Sitting of 25 July 1918

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
County of London Electric Supply Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
West Sussex County Council (Bridges) Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Scarisbrick Estate Bill [Lords] (by Order),
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Yeadon and Guiseley Gas Bill,
Ordered, That the Order [14th February] that the Yeadon and Guiseley Gas Bill be read a second time be read and discharged.
Ordered, That the Bill be withdrawn.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 9) Bill,
"To confirm a Provisional Order of the Local Government Board relating to Manchester," presented by Mr. STEPHEN-WALSH; supported by Mr. Hayes Fisher.
Ordered, That Standing Order 193 A be suspended, and that the Bill be read the first time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Bill accordingly read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 77.]
Papers laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—

1. Public Records—Copy of Additional Rule, dated 16th May, 1918., for the disposal of Documents which are not considered of sufficient public value to justify their preservation in the Public Record Office [by Act];

2. County Court (Rules)—Copy of County Court Rule, dated 22nd July, 1918, amending Rule 9 of the County Court (Registration Appeals) Rules, 1918 (Time for hearing Appeals under the Representation of the People Act, 1918) [by Act].

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    MERCHANT SEAMEN (CAPTURE BY SUBMARINES).
    Mr. STEWARTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has official information to the effect that commanders of German submarines have been ordered to take as many merchant seamen prisoners as possible with the object of conveying them to prison as convicts; and, if so, what steps are being taken to protect British merchant seamen?
    Mr. JAMES HOPE (Lord of the Treasury): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. No information of the kind referred to has been received. I may, however, assure my hon. Friend that His Majesty's Government will at all times do everything possible to protect the interests of our gallant merchant seamen.

  IRELAND.

    POLICE RAID, CLONCANNON.
    Mr. KINGasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that at 4 a.m. on 13th July a police sergeant named Gardner and a constable broke into a house at Cloncannon, Edenderry, King's County, that the house is one in which a poor woman lives alone, that no warning or request for admission was given, and no explanation was furnished; whether it was in pursuance of any Regulation under the Defence of the Realm or any Order under the Crimes Act, 1887, signed or authorised by the Chief Secretary, that this was done; and whether any other result was obtained than possession of the book, "Life of Daniel O'Connell" which the police took away?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Shortt): I am informed that on the 11th inst. the police entered under lawful authority the house of Margaret Cummins of Cloncannon. Ample warning was given by the police before entering. The book referred to, which contained a Sinn Fein card, was taken by them.
    Mr. KING: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that it was at 4 o'clock in the morning, as stated in this question, and

    1973
    can he explain why such an extraordinary time was taken for such an outrage as this?
    Mr. SHORTT: The visit was perfectly legal and not an outrage. That was the most desirable time to make it.
    Mr. KING: Does the right hon. Gentleman really believe that an old lady visited at four o'clock in the morning, who lives there by herself, can take such a visit without grave concern, without being upset, and probably her health affected?
    Mr. SHORTT: She did not happen to live there by herself.
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman peruse the copy of "Daniel O'Connell's Life" with a view to obtaining an elementary knowledge of Irish history?
    Mr. DEVLIN: Would this lady have been attacked if the only book in the House had been a life of Lloyd George?
    Mr. SHORTT: That has nothing to do with this question.

    RECRUITING.
    Major NEWMANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, for purposes of recruiting, Ireland has been divided into ten areas, to each of which has been assigned the duty of furnishing a quota of recruits by 1st October; and has he been able to ascertain if it is the intention of the Government only to apply the Military Service Act, 1918, to such areas as have not furnished their quota of recruits by that date?
    Mr. SHORTT: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part of the question, the matter referred to is under consideration.
    Major NEWMAN: When shall we know what the areas are?
    Mr. SHORTT: The areas are already formed. The question is being considered at the present time as to the quota. I do not know what the result is.
    Major NEWMANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the scheme of recruiting in Ireland which is being carried out by a Committee of four gentlemen was arrived at after consultation with and with the approval of the War Office, and is it being conducted under their supervision; and will he say whether the scheme is intended to find
    1974
    50,000 men to reinforce and bring to strength the Irish divisions of the New Army and Irish units of the Regular Army or to provide carpenters, mechanics, and others for non-combatant units at home?
    Mr. SHORTT: The War Office were consulted with regard to the scheme of recruiting. The Committee act independently, but keep in touch with the Irish Command, Admiralty, and Air Force. Recruits obtained will be used as recruits in Great Britain are used.
    Major NEWMAN: In view of the fact that these men will be voluntary recruits and not conscripts, will they be allowed the same choice of battalions and units as men who are not conscripts?
    Mr. SHORTT: They will be all for Irish units, and they will have their choice of regiments as far as possible.

    SCHOLARSHIP EXAMINATIONS (IRISH HISTORY).
    Colonel YATEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the series of questions on Irish history set in an examination for scholarships in Ireland under the auspices of the Christian Brotherhood, recently published under the head of how Irish crime is nurtured; if he will state whether the schools of this Christian Brotherhood are recognised for Grants by the Irish education authorities; and whether these education authorities have power to disapprove of school books or historical courses which tend to inculcate disaffection?
    Mr. SHORTT: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The Christian Brothers' Schools receive Grants from the Intermediate Board of Education in connection with the examinations held by the Board. The National Board of Education exercise, so far as National Schools are concerned, the power as to books and instruction referred to in the question; but the Christian Brothers' Schools are not in connection with this Board, nor subject in any respect to the Commissioners' control.
    Mr. KILBRIDE: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see that these boys educated in these Christian schools will be acquainted with the history of Geraldus Cambrensis, the biggest liar that ever came to Ireland?
    Mr. SHORTT: I will consider that.

    COAL, MULLINGAR ASYLUM.
    Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will state whether a large asylum like Mullingar District Lunatic Asylum, which yearly requires 3,000 tons of coal, is threatened to have its coal supply commandeered by the War Office in consequence of having got half its supply into stock slightly in advance of its requirements; and if he will take steps to prevent 1,000 poor lunatics being deprived of necessary heating for the coming winter?
    Mr. SHORTT: The Mullingar Asylum authorities formerly were supplied with large quantities of coal from the Irish coalfields at Wolfhill. Recently arrangements were made on their behalf to get supplies from South Wales, and a large surplus stock was got in. As other consumers in Dublin and elsewhere, including important works, required coal, it is not desirable that the asylum should have supplies which they do not require. Moreover, with the view of regulating coal supplies in the best possible way, it is laid down that supplies should be drawn from the same source and through the same channel as heretofore. The legitimate requirements of the asylum are having, and will have, every attention.
    Mr. FARRELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the resident medical superintendent has been served with notice as to the commandeering of this coal by the Coal Controller?
    Mr. SHORTT: Yes, Sir. He has been treated exactly the same as anybody else with a supply of coal, but every provision is made for them to have their full share of what coal there is going.
    Mr. FARRELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it has always been the practice in this asylum to secure the fuel required for the winter at latest by the 1st July?
    Mr. SHORTT: It is loot a matter of the date of the accumulation, but the amount of the accumulation.
    Mr. FARRELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that whereas 3,000 tons are required, up to the present they have only received 1,000?
    Mr. SHORTT: They are better off than other people.

    CONCERT PROGRAMMES (CENSORSHIP).
    Mr. DONOVANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that at Bray, county Dublin, a concert in aid of the anti-Conscription fund being raised in Ireland was only allowed to be held after the programme had been submitted to the police authorities; whether the programmes of concerts promoted by the Unionist and Orange organisations of Ireland have first to be submitted to the police authorities before the performance is allowed; and, if not, will he say why this has not been done?
    Mr. SHORTT: About a fortnight ago, in consequence of information received that seditious songs were to be sung at the concert in question, the head constable called on the manageress of the picture house at Bray where the concert was to be held and warned her. He did not ask to see the programme. The manageress said she would caution the promoters, and that she would not permit anything seditious, and in the course of the concert she interrupted one of the singers who was singing a song relating to the Rebellion of 1916 which seemed objectionable. It is not the practice of the police to require concert programmes to be submitted to them.
    Mr. NUGENT: Is the information of the right hon. Gentleman definitely in reference to the Rebellion of 1916 or the threatened Rebellion of 1911?
    Mr. SHORTT: My information is in reference to the Rebellion of 1916. If the hon. Gentleman wishes, I will make further inquiries.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Will the songs glorifying the rebellion organised by the Ulster provisional Government be suppressed?
    Mr. SHORTT: If they are seditious they will be.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Are the police to be the judges of what is seditious?
    Mr. SHORTT: No; not at all.
    Mr. FIELD: Will "Croppies lie down!" be included in the programme?

    JURY TRIALS (CHANGE OF VENUE).
    Mr. DONOVANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that a number of criminal charges arising out of circumstances politically motived have been transferred from counties in the South and West of Ireland to the venue of the city of Belfast; and whether,

    1977
    in view of the decision of one of His Majesty's judges in Ireland overruling the Attorney-General and refusing to transfer a case of this kind to Belfast on the ground that an impartial trial of such cases could not be had there, steps will be taken to end the practice of sending political prisoners from the South and West of Ireland to be tried before their political opponents in the northern province?
    Mr. SHORTT: It is not the fact that venues have been changed in cases in which the hon. Member describes as politically motived from counties in the South and West of Ireland to Belfast. There have been fifteen cases transferred for trial by special juries to Cork City and five to Belfast. The case referred to in the question was one in which two men were charged with raiding a dwelling-house for arms in the King's County. In the judgment of the Attorney-General no question of religion or politics was involved in this transaction to prevent its being tried with perfect impartiality by a special jury at Belfast. Having regard, however, to certain statements made in the affidavits on a motion to change the venue from Belfast to Cork, Mr. Justice O'Connor thought it better the case should be tried at Cork. There is no foundation whatever for the suggestions contained in the latter portion of the question.
    Mr. DILLON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these proceedings are being taken under the Crimes Act of 1887, and that the leaders of the Liberal party to which he belongs gave a pledge in this House that they would never resort to that Act?
    Mr. SHORTT: I do not know
    Mr. DEVLIN: If these transfers have not taken place because of political reasons, why has the venue been changed at all?
    Mr. SHORTT: It has been changed in order that a fair and impartial trial may be secured.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that an atmosphere which has been poisoned by the recent proceedings on the 12th of July against all Nationalists in Ireland is an impartial venue for the trial of Catholics from the South of Ireland? Is that in consonance with the right hon. Gentleman's Liberal principles?
    Mr. SHORTT: Each case must be decided on its merits. In those cases it was the best.
    Mr. REDDY: Is this because Carson is ruling Ireland?

    MEETINGS (PERMITS).
    Mr. DONOVANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland (1) why, in view of the fact that the National Organisation, of the United Irish League has not been officially proclaimed in Ireland, the police authorities are permitted to issue mandatory notifications against the holding of meetings of this constitutional body, coupled with threats of prosecution against those attending; whether any such notification on the part of the authorities was given to the promoters of the Orange demonstration held in Belfast and other centres in Ireland on the 11th and 12th July last; if not, What reason exists for discriminating in favour of the Orange lodges in this regard; (2) whether, in view of the fact that the Gaelic Athletic Association was not within the category of the organisations recently proclaimed as illegal in Ireland, he will say why the police authorities banned the playing of football and hurling matches under the auspices of this body except with the special permission of the authorities; whether it is intended to discriminate in favour of such fixtures as the sham battle of Scarva, cricket, golf, croquet, yachting, boxing, and other recreations as sports within the meaning of the terms of the Proclamation; and whether the promoters of all forms of outdoor and athletic matches in Ireland are required to apply for permission before holding their fixtures?
    Mr. SHORTT: All meetings, assemblies, or processions in public places are prohibited by Order of 4th July made under the Defence of the Realm Regulations, unless a permit is obtained. This equally applied and was enforced in the case of the Orange demonstration recently held in Belfast. What is described as the sham battle of Scarva did not take place this year, as a permit to carry arms would not be given. Any gathering which comes within the Regulation requires a permit, which is always granted in the case of bonâ fide sports or entertainments.
    Mr. DORIS: Is an hon. Member allowed to address his constituents in Ireland? And why did the Member for West Mayo

    1979
    get notice that he should not address a meeting of his constituents in Park last Sunday?
    Mr. SHORTT: He did not get any such notice. He may have been told that he could not address them without a permit.
    Mr. DILLON: Is the right hon. Gentleman going to introduce that law into this country—that no Member can address his constituents without a permit? Is that the democratic liberty for which we are called on to fight?
    Mr. DEVLIN: May I address a meeting of the Irish in Newcastle-on-Tyne without a permit?
    Mr. SHORTT: Yes. There is no necessity in Great Britain to get permits, because there is no necessity.
    Mr. NUGENT: In reference to the statement that the battle of Scarva was postponed, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the reason that the battle of Scarva was adjourned was because there have been a successful sham battle and a complete triumph in Dublin Castle?
    Mr. SHORTT: My information is contrary to that, but if my hon. Friend wishes I will make further inquiry.
    Mr. NUGENT: Might I suggest that he will communicate on the next occasion with Major Price, and he will get his information.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Could the right hon. Gentleman give us a demonstration of a sham battle in the Library?

    MRS. SHEEHY-SKEFFINGTON.
    Mr. SHEEHY: On a point of Order. I put down a question to the right hon. Gentleman which on the advance Notice Paper was No. 16, and it has apparently been omitted, without my consent. I should like to know whether I may not ask the question of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I struck out the question because it was practically the same as two or three similar questions which have been answered during the present week. Word for word it was exactly the same.
    Mr. SHEEHY: In which question asked by my hon. Friend (Mr. King) did he ask what crime had Mrs. Sheehy-Skeffington committed that would justify the Government in excluding her from her own country?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I will procure copies of the questions and send them to the hon. Member if he wishes. I have not got them all in my mind at this moment.
    Mr. SHEEHY: That question was not put.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think so.
    Mr. HOGGE: On the point involved in your ruling, do I understand that if a question is put on the Paper and is similar to another question that has been asked we are not entitled to have that question on the Paper?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think that that is a very convenient course, and that it saves a waste of paper and of time.
    Mr. HOGGE: I do not object so far as these reasons are concerned. I think that they are right, but the point is, Is a Member of the House entitled to put down a question which he wishes to put down, whether it has been put down before or not, as he may, for instance, wish to raise in Debate a point on the answer, which he is entitled to do? I only ask this as a matter of guidance. I am not challenging it, but I wish to know if it has been put down in a particular form is no other Member entitled to put it down in the same way?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Not for the purpose of obtaining exactly the same information. If there is any difference, by all means—yes.
    Mr. MORRELL: May I call attention to the fact that no question as to what offence this lady had committed was asked, except one supplementary question which was asked by me, to which no answer was given, and in those circumstances would it not be permissible to ask that question again?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I will look through the questions again, and if there is any difference between them and the question of the hon. Member, I will invite the hon. Member to put his question down.
    Mr. MOONEY: If a Member puts down a question, is he not entitled to some notice before the question is taken off, or is the only notice which he is to get to be the fact that he does not see it on the Paper?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I am sorry that the hon. Member was not given notice. I know that

    1981
    that is the usual practice. I will take care that it is followed in the future. I thought that the hon. Member had been given notice in the ordinary way.
    Mr. MOONEY: Is it not the duty of the Clerk at the Table, or whoever censors the question, to inform the hon. Member that the question has been struck out, or can a Member of this House have a question stopped without being told that it is being stopped?
    Mr. SPEAKER: In this case it was I who instructed the Clerk at the Table to take the question off, when I was looking through the questions; but I quite recognise that if an hon. Member puts a question down and it is not allowed he should be informed that it is not allowed, and I will take care that in future cases Members are so informed.
    Mr. SHEEHY: It is only now that I have been handed a card from the Clerk at the Table asking me to see him at the Table afterwards. I beg to give notice that in consequence of the way in which this question has been treated by the Ministers having the handling of it I will raise the question on the Adjournment.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The Minister had nothing to do with it. I am the only person responsible for it. I do not suppose that the Minister even knew.
    Mr. DEVLIN: I beg to give notice that on the Adjournment we will raise the whole question in relation to the Government, not in reference to your ruling at all, but on the whole merits of the case.
    Mr. KILBRIDE: Are we to understand that if English Members put down a question, concerning Irish matters we are precluded in that case from putting down a question about our own people and about matters that we ourselves are individually concerned in; are we to understand that your ruling means, Sir, that if an intelligent Englishman anticipates a question likely to be put on the Paper by an Irish Member, he can block that Irish Member from putting down the question himself; and are we to understand, Sir, that your ruling now gives an opportunity to certain Members in this House to use your ruling as a precedent to prevent Members on these benches from putting questions in which they are vitally concerned and relating to their own constituencies?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should not understand anything of the kind. I have said nothing to lead to that understanding.

