl will know that in the Acts relating to the instruction of the
1128
blind the obligation of the local authority to provide education begins at the age of five. In the case of the instruction of the deaf it begins at seven. Of course, a great many deaf children have become deaf in infancy through scarlet fever or other disease. Those who are connected with the teaching of the deaf regard it as vital that all, except those who are backward and cannot be so taught, should be taught on the oral system. We know that a child of five is much more susceptible to this teaching than the older children. Every year that goes by it is more difficult to educate the voice and the palate and the brain by this oral system. If the noble Earl in charge of the Bill could see his way in Committee to place the obligation upon local authorities to provide for the education of the deaf on the same footing as they have to provide for the education of the blind at five years instead of seven, it would do a great deal for the advancement of the education and future welfare of these unfortunate children.
May I say that in some ways the deaf are more hopeful objects for the State's interference than the blind, because, while we never can expect to make the blind self-supporting citizens, in the case of the deaf we can train them to take up trades and professions and earn as high wages, as any hearing person—in fact, sometimes higher wages, because they are less likely to gossip in the workshop? There fore, I would urge this matter upon the Government. It is so small, and so free from controversy, that if the noble Earl can see his way in Committee to make that little Amendment—I would rather he put it down himself—I think he would get the gratitude of those interested in the education of the deaf, and he would get also that of the deaf themselves when they grew up and were old enough to appreciate the advantage they had gained. These are the principal points to which I wish to call your Lordships' attention. I have tried to make my remarks as practical as possible and to keep clear from all controversy. I will end my speech by heartily congratulating the noble Earl on having been put in charge of such a benevolent, beneficient and progressive Bill, and by expressing the hope that he may see it accomplish its success in a very short time.
[The sitting was suspended shortly before eight o'clock, and resumed at nine o'clock.]
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, I cannot but think that it was with some satisfaction that the Government listened to the speech of my noble friend who preceded me. Lord Sheffield is a strong swimmer in the waters of education, and if any one could make headway against the current it is he. My noble friend has blessed the Bill, and I think that was a strong testimony to the foundation on which the Bill has been erected, for that foundation is nothing less than the Act of 1902. My noble friend rendered distinguished service on the London School Board, which was one of the most brilliant illustrations of what could be done with the principle of the Education Act of 1870 which set up ad hoc authorities. It was a magnificent body. It contained the talent of the metropolis, and it did great work, but, as happens constantly, what is true for one generation ceases to be true for the generation which follows it, not because the truth was not truth at the time, but because it has been absorbed and taken up to a higher level. The Act of 1902 swept away the basis of ad hoc authorities. For myself, I had long before that Act was pasted come to regard the Liberal tradition of the Victorian epoch about ad hoc authorities as having become a superstition. A new notion was making itself apparent—the notion that the business of Government was to devolve from Parliament to local authorities, which should be recognised as having attained a very great and important stature.
It is quite a mistake, I think, to draw a sharp line of demarcation between Parliament and what is called local government. The very doctrine of to-day, a doctrine becoming more and more apparent every month, is that we must devolve much of what Parliament does to the local authorities. We had a discussion the other day about public health, which showed the way in which the Poor Law may be broken up, and in which many other things may be broken up by devolution to county boroughs and county councils, which are recognised as having the status of something more than concerns dealing with merely local interests, and as being more in the nature of local parliaments which would deal with matters of local policy that are appropriate to local parliaments. And so it came that in the year 1902 the country passed away from the notion of ad hoc bodies and accepted the principle of devolution to local parliaments. I only wish it had done it more
1130
thoroughly. There were compromises in the Act of 1902, upon which this Bill does not go back, but compromises which I think marred the effect of the principle. The great local authorities, the county borough councils and the county councils, were well adapted for the functions which were entrusted to them in connection with education, and they are well adapted to-day for having entrusted to them functions connected with public health and with a variety of other forms of public assistance with which we have not dealt. But I repeat that the opposition to the policy of the Bill of 1902 seems to me to have been a Victorian superstition of the Liberal Party, and I look back with some satisfaction to the fact that I myself dissociated myself from that superstition at the time that it came before the other House, of which I was then a Member.
My noble friend Lord Sheffield took yet another point. He expressed the view that the continuation schools should have been administered by authorities which were more strictly concerned with elementary education. He desired to see the continuation schools kept upon the same footing as the line of elementary education which was being pursued by those authorities. Later on I shall have a word to say upon that, but there again, upon that point, I do not think that I wholly agree with my noble friend. But I repeat that it must be a satisfaction to the Government to feel that that strong swimmer in the waters of education, Lord Sheffield, has gone with me in yielding himself to the current of this Bill and striking out in its direction.
It has been said in the course of these debates that things in the Bill are not new, that the details are details which are to be found in clauses and fragments of clauses which belong to earlier Bills. I think that is the case. I myself have been much concerned in educational questions for twenty years, and I recognise many old notions in this Bill, but the mere fact that draftsmen have accumulated clauses of that kind matters very little. The whole point is, how has the author of the Bill, the man who conceived it, got it together and welded the matter into an organic whole? The distinction of this Bill and its distinct quality is that it has been obviously fashioned by one who is himself a master of education from the highest point of view, and who has approached it not from the point of view of elementary education but