    LIQUOR TRADE.
    Mr. O'DONNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether small licensed traders in Ireland who did not in the datum year get their supplies direct from the breweries have since last March got very limited supplies of beer and at an increased price; and whether he will take immediate steps to see that small traders get a fixed minimum supply per week?
    The MINISTER of FOOD (Mr. Clynes): I have been asked to reply. As I informed the hon. Member on 7th May, the distribution of beer in Ireland is governed by the Intoxicating Liquor (Output and Delivery) Orders, which follow the lines laid down by Parliament in the Output of Beer (Restriction) Act, 1916. Down to the 31st March there was a certain amount of beer in, Ireland on which no licensed trader had any statutory claim, and this was utilised by the Irish brewers to satisfy the needs of small traders. Owing to the necessity for increased restrictions this free beer is no longer available, and the difficulties of the small trader have revived. I am in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland as to what measures, if any, can be adopted in order to overcome these difficulties.
    Mr. O'DONNELL: Has it come to the right hon. Gentleman's knowledge that a large number of small traders, who get their supplies locally, have since the 1st April practically got nothing at all, and that some of those who have got a supply have had to pay a considerably increased price for it; and, if these facts have come to his knowledge, will the right hon Gentleman take immediate steps to deal with the matter?
    Mr. CLYNES: Facts of that kind have been placed before me, and it is for that reason I have said in my reply that the difficulties of the small traders have revived, and that I am now in consultation with my right hon. Friend as to the best means of meeting those difficulties.
    Mr. O'DONNELL: How soon may we expect to have some decision, as I have myself been personally concerned in this matter, and I am sorry to say that nothing has been done up to the present?
    Mr. CLYNES: There will be no delay in the matter.
    Mr. FLAVIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that several small licensed traders, although the Government compel them to pay the Licence Duty, since the 1st April have not had a bottle of beer or stout on their premises?
    Mr. CLYNES: That side of the question will be taken into account in seeking a remedy.
    Mr. FLAVIN: While these small traders have no beer or stout on the premises to sell is it fair to charge them the Licence Duty?
    Mr. CLYNES: I can assure my hon. Friend that there will be no delay in dealing with the matter.
    Mr. P. MEEHAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman take some steps to compel the wholesale bottlers to give to the small retail traders their fair share of the supplies?
    Mr. CLYNES: That aspect of the question will be taken into account.

    ULSTER VOLUNTEERS (ARMS).
    Mr. P. MEEHANasked the Chief Secretary (1) whether the Government have taken any steps to compel the surrender of the arms and ammunition held by the Ulster Volunteers; and (2) whether the Ulster Volunteers have been asked by the Government to surrender the arms and ammunition they exported from Germany for the purpose of resisting by force the application of an Act of the Imperial Parliament to Ireland; whether they have surrendered such arms and ammunition; and, if not, what action the Government propose to take in reference thereto?
    Mr. SHORTT: The Regulation in regard to possessing arms applies to Ulster Volunteers in the same way as to anyone else in Ireland. It will be enforced in Ulster in the same way as in the rest of Ireland, unless the arms are brought in and surrendered.
    Mr. DILLON: Can the right hon. Gentleman state, as a matter of fact, whether any houses have been searched in Ulster, or any arms taken up; and has he any information at his disposal showing that these arms were specially manufactured at Krupp's for the Ulster leaders, and sold at half the cost price?
    Mr. SHORTT: I know nothing about the price or place of manufacture. I think there have been some houses entered in Ulster, but I require notice of that question.
    Mr. MEEHAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question? Have the Ulster Volunteers been asked to surrender their arms, and is he aware that the purposes for which those arms were imported into Ulster was to remit the application to Ireland of an Act passed by this Parliament?
    Mr. SHORTT: I have heard that alleged.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer that part of the question as to whether Ulster Volunteers have been asked to give up their rifles?
    Mr. SHORTT: I have answered that. Yes.
    Mr. DEVLIN: No. Does the right hon. Gentleman state that they have been asked?
    Mr. SHORTT: Yes.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Then may I ask what answer the right hon. Gentleman has received?
    Mr. DILLON: Has a single rifle been given up?
    Mr. DEVLIN: May I ask what answer the government of Lord French, which is impartially administering the affairs of Ireland, has received from the Ulster Volunteers?
    HON. MEMBERS: Answer!
    Mr. DILLON: He dare not answer.
    Colonel Sir JAMES CRAIG: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the War Office were glad to borrow some of these arms, and also whether it is not better to provide against a similar contingency arising in future?
    Mr. SHORTT: Xo, Sir; I do not think that.
    Mr. DEVLIN: In view of the declaration that these rifles, instruments of great military utility, these weapons, have been lent to the Government, or offered to the Government, for the purposes of the War Office, will the right hon. Gentleman now ask for all of them?
    Mr. SHORTT: I do not know that they have been lent to the Government. I have already said once that we intend to get them.
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Will you ask the Attorney-General for England where those arms are? Sir Edward Carson will tell you?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I would remind hon. Members that there are a good many questions on the Paper to be asked.
    Mr. P. MEEHAN: I beg to give notice that I will raise this question on the Adjournment.

    SCHOOL TEACHERS.
    The following question stood on the Paper in the name of Mr. R. McNEILL:
    21. To ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he is aware of the dissatisfaction in Ireland with regard to the inadequacy of the remuneration of school teachers; whether he is aware that whereas other Civil servants have obtained four separate increases by way of war bonus, national school teachers have only received one or, in a few cases, two such increases; and whether he will take immediate steps to grant a war bonus on the full Civil Service scale of 19s. to 25s. per week to all school teachers in Ireland, including the assistant mistresses and first-grade teachers, who were excluded from the benefit of the bonus granted in December, 1917.
    Mr. McNEILL: I have been asked to postpone this question, and, in view of the anxiety existing on this matter, will the right hon. Gentleman be able to reply on Monday?
    Mr. SHORTT: I cannot definitely promise. I am in close consultation with the Treasury, and I hope to have it settled to-day or to-morrow.
    Mr. McNEILL: I will put the question down for Monday next.

    DUBLIN, BLESSINGTON, AND POULAPHOUCA TRAMWAYS.
    Mr. DONOVANasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that dissatisfaction exists among the farmers, shopkeepers, and the public generally of that portion of the county Wicklow catered for by the Dublin, Blessington, and Poulaphouca Tramways owing to the fact that only two trams per day are run each way, the last tram returning from the city of Dublin so early at 4.30 p.m., thereby inconveniencing a number of business people; and whether he will take steps to have a better service installed to meet the wishes of the people affected,
    1986
    especially as similar tramway undertakings are permitted to run trams at more regular and frequent intervals?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Wardle): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. I am making inquiries into the matter, and will let the hon. Gentleman know the result.

    AFFORESTATION.
    Mr. DONOVANasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether, in view of the denudation of Irish forests, he will take steps to give immediate legislative effect to the recommendations of the Committee on Irish Afforestation so as to secure, inter alia, Government aid for the planting and replanting of suitable trees at the proper season of the year; and if he will consider, in connection with the scheme for reafforestation, the advisability of acquiring compulsory powers to compel replanting in those forests and timber areas recently cleared owing to war exigencies?
    The VICE-PRESIDENT of the DEPARTMENT of AGRICULTURE, IRELAND (Sir Thomas Russell): The whole question of afforestation in Great Britain and Ireland has recently been the subject of a Report (Cd.8881) issued by a Subcommittee of the Reconstruction Committee. The Report recommends the adoption of a wide and comprehensive scheme of reafforestation for the whole of the United Kingdom, and is at present under consideration by the Government. The steps to be taken to replant woodlands which have been denuded of timber to meet war requirements are dealt with in the Report.
    Mr. FIELD: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether any steps will be taken to prevent the enormous felling of trees in Ireland at the present time?
    Sir T. RUSSELL: The only power which the Department has in that matter is that on estates which have been purchased under the Land Purchase Acts the cutting down of timber can be stopped by the Department, and we do that in most cases. Where we allow it to be done, we insist upon two trees being planted for every one that is cut down.

    INLAND FISHERIES (PROTECTION).
    Mr. FIELDasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether he is aware that com-

    1987
    plaints have been made respecting the destruction of fish in Irish rivers; and whether he can state what measures are being adopted by the Fishery Board to protect the spawning places of inland fisheries?
    Sir T. RUSSELL: No complaints of the nature referred to have been received either by the Department or the Board of Conservators for the Suir district. The spawning places for inland fisheries are protected during the appropriate seasons by bailiffs appointed toy the Boards of Conservators and by private persons interested in the fisheries. Valuable assistance in this direction is also rendered by the Royal Irish Constabulary.

    ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY FORCE FUND.
    Mr. P. MEEHANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the National Debt Commissioners have examined the appeal of the pensioners of the Royal Irish Constabulary for the State purchase of the Constabulary Force Fund (benefit branch), set out in a circular letter to Members of the House of Commons recently; if his attention has been called to charges of maladministration and to the extracts from Treasury Minutes, 20th February, 1891, admitting faultiness of administration; and if the Government will at once advance the amount necessary to purchase the subscribers, which will probably be repaid to the Treasury in about twenty-five years hence by retention of annual interest on War Loans, etc., and subsequent realisation of capital?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): The answer to all parts of the question is in the negative.

  ALIENS.

    ARREST IN IRELAND.
    Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will state the grounds on which Rudolph Nieman, Roman Catholic organist at Longford, was recently arrested and interned; whether he is aware that this man's wife and three children are left wholly unprovided for and in a destitute state; whether the local district inspector reported this to Dublin Castle; and what steps are to be taken to enable this woman and her children to live during the internment of her husband?
    Mr. SHORTT: This man, a German alien of military age, was arrested and interned, as it was considered undesirable to have him at large. The district inspector reported that this man's wife and family are believed to be without means of subsistence, and she has been told to apply to the Longford Board of Guardians, who are empowered to afford assistance to the wives and children of interned enemy aliens.
    Mr. FARRELL: Why should the ratepayers of the Longford Union be compelled to support this woman whose husband has been taken away practically without any notice to her or any means of providing for her in his absence?
    Mr. SHORTT: Because it is rather undesirable that they should starve.
    Mr. FARRELL: Is it a fact that in the case of other aliens arrangements have been made to provide for their wives and families when their breadwinner has been taken away in this manner?
    Mr. SHORTT: Arrangements have been made in this case.
    Mr. REDDY: Will the right hon. Gentleman recommend her to Lord Milner?

    GEORGE VON CHAUVIN (SIEMENS, WOOLWICH).
    Colonel FABERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether George yon Chauvin is a member of Siemens, electrical engineers, Woolwich, and when he was naturalised; and whether this firm have accurate cable-laying charts of the North Sea, the Mediterranean, and the Atlantic?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir George Cave): I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given on 1st July by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy. Mr. Chauvin's certificate of naturalisation was granted on 29th October, 1914, and will, of course, come under review if the Nationality and Status of Aliens Bill becomes law. As regards the last part of the question I have no information.
    Colonel FABER: Has the right hon. Gentleman got any information about the latter part of the question?
    Sir G. CAVE: I think the question should be put to one of the War Departments.

    ALIEN ENEMIES IN THE PRESS.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Home Secretary whether the search for men of German origin in the public service can in any way be extended to the Press of the country, seeing that the Press fulfils ever more powerfully a public position in the government of the country by the creation of public opinion.
    Sir G. CAVE: I regret that I have no power to extend this inquiry in the manner suggested.

    GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
    Mr. ROCHasked the Home Secretary if he can now give the names of the Committee appointed to consider the cases of persons not the children of British-born subjects employed in Government Departments and the Terms of Reference to the Committee.
    Sir G. CAVE: As this Committee will be concerned with all the Government Departments, the appointment will be made by the Prime Minister. As soon as the Committee has been appointed, a public announcement will be made.
    Mr. ROCH: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication whether this will be made before the Recess?
    Sir G. CAVE: I have no doubt it will.

  CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
  Mr. KINGasked the Home Secretary whether he can now receive the deputation of women's organisations opposed to the proposals of the Criminal Law Amendment Bill which were anxious to lay their views before him last Session?
  Sir G. CAVE: The Select Committee appointed to consider this Bill will, no doubt, be willing to receive evidence from representatives of women's organisations. If, after the Committee has reported, it is desired that I should receive a deputation upon the subject, I shall be ready to do so.
  Mr. KING: Inasmuch as the Home Secretary has received deputations for this Bill, is it not only fair and even sportsmanlike to hear the other side?
  Sir G. CAVE: I entirely agree, and I am willing to do so.

  EARLY CLOSING (LONDON).
  Mr. GILBERTasked the Homo Secretary whether he will state when the present Early Closing Order will expire in London; whether it is intended to renew the Order; and can he state if it is proposed to vary the hours for the closing of shops in London during the forthcoming winter?
  Sir G. CAVE: The Order expires on 30th September next. I have no doubt that it will be renewed, but I cannot say at present whether in the same or in a modified form. The Order is a war measure, and the action taken must depend on the circumstances as they exist at the time of its expiry.

  STANRIGG PIT DISASTER.
  Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department whether a special inquiry will be instituted into the causes of the moss subsidence at the Stanrigg Pit, Airdrie, which resulted in the loss of nineteen lives; and whether the operations undertaken with a view to obtaining access to the workings and to the recovery of the bodies of the entombed men have now been completed?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Brace): Yes, Sir; it has been decided to hold a special inquiry under the Coal Mines Act into the circumstances of this accident. The operations in progress for obtaining access to the workings are not completed. The inspector is urging the owners to expedite the work.

  KELLNER-PARTINGTON WOOD-PULP COMPANY
  Colonel W. THORNEasked the Minister of Blockade whether he will state definitely the date at which the Austrian Government opened negotiations for the acquisition of the Kellner-Partington interests in that country, either with the existing or previous board of directors; and why there was no reason to believe that this sale was in contemplation in December last, in view of the reply of the Treasury at the end of last November to the effect that they had licensed the

  1991
  sale of the Austrian properties of this company under the Trading With the Enemy Acts?
  The MINISTER of BLOCKADE (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): In reply to the first part of the question, I have no information as to any negotiations by the Austrian Government for the purchase of the Austrian properties before February of this year. As regards the second part of the question, the reply of the Treasury to which the hon. Member refers related to the sale of the shares in the Kellner-Partington Company to Norwegians, for which the Treasury licence was necessary because these shares carried the control of the Austrian properties.
  Colonel THORNEasked the Minister of Blockade whether he was informed that shipments of wood-pulp were made by the Kellner-Partington Company from Sweden to Switzerland; whether he can state how the journey was made and what boats carried the goods, and at what port were they discharged for their Swiss destination, and if he can state the name of the consignees?
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I presume the hon. Member refers to the shipments made by the Swedish companies controlled by the Kellner-Partington Company. As my right hon. Friend informed the hon. and learned Member for York on the 16th July, inquiry is being made into these transactions.
  Colonel THORNEasked the Minister of Blockade whether he is aware that among the pulp companies in Sweden controlled by the Kellner-Partington Company of Manchester is a firm known as the Molnbacka-Trysil A/B; that the profits of this firm for the year ending 1st October, 1915, were 740,000 kroner, and that the following year, despite an embargo by the Government of Sweden on the export of pulp to England and her Allies, the profits rose to 4,000,000 kroner; and whether he can state how that profit was made?
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I am not able to confirm the figures mentioned in the second part of the question, but I will make inquiry.
  Colonel THORNEasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state on what date an application was made to his Department by the Kellner-Parting-
  1992
  ton Wood Pulp Company of Manchester to licence the sale of their Austrian interests; and on what date was the licence referred to in the replies of November and December last granted by his Department?
  Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): A licence was granted on the 9th July, 1917, for the sale of the shares and debentures of the Kellner-Partington Wood Pulp Company including the control of the company's properties and undertakings in Austria, subject to the approval of the proposed purchase by the Foreign Trade Department and to the remittance to and retention in this country of the purchase price. The application in respect of which the licence was granted was dated 7th July, 1917.

  SOUTH METROPOLITAN GAS COMPANY (EMPLOYES).
  Colonel THORNEasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that the trade unions having members employed by the South Metropolitan Gas Company have applied to the company for the payment to their employés of the award of the Committee of Production of 27th March, 1918, and that the company have replied that the matter is in the hands of their co-partnership employés' council; that this reply has been considered unsatisfactory by the members of the unions concerned; is he aware that the unions, on behalf of the members, have given the statutory twenty-one days' notice to the Chief Industrial Commissioner for the purpose of having the dispute referred to arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the Munitions of War Act; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Bridgeman): The Chief Industrial Commissioner received on the 20th July an application from members of certain trade unions employed by the South Metropolitan Gas Company for the payment of the 12½ per cent. bonus on earnings, with the request that the case should be referred to the Committee on Production.
  My right hon. Friend is informed that the company have been asked whether they are willing to concur in this course, but as yet there has been no time for reply.

  PRISONERS OF WAR.
    HAGUE AGREEMENT.

      STATEMENT BY SIR G. CAVE.
      Sir J. CRAIGasked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to announce the terms of the new Hague Agreement as to prisoners of war?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I should be obliged if my hon. and gallant Friend would await the statement which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary proposes to make at the end of questions.
      Mr. RUNCI MAN: I beg to ask the Home Secretary whether he can make any statement in regard to British interned prisoners in Switzerland, and the conditions governing the access of their relatives to them?
      Sir G. CAVE: I ask the permission of the House to make a short statement for the information of Members with regard to the agreement recently concluded at The Hague as the result of a long and difficult negotiation. It is not possible at present to state the full effect of the agreement, but in substance it may be divided into two parts—the first relating to the exchange of prisoners and the second to their treatment. With regard to the exchange of prisoners, the agreement provides for the repatriation of all combatant prisoners of war who have been eighteen months in captivity, and of all civilians who wish to return home. The combatants are to be exchanged man for man and rank for rank; but as to the civilians, under which head there is a wide discrepancy in numbers between the two countries, even as regards male civilian prisoners, the difference is to be compensated by the return of additional British combatants in proportions specified in the agreement. The exchange includes the combatants and civilians interned in Holland and Switzerland.
      With regard to treatment, the agreement follows generally the lines of the Franco-German Agreement, but there are special provisions for improving the conditions of prisoners of war with regard to employment in mines, to the retention of prisoners in an area of operations, to notification of capture, to examination by neutral medical commissions, and to other matters. The agreement is to terminate on the 1st August, 1919. It is estimated
      1994
      that by that date a total number of combatants and male civilians approximating to 120,000 will have become eligible for repatriation. It is, I think, important to bear in mind that the agreement will not take effect unless ratified by both Governments, and is subject to a special reservation made by the German delegates. Speaking for myself, I venture to express the opinion that it is undesirable to enter into any detailed discussion of the terms of the agreement until ratification has been secured.
      Mr. J. HENDERSON: Does it include officers as well as non-commissioned officers and men?
      Sir G. CAVE: Yes.
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Is it 120,000 on both sides?
      Sir G. CAVE: On each side.
      Mr. ALBION RICHARDSON: Have the War Cabinet yet decided whether the agreement should be ratified by the British Government, and, if not, when is that decision likely to be reached?
      Sir G. CAVE: A decision has not yet been taken, but it will, I understand, be taken in a day or two.
      Sir J. CRAIG: Before ratification, would it be possible to begin with an exchange amongst the soldiers?
      Sir G. CAVE: I should be glad if that could be done, but I doubt whether the German Government would agree to it.
      Sir J. CRAIG: Is it not worth while for the right hon. Gentleman to press this, seeing that it would not trespass on any of the special terms of the agreement, to allow an immediate evacuation of prisoners below the rank of N.C.O. on both sides?
      Mr. R. McNEILL: Will German civilians interned in this country be repatriated under that agreement, whether they desire to be repatriated or not?
      Sir G. CAVE: No, Sir. So far as the agreement goes, they will only be repatriated if they desire it. Whether they will be repatriated for other reasons is a matter to be determined hereafter.
      Mr. McNEILL: Will the result of that not be that some British combatant prisoners will be retained in captivity to gratify the desire of civilian Germans to remain in this country?
      Sir G. CAVE: I think we had better not discuss that matter. I have already given the House the information.
      Colonel Sir F. HALL: Were the other matters to which the right hon. Gentleman referred not also subjects of correspondence as to whether it has been impossible in many cases for British prisoners in Germany to correspond with this side?
      Sir G. CAVE: The question was fully discussed and it is provided for in the agreement.

      MONEY AND PARCELS FOB HOLLAND.
      Mr. ALBION RICHARDSONasked the hon. Member for Sheffield (Central Division) whether any, and, if so, what, restrictions have been imposed, and, if so, why, upon the sending of money and parcels to British prisoners of war interned in Holland?
      General Sir IVOR PHILIPPSasked the hon. Member for Sheffield (Central Division) whether he is aware that complaints are still being received from British non-commissioned officers interned in Holland that they are receiving insufficient food, both in quantity and in quality, to keep them in health; and what steps he has taken, or proposes to take, to see that these British soldiers are immediately provided with the food to which they are entitled by their contract with the Government?
      Mr. HOPE: The whole question of rations and parcels for British prisoners of war interned in Holland has for some time past been a matter of concern to His Majesty's Government. Urgent representations have been made to the Nether-land authorities on the subject, and there is now good reason to hope that a satisfactory arrangement will be come to. The only restriction on the dispatch of money to prisoners of war in Holland is that in the case of all below non-commissioned rank a permit to receive the money must be obtained from the senior British officer in the camp. Full particulars of the method of transmission of money will be found in a pamphlet lately issued from the General Post Office entitled "Communication with Prisoners of War Interned Abroad."
      Mr. RICHARDSON: May I ask my hon. Friend whether he is satisfied that the Dutch Government put the same restric-
      1996
      tions on the German prisoners who are interned in Holland as they have put upon our prisoners?
      Mr. HOPE: I believe, as regards their rations, so far as I know there is no distinction.
      Mr. RICHARDSON: And clothes?
      Mr. HOPE: I should not like to answer that question offhand.

      CO-ORDINATION OF CONTROL.
      Colonel Sir J. CRAIGasked the Prime Minister whether steps have yet been taken to give complete control over all matters relating to prisoners of war to a member of the Government with Cabinet rank, a free hand, and the necessary time at his disposal to co-ordinate and sympathetically consider the various problems that have arisen and are likely to arise?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: A scheme for co-ordinating all work relating to prisoners of war is at present being prepared, and will be considered by the Cabinet as soon as possible.
      Sir J. CRAIG: Will it be possible to put the scheme under the control of a single individual to whom Members can apply in all matters affecting prisoners of war, so that the same confusion will not occur again?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: That is one of the objects, and one of the main objects, which is desired under the scheme of co-ordination to which I have referred.

      PARCELS FOR AUSTRIA.
      Captain STANLEY WILSON(by Private Notice) asked the Member for Central Sheffield whether, in view of the statement made by Lord Newton yesterday in another place, all parcels for Austrian prisoners of war in this country have been stopped in an endeavour to put an end to the pilfering of parcels for British prisoners of war in Turkey whilst passing through Austria, whether such a regulation should not at once be reconsidered in view of the fact that there are a considerable number of British prisoners of war in Austria, who subsist mainly on the parcels that they receive from this country, and who, if their parcels were stopped in retaliation, would be in danger of starvation. Whether he is aware that at the present time only a percentage of the parcels sent to British prisoners of war in

      1997
      Austria arrive, and in view of this, would he consider the advisability of sending all parcels for British prisoners of war, both in Turkey and Austria, viâ Switzerland, and the possibility of making an arrangement with the Swiss authorities whereby these parcels might be placed in sealed cases or sacks for the various camps and handed over by them to the Austrian authorities on the frontier?
      Mr. HOPE: No pilfering of parcels for British prisoners of war in Turkey while passing through Austria has taken place recently because the transmission of such parcels through Austria has been stopped for the past five months. It is for this reason, therefore, and not on account of any pilfering in Austria that the delivery of parcels to Austrian and Hungarian prisoners of war in British hands has been stopped, In view of the far greater numbers and necessities of the British prisoners of war in Turkey I cannot agree that this measure should be reconsidered on account of any possible consequent stoppage of the delivery of parcels to British prisoners of war in Austria. With regard to the latter part of the question I am happy to be able to inform my hon. Friend that the methods he suggests for parcels for Austria was adopted some time ago and I have seen a letter from a British prisoner of war at Salzerbad, dated the 8th June, in which he stated that the parcels had arrived in sacks on the previous day and that there was a decided improvement in the food parcels. Parcels for Turkey are also to be sent viâ Switzerland so soon as their transmission through Austria is resumed, and an endeavour is being made to arrange for their packing at Geneva and conveyance to Constantinople in special sealed sacks.

  INDIA (REFORM PROPOSALS).
  Colonel FABERasked the Prime Minister whether it is proposed to bring in Home Rule for India during the present Parliament?
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question, will he, in order to assure the Indian people in regard to the proposals for self-government, state that the Government will observe the same good faith towards them, and the same scrupulous regard for their pledges, as they have observed towards the Irish people?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I have no doubt it is unnecessary to make any such statement.
  HON. MEMBERS: They know you! One of the gun-runners!
  Mr. BONAR LAW: My answer to the question on the Paper is, No, Sir. I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement of the policy of the Government made on the 20th August last year.
  Colonel FABER: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether before that Home Rule Bill is brought in, he will consult the people who have lived in India all, or most, of their lives?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I began my answer by saying that we do not propose to bring in a Home Rule Bill for India.
  Mr. DEVLIN: That is straighter than you act towards Ireland.

  PARIS ECONOMIC CONFERENCE.
  Colonel YATEasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the Government is losing the confidence of the country owing to the delay in carrying out the policy of the Paris Resolutions; and whether the Government will now proceed to at once denounce the commercial treaties containing Most-Favoured-Nation treaty clauses and leave the statements to follow after?
  Captain G. LLOYDasked the Prime Minister (1) whether he is aware of the desire that His Majesty's Government should inform the country promptly as to what economic policy they propose for this country's adoption after the War; and whether he will make an announcement on this subject before the Recess; and
  (2) whether, in view of the fact that six months has now elapsed since Lord Balfour of Burleigh's Committee made its Report and recommendations in regard to economic policy, he can now state whether His Majesty's Government have adopted the findings of this Committee; and, if not, what economic policy do they propose in lieu of it?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I can add nothing to the reply which I gave to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Staffordshire on the 17th July last, when I said

  1999
  that a full statement on this subject would be made as soon as possible after the Recess.
  Captain LLOYD: Will the right hon. Gentleman not give us a reply before the Recess? There is a great deal of anxiety on the subject.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can assure the House that no irrevocable steps will be taken before that statement is made?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: No steps can be taken which do more than bind the present Government as to their views. I should have thought the answer I gave was sufficient explanation of the delay. The subject is of necessity being discussed now, not only at the Imperial Conference, but at the Imperial War Cabinet, and these discussions are not yet concluded.
  Colonel YATE: Considering the Conferences will be completed before the next Session, will the right hon. Gentleman not take action now?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: It does not follow that action must depend on that statement.
  Mr. DEVLIN: Does it depend on this statement?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: It does not follow in any case—in this subject or any other—that action may not be taken, although this statement has been made.
  Mr. S. MacNEILL: The Amendment is worse than the original.
  Major WOODasked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government still adheres to the policy of the Paris Resolutions; and, if not, whether he can state the intentions of the Government on the matter?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The second part, therefore, does not arise.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that statements are being made in the Press as to the intention of the Government with regard to carrying out those Resolutions, and will he take care that statements of that nature are made first to this House?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: No statements of that kind are being made with the authority of the Government.
  Mr. CHANCELLOR: Will a denial be given by the Government?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: It depends on whether they are false or not.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister if he is in a position to state the increases in separation allowances for wives, dependants, and the dependants of apprentices?
  Mr. ADAMSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now in a position to state the result of the inquiry into the present scale of separation allowances and the demand for an increase?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I would refer the hon. Members to the statement circulated yesterday.
  Mr. HOGGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why, when it is admitted by the War Cabinet to increase the separation allowances, a statement was published outside the House that no addition at all is made to the separation allowance for wives; will he say, further, why the Government promised to give this answer on Thursday, and the answer postpones all the payments until 1st November, i.e., over the Recess?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: No such promise was made by the Government except that the subject would be considered. That has been done, and the result was contained in the answer I gave yesterday. As to the merits of the proposals, they can be discussed, I think, on the Vote of Credit.
  Mr. HOGGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for a definite day on the Vote of Credit?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The hon. Member knows as well as I do that it does not depend on me.
  Sir F. HALL: Has any provision been made in this new scheme for the difference of 7s. 7d. a week payable to the men in receipt of the family allowance and those who are in receipt of the ordinary separation allowance; and, if no provision has been made, whether steps will be taken to remedy the difference between the two

  2001
  and bring the family allowance at least up to the same basis as the separation allowance?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: It really is not possible to deal with that in question and answer. I think it would be very suitable to discuss that on the Vote of Credit.
  Sir F. HALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an opportunity to discuss it before the House rises?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I have said it can be discussed on the Vote of Credit, and I have no doubt the matter can be arranged.
  Sir J. BUTCHER: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of bringing out in simple tabulated form the various allowances to wives, children, and dependants of soldiers who are serving?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I thought it was.
  Mr. WINGasked the Pensions Minister (1) if he is aware, in settling pensions on the principle of prewar dependence, of the disparity that arises between the pensions granted to the dependants of soldiers killed, notably parents, of those who enlisted in 1914–15 and the parents of those enlisting in 1916–17; will he take steps to remedy the difference, bearing in mind that the first-named were volunteers; (2) if, in the granting of pensions to the dependants of soldiers who are killed, especially parents whose sons were apprentices, students, or at early enlistment in low-paid positions on account of learning a trade or profession, he will take into consideration the prospective income of such, with a view to granting pensions more in harmony with the sacrifice made than under present circumstances are being granted?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen): The principle of dependence is, as the hon. Gentleman is doubtless aware, only one of those governing the grant of pensions to parents, the more important one being that no parent who has lost a son in the War shall be in want from the absence of support from that son. Apart from this, the principal of a flat rate separation allowance to parents announced by the Prime Minister last night will have an application to pensions and will do much to remedy the difference of treatment referred to by the hon. Member.
  Mr. WING: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman why he makes no promise of revision, and will he try to influence the Ministry of which he is a part to see that these very grave inequalities are remedied?
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I have already said that the application of the principle of separation allowances announced last night by the Prime Minister will go a long way to remedy that. I am not in a position to give details at present as to how it is to be applied.
  Mr. MACMASTERasked the Pensions Minister if he will see that the short and concise statement to the right of soldiers and sailors to pensions and of their dependants to allowances under the new Warrant is published in convenient pamphlet form before the Adjournment, and that copies are left for distribution to all interested, at the House of Commons, at the main naval and military stations, and at all post offices in the United Kingdom?
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: The pamphlet entitled "Soldiers' Pensions" is intended primarily for the use of disabled men and their dependants. A copy is given to each disabled man on his discharge from hospital, and I am now arranging for a copy to be enclosed with the ring-paper issued to every widow or other dependant. A distribution to the general public will also be made through the Government Information Bureau. I will arrange for copies to be delivered to the Vote Office for supply to Members of the House before the Adjournment.

  RUSSIA.

    EXPEDITION TO MURMAN COAST.
    Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether, in the course of the proceedings on the Vote of Credit, he will make a statement on the position on the Murman Coast and in Eastern Siberia?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think it probable that it will be possible, without detriment to the public interest, to discuss this question.
    Mr. KING: If it is found possible, will some announcement be made, in view of the publication yesterday of the Agreement under which the Allies have entered upon an expedition in Murman?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: On the Vote of Credit a statement will be made as full as possible with regard to the general War position, but I have no reason to believe at present that it will be possible to say anything with regard to this expedition.

  PARLIAMENTARY CANDIDATES (SOLDIERS' VOTES).

    INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE.
    Sir R. NEWMANasked the Prime Minister if he can state before the Recess what facilities His Majesty's Government propose to afford candidates seeking election to the House of Commons at the next General Election to place their views before those soldiers on active service abroad who are entitled to vote themselves and not by proxy; whether, when possible, arrangements will be made to allow these soldiers to receive the candidates' addresses, in order that in this respect they may have the same advantage of learning the views of those seeking their suffrage as the electors at home, and without which information in many cases their votes would be of little benefit to them; and whether, in consideration of the large number of these electors and the important bearing their votes must have at the next General Election, a Committee of this House, representative of all parties, could be appointed to consider what steps should be taken to meet a situation of considerable difficulty?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The Government is appointing an Interdepartmental Committee to inquire into the various matters raised in this question. I cannot, therefore, make any statement at present.

  VISCOUNT WIMBORNE.
  Colonel RAWSONasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the promise of the Government to give reasons for the granting of titles, he can state the reason for the bestowal of a viscounty on Lord Wimborne?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am informed that a viscounty of the United Kingdom was conferred upon Lord Wimborne in recognition of the services he rendered as Lord Lieutenant of Ireland from February, 1915, until April, 1918.
  Sir R. COOPER: Is it not a fact that the Government promised that when these titles are given some explanation of the reason would be made public, and in this case it was not so?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I should have thought that in the case of a Lord Lieutenant it was not necessary.
  Mr. KING: It he discharged his duties so well as to merit a viscounty, why was he asked to resign?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Who informed the hon. Gentlemnan that he was asked to resign?
  Mr. DILLON: Was he even given leave to resign—was he not kicked out?
  Mr. DEVLIN: May I ask whether everyone who is kicked out of a Government office gets a title?
  Mr. HOGGE: Was it because he had no knowledge of the plot which the Government discovered?
  Mr. DILLON: He would not invent a plot when he was asked to do so!
  Mr. S. MacNEILL: He was too much of a gentleman for that!

  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (SUBSISTENCE MONEY).
  Mr. J. HENDERSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the information promised by him as to subsistence money paid to Members will be circulated?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I find that it is not possible to state the amounts which are being paid at any given moment or the names of the recipients, as payments necessarily vary continually. The total amount involved is, however, small. It has always been the practice for Members of Parliament absent from home on work for Government Departments to receive subsistence allowance at the usual rates to meet the out-of-pocket expenses caused by such work.

  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if powers can be granted to boards of guardians to

  2005
  make supplementary grants to old age pensioners who are unable to avail themselves of the concessions granted, except the 2s. 6d. addition, but who, on account of the high cost of living, are in distressed circumstances and thus relieve many who are suffering extreme hardship?
  Mr. BALDWIN: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on the 16th instant to a similar question by the hon. Member for Newington West. To carry out the suggestion contained in the question would require legislation which I am not prepared to introduce.

  INCOME TAX STATUTES (CONSOLIDATION).
  Mr. MACMASTERasked when the Bill to consolidate the statutes in regard to Income Tax will be introduced?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: As I stated on the 11th instant, it is not anticipated that the Bill can reach this House until the end of this month.