1131
from the University standpoint of which he is a distinguished representative. It is the largeness of spirit of the Bill and the way in which it is welded into an organic whole in a new spirit that distinguishes it from previous attempts in education.
One has only to bake one or two concrete illustrations to see how that is so. Continuation schools are nothing new. The name most prominently associated with them is the name of one who is to-day an alien enemy, but who has expressed himself in the past in terms which we should all approve, and who was the author, I may say the first and true inventor of the continuation school system. Dr. Kerchensteiner, of Munich, not only conceived the idea of putting continuation education on a higher footing than it had ever been before and weaving it into the education system of Germany, but succeeded in carrying it into effect in a fashion which caused some of us who were watching and who were very much concerned for the future of our own country a good deal of uneasiness as to the competition to which we should be exposed from a very highly trained kind of workman. But Dr. Kerchensteiner's policy was infected by that which is the characteristic, failure in the German conception. In Germany the system of class prevails; the workman is not encouraged to proceed to higher education. He is marked off strictly as belonging to an inferior class to that above him; and continuation education was marked out and designed as something for artificers who might get certificates, first as journeymen and then as master-workmen.
Now, Mr. Fisher's Bill takes continuation education in a very different spirit. He could not have done otherwise. When first it was proposed to introduce continuation schools into this country, criticism was passed upon the project by a very remarkable body, which has done good work, the Workers' Educational Association, which is closely associated with the idealism of the Labour Party. The Workers' Education Association said, "What we want is that every boy and girl should have a chance of higher education, and we welcome continuation education if and only in so far as it makes provision for proceeding to higher education." When I read the clauses of Mr. Fisher's Bill concerned with continuation education I found all the difference in the world between them and Dr. Kerchensteiner's idea. Mr. Fisher's
1132
idea is to give as much secondary education as he can in connection with the development of elementary education for the poorest as well as for the richest; and I think it is because. Mr. Fisher's Bill recognises continuation education as really of a secondary character that he has not taken the line which my noble friend would have approved, of keeping the continuation schools in the hands of the elementary schoolmaster. It is an alternative fashion in which the poor may climb up to the advantages which are open to the rich. Not only so, but the whole spirit of this Bill is a spirit which aims at obliterating any artificial distinction between elementary and secondary education.
The doctrine which Mr. Cockerton (peace be to his spirit!) succeeded in getting the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice to lay down has been repealed; there is no distinction any more between elementary and secondary education. Education is to be looked upon as one organic whole. That has important consequences when you come to consider the Bill as a whole, and brings out in relief certain defects in it, for which I do not reproach Mr. Fisher but on which I shall be bound to touch in a few moments. But the real foundation of this Bill is to treat education as a whole, and to deny that there is any distinction between elementary and secondary education. They are not of different, kinds; the one is a development of the other; and continuation education is a form of secondary education which is appropriate to the working classes. I am glad to think that thereby the principle contended for by the Workers' Education Association has been vindicated. I think there will be a great deal of the most valuable technical education given in the continuation schools; but, still, what is aimed at is, what is the true foundation of all technical education, the general knowledge. That is the basis on which it must rest if the edifice is to be securely erected.
Then, not only has the Cockerton doctrine gone, but one of the most prominent features of the Bill is that in the higher reaches of the elementary school, when you come to what is called in educational slang "tops," those responsible for the schools are encouraged to develop the teaching in the school into a region which brings it into the secondary sphere. The facilities which are given to enable men and boys to remain up to sixteen if they desire to do so is a change which cannot, if it is followed

1133
out, be without an immense influence upon the elementary schools of this country. They cease to be merely elementary schools, and that must re-act to the advantage of the teachers.
I have instanced these as two great features in this Bill, and I now come to another topic touched on by my noble friend, and which was suggested yesterday by a part of the speech of the most rev. Primate. The most rev. Primate claimed for the Church that it had exercised a vital influence in the development of the education system of this country. So far as my researches have gone I agree with him, but what he said was true not only of this country but of a good many other countries. For a long time the Church was the only body which took any considerable interest in education, and we owe a great deal to the Church. I do think that, in regard to the days that are gone, the most rev. Primate was right in saying that the nation owed obligations to the Church which it should not forget. When I had the honour of occupying the Woolsack for nearly three years, it was my duty to present to a large number of small livings, and what impressed me was that in the remote country districts, so far as I could discover, the parish clergyman was the one figure to whom you could look for something like continuity in keeping up interest in the higher things of the spirit. 1fe did not always do it, I am afraid in many cases he did not do it, but in a great many other eases he did it splendidly, and he was there, a centre from which radiated interest in the schools, and in other things. I was much impressed, and no doubt my noble friend who outlines the Woolsack has been much impressed, with the value of the service which a really good parish clergyman could render as a centre of light and leading in his parish. I would it were always so, and it is certainly often so.
That is just an illustration of what happens when you do not have any proper provision made by the State for the radiation of these subjects. You must fall back on somebody. In the past we have fallen back on the Church, and in the present, I suspect, to some extent we fall back on the Church, as well, and we shall continue to do so. But that, I think, was no reason for raising what was called the religious question in this Bill. I think it was a new reason for silence on the religious question. The religious question was a question which
1134
was of vast importance, and bulked hugely in the Victorian period of which I have already spoken. But that period is passing away, and we are passing into a new period. We are passing into the period of democracy, which is not concerned with controversies which often weighed most keenly among the middle classes, but is concerned in the first case with efficiency in administration. If you get efficiency in administration in the Church schools as well as in the private schools then you will find the controversy becoming very much less acute. The modern view, and it is certainly my own view, is that the parent is entitled to say in what religion the child is to be brought up. If that were to mean that he was entitled to interfere with the good administration of the school, as sometimes happened in the past, then I could well understand an acute feeling arising, but if you have already good system of administration, under which the Church schools, as well as other schools are properly administered, then you will find the controversy dying down, and you will have—I do not like the phrase of "right of entry"—but something like the provision of the religious education which the child's parent desires, and you will find the controversy becoming very much less acute.
As I understand the underlying principle of Mr. Fisher's Bill, it is this, that he has recognised that, and seeing that with the administration of the school system raised to a higher level this question will tend more and more to become less acute, he has left the thing to work itself out. Therefore, if I were asked to advise the Church, which I certainly have not been, I should say let things alone and you will find all you want gradually realising itself in the course of time. Everything depends upon the level of administration being high, and once granted that I think the controversies of the Victorian period which occupied so important a place when the level of administration was low will be found to be controversies that have come to occupy only a second place. Therefore I am entirely in favour of the policy of the Government, as embodied in this Bill, of leaving the religious question severely alone.
My Lords, it is not only in England that that policy has been successful. In Scotland in the education system, which I know fairly well at first hand, the same things has happened We are a very