  TORPEDOED VESSELS (EMPLOYMENT OF OFFICERS).
  Mr. STEWARTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can see his way to afford some provision in the way of a retaining allowance for the assistance of shipmasters and officers of torpedoed vessels during the time they are unable to find fresh employment owing to want of ships, in view of the fact that His Majesty's Government refuses to grant passports permitting them to go to America where they can get-employment which would enable them to support their wives and families?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY Of SHIPPING (Sir Leo Chiozza Money): I have been asked to reply to this question. I am considering sympathetically the case of these officers, and have to-day obtained from the Mercantile Marine Service Association particulars of the cases they have before them.
  I do not think it will be practicable to pay retaining allowances as suggested, unless the officers are actually employed by the Government, but I hope to be able to inform the hon. Member in the course of a week or so what arrangements for their employment are possible.

  INSURANCE AGENTS (SALARIES).
  Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked the Minister of Labour whether, having regard to the increased cost of living during the War, he proposes to take any action, following upon the Report of the Committee presided over by Mr. Justice Phillimore, to provide an increase in the salaries of insurance agents?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: This is primarily a matter for the companies concerned. My right hon. Friend does not feel that he can properly or usefully take any action.
  Mr. MILLAR: Is the Report of the Committee to be published?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: No, Sir; the Committee was a confidential one, and both sides agreed that it should be so treated.

  MUNITIONS.

    CENTRAL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).
    Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Minister of Munitions whether the Liquor Control Board prohibit the sale in their own houses of all intoxicating liquors, including beer as well as spirits, to persons of either sex under the age of 18 years, and if so, what steps they take to detect infringements of this rule and to punish such infringements; whether the Law Officers of the Crown have been asked for an opinion as to the power of the Board to enforce similar restrictions upon public-houses in their areas which are not under their ownership; and whether, in view of the complaints as to the consumption of intoxicants in public-houses by very young persons and the disastrous moral results therefrom, any steps will be taken to exclude persons under 18 from these places or to prevent their being supplied with intoxicants?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): The Liquor Control Board have made it a rule in the public houses under their own direct control in the Carlisle district that persons under eighteen may not be served with spirits, and may only be served with beer for consumption with a meal, and the managers are instructed to enforce the strict observance of this rule. The Board have not consulted the Law Officers of the Crown as to their powers to enforce similar

    2007
    restrictions upon public houses generally. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Home Secretary to the hon. Member for Oldham on 10th July.
    Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Minister of Munitions who is the manager of the Board of Control for the Carlisle area; what was his employment, and at what salary, before his appointment to Carlisle; what was his commencing salary at Carlisle; has this salary been increased; if so, how many times and the amount of each increase; whether this gentleman's former post was kept open for his return; whether he has now advised his former employers that he does not desire this to be done; if so, is this due to any decision to make the position permanent by the Control Board, which was set up for the period of the War only; and, if so, by what authority a temporary board can make a permanent post?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: The Central Control Board's general manager for the Carlisle district is Sir Edgar Sanders. His salary has been at the rate of £2,200 per year since his appointment. He was formerly Clerk to the Liverpool Licensing Justices. Shortly after the establishment of the Board, the Justices placed his services at the disposal of the Board so as to enable him to act as assessor to the Board for England and Wales. I understand that Sir Edgar Sanders has resigned his Liverpool appointment, but he has no contract of definite duration with the Central Control Board.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: What was his salary before he was employed by the Board?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I should like notice of that.
    Mr. G. TERRELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that was one of the questions asked?
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: It is actually in the question.
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I think not—"what was his commencing salary at Carlisle?"
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: "What was his employment, and at what salary, before his appointment to Carlisle?"
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I will get that information.

    RATES OF WAGES (BELGIANS).
    Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the Minister of Munitions whether he has received any complaints regarding the rates of wages being paid at the works of Messrs. Leenaerts and Dolphens; whether he is aware that the workpeople (Belgians) are not receiving the rates paid for similar work to other workpeople and that, in addition, the piece-workers do not receive the7½ per cent. nor the timeworkers the 12½ per cent.; and whether he will make inquiry into the matter and ensure that these workers receive the rates of wages in accordance with the district standard, the orders of the Ministry of Munitions, and the awards of the Committee on Production?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: According to my present information the wages paid by this firm compare favourably with the standard wages for the district. Inquiries are being made into the question of the 12½ per cent. and 7½ per cent. bonuses.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    CATTLE FEEDING STUFFS (IRELAND).
    Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked the Food Controller whether his Department, either directly or indirectly, during the months of May, June, and July, instructed shipping companies to refuse to accept consignments of cattle-feeding stuffs for Ireland; and if he will state how many shipping companies carried out these instructions?
    Mr. CLYNES: The hon. Member refers probably to an arrangement made by the Ministry of Food in agreement with the Irish Department of Agriculture whereby licences for shipment were granted only to importers nominated by the Irish Department. This arrangement, which was of a temporary nature, began on the 27th June, and was intended to continue pending the settlement of a more satisfactory scheme which it is hoped will be settled immediately.
    Mr. FARRELL: Does not that mean that the restriction will be withdrawn?
    Mr. CLYNES: It is but temporarily in existence.
    Mr. FARRELLasked the Food Controller (1) what quantity of millers' offal was made in the three kingdoms for the first four months of this

    2009
    year; how much millers' offal was sent to Ireland during the same period; (2) what was the total output of cattle feedingstuffs during the first four months of 1918; and what quantity was made in Ireland during the same period?
    Mr. CLYNES: The figures which the hon. Member requires are not at the moment available, I have given instructions that a Return should be prepared and sent to him. I may, however, state that in respect of oil cake and cake meals for Ireland the proportion in 1913 was taken as the basis of allocation. The allocation of millers' offals was left out of the question because England and Ireland were still manufacturing their normal proportion of offals, and also because of the possible increase in the imports of grain for this season's harvest in North and South America.
    Mr. FARRELLasked the Food Controller whether he recently issued instructions to feeding-stuffs manufacturers as to how these feeds were to be allocated as between England and Ireland; and if the manufacturers carry out these instructions?
    Mr. CLYNES: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. My advisers are in consultation with the Irish Department of Agriculture with regard to the best method of distributing cakes and meals allocated to Ireland. Until fresh arrangements are completed, shipments by private firms will be continued in the usual way.

    LEMON CHEESE.
    Mr. T. WILSONasked the Food Controller if he is aware that lemon cheese and other articles of food of a similar manufacture are extensively used as substitutes for jam; and whether he will place the manufacturers of these articles in as favourable a position as regards the supply of sugar as the manufacturers of jam are in?
    Mr. CLYNES: Sugar is issued as freely as possible for the manufacture of jam in order that the food supplies of the country may be increased by the preservation of fruit which would otherwise to a very large extent be wasted. This consideration does not apply in the case of lemon cheese and other similar jam substitutes, and, in view of the necessity for conserving the sugar stocks, the answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.
    Mr. WILSON: In view of the shortage of food, can the right hon. Gentleman see his way to increase the amount of sugar granted to the manufacturers of jam and the substitutes?
    Mr. CLYNES: I am sorry to say that supplies are not adequate to increasing the quantity of sugar available for these purposes.

  PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  Hamilton Estates Bill [Lords],
  Reported, without amendment; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the third time.
  Wandsworth, Wimbledon, and Epsom District Gas Bill [Lords],
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: May I ask how far the Leader of the House wishes us to proceed to-day with the business, and what business will be taken to-morrow, if it is necessary to sit on Friday, and also what business will be taken next week?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: As regards to-day, I should like to take all the Bills on the Order Paper down to No. 6 (Supply), and, in addition, we require to get Orders Nos. 12 (Trading With the Enemy (Amendment) Bill), No. 13 (Parliament and Local Elections Bill), and No. 16 (Education—Scotland—Grants). That looks a formidable list, but I think it is possible they may be taken to-day, and on the chance of that I shall not move the Resolution that we sit to-morrow until the close of business this evening.
  As regards next week, on Monday we shall take the Debate on the Motion of the hon. Member for East Mayo (Government of Ireland);
  On Tuesday, Supply, the Shipbuilding Vote;
  On Wednesday, Supply, the Board of Trade Vote, on which hon. Members can deal with the Coal Order, and, if time permit, the Foreign Office and Colonial Office Vote;
  On Thursday, we shall take the Committee stage of the Vote of Credit; and
  On Friday, the Report stage of the same Vote.
  Mr. G. TERRELL: Does the Shipbuilding Vote on Tuesday give an opportunity for the discussion of the national shipyards?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes; I believe it is mainly for that purpose.
  Mr. DUNDAS WHITE: Is it intended to take the Second Reading of the Tithes Bill before the Recess?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: No, Sir.
  Mr. D. MASON: Has the Leader of the House any further information to give with regard to the strike at Coventry?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: No, Sir; I have none to give, and I do not think there is any to give. I had a discussion with the Minister of Munitions this morning.
  Ordered, "That the Proceedings on the Juries Bill [Lords], the Corn Production (Amendment) Bill [Lords], the Government War Obligations Bill, Public Works Loans [Remission of Debts] Report, and the Public Works Loans Bill have precedence this day of the Business of Supply."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]
  Ordered, "That Government Business be not interrupted this night under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House), and may be entered upon at any hour although opposed."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]

JURIES BILL [Lords].
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Limitation of Jury Trials in the High Court.)
Subject to the provisions of this Act every action, counter-claim, issue, cause, or matter, in the High Court in England requiring to be tried shall be tried by a judge alone without a jury:
Provided that—

(a) nothing in this Section shall affect any power to order a trial by two or more judges or by a judge sitting with assessors, or by an official or special referee with or without assessors, or by an officer of the Court; and

(b) in the case of any action, counter-claim, issue, cause, or matter in which fraud is alleged or in which there is a claim in respect of libel, slander, malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, seduction, or breach of promise of marriage, either party shall on making application for the purpose in accordance with rules of Court be entitled as of right to a trial with a jury; and

(c) if it appears to the Court or a judge that any action, counter-claim, cause, or matter or any question or issue therein, is more fit to be tried with a jury than without a jury, the Court or a judge may, on an application for the purpose made by any party in accordance with rules of Court, order accordingly: and

(d) nothing in this Section shall affect the right of any party under Section twenty-eight of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1857, to insist on having contested matters of fact tried with a jury, or the right of a heir at law, cited to appear in or otherwise made a party to a probate action, to a trial with a jury if he makes an application for the purpose in accordance with rules of Court.

Mr. BOOTH: I beg to move to leave out the words "a judge alone," and to insert instead thereof the words "two judges."
This may be provided for to some extent by the proviso, but I want to be sure about it. This is a very far-reaching Clause, and it takes away the immemorial right of a person to be tried by his peers. In this case I put this Amendment down because there surely must be many actions of a highly controversial character where it would be better to have two judges. This House in dealing with election petitions, and knowing it was a very thorny subject, provided that there should always be two judges to try an election petition, and one can easily conceive other subjects, like a great trade union dispute or an action against an official of a trade union, or questions involving the personal liberty of some acute character, which might be better dealt with by two judges. I notice in the proviso it is laid down that
"Nothing in this Section shall affect any power to order a trial by two or more judges or by a judge sitting with assessors."
Being a layman, I am not quite conversant where that power lies, and in what manner it is exercised, but if it meets my case I am prepared to withdraw my Amendment. I move it, however, in this case in order that the Solicitor-General may explain to the Committee a little more fully what that power is.
4.0 P.M.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Gordon Hewart): The fear which has been expressed by the hon. Member is based, I fancy, on a misconception of the provisions of the Bill. The hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) spoke as if the Bill, or some portion of it, would interfere with what are said to be the immemorial rights of Englishmen to be tried by their peers. But he will see, if he reads the Clauses of the Bill, that it will not have that result at all. Trial by jury in criminal cases is not interfered with, and that I rather gather meets his point. The object of the Bill, so far as it limits trial by jury, is to prevent such trial in cases other than certain classes of cases which may be described as cases involving issues relating to personal character. The effect of carrying this Amendment would be to defeat the scheme of the Bill, because it would provide that in ordinary cases, say, of action on contract or action of tort other than
2034
the torts mentioned in the proviso, there shall be need for the services of two judges, and I think that makes an impossible demand on the judicial bench. But I rather gather that what was in the mind of the hon. Member was a desire for further light as to the limits of paragraph (a). There is power there to order trial by two or more judges. I am not aware that there is at present, with one exception, any existing power to order trial by two or more judges. The case of election petitions is of course a different matter. But that is not the question which the hon. Member has in view. I would like to point out with regard to paragraph (a) that it makes no addition to the existing power. It leaves the rules of the High Court in that matter unaffected.
Mr. BOOTH: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his explanation, and ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. MARTIN: I beg to move, in paragraph (b) to leave out the words "in which fraud is alleged or."
I need scarcely say that actions for fraud come within the provisions of paragraph (a). They are actions in which there may be perjury more or less involved. There are any number of actions like that involving the personal element. I am a supporter of this Bill. I think it is an excellent measure, and instead of being looked upon as a war measure it should be treated as a permanent addition to the Statute Book. But I am asking the Committee to strike out this particular exception, because I believe outside, at any rate, one or two kinds of action, all such actions should be tried by a judge. Take, for instance, actions in which fraud is alleged. You will find that actions of that kind can now be tried by jury. When a man is charged with fraud and the jury finds him guilty he has very little remedy. It may be a most unfair decision, but it is very little use his going to the Court of Appeal on that issue, because the rule is that the Court of Appeal shall not disturb the verdict of the jury even although they may think there is practically no evidence to substantiate it. The Court may be quite clear that if it had been trying the case itself it would not have considered that the fraud was proved, but it is bound by the verdict of the jury on that particular finding, however perverse

2035
a verdict it may be. Suppose, on the contrary, this Bill is applied to action in which fraud is alleged, if the judge finds a man guilty of fraud he has an opportunity of going to the Court of Appeal and getting the case reheard by three judges, who are entitled to come to their own conclusion absolutely as to whether fraud has been proved or not. The Court is not in any way bound by the decision of the primary judge except in one particular. Courts of Appeal ordinarily will not interfere with the decision of the primary judge on questions of fraud and similar questions if they think that the demeanour of the witnesses in the case is the reason for the decision. Of course, they will have had no opportunity of seeing and hearing the witnesses which the primary judge has, but, apart from that one exception, they come to the rehearing of the case with a free mind; they are not at all bound, as they are in jury trials, by the fact that the jury has found against the man. They are just free to come to their own conclusions on the evidence quite unaffected by the conclusion of the primary judge except in the one case where the demeanour of the man has, in their opinion, brought about the decision.
The general rule now in force in the Courts with regard to trials for fraud is, generally speaking, that the fraud cannot be tried by a jury. For instance, all actions which are assigned to the Chancery Division cannot, under the present law, without a special order of the judge, be tried by jury. The great majority of Chancery actions are actions to set aside written agreements on grounds of fraud and misrepresentation and matters of that kind. Under the present law you cannot try these cases by jury, and I submit that that law is a very proper one. Why? Because a judge is ever so much more fitted to appreciate the question of whether there has been a fraud or not. When you try a question of fraud before a jury and a decision is given against one side it may be because the other side have counsel better versed in what one may call the tricks of the trade in regard to the handling of juries. That, of course, is not in the public interest. Public interest requires that persons charged with fraud should have the question of their guilt or innocence decided on the evidence alone. All kinds of other questions may be introduced in jury cases, and it is possible to bring in out-
2036
side questions with regard to the nationality or popularity of the individual, political and social considerations, and other matters which weigh with the jury. It is well known that when these matters are handled by a skilful lawyer they can be made to tell very much with the jury. A judge, on the other hand, is free to apply his mind to the question of the relevancy of the evidence given. He is accustomed to do so. While acting as counsel he makes a study of that, and when he reaches a mature age and becomes a judge he comes to his work with a life's experience in dealing with this most difficult problem of properly weighing the evidence which has been given.
Fraud is not a questionable action in the same sense as those other actions which are dealt with further on in this proviso. This proposal of the Government is practically, I submit, an entire reversal of the present procedure of the Courts with regard to actions for fraud which almost invariably come within the class of action known as Chancery actions and which the Judicature Act assign to the Chancery Divisions, where, generally speaking, there are no juries unless for some special reason the judge orders one. I do not seek to interfere with that. It is a general provision of the law that in all cases, if the judge thinks a jury ought to try the action, it shall be done. It is open to the judge to make the order accordingly. I submit that the Bill goes entirely in a wrong direction in this particular. Generally speaking, I repeat, it is a good Bill. It will result in many actions being tried upon their merits instead of being decided by those outside considerations which are apt to influence juries. The effect of this proviso will be that in future all cases with regard to written documents in which fraud or misrepresentation is alleged will be tried by a jury. That is, as I say, an entire change in the law, and it is not a desirable change. I hope the Solicitor-General will leave out these words. These cases are quite different from actions of slander or malicious prosecution. As every lawyer knows, there is no case so hard to try as cases in which fraud is alleged. It is very difficult to come to a proper conclusion on actions involving charges of fraud, and, therefore, I do submit it is better they should be tried by a judge.
Sir G. HEWART: The object of this Clause, as, no doubt, the hon. Member is

2037
well aware, is not to extend, but to limit the existing right of trial by jury in civil actions. It was felt by those who are responsible for the Bill that there must be some limit in regard to this matter, and the limit we chose is to leave the right of trial by jury in certain selected classes of case, if either party to the proceedings so desires. What are those cases? They are cases of fraud, cases of libel, cases of slander, cases of malicious prosecution, cases of false imprisonment, and one or two others. They may be briefly described as cases which involve not merely personal questions, which, I think, was the phrase employed, but questions of personal character. The House is no doubt aware that seven or eight years ago a Departmental Committee was set up under the presidency of Lord Mersey to look into matters relating to the constitution, the qualification, the selection, and the summoning of juries. That Committee, in the result, recommended a very considerable limitation upon the right to a jury in civil causes, but in its Report it added this observation:
"At the same time we must make one exception to the principle we have suggested. It is, we think, accepted, and for our part we agree, that in cases affecting persona] character, such as actions for fraud, defamation, malicious prosecution, etc., either party should be entitled to a trial by jury."
It appears to me to be a novel suggestion that in an action for deceit the plaintiff, if he is so minded, or the defendant, if he is so minded, should not have the right to a trial by a jury. I cannot imagine any more burdensome task to be thrown upon His Majesty's judges than that they should be called upon normally in a Common Law action for deceit to decide the issue of fact upon which the allegation of fraud depends. No doubt there are other frauds which are not commonly tried in the King's Bench Division, and it is really with regard to those frauds that the objection of the hon. Member mainly has to do. No doubt there are certain classes of subject-matter assigned by the Judicature Acts to the Chancery Division, and in those cases fraud sometimes comes in, but in a proper case in the Chancery Division either party to the action gets a jury now. That right is not extended. All that is being done by this part of the Clause is to protect the litigant upon the one side or the other in an ordinary action for deceit from being deprived of the benefits of trial by a jury. Part of the argument directed against the
2038
proviso was based upon the view that it is much easier to go to a Court of Appeal after a finding by a judge than after a verdict by a jury. I am not quite sure that I follow that discrimination. Nowadays, it is the practice in the Court of Appeal, if there is evidence upon which the verdict of the jury could be found, not to disturb it. In order that a verdict may be disturbed, if there is evidence to support it, it must be of a kind called perverse. But is it really seriously suggested that cases are common in which a jury finds fraud, and in which the Court of Appeal does not set aside the verdict when it ought to do so? In my experience, I have not only never known such a case, but I have never heard of such a case. The Clause as it stands makes on this head a reasonable and proper exception, and it is right that cither party to an action for deceit should be entitled, if he desires it, to the services of a jury. To say the contrary, is to go some way, not indeed the whole way, in the direction of the evil that was referred to a moment ago, of depriving a man of his right to be tried by his peers. Because, although no doubt in form a civil action for fraud is not the same as a prosecution for fraud, the effect upon the individual is often equally serious.
Amendment negatived.
Mr. MARTIN: I beg to move, in paragraph (b), to leave out the words "malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, seduction, or breach of promise of marriage."
The Solicitor-General has suggested that if you do not allow each party to an action for fraud the right to a trial by jury you deprive the individual of his right to be tried by his peers. Of course, that is true, but it is true of any action. The present law of this country does deprive a large number of litigants of their right to be tried by a jury, and, if that is to be the principle, it must extend to every kind of action. If you say that there should be a jury in an action for fraud, I cannot see why you should not have a jury for actions between masters and servants. I should say that in such actions it goes much further in the direction of depriving an individual of his right to be tried by his peers than in actions for fraud. Yet under this Bill disputes between masters and servants will always be tried by a judge, unless the judge decides

2039
otherwise. A judge, after the expression of opinion by this House, would not decide that such an action ought to be tried by a jury. I have left out one cause of action, as the Committee will see. I am quite willing that actions for libel should continue to be tried by a jury. This idea of the right of the individual to be tried by a jury arose almost entirely from the fight that was made a century and a half ago as to questions of libel. In those days an action for libel could be tried by a judge. Unfortunately the judges then were to a large extent influenced by the Court, and after some very gross miscarriages of justice, whereby individuals were found guilty of libel and heavily punished simply because they were asserting their political rights, the Act known as Charles James Fox's Act with regard to libel was passed. Before that the question whether the document was a libel or not was one for the judge. The jury had nothing to say about that. The judge directed them: "This is a libellous article and the only question you have to find is, Did this man publish it?" Fox's Act provided that that was no longer to be the case. The jury was to be judge of law and fact in libel cases. That is a privilege that I do not seek to change, although I believe with our present judges no such dangers are to be feared as were prevalent in those days. The Government practically controlled the judges of the time. I do not suppose that the Government to-day would attempt any such thing, although judging by some of the things that they have done in the last few weeks it is very difficult to imagine anything that they would not attempt.
With regard to these other actions, I put forward the same argument as I did with regard to actions of fraud. We want to have these questions decided on the evidence. We go to great expense in having a trained body of judges whose business it is and who are capable to decide these questions. Under the present system we throw a net out and gather in a certain proportion of the community, interfering with their other work. Merchants and busy men are always asking to be excused from serving on juries. The best men have not the time to give, and there is no desire among the people of the country to sit upon juries. They feel that they are handicapped in properly doing the work. That is another
2040
reason for doing away with juries. The Solicitor-General said that it would be adding greatly to the burdens of the judges to ask them to take into consideration these questions of fraud. I submit that that is a very poor argument indeed. What do we employ judges for? Why do we pay them the large salaries that we properly pay them? I do not object to their salaries. If you are going to have good judges, as we have, you have to give a man a chance of earning something like what he can earn by private work. It is a very poor argument for putting these questions before juries to say that it will save placing the burden upon judges. No doubt it is hard work, but it is work that they are capable of doing and for which they are paid. If it is imposed upon them, I am sure that they will carry it out as conscientiously as the other duties placed upon them. I therefore move the Amendment with the object of furthering the Government's purpose of putting the administration of justice in this country on a better basis. If these arguments are not good, why do not we give a citizen the right of having every action for which he is hauled into Court tried by his peers? After all, there is no distinction, except that a judge is competent to try the case on the merits and on the relevant evidence, and a jury is influenced by all kinds of considerations other than questions of relevancy and the evidence produced in Court.
Mr. DENNISS: The hon. Member has put a good many Amendments down, and many of them are founded upon a misapprehension. There never has been an absolute right to trial by jury in civil actions in recent times. In these actions for fraud, malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, seduction or breach of promise of marriage, to which he objects, the plaintiff or the defendant has always been entitled to have a jury. If he looks into the simplest law book with regard to the practice of the High Courts of Justice, he will see it is provided that either party shall have a right to a trial by jury. This Bill makes to change whatever in that respect. Perhaps if he had known that, he would not have said a good many of the things that he has said to-day. All that the Bill does is in certain cases to limit the right to a jury in civil actions.
Mr. MARTIN: Does the hon. Member think that after thirty years' practice in the law I am not aware of the conditions?
Sir G. HEWART: I fear that this is an Amendment which cannot be accepted. The hon. and learned Member for East St. Pancras has no doubt said a good deal which goes to support the Bill as a whole, but I am sorry to hear the Bill supported, even for a moment, by means of attacks upon the intelligence or impartiality of juries. I once heard an eminent judge say that in his experience juries were always right, and that if they appeared to go wrong it was because there was some imperfection in the way the case was laid before them. My hon. and learned Friend must perceive that, no matter how the right to a jury may be limited, there may nevertheless remain exceptional cases in which it ought to be continued. The effect of this Amendment, if carried, would be to remove from the class of actions in which there is to remain a right to a jury, actions for malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, seduction or breach of promise of marriage, and, for some reason or other, it would leave only actions for libel or slander as actions in which there should be a right to trial by jury. These other causes are clearly causes affecting personal character within the meaning of the Report from which I have just read an extract. For the reasons which I offered on the first Amendment relating to fraud, which I refrain from repeating, I submit this is an Amendment which ought not to be accepted.
Mr. RENDALL: The Solicitor-General in his very interesting remarks has explained why this particular class of actions are still to be tried by juries. I would point out that it is a class of actions in which the strongest emotions are aroused which are to be left to trial by jury, whereas it ought to have been exactly the opposite. All those cases where people do not have strong feelings, where they do not lose their tempers, where they can only fight, give evidence and reason matters out, might well go before a jury. The particular kind of actions you are leaving to be tried by juries are those—we have had some examples of them lately—where people have the strongest views, perhaps involving party feeling or Boloism, or something of that kind, in which all the feelings in the public mind are strongly aroused. You have newspapers first trying the case before it comes before the jury at all. Those are the cases which
2042
are still left to the jury. I regret that. The Solicitor-General might well put jury actions on one side at any rate for the duration of the War. I do not think any particular harm would be done. We are going to put juries on one side in all other actions where masters and servants are concerned. Those form a very large class of actions. I cannot understand why purely personal matters, which do not involve public policy or any public ends and which are merely quarrels between individuals, should be put on a pedestal and we should say that there must be a sacred trial by jury for them, while far more important matters, involving great principles, large numbers of persons and far larger sums of money, are to be handed over for trial by a single judge. It is a mistaken policy to exclude this particular kind of action, and I regret that the Solicitor-General has not been able to accept this Amendment or some modified form of it.
Amendment negatived.
Mr. MARTIN: I beg to move to leave out paragraph (c).
This paragraph provides that on an application to a judge, even in cases which by this Bill will be no longer tried by a jury as a right, the judge may order the case to be tried by a jury. One of the most important things in jurisprudence is to have the law well settled, so that when a person gets into trouble or thinks he is going to get into trouble regarding the law, he can go to a competent lawyer and find out what the law is. I am opposed to any discretion of this kind being given to His Majesty's judges, for the reason that no one can tell beforehand what a judge will do in a case of this kind It is fair to say that if an application of this kind were made to half a dozen judges, probably half of them would decide one way and the other half the other way. That is most unfortunate. We, as a legislative body, should undertake to lay down a general principle on which a person is to be entitled to a trial by a judge and also to a trial by a jury. The moment you make it a matter of discretion for the judge to whom the application is made, you are almost certain to get different decisions, all depending upon the particular judge to whom the application is made. Some judges, like myself, do not believe much in juries; other judges think that juries are an excellent institution, perhaps very largely for the

2043
reason given by the Solicitor-General, that they are in that way relieved of considerable trouble in disposing of the matters that come before them.
Sir G. HEWART: My hon. and learned Friend has done something less than justice to the scheme of this part of the Bill. What is that scheme? The Bill is engaged, so far as this Clause is concerned, in limiting in civil cases the right to a jury. It provides, among other things, that in the case of certain classes of actions either party shall be entitled as of right to a jury, but because that may not be enough and because there may be particular cases not falling within those categories in which there ought to be a jury, paragraph (c) gives a discretion to the Court or a judge to order a trial by jury—that is, in a case in which the Court or the judge is of opinion that the cause is more fit to be tried by a jury. That, I submit, on a fair view of the provision as a whole, is a reasonable and proper supplement to that part of the Clause that has gone before. My hon. and learned Friend entirely mistakes my meaning if he thinks that, when I was referring to actions of deceit, and I said it would be a burdensome task for the judge without a jury to determine the issue, I meant it was because it would throw hard work upon them. Judges like hard work. It is not because the work is hard, but because of the particular characteristic of the issue that I made the suggestion that it would not be right to require a judge alone to determine it. Where you have cases, like eases of fraud, affecting personal character, I submit it is right that the facts should be found by a jury of twelve, and that the judge should not be saddled with the peculiar personal responsibility of coming to a conclusion upon the contested matters of fact, but not in the least because I suspect or think that they would refrain from the mere arduousness of the labour.
Mr. DENNISS: Under the practice and procedure of the Courts for many years past the judge has had this discretion and has always exercised it. The Bill, therefore, introduces no new principle. I can appeal on that point to the Solicitor-General. This is no change of the law in any way. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for East St. Pancras may have had, and no doubt has had, a very distinguished career in the law for a great many years, but it has not been in
2044
this country, and if he will refer to the book which I see he holds in his hand, which is the manual of practice and procedure in this country, he will find it clearly laid down that the judge has a discretion to allow a jury in all these cases of libel, slander, malicious prosecution, seduction, breach of promise of marriage, and fraud.
Amendment negatived.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
Mr. BOOTH: This is the operative Clause of this portion of the Bill. It does not refer to increasing the juries available to perform the service, but it is the portion of the Bill which limits the right to trial by jury. I am thankful that the Government have not yielded to the pressure which came from the hon. and learned Member for East St. Pancras to take away the right to trial by jury altogether. Even in this limited way they are incurring a great danger. I do not mean in the actual practice of the law. The object of the Amendments which I had put down on the Paper, but which I did not move, was to lessen that danger. My view is—I may be wrong—that in the immediate future there will be a great tussle in this country with Bolshevism. I take the view that when that happens a jury will be a great bulwark in sustaining the legal administration. If it is removed, there will be an immediate agitation started antagonistic to the administration of justice. I am not hinting at something far away. This danger is upon us; it is ruling in Coventry and Birmingham at this moment. So long as trial by jury is preserved, you have an answer to the extreme democracy entering upon an agitation of that kind. But if you remove it, and this Clause removes it in some degree, then you will have an outcry from this quarter against judge-made law, class prejudice and so on. It is a very great danger. It may be that some hon. Members think I am looking too far into the future, but I am perfectly sure that in a few years it will be found that this warning is justified. Bolshevism has already overrun Finland, largely upon the point that munition workers drawing large remuneration are suddenly, owing to war conditions, thrown out of work. We may get that position in this country. A large number of the workers now getting high wages may suddenly be asked to go back to lower con-

2045
ditions of life. Then this evil will appear. It has already reached regrettable dimensions. I do not suggest that my right hon. Friend's proposals are not good and will not effect a good purpose immediately, but if this pressure is brought to bear upon him in the future—pressure such as we have seen to-day—to extend this Bill and amend this Clause, I hope he will bear in mind the grave dangers to which I have alluded. I wish they were not there, but one has only to go a little beneath the surface to find that the propertied classes in the immediate future will be in a position of challenge, if not of jeopardy. The middle and upper classes will be well advised to preserve wherever they possibly can the existence of the jury system as a bulwark between them and a fierce attack which they may not like to meet.
Question put, and agreed to.
Clauses 2 (Assessment of Damages), 3 (Limitation of Jurial Trials in the County Courts) and 4 (Limitation of Jury Trials in Other Inferior Courts of Civil Jurisdiction) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 5.—(Extension of Age for Jury Service, 6 Geo. 5, c. 50.)
Sixty-five years shall be substituted in Section one of the Juries Act, 1825, for sixty years as the age at which liability to serve upon a jury shall cease, and that Section shall have effect accordingly.
Mr. BOOTH: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add the words
"and women who possess the same qualification as men and are between the ages of sixty and sixty-five shall be placed upon the lists for jury service and shall be liable to serve."
The CHAIRMAN: I called on the hon. Member to move his first Amendment. I am afraid the interesting proposition of having lady jurors is a little beyond the scope and title of the Bill.
Mr. BOOTH: I have no doubt you have carefully studied the ruling of Mr. Speaker on the point when I put a question on the Second Reading. As I understand the ruling, Mr. Speaker held that, whereas this Bill was only increasing jury service for men from sixty to sixty-five, it was far too big a change to suggest that women should come in of all ages. It is quite consistent with that ruling, and I believe with the practice of the House, and if I limit my proposal for having women on juries to this extension which is given to men, I submit that we might discuss it. As to your riding on the
2046
general Amendment, I am quite prepared to accept your decision. But may I not ask to be allowed to move within these limits that women should be called upon to serve, as they are available in such large numbers?
The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid not. I did consider that point in view of what was said upon the Second Reading, but I do not think a woman ceases to be a woman under those circumstances, and I really think it would be much too far beyond the title of the Bill and the conditions in which the House agreed to give the Bill a Second Reading to bring in such a proposition as this.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
Mr. BOOTH: Then I make my protest in a form which will, I think, be in order. I do not think the Government is justified in bringing forward this Clause without allowing women to come upon juries. I regret that it did not see its way to consider this point. By this Clause you say to the female sex, whereas no woman of any age can do any good by serving on a jury and shall not, yet men between sixty and sixty-five, whose powers may be beginning to fail, shall come on because we are short of jurymen. You can only justify the Clause because we are short of jurymen owing to the War. But we have hundreds of thousands of bright, intelligent, fair-minded women, and I think you might have introduced some of them. Instead of that you say, "No; you may be in the prime of life, you may have had a first-class education, you may have been trained in judicial posts, but we prefer men between sixty and sixty-five, who up to now have not been called upon." We are all familiar with the spectacle of the juryman saying he is deaf. It is sometimes a little difficult to get a medical man to support it if the juryman is having a very busy season in his shop, but there are genuine cases where men over sixty years of age must have difficulty in following the evidence in a case that sometimes lasts into weeks. Yet we go to an age we have not gone to before, but no woman of any age shall have the right to serve. I think the Government would have been well advised to introduce a moderate beginning, say, a third of the jury, because directly the women have votes they will appeal to the House to have juries composed in equal proportions of men and women.
Mr. DENNISS: Wait till then!
Mr. BOOTH: I have no doubt the hon. Member will pledge himself to that at the next election. I am not putting this so much as a criticism of the Government. It is the only chance I have to make a plea in a matter which the Chair rules to be outside the scope of the Bill.
Mr. CHANCELLOR: This is a Bill to amend the law in respect of the preparation and publication of jury lists amongst other things. I should have thought that would make it possible to increase the list by the admission of women. You, Sir, have ruled otherwise, and not being an authority on these matters I do not challenge your ruling. At the same time there is a desire on the part of very large numbers of women to be allowed to serve in this capacity. Cases are constantly occurring in which women appear before juries of men. They are not tried by their peers. Cases of injustice are often inflicted which they believe their service on juries will enable them to prevent. In view of the fact that we now recognise them as citizens, that they are now in a position to fill public offices of all kinds, and that all kinds of professions are being opened to them, it is a great pity that this occasion was not used for the purpose of putting them in a position to help in the administration of justice.
Sir G. HEWART: I am extremely anxious not to say a single word which might be taken as hostile to the claims of women to sit as jurors, or, indeed, as hostile to any other of their political or professional claims. But so far as this Bill is concerned, I am sure my hon. Friend will perceive that the provision for the modification of the existing law as to the preparation and publication of jury lists is a provision in the direction of simplification and economy and the saving of labour and expense. He must perceive upon reflection that if there could be, as there cannot be, imported into the Bill the inclusion of women as jurors, the task of preparing the lists, so far from being simplified and rendered more economical, would be enormously extended and would be far more costly. The question whether women may sit as jurors is well worthy to be determined on its merits, but not in relation to this Bill.
Question put, and agreed to.
Clause 6 (Power by Order in Council to Modify Statutory Provisions Relating to the Preparation and Publication of Jury Lists) ordered to stand part of the Clause.