1135
practical people in Scotland. Two years after the Education Act of 1870 was passed in this country, and fully aware of these controversies we had to pass an Education Act for Scotland, and the Scotsman in that day, and I dare say the Scotsman of to-day would do the same thing, pursued a policy which was characteristic of the nation. They set out in a pompous preamble that whereas it is the right of the people to have their children given such efficient education as they desired, and whereas it had been the custom in the public schools to give instruction in religion to children whose parents did not object, it is important that the education authorities be enabled by this Act to continue the practice. Then you turn to the conclusion of the Act to see what it is that they put in in order to vindicate the rights of the churches and you may search that Act from beginning to end without finding anything which gives any right to anybody. Having put in the preamble the Act remains in silence. There was a conscience clause which did nobody any harm and nobody any good. The result is that we have been able to work out our educational system with practically no religious controversy. It is true there are some things which would sound very odd to people here, where the School Boards have a Roman Catholic majority and the oppressed Protestant has to sit down under it. But we do not worry ourselves about these things. It is a simple illustration that when people do care about education and the level of administration gets up pretty high such controversies become of secondary importance.
I have spoken about what I think are the main features of the Bill, and I want to speak of one or two gaps in the scheme, and when I speak of gaps I do not wish it to be understood that. I speak with the slightest reproach to the authors of this Bill or the Government. They could not do more than lay the foundations, and I think that in this Bill they have laid the foundations as deeply as they could, but still it is only the foundations that are laid in this Bill. For example there are secondary schools. My noble friend Lord Muir Mackenzie, who has taken an immense interest in the public schools of this country, has spoken to your Lordships on other occasions about their value, and I agree with him. The leadership and development in character which our great public schools give has been the envy of Continental nations. True it is
1136
that in many respects our public schools are rather deficient in the mere matter of learning, but they are improving in that. In the training of leadership and character they have a very strong basis in their system. But then these great public schools touch only the merest fraction of the population. What we really lack badly in England—and I emphasise the word "England"—are secondary schools.
Wales has set up its Intermediate Education Board, but then Wales has a magnificent educational spirit. It has been my privilege for the last two years to be the chairman of the Royal Commission on University Education in Wales which has recently reported. The Commission went down to Wales more than once, sojourned with the people there, and imbibed something of their spirit. We became very much moved by what we found there. We found that part of the country—the Principality—moved and permeated by the spirit of education, and I have not the slightest doubt that Wales, given the opportunity, will work out all that is requisite for itself. It has the advantage of a democracy permeated by ideas. When you go to Scotland the case is even more striking. Scotland has now a really admirable system of secondary schools. I am informed by the highest authorities that you cannot put those schools into the places suitable for them too quickly. If you erect a new school it is full at once, and you have to provide another. The working class and the other classes are everywhere taking advantage of the system of secondary education. That is what happens when you have a democracy which has ideas.
I have been reproached—very unjustly I think, but one is not a good judge in one's own cause—for not insisting upon leadership and ideas but in looking to the democracy for inspiration. That is quite untrue. I have all my life believed in putting before the democracy, and pressing upon it, new conceptions, and in no department has that been more strikingly necessary than in the case of education. For the past twenty years some of us have been working at the new Universities. Well, the new Universities have been at last established pretty well throughout this country. There has been an enormous increase of them in the past twenty years, and it has been very marked the way in which, when those ideas were definitely put before places like Liverpool, Birmingham, Manchester and

1137
Bristol, these people have risen to the conceptions and what advantage has been taken of them. But still an enormous deal remains to be clone there, and what hurts the efficiency of the new University system in this country is the absence of a sufficient supply of secondary schools.
Contrast that with what you find north of the Border. I am speaking of what I know. In Edinburgh, Glasgow, in almost every centre, accessible even to the country districts, are excellent secondary schools. You can go there. Scholarships and facilities are provided. The result has been an enormous development in the last few years. It is quite true we have no Etons, or Harrows, or Westminsters, but what we do have is a set of perfectly admirable secondary schools, some of a less distinguished social character, others of a very good social character, but every class provided for. Such has been their permeating influence that almost everybody who desires to go on with education goes there. Quite lately I was chairman of the Committee of the Privy Council on Scottish Universities and it fell to us to consider an Ordinance for making a new matriculation examination for the Scottish University. As we, were a Committee of Scotsmen we held up our hands and said to our countrymen—" We are shocked. Examinationsa Have Scotsmen not got beyond the stage of external examinations? Do you wish us in the year of grace 1918 to set our hands and seals to a proposition for setting up some more external examinations in Scotland, even if they are handed over to the Scottish Education Department to conduct them on behalf of the secondary schools? "We suggested to them that it might be a better way if, instead of matriculation examinations, they would get rid of them altogether, and look on" record "in the admirable secondary school system in Scotland as the qualification for entering the Universities. It fell to my lot to go down to Scotland and preside over a series of conferences between the heads of the Courts of the Universities on the subject. They jumped at it, and the result is that an ordinance has been passed under which the entrance to the Universities is not to be by matriculation examinations but by the record of attendance in a Scotch secondary school. We have extended that so that pupils from public schools like Eton, Harrow, and Winchester, if they have a good report from the teacher on the way they have profited by their three years there,
1138
will be able to walk through the portals of the Universities, and attain the intellectual standard their abilities entitle them to.
We are growing into a new set of ideas, in which the external examination is being abolished, but it is painful to see how the external examination is being clung to in this Bill. To a Scotsman it is a shock to see that the matriculation examination of various Universities, and examination by other bodies, is to exempt from attendance at the continuation school. It may be necessary to have something of that kind. It may be necessary to make provision for our weak brethren, but it must be remembered it is a provision for our weak brethren, and that the real principle which ought to be followed is "record"; the record of opportunities profited by in the place of education from which you come. Until that is done you will never have a really national system of education in this country.
The difficulties caused by the absence of a good system of secondary schools is apparent in this Bill. Far from reproaching those who drew the Bill for ignoring these difficulties, I am glad they have made them apparent, but I am certain this Bill will be foundational in another sense. It is not merely a Bill for improving elementary education; it is a Bill for bringing out the absolute necessity for a great advance in the provision of Secondary schools. The reproach has been made, I think it was most effectively dealt with by the noble Earl who introduced this Bill, that it ought not to have been introduced in war time. It is a great revolution, and a costly one, but the money is "salvage money," and it is money which we could not afford not to spend. The Bill is really a war Bill. Some of us who have been watching for twenty years considered that there was a much more certain danger from Germany than the danger of the outbreak of war. That might, or might not, have been averted. It depended on circumstances which do not enter into consideration now. But there was one thing that was certain and quite clear, and that is, that Germany, realising clearly her object, had set to work by superior organisation to beat this country- out of the field; and what is more, I believe she would have done it. I am not sure there is anything that could have saved us except the convulsion of this war.

1139
Those of your Lordships who have the leisure to do so will do well to look in the Library at the Quarterly Review for October, at an article on the Baghdad Railway. It is obviously written by an extremely competent writer. At the end of it he quotes a conversation before the war with a distinguished German statesman. The German statesman said to him, "Wara We do not want war. It is quite unnecessary. The peach, when it ripens, will fall into our mouths as we stand below the tree." I think that that was strictly true. I used to watch these things with concern and pain. If we did anything here—and we did some really remarkable things in education here—they were at once repeated and trebled in Germany Money was always found, and, what was more to the point, energy and organisation were found and with our democracy without ideas, and with the painful lack of interest among our governing classes in the great cause of education, they would not listen to those who were deeply conscious of the danger that was growing up.
I am glad to say that we have now got a new chance. It will take Germany a long time before she can get to the level of where she was before the war, and we have been pushed on to a further level. I am quite certain that on the men in the Army the effect of this war—and no one could tell us better than my noble friend who sits opposite and who has been among them—has been to make the men feel that they require new knowledge and a new level if they are to save their country in peace as I believe that they will have saved it in war. If ever there was a measure which was a war measure—a measure necessitated by the war, a measure but for which no victory in this war could have profited us ultimately—it is this Bill, and I congratulate the Government for that reason on having made it a permanent part of their programme, and on having done all in their power to pass it through.
I come to another point, and that is the secondary schools on which I must say a word, because I think that that is a defect in the Bill, so far as it goes. I think that the Bill will have to go further. The principle of the Bill of course is devolution to the local authorities of the service for education. The Education Office simply superintends the process. But, my lords, there is a great deal more which I think will have to be devolved than is devolved
1140
by this Bill. It is not possible for the 319 local education authorities to cope with all the problems of higher education which are devolving upon them in an increasing volume under the change which it is proposed to make in our educational system. There are other questions—questions connected with secondary education, questions connected with the training of teachers, questions connected with scholarships, questions connected with transfers from school to school in the various parts of the country—of a character for local authorities to deal with, for they are too remote for the Board of Education to be capable of effectively grappling with from Whitehall.
In Clause 6 there is recognition of this necessity, and provision has been made for the local authorities working together. But when I look at Clause 6 I find that it is not in as good a form as the original clause in the original Bill as it was introduced into the other House. I know the difficulties that the Government had. I know how they were attacked upon this. I know how the ridiculous and absurd apprehensions of the local authorities came to be awakened, as if they were going to be interfered with, but I am sure none the less that before long you will have to go beyond what you have done in Clause 6.
It is all very well to enable these education authorities to federate. But federate for what? For their own purposes, for the objects to which they are limited. I want to see these local education authorities federating and taking into counsel the teachers of the universities in their localities for much larger educational purposes. I look forward to the day when the Board of Education will devolve the higher concerns of education as well as the concerns of elementary education, even as expanded in this Bill, and continuation education. I think that until you do that you will not have the educational commonwealth in a healthy condition. Still the Government has great difficulties to contend with, and it has gone probably as far as it felt it could do, and I am in the same frame of mind as my noble friend Lord Sheffield. I certainly shall not move any Amendment in committee on this subject but shall be thankful for what I have got.
The physical side of education is recognised in this Bill, and that is quite right; and there are the annual camps. Nobody

1141
realises more than myself the enormous value of these annual camps. We introduced them for the purpose of the Territorial Force, and we still have them in connection with the Cadet Force; but I frankly say I should have liked to have left the education authorities free to introduce the foundations of military forms and military training into these annual camps. I think it is another Victorian superstition that you encourage militarism by doing these things. Do what you like, you will never prevent boys from following military forms, and I suspect girls also after this war is over, and if you shut these things out you lose one of the greatest forms of stimulus to interesting the children in their own education. Therefore I hope that the spirit of the Boy Scouts and the. Cadet Force will be let loose as freely as the limits of this Bill, which are somewhat exiguous, permit in the development of that side of things.
Then there is another point. The continuation school system is admirable. It is really a form of secondary education, which no doubt will be given in connection with technical matters, technical matters being taken as significant of the higher principles which underlie them, and thereby the mind of the apprentices being stimulated. But still continuation schools are, under this Bill, more what the Workers' Educational Association desire and what Dr. Kerchensteiner has set up in Germany. Consequently they ought to afford a means of picking out of the vast reserve of talent, untapped talent, which we have in the children of our working classes, those who are specially deserving of being brought on to the higher line of education, whereby they may go through the secondary schools to the University. The continuation school gives an opportunity of picking out and bringing them across, but the Bill does not in terms establish the ladder by which the selected geniuses may pass from the one category into the other, and I think that before long it will be essential if we are to get the full good of this Bill that that should be developed, either administratively or in the form of another Education Act, recognising the enormous importance of taking the very best of the latent talent which there is among the boys and the girls who are the children of the working classes, and giving it that same development which it would have had had they belonged to a richer class.
1142
Finally, in the Bill itself there is, of course, very little about teachers, and, particularly, very little about women teachers. I have felt for long that the Board of Education may plant, and the Government may water, but it is the spirit of the teacher that will give the increase in this matter, and the spirit of the teacher is a spirit which requires to be encouraged. I gratefully acknowledge that the grants for teachers have been very much increased lately, but still more has to be done and the unrest which is to be witnessed among the teachers of every kind just now is a very significant unrest. I do not think we can over-estimate the importance of getting a well-appointed and well-contented corps of teachers to work the new system. I am certain that it lies at the root of the success of the whole matter. I know again how difficult it is to secure money for these things, and. I am far from reproaching people who have done as much as the authors of this Bill have done.
But yet I would have them do more, because I feel that more is required if this new system is to be made a real success. So far as the system as a whole is concerned I need not say, after what I have already remarked, that the Bill will have my warmest support. It is a great step on. It is characterised by a large spirit, and if it is a Bill which lays foundations, rather than completes the edifice, that is a necessary stage in a process which I am certain will not have ceased to become operative after the reception by this measure of the Royal Assent.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: My Lords, in the journey through the spacious fields of education which the noble and learned Viscount has just conducted with so much sureness of knowledge and skill, he praised the Bill before us because of the spirit in which it was conceived. But there were no words more true in the speech of the noble. Earl who introduced the Bill—a speech which has received so much general and deserved praise—than those in which he said that, after all, the Bill was only a framework, and that its success would depend upon the spirit not so much in which it had been conceived as the spirit in which it would be administered.
There is no doubt as to what that spirit should be. It is the spirit which recognises as the paramount and governing consideration, not the interests of the Board of