CLAUSE 7.—(Power to Hold Coroner's Inquest without Jury.)
(1) Subject to the provisions of this Section, a coroner within whose jurisdiction the dead body of a person is lying, if he is satisfied that having regard to all the circumstances of the case it is proper so to do, may, in lieu of summoning a jury in manner required by Section three of the Coroners Act, 1887, for the purpose of inquiring into the death of that person, hold an inquest on the body without a jury:
Provided that—

(a) the foregoing provision shall not apply in any case in which the death has occurred in prison or in such place or under such circumstances as to require an inquest under any Act other than the Coroners Act, 1887; and

(b) if before proceeding to hold an inquest or in the course of holding an inquest without a jury there appears to the coroner to be any reason for summoning a jury he may, and if there appears to him to be any reason to suspect that the deceased came by his death by murder or manslaughter, he shall proceed to summon a jury in the manner required by the Coroners Act, 1887.

(2) The procedure at an inquest, or at any part of an inquest, which is held without a jury shall be in accordance with existing practice and the provisions of the Coroners Act, 1887, subject to such modifications as are rendered necessary by the absence of a jury or as the Lord Chancellor may prescribe.
Mr. BOOTH: I beg to move, after the word "jury" ["hold an inquest on the body without a jury"], to insert the words "but such inquest shall take place in the presence of at least three persons whose names are upon the jury list."
I do not think the Solicitor-General can accept the Amendment in this form and I would rather ask him to deal with my meaning than with the actual words. I did not see any other way in which I could express the idea I have. It would be a misfortune if any idea grew up in this country that in certain cases inquests were not being held which were really indispensable. I am thinking of cases where accidents have taken place and where it is possible that the question of the liability or the negligence of an employer may be challenged, and it may be asserted that the workman has lost his life because of some deficiency of apparatus. Workmen are very sensitive upon the point that in such cases a full scrutiny should take place, not so much because of the loss of the individual's life,

2049
but to see if anything may arise out of the inquest whereby the jury could suggest, as they often do, some improvement, some guarding of a machine or some alteration in the works in question, which may save lives in future. I do not think there is any real danger, but it is necessary that we should not have this suspicion aroused. Sometimes it is difficult to keep it down. The fact that three persons on the jury list had to be present to hear the evidence would tend to allay suspicion. I am anxious to avoid any possibility of a charge being made that a certain thing has been hushed up. It may be difficult always to get twelve men and if three wore got to attend in order that there might be more or less of a Court and some independent persons might hear all that went on, it might be taken advantage of, we will say, in the case of the death of a workman, by an official of the union or one of his workmates hearing the whole of the evidence, and in the majority of cases they would be satisfied and would so report, and good might come of it. It seems to me a rather large change, where a sudden death has taken place, to remove the jury altogether and not take any steps to ensure that some persons should be present at the trial by right in order to observe and report.
5.0 P.M.
Sir G. HEWART: The purpose for which the Amendment has been moved is, of course, quite clear and commendable, but it is not really necessary. The general object of the Clause is to enable a coroner, in a proper ease, to dispense with the jury for the purpose of holding an inquest, and the general provision is that if the coroner is satisfied that having regard to all the circumstances of the case it is proper so to do, he may hold an inquest without the help of the jury. But that is subject to certain limitations, over and above existing statutory limitations. In the first place the provision is not to apply in any case where the death has occurred in prison, or in any other place, or in any other circumstances in which there must be an inquest held otherwise than under the provisions of the Coroners Act. The second limitation is that if there is any reason to suspect that the deceased has come by his death by murder or manslaughter the coroner must summon a jury. In any other case also it is provided that if there appears to be any reason for summoning a jury he may do so. What is
2050
the suggestion of the Amendment over and above these limitations? It is, as I follow it, that wherever a coroner decides that he will hold an inquest without the help of a jury he shall be required by Statute to have the help of three persons. In other words, there shall be substituted for the existing coroner's jury a jury of three, who will have no function except the function of being present. I submit that it is not necessary, partly because of the limitations upon the coroner's discretion to which I have already referred, and partly because of the existing statutory provision. The Committee are, no doubt, aware that in a considerable number of cases it is provided by Statute that the relatives of the deceased shall have the right to attend. It is so, for example, where the inquest takes place upon a person who has been killed as the result of an accident in a mine. It is so, for example, in a case where death has been caused by an accident in a factory or workshop, and there are other similar provisions. I think there is no real necessity for such a substitute for the jury as that contemplated by the Amendment.
Sir W. COLLINS: I think this power to dispense with the jury requires to be watched and safeguarded, especially if we consider the Report on Coroners' Law by the Committee in 1910, which reported a year or two later. If these inquiries are to be conducted by the coroner he has to be able to satisfy himself in any particular case that he can dispense with a jury, and I think attention should be called to the nature of the investigation which he conducts, and especially to the coroner's officer, who is an official at present unknown to the law and who is sometimes not always a person who is adequately qualified to conduct the delicate investigations upon which the coroner may rely. My experience on the London County Council in the early days of that body in the administration of the coroners' law satisfied me that at that time many of the coroners' officers were not persons to be trusted to carry out these delicate inquiries. Therefore, I do hope that if this alteration in the law is to be effected care will be taken to see that the coroner's officer is a person of position and well qualified to advise the coroner on all matters' on which the coroner will have to make up his mind. That same Committee also reported on the desirability of the coroner having

2051
power to order a post-mortem examination without summoning an inquest. I cannot help thinking that those who drafted this Bill, although it is of a temporary character, might have had regard to that recommendation. It would have saved a good deal of time and money if that recommendation had been included in this Bill. I do not wish to criticise the Clause except to offer a word of warning that these dispensing powers of the coroner to do without a jury, which on the whole serves a very useful purpose, should be watched carefully, and that special care should be taken with regard to the personality of the coroner's officer.
Mr. MARTIN: It seems to me that it would have been much better if the Government had provided in a case such as that contemplated that there should be no inquest at all.
The CHAIRMAN: We have a number of kindred Amendments on this Clause. Had we not better keep to the point of this Amendment before we discuss the case as a whole?
Amendment negatived
Mr. DENNISS: I beg to move, in Subsection (2), after the word "be" ["a jury shall be"], to insert the words "held in public and."
I beg to move this Amendment, which stands in the name of the hon. and learned Member for the College Division of Glasgow (Mr. Watt). Now that coroners are to be allowed to dispense with juries it is very important that the question raised by this Amendment should be considered. The inquest may be held in connection with a very serious case. At the opening of the inquest it may not have been known that the case would be so serious, and yet the inquest may be held by the coroner alone with his officers. That raises a very great question, which has never been decided, as to whether the public have the right to attend inquests, whether an inquest is a public judicial proceeding like the proceedings before judges and Courts of justice, or whether it is an inquest held at his office, so to speak, which he can conduct in private, as its done in cases when the grand juries deliberate in private, and also when the magistrates have applications made to them in private. A coroner may be able to exclude the public altogether, and there is no law, so far as I know, that says
2052
that except in certain cases anybody need be present except the coroner himself. There are a number of Statutes which say that there must be the finding of a jury in certain cases, such as those referred to by the Solicitor-General, but there is no law where it is laid down that the public have a right to attend an inquest. Now that trial by jury is to be abolished I think it is time that this point should be considered by the Government as to whether it ought to be settled. I have referred to the authority on the subject, Jervis. After quoting authorities, he says:
"However strong these authorities and arguments may at first sight appear, they do not, upon examination, establish a universal right for all the public to be present; but, at most, extend only to such as are summoned, suspected, interested in the result of the inquiry, or are inhabitants of the vill where the body is found dead."
That is an unsatisfactory state of things, and, finding this Amendment standing in the name of the hon. and learned Member, and the hon. and learned Member not being here, I thought I would move it and see if we could get the opinion of the Solicitor-General upon it. It is high time that the question was settled. It is remarkable how many matters which appear to be extremely simple, and everybody would say that they must have been settled long ago, but which, on inquiry, we find that they have not been settled at all. This is one of them. I do not wish to divide upon a question of this sort, or to press it upon the Solicitor-General if he thinks it would be inconvenient to settle it at this time, but I think it is a matter for the consideration of the Committee that when the right of trial by jury in coroners' cases is to be taken away, the public should have the right to be present, as they have the right to be present in ordinary Courts of justice. It should not be that the coroner, by virtue of his office, is entitled to hold these inquests in secret and only summon such witnesses as he pleases or summon none at all I do not know whether he is obliged to have a medical examination of the body. He may himself decide the cause of death. The coroner himself in many cases, I believe, holds an inquest and determines the cause of death without the assistance of any independent medical man, and that, I understand, can be done under this Bill.
An important question is here raised. The hon. Member (Sir W. Collins) has told us that coroners have misbehaved

2053
themselves in the past. I was a member of the Middlesex County Council when he was on the London County Council, and I remember being engaged in disputes with our coroners as to their conduct, which was very flagrant in some cases. You might have a coroner sitting alone without any witnesses, and only with his officer, or even without him, examining the body himself, ascertaining the cause of death himself, and giving his own verdict, which may be wrong. That power may be wrongfully used. He may be got at. The whole object of an inquest is for the cause of death to be ascertained with certainty, and there ought to be no doubt about it. Under these circumstances, I beg to move the Amendment.
Sir J. D. REES: I submit that this Bill is not a Bill to deal with the coroners, but only to dispense with juries, and the Clause as drafted provides that when an inquiry is held without a jury it should be in accordance with existing practice. Therefore I submit that it would not be convenient to go further on this occasion, inasmuch as existing practice practically includes publicity.
Mr. DENNISS: No; there is no right.
Sir J. D. REES: It does, as a fact. The object of this Bill is as I have described it, and it would be going entirely outside those objects to deal with the practice of coroners. I value the Bill very much because it dispenses with juries, and I demur to any Amendment being included which does more than actually provide for the objects of the Bill, which I hope will be made permanent instead of temporary for the period of the War.
Sir G. HEWART: As I understand the law at present, it is shortly this—there is a discretion in the coroner to determine whether the public shall or shall not be admitted. I believe it to be true to say that, as the law now stands, there is no absolute legal right upon the part of the public to be present at an inquest. This is subject always to the fact that there are certain Statutes, some of which I have already referred to, which make specific provision for the presence of the relatives of the deceased.
But, subject to those statutory provisions, the coroner at present, and at any rate since the year 1827, when I think this matter came to be decided after a good deal of controversy, has the discretion to exclude the public. Of course, in practice
2054
that discretion is usually exercised in the sense that the public is admitted. The reason for it is that it may be desirable, perhaps in the interests of decency, perhaps out of consideration for the wishes of relatives, that the public should not be admitted, and, so far as I am aware, there is no reason for interference at this stage with the decision of the coroner. It is said that mistakes are committed. Well, mistakes are committed in every department of life, but, so far as the findings of a coroner or of a coroner's jury are concerned, it is always open to have them quashed. The purpose of this Amendment is that, in cases where the coroner has thought fit to dispense with the jury, there shall be a right on the part of the public to be admitted. I am sure it will be appreciated that the limits within which the Amendment, if it were accepted, would operate are somewhat narrow. There are, after all, only certain cases in which the coroner may dispense with the jury, and one imagines that in those cases—they would only be a very small number of cases—he would be disposed to exercise his discretion in favour of admitting the public. I must say that, although the matter is no doubt well worthy of consideration, upon the facts and material which are at present before me, I see no sufficient reason for taking away from the coroner absolutely and without exception that discretion which is reposed in him.
Mr. DENNISS: I should like to withdraw that Amendment, but I am glad I moved it, and I hope that the Government will keep it in mind, that the House will think it over, and that public opinion will be brought to bear upon it, because the coroner determines which are the cases in which it is not necessary to have a jury.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The CHAIRMAN: I understand that the hon. Member for Haggerston has now put his Amendment in another form, and I will ask him to move it.
Mr. CHANCELLOR: I beg to move, after the word "which" ["in which the death has occurred in prison"], to insert the words "the relatives demand that a jury be empanelled or in which."
My reason for moving this Amendment is to raise one point. There are certain cases where uncertainty, prejudice, and suspicion are roused, and I have in my mind particular cases in which medical practice is involved. A large number of

2055
coroners are not lawyers at all, and there come before them cases involving legal practice, most widely prevalent among these being the cases of death from vaccination and matters of that kind. Very often the coroner is a doctor, and we know that many of these medical coroners have, a great prejudice which almost inevitably prevents the judicial frame of mind in these things. Evidence is produced again and again that death results from one or other of these medical practices, and again and again decisions are given contrary to the evidence as judged by the general public. We have had cases where medical men sitting as coroners have declared that they will not give verdicts which discredit the practice of vaccination. That practice is widely discredited throughout the country at the present moment, as is indicated by the fact that half the parents refuse to have their children vaccinated. It is desirable that in such cases where the relatives themselves, desire that a jury should sift the evidence they should have the right to secure the services of the jury and not have to rely upon the coroner, who, as I say, is not a lawyer of great standing, but who most likely would be a medical man whose judgment they themselves would not be inclined to accept in the matter. I hope the Solicitor-General will be able to meet me in this, because I know there is a good deal of public opinion behind it.
Mr. KING: May I say a word in support of this Amendment? It seems to me very reasonable, firstly, because at a time like a sudden and unexpected death the feelings of a person's relatives are excited, their suspicions are aroused, and any suggestion that rights which they had of an inquiry with the jury should be taken away must act painfully and prejudicially. Moreover, there is another class of case to which my hon. Friend has not alluded, namely, where there are a number of deaths owing to an accident or fatality of a large and public character like a railway accident, a conflagration, a tramway accident, or an accident where the operation of public safeguards is called in question, as in the case, say, of a great mining fatality. In these cases there is also, of course, another public inquiry very frequently held by a departmental official or inspector, but the privilege which the people of the locality have in such cases to go into the matter with a jury of their neighbours and their
2056
friends is very highly valued. I think this is a case that ought to be present in the mind of the Solicitor-General and should make him more ready to accept this Amendment.
Sir G. HEWART: I have not had the opportunity of considering this Amendment, which is a manuscript Amendment, but I am bound to say that upon the arguments that have been adduced here to-day I cannot see my way to accept it. The Committee will observe a curious contradiction which would arise if the Amendment were to be carried. Clause 7 provides that in certain cases the coroner may dispense with the jury—in a certain limited class of cases. Upon what condition, as the Bill now stands, may he dispense with the jury? It is if he is satisfied that, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, it is proper so to do. If this Amendment were carried it would have this curious effect, that notwithstanding that the case is one in which no Statute required the inquest to be held, in which there was no suspicion of manslaughter or of murder or in which the coroner was satisfied, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, that he could dispense with the jury, the jury must be summoned if the relatives demand it. I am quite sure my hon. Friend will perceive the vagueness of the term "relatives." How many relatives? Where are they to be found? Who is to decide the degree of relationship and how many?
Mr. CHANCELLOR: One relative I suggest.
Sir G. HEWART: If one relative, however distant, requires the jury to be empanelled, then it is not a matter for the coroner in the exercise of his discretion, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, to decide—because any relative demands it a jury is to be summoned. My hon Friend perceives this further consequence. In the cases in which it may be that a jury may be dispensed with, the Bill as it now stands puts the responsibility upon the coroner. Is it not manifest that if the decision were put as it would be by the acceptance of this Amendment, not primarily in the hands of the coroner but ultimately and in fact in the hands of the relatives, it would be open to any person to say that although the coroner had decided that he for his part would and could do without a jury, the relatives should have had one? It