1143
Education, or of the local education authorities, or of the teachers as a profession, or of industries in need of labour, but of the actual child—the boy and the girl. The spirit in which we want to administer this Bill is the spirit which is determined to secure for every boy and every girl in the land the fullest possible opportunity for the development of the whole personality—body, brain, and spirit. What we want is that this spirit should prevade the whole community; therefore it is of the utmost importance to interest and to enlist in the cause of national education the largest possible number of our citizens. There has been, I think, in some places and at some times a tendency among local education authorities and even in the great teaching profession to say "hands off" to those who were not actually engaged in the work of teaching or in the administration of educational business. It is obvious that no mistake could be greater. What we want, if this Bill is to be the success we hope it will be, is to interest in the Bill and in its operation the largest possible number of the men and women throughout the land who really care at all for education.
I was rather sorry that the noble and learned Viscount spoke of still being possibly compelled to "fall back" upon the Church. I am sure that he meant only that he and others interested in education would be still most ready to co-operate with the Church. I hope—and the spirit of what he said strengthens the hope—that the day is past when there will be this suspicion and misunderstanding between those who have resolutely contended for the essential value of religious teaching and those who are in the forefront of educational reform. I feel quite certain that what is wanted is that educational reformers should realise that what the Church has stood for is simply that religion is as entitled as any other subject, nay, more entitled because of its intrinsic importance, to the best possible teaching, and above all, by teachers themselves trained and qualified to give it. If there is a recognition of that ideal in all the schools of the country I, for one, share the hopes that have been so frequently expressed in this debate, that the rancours and quarrels and misunderstandings of the Victorian period may be forgotten.
I do not think I wholly agree with the noble and learned Viscount that it is the
1144
success of educational machinery and administration which will dissipate these mists of controversy. It is only what I spoke of just now, the recognition of the intrinsic importance of religion as a subject of teaching in all classes of schools. Then he spoke of Scotland. I do not think what has protected Scotland from some of the evils of controversy in this country was the efficient administration of the Scottish schools. It was rather the general recognition among all classes in Scotland that, keen as they are to get on themselves, they do still recognise, as part of the use and wont of their nature, that man's chief end is to glorify God, and they are really keen upon the religious teaching in their schools.
But that is by way of digression. What I want to emphasise is the great importance, if this Bill is to succeed, of enlisting the largest possible number of men and women in its actual operation, and in carrying out all the varied field of activity which it opens up. I notice with great satisfaction the second section of Clause 4 which provides that the authorities who are responsible for promoting schemes under the Act "shall consider any representations made to them by parents or other persons or bodies of persons interested, and shall adopt such measures to ascertain their views as they consider desirable."
What I hope very much is that during the time in which these schemes are being considered and drawn up the local education authorities will invite the freest possible conference with all who are in any way concerned with the welfare of children, and of boys and girls. If they do, I venture to say just this, that I am sure they will find that what might roughly be called the Church of England, though it is really the managers of the schools and buildings belonging to our different parishes, will be the most ready to meet the authorities with the offer of buildings both for central classes and for continuation schools. Obviously, at the present time, it is not desirable to increase the building operations which this scheme will largely involve, and I am quite certain that there will be a most ready disposition on the part of the Church to offer to the local education authorities in framing their schemes, buildings, which though not perhaps always suitable for public elementary schools, will be entirely suitable for continuation schools or central

1145
classes. What we want is that the local education authorities should everywhere act on behalf of the educational life of the district, not only formally by way of election, but really by way of being a centre of co-operation among all who are concerned in any way with the education of the young.
Again, my Lords, the spirit which will make the Bill a success is one which suspects any rigid bureaucratic uniformity, whether central or local; and encourages freedom, elasticity, and variety of subjects, methods, and schools. Of course, there must be control. It is needless to take up your Lordships' time by dwelling upon that, both because public money has to be properly expended, and because the business of the State centrally and locally is to see that education everywhere is both sufficient and efficient.
But, subject to this, what one welcomes in the Bill is its recognition of the importance of making the system of education flexible and varied. It does so first of all in regard to the public elementary schools themselves. I do not mean merely in the provision made for practical instruction, as it is called, or for advanced instruction, but in the fact that it extends the time during which every boy and girl in the country will be under educational influences. Hitherto the teacher, we know, has been cramped unfairly by the narrow limits of the educational life of the child. He had to assume that its education would come to an end just when it ought to be almost beginning. The result was that in all our schools the tendency was to encourage instruction rather than education, and I need not take up your Lordships' time by pointing out that the two things are very different. Instruction appeals to the memory of the child and is necessarily a diminishing quantity. Education appeals to the intelligence of the child and is necessarily a progressive quantity; but it has been extraordinarily difficult for our teachers because of the cramped limits of the educational life of the children really to take time to educate the children, to get hold of their own intelligences, and make them their own teachers.
I have sometimes been inclined to say in a quasi paradox that the ideal would seem to be for our elementary schools to have the best possible teacher, receiving the highest possible salary, teaching the fewest possible subjects, to the smallest possible class. That would seem more possible
1146
under this Bill than ever before, because the Bill not only raises the status and stipends of the teachers, but makes the elementary school only one stage in a progressive education. I believe that under this Bill it will be more possible for our children to pass out of the elementary schools in what we should all recognise to be a much more satisfactory condition—able, I mean, not so much to answer questions as eager everywhere to ask them; and my hope is that the main functions of the continuation schools will be to continue and develop the sense of curiosity and general interest which the elementary schools, have aroused.
With regard, in the next place, to the new classes of schools established under the Bill, there is also this welcome recognition of elasticity and variety. First with regard to the nursery schools which it is proposed to establish. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Sheffield, to whom many of us have for many years looked for guidance in educational administration, I welcome and do not regret the permission given in Clause 19 to the local education authority to aid the supply of, as well as to supply these nursery schools, and I also welcome the permission given to the Board by grants in aid under proper conditions to help such schools when they are established. I feel that it is of the greatest possible importance that nursery schools, under the management of women who are closely connected with the homes and the mothers of the children, should be encouraged.
Allusion has been made to the nurseries already in existence in connection with schools for mothers and other agencies of the same kind. I think it is a great advantage that these should have an educational character given to them. One shrinks from the thought of elaborating the instruction of infants of two and three, and yet I know what was said by a great leader in educational methods to a mother who complained of the slow advance of her boy, though, she said, she had begun teaching him when he was six years old. The educational expert replied, "Then I am afraid you began four years too late." I think it would be a great assistance to those nurseries that are already in existence if they were compelled to think not only of feeding the children but of actually, from the first, shaping and fashioning the working of their minds. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Sheffield, will see—at least I hope he will—in the working of this clause

1147
that it is of the greatest possible advantage to interest, in the actual teaching of the children, from the first, those who are in daily contact with their mothers and their homes.
Still more in connection with the continuation schools is there scope for variety and for experiment. I agree with what the noble and learned Viscount said. I am quite sure it is best that these continuation schools should be under Part II authorities in the technical terms rather than under Part III, because I think it is of great importance that these continuation schools should in every way mark a new departure, that they should be taken out of any of the ruts into which educational life and administration may have run. Especially I think it is of great importance that the area from which the teachers in these continuation schools are drawn should be enlarged. That is, partly, a practical necessity. It would be extraordinarily difficult to get teachers for these continuation schools, but, more than that, it will, I believe, be of the utmost advantage to the schools themselves that the teachers should be of every kind and class of educational experience. I am quite sure that there is a large number of men and women, themselves well educated and competent to teach, who would be most willing to throw themselves into the work with the opportunities these continuation schools will give.
We all know how many highly educated women during this war have found how much their lives are enriched by being devoted to one branch of service or another. When the war is over they will be eager to find opportunities in which the life of service which they have begun can be continued and fulfilled. I am certain there are many of them—I am speaking especially of women now—who are interested, and capable of spreading interest, in branches of science, history, literature and ethics, who would be very glad to be employed, if only as assistants, in these continuation schools. I am quite satisfied that the intention of this Bill is to open the door of teaching in these schools in the widest possible way. I think it was the Archbishop of Canterbury who said in our discussion yesterday that it would be an extraordinarily difficult thing to secure discipline in these schools, where boys and girls between fourteen and sixteen will be compulsorily brought together; and it will be more
1148
than ever necessary to supplement discipline by developing in every possible way variety in the subjects, variety in the teachers—anything that will stimulate and quicken the interest of the boys and girls.
I notice with particular gratification Clause 3, subsection (2) and I am very glad to notice the provision that, "The local education authority shall have regard to the desirability of including therein arrangements for co-operation with Universities in the provision of lectures and classes for scholars for whom instruction by such means is suitable." I most earnestly hope that, while in every continuation school there must necessarily be at least one highly trained permanent teacher, and in the larger schools a staff, there will be places given by means of these lectures, or otherwise, for the supplementing of the teaching of the school by men and women, of every rank and class, who have special experience, special knowledge, and who are specially competent to teach and interest boys and girls.
Here, also, may I say that I think it would be of great interest if many of these schemes that are presented for continuation schools—I am sure I shall have the sympathy of the noble Earl in charge of the Bill—include experiments in what is called co-education. I think it might be of the greatest possible value to try in these continuation schools to bring the boys and girls together in a sort of natural comradeship of thought and work, which I believe more than anything else may abolish that sex consciousness out of which, at that time of their lives, so much evil is likely to come.
It is in regard to the country continuation schools that I think there is the greatest difficulty, and the greatest need of variety of experiment. I think it was the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, who pointed out what a difficult administrative problem these country continuation schools will present. In some parts of Yorkshire at any rate I do not see how these continuation schools can be managed unless the boys and girls, living at great distances, are brought together for a certain time in the winter months in some central town at a concentrated continuation school, and, if so, it seems to me that in some places arrangements will have to be made for their board during the time of their instruction. I venture to hope that possibly Clause 21 in the Bill, which provides for the boarding of children at elementary schools, may be

1149
extended to those who are attending continuation schools. That is a detail which I dare say the noble Earl may notice. The point is, that there is no class in the community for whom these continuation schools may do more than the farm boy and the farm girl. The children of the farmer are safe enough. They will probably go to the nearest secondary school, as they do now, but it is the boy and girl in the farm, and on the land, on whom so much of the future depends, that these continuation schools can do so much to help. I think it was the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, who said that it would be undesirable, even in these continuation schools, to devote too much attention to agriculture, but I venture to think there is a great difference between agriculture as an instrument of education and most other crafts and trades.
After all, agriculture means the production of wealth from the soil. It is the basis upon which all other production rests, and it ought to have a unique educational advantage of its own. I think it was Swift was it not who said—though I do not suppose his words would be echoed by many of your Lordships—that any man who will raise two ears of grain instead of one is doing more permanent good to his country than all the politicians put together. After the discussion earlier this afternoon it is unnecessary to labour the point. It is of extraordinary importance that we should make these farm boys become really skilled workmen upon the land, and men who have a real interest in country life, and a pride in it, and who will feel that to them has been given a place in the community of real value if they are citizens interested in agriculture, and believing that it is the basis of national prosperity. I earnestly hope that there will be such freedom and variety and constancy of experiment in these country continuation schools that they may he a source of supply of those citizens upon the land whom the country so greatly needs.
There are other ways in which this Bill allows great variety of experiment. I would particularly call attention once again—though I think both the noble Lords who preceded me called attention to it—to Clause 17 which permits the local educational authorities both under Part III and Part II, to make grants to supply or maintain or aid the supply or maintenance of holiday or school camps, and to provide facilities for social and physical training in the day or in the evening. I
1150
note particularly the use of the word school camps for young persons attending continuation schools, and I seem to see there a very happy picture rising before me. I see the continuation schools, especially in the country, being taken right out into a camp, and many of the hours that are obligatory being spent in teaching in the open air.
But the value of this clause is, of course, that it recognises the place of leisure in any reasonable system of education. I think that it was said by the late Bishop Creighton that the great object of education was not only to enable a man to get on, but to enable him to use the time in which he was not engaged in getting on. I believe that is profoundly true. This clause opens out a large field of co-operation with the managers of our cadets, brigades, scouts, guides and clubs in our towns and cities. I am sure that it would be an excellent thing for the authorities who manage these continuation schools to be in constant intercourse and co-operation with the managers of these institutions, men and women who are familiar with the homes, the life and the employment of the boys and girls, and who are striving day by day to build up their characters on a basis of self-respect, discipline and of religion. My Lords, I am sorry to have taken up so much of your time. I only desire to emphasise two directions of educational activity to which this Bill gives scope, the one the encouragement of variety in types of syllabus, teachers, and schools, and the other the endeavour to increase the number of citizens actually and personally concerned in educational work, and so to put education in its proper place as an essential part of the life of the whole community.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, I do not propose to follow the most rev. Prelate in the careful examination which he has made of the Bill to-night. I have risen merely to indicate certain points on which when we come to the debate before going into Committee we shall ask the Government for further information. I cannot help thinking that the present state of the House is in itself an indication of the disadvantage of the procedure against which we protested two or three hours ago, by which the Government, after asking us to discuss seven other Orders of the Day, two or three of them of great importance, have asked us after many hours of debate to