2057
shifts the responsibility of the burden in my opinion to the wrong shoulders, and when one has regard further to the fact that under the provision of this Clause as it stands there is, in a large number of cases, a jury by compulsion, I do suggest that this Amendment could not be usefully accepted.
Amendment negatived.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
Mr. MARTIN: I have only one word to say upon this. It seems to me that it would be very much better if instead of providing that the coroner should hold an inquest without a jury, within the limitations provided by the Bill, the coroner should have power of not holding an inquest at all. If you can trust him to do away with the jury it must be under such circumstances that there is nothing to inquire about at an inquest. If there is to be an inquest it does seem to me that it should take place in the ordinary way by coroner and jury. A coroner's inquest is most useful in criminal procedure. It has two great uses. In the first place, it is held immediately after the death and the members of the jury are drawn from the immediate neighbourhood, and if there is any general feeling in the neighbourhood it would be in the minds of the jurymen, and they are enabled in that way to suggest the bringing forward of evidence which in the case of criminal prosecutions might otherwise be lost. The other reason is that the coroner's jury are entitled to, and in nearly all cases where the circumstances warrant it do, make recommendations which comes to the ear of the Government and in time to Parliament as to anything which requires to be done as shown by the accidental deaths which have occurred. Now you are going to all the trouble of an inquest, but you are going to take away from that inquest the real valuable part of it which is the coroner's jury. This is a case quite different from juries in civil matters, which I support, and is one in which juries have been found to be most beneficial in actual practice. It seems to me that the only case in which the coroner should have any power is where there is no necessity from the circumstances surrounding it to suspect anything or to have an inquest at all, and, as the Solicitor-General has pointed out, the cases in which the coroner can act are strictly limited by the Section itself. It would be quite safe, therefore, to trust him
2058
and to say that there is no reason for an inquest at all, rather than have only half an inquest under the Bill. I could not support the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract, because his idea of having three persons present would not help. The coroner would be the only person who would have the right to act. Under these circumstances I am opposed to this Clause being added to the Bill.
Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 8.—(Short Title, Extent, and Duration.)
(1) This Act may be cited as the Juries Act, 1918.
(2) This Act shall not extend to Scotland or Ireland.
(3) This Act shall have effect during the continuance of the present War and for a period of six months thereafter.
Mr. MARTIN: I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (3).
I am very much in favour of this Bill, and that being so, I wish to make it a permanent one, instead of a temporary measure, as provided. It may be years hence before the question of juries will again get before a Committee of this House. We have had the whole question discussed here to-day, and the Committee have unanimously supported the Committee on each one of the Clauses of this Bill. The Bill has been accepted by this Committee without any vote against it. Why should it not be made the permanent law of the country? It is to last during the continuance of the present War and for six months afterwards. The reason for introducing the Bill is that during the War people have not the time to give their services as jurymen. But while that seems to be the reason for the Bill, I do not support it for that reason, but because I am very glad to have certain matters taken away from juries, and I should be glad to have them taken away to a far greater extent than is provided by this Bill. The effect of this Amendment would be that the Bill would become permanent on the Statute Book, and there is nothing to prevent the Government of the day, six months after the War is over, changing the law back again if they wish to do so. I do not see why we should not leave it a permanent measure, and if a change became necessary, then a Bill could be passed by this House.
Sir G. HEWART: It is now manifest, and, indeed, I have never doubted it, that my hon. Friend has a sense of justice. He has taken up a considerable part of the

2059
time of the Committee devoted to this Bill—I am not complaining—by pointing out what he said were the imperfections of the Bill. But now he makes a handsome reparation for those attacks, by proposing, contrary to our wishes, that this Bill, with all its imperfections, shall be permanent. I regard that as a handsome tribute, but I regret that I cannot accept it.
Amendment negatived.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill reported, without Amendment.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
Sir J. D. REES: I rise only to say that during the time I lived within twelve miles of London, I was often approached by many of the inhabitants who wished to protest against the onerous nature of the jury service. Like the plague or cholera, it struck the same neighbourhood again and again, sometimes on one side of the street and not on the other, or sometimes the same individual repeatedly, and not others; and, in view of these facts, I am quite sure the action of the Government in passing this Bill will cause the liveliest satisfaction among business men, who have frequently been taken away from their work for the purpose of attending inquiries which could be very well done without juries at all. With this experience of the jury system, the change to be brought about by this excellent Bill will be extremely grateful.
Mr. MARTIN: I am rather surprised that the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken did not support me in moving that the Bill be made permanent, seeing that he thinks it is such a good one. I wish, however, to emphasise a point which was raised last night on another Bill, in, regard to which the Under-Secretary for War informed hon. Members that the reason he objected to all the Amendments which were moved was that he did not want this Bill, which has come from the House of Lords, to go back to that Assembly with Amendments. It would appear that the same thing is to happen in regard to this Bill. I am going to assume that the Amendments which I proposed were refused on their merits, but there were two Amendments which were so reasonable that the right hon. and learned Gen-
2060
tleman was unable to produce any arguments against them; yet he did not accept them. If this is going to be the policy of the Government, it will be a farce to bring a Bill from the other House to this for consideration in Committee and then for this House to be deprived of its privilege of passing Amendments to the measure. That is a very serious interference with the privileges of this House. We had the statement of the Under-Secretary of State for War last night, in regard to a Bill that was being passed through Committee, that the reason he accepted no Amendments was that he did not want to send the Bill back to the House of Lords in an amended form. It does seem to me that this House should not allow its privileges to be interfered with in that way.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Donald Maclean): The hon. Member cannot discuss the proceedings of the Committee on the Bill.
Mr. BOOTH: I think we have had very-patient treatment of all the points we have raised on this Bill, and in regard to the two Amendments to which reference has been made, they were thoroughly reasoned out by the Solicitor-General on very solid grounds, and he gave his answer to the proposals quite fairly.
Mr. MARTIN: The hon. Member is discussing the proceedings of the Committee, and I was told I could not do that.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member has raised a point of Order which is perfectly right.
Mr. BOOTH: This is the Third Reading, and I may say that I think, on the whole, the conduct of this Bill by the Minister has been such as to entirely commend itself to the House.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.

CORN PRODUCTION (AMENDMENT) BILL [Lords]
Considered in Committee.
[Sir D. MACLEAN, Deputy-Chairman, in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1. (Amendment of 7 and 8 Geo. 5, c. 46, s. 11 (3).
For Sub-section (3) of Section eleven of the Corn Production Act, 1917, the following Subsection shall be substituted:—
"(3) This Part of this Act shall not, except as hereinafter provided, come into operation

2061
until the termination of the present War, and the powers under the Defence of the Realm Regulations exerciseable by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries with a view to maintaining the food supply of the country with respect to matters dealt with in this Part of this Act shall continue to operate until that date:

Provided that—

(a) before any person is deprived of the occupation of his land in connection with the food supply of the country, he shall be served with a notice of the intention of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries to take such possession; and if any person is served with such notice as aforesaid, or with a notice requiring that any land in his occupation shall be cultivated according to the rules of good husbandry, or requiring any change in the mode of cultivating or in the use of land in his occupation, or otherwise dealing with the said land for the purposes of food production, the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section nine of this Act shall apply as if the notice had been served under the powers conferred by that Section;

(b) where any such notice is served on a tenant a copy of the notice shall at the same time be served on the landlord, and the landlord shall have the same right as the tenant of requiring any question to be referred to arbitration; and

(c) where any notice is served, order made, or possession of land taken under the said Regulations, the provisions of this Part of this Act relating to the determination and recovery of compensation shall apply as if the notice had been served, the order made, or possession taken under the powers conferred by Section nine of this Act."

The PRESIDENT or the BOARD Of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Prothero): I beg to move, after the word "that" ["provided that"] to leave out
"(a) Before any person is deprived of the occupation of his land in connection with the food supply of the country, he shall be served with a notice of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries to take such possession; and if any person is served with such notice as aforesaid, or with a notice requiring that any land in his occupation shall be cultivated according to the rules of good husbandry, or requiring any change in the mode of cultivating, or in the use of land in his occupation, or otherwise dealing with the said land for the purposes of food production,"
and to insert, instead thereof,
"(a) If on or after the twenty-first day of August, nineteen hundred and eighteen, any person is under the said powers, served with a notice determining his tenancy of any land, or with a notice requiring any change in the mode of cultivating, or in the use of land in his occupation."
The object of Clause 1, or one of its main objects, has reference to allotments, which are included in this measure. It restores the Board to the position which it held under the Defence of the Realm
2062
(Acquisition of Land) Act, 1916, and enables it to remain in possession of any land which it has acquired under the powers of the Defence of the Realm Act for the duration of the War and a period not exceeding two years after. The Amendment which I have moved makes the proviso read as follows: "If, on or after the 21st day of August, 1918, any person is under the said powers served with a notice determining his tenancy of any land or with a notice requiring any change in the mode of cultivating or in the use of land in his occupation, the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 9 of this Act shall apply as if the notice had been served under the powers conferred by that Section." When I moved the Second Reading of this Bill I said that I was prepared to accept certain rights of appeal and the right to recover compensation given by the Act. The only limit to that concession was such as was absolutely necessary to secure the maintenance of food production at the present time. Owing to the depletion of labour we have decided not to increase the arable area, which makes it all the more necessary that the utmost possible should be got out of the existing arable acreage.
I believe that I shall have the support not only of this House, but of the other place, in the view that nothing should be done by this Bill which will unduly hamper the action of the executive committees in grading up farming and also in dealing with foul or neglected land. Under the provision as it stands appeal is allowed, first, against any action taken to deprive a tenant of the occupation of any land, whether such deprivation takes the form of terminating his tenancy or is merely possession being taken temporarily for cultivation or for allotments; secondly, when there is a notice requiring that land in the occupation of a person shall be cultivated according to the rules of good husbandry; and thirdly, where there is a notice requiring a person to make a change in the mode of cultivation or use of land, or otherwise dealing with land for the purposes of food production. This last heading has some words of a vague character, but its principal application is of course to ploughing up grass. I think that even when it is possible, owing to a change in circumstances, to issue ploughing-up orders, it is only reasonable and fair that in future the farmer should have the same right of appeal as he would have had under Part IV. of the Corn Production Act.

2063
There is another case in which I think an appeal is quite reasonable-that is, if a notice is issued determining the tenancy of a farm because it is badly cultivated. There again we think that an appeal should be allowed. The effect of the notice is not merely temporary, and there is really no such great urgency in that kind of case as to interfere seriously with food production. In those two cases my Amendment proposes to give an appeal, but I would ask the House not to extend the appeal to other cases. As I have stated, the provision of allotments is a matter of first-rate importance. The need is mainly urban, and though the amount of land required is not great, and though in the main its value agriculturally is not large, it is necessary that there should be no delay in providing the land. The cultivation of allotments is the only way in which, in present conditions, we can really increase our food supplies, because the depletion of skilled labour prevents our increasing the arable area.
I am sure that any delay in providing land would give rise to a great amount of discontent, and would give a large number of persons who are anxious to devote their spare time to cultivating allotments much reason to complain. Of course, owners or occupiers of land who are temporarily deprived of its use for allotments will have a statutory right to compensation for all loss which they can prove. The remaining cases, where there is the service of a notice requiring occupiers to cultivate their land according to the standard of good husbandry, are cases in which prompt compliance is necessary. It is a seasonal matter. I submit, with confidence, that the executive committees are to be trusted in matters of that sort. They are men of practical knowledge and experience in local farming. I may give an illustration from the executive committee in Wiltshire, which we were led to understand the other day consisted of a few ladies and a solicitor and some other people. The actual members are the chairman, who is a large farmer, and owns a considerable part of the land which he occupies, five large very well-known farmers in the county, one farmer who has retired from business, the agents to Lord Lansdowne and Lord Radnor and Mr. Fuller. If that is not a body competent to decide what is good farming, I do not believe that you can form any tribunal for such a case. I
2064
believe that in this matter of cultivation they may safely be left to issue orders which will commend themselves to all reasonable men.
Mr. MOUNT: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman is going to grant an appeal with regard, to the determination of tenancies. I am also glad to know that he does not intend to grant an appeal in cases where war agricultural committees make orders of specific matters of cultivation in cases of bad farming, but I am not at all sure that the words which he proposes carry out that object. It seems to me that the words "or with a notice requiring any change in the mode of cultivation, or of the use of land in his cultivation," are too wide, and would cover any order made by these committees ordering specific acts of cultivation because the land was not properly cultivated according to the rules of good husbandry. War agricultural committees take action under Regulation 2M (1, e) of the Defence of the Realm Act. That Regulation empowers the issue of notices requiring the cultivation of the land in accordance with such requirements as the Board may think necessary or desirable for maintaining the food supply of the country. It seems to me that an order specifying certain acts of cultivation issued under that Regulation would come under the words which are proposed in this Amendment. If so, it would mean that an appeal would lie. I think that an appeal should not lie in cases of that sort, because, as a rule, the work is seasonal work. There is not much time for delay, and if it is to be carried out at all it ought to be carried out at once. It may be said that an appeal will not cause any delay. I do not agree with that. The arbitrator by whom the appeal would be heard would be no doubt some local valuer or land agent, and anyone who has had anything to do with valuers or land agents lately knows how fully occupied they are. I think that it is difficult for them to find time to do what they have got to do now, and that there would be considerable delay if an appeal were granted in these cases. I am not a draftsman, and I do not know how the point could best be met, but I would suggest that we might have added at the end some such words as these, "unless such notice is served solely on the around that such land is not being cultivated according to, the rules of good husbandry." Perhaps between now and the Report stage my

2065
right hon. Friend will consider whether these words do meet the point which he intends to meet, that there should be no appeal in the case of orders for a specific act of cultivation because a man has not been farming according to the rules of good husbandry.
6.0 P.M.
Colonel GRETTON: I have grave doubt whether the words proposed by the President will accomplish what he desires. They are extremely vague and extremely wide. Take the case of bad cultivation of land which has to be altered. The words arc, "notice requiring any change in the mode of cultivating or of the use of land in his occupation." I suggest that those words are so vague as to be capable of covering almost all cultivation orders which may be issued and would be an endless cause of appeal if they are allowed to stand without some qualification. Then there is the question whether an appeal in certain cases would not actually preclude agricultural committees from taking possession of land for small holdings. The mere fact of establishing allotments or small holdings means an alteration in the cultivation of the land. I have had no opportunity of taking skilled advice on this point, but it appears to me that the words of the Amendment are little more than a paraphrase of the proviso as it stood in the Bill. I think the President will find himself in very great difficulty unless these points are quite definitely cleared up and embodied in language which is simple and able to be understood by farmers, occupiers of land, landowners, and others interested in this matter. We want these questions to proceed smoothly, and therefore we should have simple and plain language which clearly indicates what is intended by this House.
Mr. PROTHERO: I am willing to accept the Amendment suggested by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Mount).
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: There seems to be a general agreement that the words proposed to be left out should come out, and if they are taken out we shall then be able to discuss what words shall be inserted.
Mr. PETO: I would like first to say a word in regard to the words proposed to be taken out. I have listened to the President's arguments for altering the Bill, and I must say that I am not impressed
2066
with one of them. He says it is desirable not to hamper unduly the war agricultural committees, but I do not think the Bill as it stands would have that effect. I would rather put this view to him, that as far as there is any opposition to the action of the war agricultural committees or any want of confidence in their decisions, it does arise from the fact that there is at present no appeal against any of their decisions, and therefore it seems to me that so far from hampering their action, the mere fact that if both landlord and farmer knew they had a right of appeal against any order, whether dealing with these special matters now reserved for appeal or whether under the wider words which are really in accordance with Part IV. of the Corn Production Act, would, I think, go far to prevent there being any opposition to the orders at all. It is only in human nature that people should resent orders against which there is no possibility of arguing and no appeal. The President said it is essential for the provision of allotments, but I have not read in any controversy in the Press, nor have I heard, through any correspondence, that there has been any serious difficulty in getting all the land that has been necessary for allotments. The President, I see, agrees. If that has been so in the past, why should he assume that there would be a whole crop of appeals on the question of the necessary land in the future? I should have thought, from going up and down in the country, that everybody, the small man and the landowner, and everyone else, were all of one mind in this matter, and that wherever a cabbage or potato can be grown it is a national duty to take whatever part is necessary in seeing that that cabbage or potato is grown, and I do not see any reason whatever for cutting out from the right of appeal that particular matter. In regard to the question of delay, I cannot quite agree with the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Mount). It is quite true that everybody connected with agriculture is terribly busy, and in fact tremendously overworked, but we are not talking about an appeal to the Law Courts, from Court to Court, and finally to the House of Lords, and a delay of months that may run possibly into years. It is a perfectly simple form of appeal to an arbitrator for his decision, and it is probably on a simple question of fact, and I cannot believe that the appeals would be numerous or very lengthy. If they are numerous, it would only imply that a very