1151
begin upon the examination of this most intricate and most extensive and, as I think, very little understood measure.
Though I was not able to be present last night owing to another engagement, I have had the advantage of reading the speech made by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, who introduced the Bill, and I thought the one mistake of that speech was that he endeavoured to show what was done by the Bill. Now, if he had only addressed your Lordships on what was not done by the Bill he would have had a very easy task. There is practically nothing which, by the utmost stretch of the imagination, could be dragged in as part of education (with one exception which I will give your Lordships directly) which has not been placed within the purview of the Board of Education with regard to this measure. But, on the other hand, although I think the noble Earl gave himself unnecessary trouble in his exposition of the Bill his speech, admirable as it was, was singularly deficient in one particular. In a Bill which involves a larger expenditure of money than any Act of Parliament which is remembered by the oldest member of this House, there is not one single figure indicating what the expense will be to the country of this vast revolution.
The utter inadequacy of this debate may be shown by the fact that there has not been any attempt at determination of the enormous charge which is to be laid on the taxpayer and on the ratepayer by the Bill. I know your Lordships are not justified in making proposals for expenditure, but certainly it has not yet been held that we are not justified in criticising expenditure, and I could not help feeling in regard to Clause 17, to which the most rev. Prelate alluded a few minutes ago, that if you take that clause alone—quite apart from the refusal to allow fees to be levied for anything which may be in the minds of a municipal authority or the Board of Education—if you take that clause alone it is so expansive that there is the means for the most profligate expenditure on the part of the municipal authorities in every direction—camps, physical training, equipment, public buildings for school baths, and in general other facilities for social and physical training in the day or evening, involving every kind of institute, everykind of large building, without any further authority by Parliament of any description. I do not think there is any parallel to this
1152
extensive demand on the public purse, to this complete faith in a Public Department. And this at a moment when it is well known that the public expenditure—which I see Lord Inchcape proposes to indicate next week—is likely to be the most serious consideration with which we shall have to deal after the war.
There is only one remark which I would make on that clause. While every other kind of business which is not national is included in the clause the elementary principles of drill which, by every consideration and by all the experience of the past four years, is one of the most necessary things to enable individuals to fulfil a duty which may be laid upon them, is one of the points which is not included in the clause, but which I shall invite your Lordships in the most definite terms to include. I think in this connection I shall have the measure introduced by the noble and learned Viscount in 1907 to support me.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: The noble Viscount has my sympathy, but—
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I thought I had the noble Viscount's pledge almost in writing, but we can examine that when the time comes. There are many points in the Bill which all of us welcome, amongst them being the amendment as to the employment of children and others. But I want to point out two things. In the first place I want to call attention to the unlimited powers which are given with regard to 5,500,000 children and a very large unspecified number of young persons in the continuation schools. If you are dealing with so vast a number you have the right to know the sort of limits within which your liabilities are going to be kept. At present those limits are undefined. Wherever lax language could be used it has been used in this Bill; and to ask your Lordships on July 24 to attempt to introduce order into this Bill which was introduced into the House of Commons on February 25, involves us in the dilemna in which the noble Lord, Lord Sheffield, placed us just before the dinner adjournment, when he told the House that he hoped that any criticism in the way of provisions which would alter the Bill would be taken merely as memoranda for future guidance, but that they were not to be so pressed as to delay the progress of the Bill.

1153
I entirely dissent from that view. I think that if we are to be told that in a few days we are to go through the farce, before an audience of a dozen members out of 650, of registering a few speeches which cannot be listened to by the mass of the House, and which are certain not to be reported in the Press, and that when we get into Committee we are to follow the noble Lord's advice and make a few memoranda for future guidance twenty years hence—I am afraid, with all respect to the noble Lord, that he takes a different view of the duties of the Houses of Parliament from that to which I was brought up when I was a colleague of his in the house of Commons.
There is one remark which I should like to challenge in the speech delivered by the most rev. Primate last night. He said that there was no danger of this Bill being a rigid or a bureaucratic measure. I dare say he may be wise in the use of the word "rigid," but is he sure that the word "bureaucratic" was a felicitous one in the circumstances? I believe that this Bill gives the greatest power to the most gigantic bureaucracy which has ever existed in this country, and which will be housed in the Education Department—a power which enables them to take land for a dozen different purposes; which takes away every financial restriction which Parliament has hitherto imposed; which places in its power and in its ken the whole of the children of this country, almost from the day they were born, from two years old to eighteen; which enables them to set up creches for those who cannot look after themselves and cannot walk, and amusement centres in the holidays for all those who do not want to go home; to provide education for those who require it, further education for those who want to avoid it, and, by a wave of the hand, further education which is not to be restricted if any person does not happen to have the cash with which to pay for it, and which may go on to the age of seventy, as far as I can see, if the Board of Education thinks it is right.
The Bill has, we all know, great merits. The conception is magnificent. But the operation of it is likely, I think, to be one which will cause this debate, which would otherwise I fear go down unsung, to have some record in a suffering country which will wonder why, when some £40,000,000 to £50,000,000 were already being spent on education, a further sum—which is not to be specified, for purposes which it is taken
1154
care should not be defined—was placed upon Parliament at a time when Parliament was moribund, brought to this House at the end of the session, forced through by the action of the Government, after a warning, at the end of an evening which had been devoted to other and most interesting topics, and which is to be disposed of, if the Government can obtain the support and assent of your Lordships to it, in a very few hours of discussion next week.
I am not unfriendly from any point of view to the progress of education. I served for six years on the London County Council, and of all the defects of the bureaucratic and chaotic relations between authorities which I have ever seen, in the course of nearly forty years of public life, those between the Education Department and the local education authorities were, I venture to say—and I could prove it to your Lordships—the greatest. There was nothing in the way of conflict of ideas and of aims which, within the limits of education—which is a very large subject—was not to be found between these authorities. And to increase them tenfold, by a number of provisions which are specific or precise, seems to me to be one of those things with regard to which we ought to have been allowed longer time, in order to bring before those who are concerned the necessity of shaping this measure, in several of its more important provisions, more aptly for the service for which it is intended. My Lords, I have said more than I intended when I rose, but I feel very deeply on this subject, because I believe that the enthusiasm which we all have for a better system of education is likely to lead us into a very serious morass of difficulties as soon as this Bill comes to be put into operation.
LORD GORELL: My Lords, I will not detain you for more than a few minutes. I cannot claim to speak with the great authority or long experience, or to go into any of the detail which has characterised the speeches to which you have just listened. But I may perhaps helpfully say one or two sentences from a slightly different point of view. The noble Earl who introduced the Bill half apologised to your Lordships' House for the Government at this time bringing in a Bill which was not concerned with the direct prosecution of the war. I cannot be sure that that is not a recommendation. There is a great danger that, with the mass of necessary war legislation and with the eyes of all inevitably strained upon

1155
the present, the claims of the future may be, to some extent, overlooked; and while it is perfectly true that the future depends upon the present to a rather unusual degree, the present is to a certain extent limited and the future is infinite.
The noble and learned Viscount referred to the Army and to the way in which minds had been wakened up by the war. That is perfectly just and perfectly true. Men's minds in the Army have been awakened to a feeling for and a desire for education which is very remarkable and which one cannot but feel is one of the most hopeful signs for the future. Because they have been kept away from the things of the mind and the spirit they do realise their importance more than it was possible for them to do before. My Lords, I cannot in any way claim to speak on behalf of the Army, but I have been, as the noble Viscount said, among the soldiers, and I do know many people, officers and men, who are watching the progress of this Bill through your Lordships' House with interest and sympathy and appreciation, for after all though they can take but little part, they are very vitally concerned, because it is a Bill for their England, for the England of the future for which they are fighting now and to which they will return. There are many people in the Army who view this Bill as the first broad measure of reconstruction—of the reconstruction which will face us all and of the work which will be before the men in the Army to-day when they come back to civil employ. Therefore I wish most heartily and in every way possible to support this Bill.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: My Lords, before the Motion is put, I would like to be allowed to express in two words my very sincere appreciation of the spirit in which your Lordships have accepted this Bill. We have had an extremely interesting debate, with speeches from those who are perhaps more qualified than any to speak on educational subjects in this country; and there has been in those speeches a remarkable unanimity of appreciation of the principles of this Bill—a unanimity which, I think, must rouse the envy of those who in the past have been responsible for passing Educational Bills through Parliament. We used to regard education as an extremely controversial subject, and I think it is a great tribute to the President of the Board of Education that he should have introduced an Education Bill which has
1156
received so universal a tribute of appreciation.
There was, perhaps, a slight departure from this general chorus of praise in the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Midleton. I make no complaint—a little controversy is always enlivening—and even in his speech I think the criticism was directed as much to the manner in which the procedure of discussion had been arranged as to the Bill itself. I regret very much that the extremely eloquent and interesting speeches made to night should have been delivered in a House with so small an attendance, but I really think that the charge that we have endeavoured to rush the Bill through with undue haste can hardly be supported. We have allowed two days for the Second Reading of the Bill, and I do not see any evidence of such a desire on the part of many noble lords to take part in the debate as would have justified us in giving it another day. It is the desire of the Government to give sufficient time for the consideration of the measure, but having regard to the speeches made I think the time which it is proposed to give for the Committee stage is amply sufficient for the proper consideration of the Bill.
There have been some questions of detail raised in this debate, and I do not for a moment suppose that the absence of criticism means that there will be no difference of opinion about the details of the Bill. I am quite prepared for criticisms to be made on various points as we go through the Bill in Committee. I think in the main, however, that those questions may be left to be dealt with when we get into Committee. I think the noble Viscount, Lord Midleton, if I may say so, attributed rather more to the Board of Education under this Bill than he was quite justified in doing. He seemed to imagine that the Board of Education was going to exercise enormously wide and arbitrary powers over the children of this country from an age before they could walk until they had almost one foot in the grave. But the powers given under this Bill are powers which are going to be exercised in the future, as they have been exercised in the past, by popularly elected bodies, to whom powers in respect of education have been delegated by Parliament. It is quite true that the powers will be carried out under the supervision of the Board of Education, but, in so far as there is a large power of super-

1157
vision over the children of this country those powers will be exercised by the local education authority.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I do not quite clearly understand. Will there be any control by the Treasury, or is it merely a question between the Board of Education and local bodies?
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I think the question of expenditure will be entirely in the hands of the local education authorities. The noble Lord said that opportunity for profligacy was provided by this Bill. I really do not think the word "profligacy" is justified in this connection. It is true that local education authorities will have large powers of spending money, but we must remember they are responsible to the persons who elect them, and the money they will be spending will be the money of those persons who elect them. I think it is rather late in the day to say we must not give power of spending money to popularly elected bodies for fear that the consequences may be that large sums of money will be spent.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I do not like to interrupt the noble Earl, but he will surely recollect that in all previous Bills a limit bas been placed upon the amount which can be charged on the rates in a number of instances. All these limits are stow struck away. What I wanted to know is this—Supposing the local authority and the Board of Education agree to spend £10,000,000 on buildings in one year, has the Treasury, which has to provide the money, any power to restrain them? Perhaps the noble Earl would rather answer in Committee. It is an important point.
TEE EARL OF LYTTON: I would rather not go into technical matters, and I speak subject to correction, but is not the noble Lord thinking of a rate limit imposed on educational authorities with regard to their expenditure in respect to higher I education? That certainly has been removed under this Bill. The amounts of the grants made by the Board of Education have been under the control of the Board of Education and under the control of Parliament. I do not, however, think the noble Lord is justified in saying that all previous Education Bills have placed limits on the amount that local education authorities may spend in respect of elementary
1158
education. If I am wrong in that connection I shall be corrected, but I believe that is right.
I quite admit that there was a serious omission from my speech on Second Reading. I did not give to your Lordships any estimate of the expenditure which was likely to be incurred under this Bill. I had to leave out a large number of subjects as it was impossible to deal with everything, and I did feel that it would be extremely difficult to give anything like definite figures as to what this Bill may cost. The cost of the Bill will depend very largely on the extent to which its powers are used. That, again, must depend upon the authority to spend money which the bodies will receive from those who elect them. Figures have been given by the President of the Board of Education in another place indicating, I think, that the raising of the school age and the continuation schools taken together would involve au additional expenditure of something approaching £10,000,000, but that has already been questioned, I think, by Lord Sheffield, who thought the expenditure was likely to be a great deal more. At any rate, it is not an expenditure which can be accurately estimated at the present time.
I should be quite prepared to answer any question as regards that, or any other point, when we are in Committee, but I quite think the noble lord is justified in say in g that this was an omission in my statement on the Second Reading. With that exception I think most of the points raised by noble lords were points which can best be dealt with in Committee. I should like to express my thanks to Lord Sheffield and Viscount Haldane, speaking with such great educational authority, for the approval they have given to the Bill. The criticisms they have made were very helpful and suggestive, and personally I am extremely grateful to them, and to other noble lords who have spoken, for the general tone of approval given to this measure.
LORD SHEFFIELD: Will the noble Earl allow me to make an explanation. What I said was that Lord Crewe, when he was at the Board of Education, estimated the cost of bringing about such changes as are contemplated in this Bill at £10,000,000. I said I thought the President of the Board of Education had estimated that the continuation section

1159
alone would cost £10,000,000, and that I considered the whole cost would be a great deal more than £10,000,000.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: May I ask the noble Earl on what day he proposes to put the Bill down for Committee?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Wednesday next.

PARLIAMENT AND LOCAL ELECTIONS BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and returned to the Commons.

NAVAL PRIZE BILL
Brought from the Commons; read la, and to be printed.
House adjourned at ten minutes before eleven o'clock.