2067
large number of unreasonable orders have been made, and I do not believe that that is the case.
I should like to say one word on this question of cultivation according to the rules of good husbandry. I do not want to quote a single case on the side of the tenant, but one case has recently come to my knowledge, and it is not in Wiltshire, but in the county of Surrey, where the landlord is so satisfied that a farm which constitutes a large part of a very small property is badly cultivated that he has done everything he possibly can, under the existing law, to get leave to resume possession himself and cultivate the land properly. The grass land already ploughed up is in a shocking condition, yet the tenant in that case is taking in hand the further ploughing up of land which he has no proper means of cultivating. The war agricultural committee sent one of their number to look at this particular farm. He happened to be a neighbouring farmer, no doubt with the sympathies which we are all, perhaps fortunately, liable to, and in a neighbourly way he has put a blind eye to the defects of cultivation, and said he could not see any reason to say that the farm was improperly cultivated, and so the matter remains. I should like to see that there is an appeal in these matters, both by the landlord and the tenant, and I do not think it is by any means certain that it will always operate to protect the farmer who is badly cultivating his land. I should like the President not to shut his eyes to the fact that in some cases it may bring pressure to bear on a farmer to cultivate his land properly, and that that would be the result of the appeal. It is, no doubt, an unpleasant duty for a man to have to pass judgment on his neighbour's cultivation, and to say that a farm ought to be taken out of his hands. It is very much easier for an arbitrator to make such a decision than it is for any member of a war agricultural committee. Take even the case of Wiltshire. I am the last person to speak in anything but admiration of the members of the Wiltshire Agricultural Committee, or of the work that they have done, because I believe it is perfectly splendid; but even in that case the right hon. Gentleman says the greater part of the members are practical farmers. I quite agree, and I know from personal conversation that it is not a pleasant duty to have to go over the land of a neighbour,
2068
and perhaps a friend, and come to what the neighbour might regard as an arbitrary decision, without any right of appeal, on the question of whether the land is or is not being properly cultivated. I believe, in the interests of the production of food and the smooth working of the Act, that it is essential to have this power of carrying the matter to arbitration. Therefore, I am sorry that the Bill as amended in another place is proposed to be whittled down, some cases to be allowed, other cases to be taken out, and I think it is an extremely difficult thing to decide beforehand just where an appeal may be necessary and where it may not be necessary. It would be far wiser, I think, to leave the appeal open everywhere, in every case provided for in the original Act, when the matter was fully debated and when all those Members who are most competent to speak for agriculture were present.
Mr. L. HARDY: I want to ask the President of the Board a question in reference to the words which he proposes to introduce as to determining a tenancy. The words are, "if any person is under the said powers served with a notice determining his tenancy of any land." Does that include both the forms of the termination of tenancy which have arisen in connection with the conduct of the Food Production Department named in Regulation 2 M.F.? There is the direct notice, and there is the notice which is given on the application of the landlord.
Mr. PROTHERO: It will apply to both.
Sir C. WARNER: I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto), who wishes to curtail the powers of these committees and who wishes the appeal to be allowed in every case. I am rather sorry that the appeal is brought in at all. I am not quite sure that it is going to do very much good, but the one thing that has happened in all the country I know of is that these committees have increased production very considerably by having improved the farming. If you are going to give an appeal in the case of any sort of cultivation, I am afraid it will effect more harm than good. Take the case of temporary pastures, where, say, vetches are put down, and the occupier very often chooses to keep them going for five years. That is an enormous loss of grain to the country. It probably pays him to

2069
do so, and I think any appeal should be carefully guarded so that it should not in any way restrict the powers of these committees as to the way in which the land is to be cultivated. I rather regret that the appeal is being given in any case, because I do not think any very great injury is being done, even by the termination of tenancies. I think the power that the committees have to determine a tenancy has been a great incentive to many farmers to farm properly, and I am afraid that when they have not got that power some farmers will say, "I am quite safe, I cannot be turned out, and I am not going to listen to this agricultural committee. I know more about it than they do." In that way I fear that a good deal of harm may be done. Certainly I hope that the Amendment which the Minister for Agriculture has introduced will be considered very carefully before the Report stage, so as to see that it does not in any way affect the powers of the agricultural committees to control the cultivation of land which is now being badly cultivated. There is no doubt about it that there is still a great quantity of land in this country being badly cultivated, and that these agricultural committees have done untold good in the past. I think they have an enormous work before them still, and I hope it will not be curtailed by giving the occupier the power of appealing when they tell him he is not doing the thing properly, and taking away their power to enforce it.
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
Question proposed, "That the proposed words be there inserted."
Colonel ROYDS: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after the word "eighteen" ["nineteen hundred and eighteen"], to insert the words "the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries under the said powers desire to enter upon occupation of land, notice of such intention shall be served on the occupier, or if."
The Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman proposes to give powers of appeal in two cases in which he explained—on notice being given to terminate the tenancy, or on notice being given requiring any change in the mode of cultivating or in the use of land—but he reserves to the Board of Agriculture, under Clause 1
2070
of the Bill, the right to exercise the powers under the Defence of the Realm Act, subject to any modification made in this Bill. Under the powers of the Defence of the Realm Act the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, or any body deputed by them, whether it be a war agricultural committee or a council, would have power to enter upon any land in the occupation of any tenant without any notice whatever, and take it from that tenant, and put it to such use as they think fit, without any power on the part of the tenant to appeal. I do not think the House understands, or did understand, that that is the position. I think the President of the Board of Agriculture will agree with me that that is the position, and the words I propose to add to the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman require that the Board of Agriculture, if they desire to enter upon the occupation of land at the beginning, must give notice of their intention, such notice to be served on the occupier, and thereupon the occupier or the owner of the land, under the other provisions of this Act, would have power to appeal to a single arbitrator to be nominated by the President of the Surveyors' Institute.
I cannot conceive it possible that the House, having passed the Corn Production Act, which was the result of a compromise, would now consent to take out of the provisions of the Act the powers of appeal to an occupier in case his land should be taken. The powers of appeal which have been given here under the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman are of very small moment compared with the powers of appeal which are denied him, and which I do not think the Committee is aware are denied him. I understood the right hon. Gentleman said that he must reserve the power of taking land without notice in order to satisfy allotment-holders. I am sure no one in this House desires to do anything to discourage—in fact, they want to do all they can to encourage—allotment-holders, but at the same time they want to act justly towards those who are at present occupying land, and, if further land is required, as we hope it will be, for allotment purposes, I think the Committee will agree it is only reasonable that the occupier of that land should have notice that his land is required and that he should have an opportunity, if he does not think it reasonable or fit that it should be turned to other purposes, to refer the matter to an arbitrator to be appointed

2071
by the President of the Surveyors' Institute. That would be a very short and very inexpensive matter, as stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes, and it would be unjust that any other course should be pursued.
Mr. PROTHERO: I regret that I cannot accept this Amendment. We have stated our desire to except from the right of appeal the case of land taken for allotments, and if this Amendment were carried and an appeal granted I am perfectly sure that in all eases where we wanted land immediately for allotments we should have long appeals, because in most cases it is urban land, and generally
building land, which we are bound to give up as soon as it is required for building purposes but which the owners do not want to surrender and would fight for if we gave them leave to appeal. We should have the greatest difficulty, I am sure, in providing the land. We have considered this very carefully. We have got the land we now have without an appeal and without any friction, so far as I know, and I desire to continue to have that power.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 10; Noes, 201.
Amendment to proposed Amendment made: Leave out the word "requiring" ["with a notice requiring any change"], and insert instead thereof the words "which requires."—[Mr. Prothero.]
Mr. MOUNT: I beg to move, at the end of the proposed Amendment, to add the words "and is not solely for the purpose of securing that the land shall be cultivated according to the rules of good husbandry."
Sir F. BANBURY: I waited before rising to see whether the President of the Board of Agriculture would accept this Amendment, which I am very sorry my hon. Friend has moved. I gather that as the right hon. Gentleman did not rise he is prepared to accept it.
Mr. PROTHERO: I have already said so.
Sir F. BANBURY: I beg pardon, but I have been attending a Committee upstairs. What is really the position? It is, I venture to say, very serious. When this Bill was introduced in another place a statement was made by the spokesman of the Government to the effect that the appeal in any matter, about any subject, which was in Part IV. of the original Act, should be reserved. On that statement the Government got agreement. Now we come down to this House and find that the whole thing is altered and off. The bargain made by the Government on this Bill has been broken. In another place the representative of the Government, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, admitted that he was breaking a bargain which had only been entered into a year ago. For the moment I am not dealing with the merits of the Amendment we have just heard, but I do say to get a Bill in another House on an understanding given by the Government that certain
2074
things should be done, and then to come down here and deliberately to break that understanding is something which is quite novel, and quite wrong. I am quite sure my hon. Friend opposite is not aware of what has taken place, or he would not have supported such a proceeding.
To come to the actual Amendment, what does it do? It provides that there shall be no appeal from the opinion of the war agricultural committees if certain land is cultivated in an improper way. Why should there not be an appeal? There are, I am afraid, no lawyers here at the moment, but I believe I am right in saying—I will not say in every offence—but in the vast majority of offences there is an appeal of some sort to a higher Court. Here a man may have his living taken away from him because some particular person connected with a war agricultural committee may choose to say that the land is badly cultivated; and there is no appeal to be allowed. What was the appeal in Part IV.? Was it an appeal to a Court of law which would necessitate perhaps three or four months' delay and considerable legal expenses and procedure? Nothing of the sort. It was an appeal to a single arbitrator. If the parties could not agree, then the single arbitrator was to be appointed by the President of the Surveyors' Institute. What is the objection to that? Is it not rather to be held that that appeal was not strong enough? Is it not a new principle that we are going to set up committees in different parts of the country to deal with a man's property with no appeal whatever except to these committees from their own decision? We do live in strange times! Apart altogether from what I think is a most serious matter, the very deliberate breaking of a pledge given by the Government—I repeat the words, the deliberate break-

2075
ing of a pledge given by the Government—on 9th July in another place—apart from that, here we are going to perpetuate the arbitrary action of very excellent people, no doubt—I do not care who they are—we are going to put into the hands of certain people, acting in different ways, in different counties, actuated by different motives, and going about the matter by different methods of procedure, to take a man's living from him and not to allow him an appeal even to a single arbitrator!
Would it be tolerated for a moment that a borough council should go into the shop of any man and say, "We consider you are selling your goods in an improper kind of way, and we are going to take your shop away from you, and there is to be no appeal"? It is the most arbitrary proceeding that has ever been contemplated. If I can get anybody to support me against this I will go into the Lobby, even if I can only get one teller and no one to support me at the sides. I trust sincerely, after the explanation I have offered, that something different will be done. I do not believe the majority of Members have followed this matter. It has not been put very clearly. We are rushing these Bills, and unless Members follow things very clearly they are not absolutely conversant with what has taken place. I am perfectly certain that they will not desire that such injustice shall take place.
Captain WRIGHT: I hope the President and the Committee will accept this Amendment of my hon. Friend opposite. It makes the proposals of the Amendment clearer than they were without these words. I think it shows that the only ease in which there is to be no appeal is to be when this is a question of not cultivating according to the rules of good husbandry. In the wording of the Amendment put down on the Paper there seemed to be some doubt as to the meaning, and as to what mode of cultivation might mean—whether it might mean the raising of particular crops, the amount and character of the artificial manures to be used, the number of stock on the farms, and questions of that sort. When these word's have been added it will be quite clear that the only question involved is where there is bad farming, where the land is dirty and ought to be clean, and specific orders dealing with matters such as those against which there is to be no appeal. I am sorry not to be able to agree with the
2076
right hon. Baronet. I hope he will forgive me when I say that I think he rather overstated the case in the analogy of turning a man out of his business and taking away his livelihood. That analogy is not a true one, because, if it is a question of the termination of the tenancy on a farm, then there is an appeal. The question involved is only the case of bad cultivation. What goes on in some counties? I know from experience what, at any rate, happens in some. It is this, that the district supervisor or the executive officer is asked by the parish representative to go and look at a particular farm. He makes a report to the district committee. The farmer has an appeal to the district committee, and also to the county committee. If the latter of these committees is not satisfied with the original report from the district committee officials, then the county committee can send a representative of the cultivation sub-committee to look at the particular field referred to, and can act on the report of that committee. In some cases the matter has been carried so far by way of protest that the Board of Agriculture have been appealed to to send down a Commissioner or a Sub-commissioner to inspect themselves the particular place and report. Under these circumstances, I do think there is no very great hardship that there should be no appeal in a question of good or bad cultivation.
Mr. PETO: If there was anything in the Bill which provided the elaborate machinery for an appeal which has just been referred to it would be quite a different thing, but unfortunately we are dealing with what is in this Bill, and here we are now asked to eliminate all right of appeal from the war agricultural committees in case of bad husbandry. Taking the country generally, this is one of the most important things in regard to which we should have leave to appeal, because the war agricultural committees are constituted mainly of certain farmers in the county, and the tendency must be that where there is no appeal whatever by law against their decision any man entrusted with the duty of deciding a matter in which his fellow men are concerned would be inclined to take a very lenient view if there was no appeal, but if there was the appeal which is always granted by our law and custom, then a man would speak out his real mind, and would be much more likely to say that, in his opinion, certain farms were badly culti-

2077
vated if he knew that was not going to be the final word, and if he knew that the person concerned had the ordinary right of appeal. This is an extremely simple and expedition's appeal. I would like to move to omit from the Amendment to the Amendment the words "and is not," and to insert the word "or," and place the proposal in exactly the opposite way.
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): We cannot have an Amendment to an Amendment to an Amendment. The hon. Member had better repeat his proposal later.
Captain Sir C. BATHURST: I am glad the majority of the House are in favour of the acceptance of this Amendment, which I think is a reasonable compromise. It is perfectly true that there would have been a breach of faith if this Bill had not been passed in such a way as to enable the appeal which was contemplated a year ago in respect of all those more drastic forms of interference on the part of war agricultural committees. As regards this particular exception which the Government are asking the House to make, I think it is in the best interests of the maximum of food production to adopt the present Government policy. After all, prompt action in the matter of bad husbandry is very necessary, and whatever may be the advantages of an appeal, I am quite satisfied with the nature of the tribunal, and an appeal will take time before it is carried through and the Appeal Court hears the case.
It is just in those kind of cases where you have the old arable land in certain parts of the country getting increasingly foul, and as time goes on the tendency will be for this to increase, because more attention will be devoted to the new arable land to the neglect of the old. Therefore, it is more than ever necessary that the scrutinising eye of the war agricultural committees should be fixed on the old arable land in order to maintain the output of food, which will be very seriously reduced if that land becomes increasingly foul. I would infinitely rather see the war agricultural committees concentrate upon keeping the old arable land free from weeds and in a higher state of productivity than increasing the new arable land at the expense of the old. I shall give my support to this Amendment, because I think, in the long run, it will conduce to increased food production.
Sir F. BANBURY: I agree with the hon. and gallant Member's argument about the cultivation of existing arable land and of the danger that it will get into a foul state. How that danger is going to be removed with the present shortage of labour I do not know. It is not, in the majority of cases, the fault of the farmer, but it is due to the fact that he cannot get sufficient labour to keep the land free. I do not see how that is going to be improved by giving carte blanche to the war agricultural committees to make orders. My hon. Friend opposite talked about an Appeal Court, but there is no Appeal Court. It is an appeal to a single arbitrator, and I doubt if it will take any great amount of time. Surely it is better occasionally to run the risk of losing a little time rather than to set up a feeling of irritation, injustice, and friction amongst a very deserving body of men! Why are hon. Members connected with war agricultural committees so anxious that there shall be no appeal from those committees? If they are always right, after two or three appeals they would stop, and it would not be worth while paying an arbitrator if the farmer was certain he would not win the case.
This would be a great advantage from the point of view of the agricultural committees themselves, because they would not make these orders if there was an appeal unless they were certain that they were in the right. But if they are allowed to make these orders without any appeal, is it not likely, human nature being what it is, that the war agricultural committees, however good they may be, will make these orders without due care, and, having made them, they will insist upon them being obeyed? Over and over again this has occurred, and it has occurred in my own case, where the committee practically said, "We insist because you are the principal resident in the district." That was actually told to me by the representative of the war agricultural committee, and there never was a more ridiculous argument, and you are going to allow all that to continue, when all that is asked of you is, first of all, the maintenance of the bargain which I should have thought was safe even in these days; and, in the second place, we ask for a moderate and reasonable appeal to a single arbitrator which can be carried out in a very few minutes. I hope the Committee will seriously consider this point before this Amendment is accepted.
Sir JOHN SPEAR: I very much wish that the right of appeal could be preserved. I say this in the interests of food production. To give the agricultural committee the right to come to any farmer and say that he shall farm in a particular way without the right of appeal will cause great resentment on the part of agriculturists generally, and this may do something to lessen that enthusiasm which has been shown by farmers in producing food. I do not object to the agricultural committee having the right to point out any misappropriation of cropping, but there is such a difference of opinion between practical men as to the class of farming that suits a particular farm, and in order to avoid mistakes I cannot help thinking that the farmer, if he feels aggrieved, ought to have the right of an appeal to a single arbitrator. This could not cause very much delay, and it would be comparatively inexpensive. From the point of view of the agricultural committee, I am inclined to believe that the knowledge of the existence of a right of appeal would make them more vigilant in detecting and complaining of anything that they thought was bad farming, and they would be inclined to say, "In our opinion this land ought to be managed differently, and we give you notice to that effect," and in such a case the tenant would have the safeguard of referring the matter to an independent man—an arbitrator. Surely in that case the committee will feel surer of their position, and they will feel that they are not doing an injustice to the farmer, with the knowledge that in a matter where there may be an acute difference of opinion the farmer has a right to ask for the decision of a single arbitrator!
7.0 P.M.
I cannot help thinking that this is only a reasonable protection. I know that we want to get more food and get all we possibly can out of the land, but, in order to do that, we must avoid any irritating action that would be calculated to lessen the enthusiasm of the farmer in producing crops. The President of the Board of Agriculture and the Prime Minister also have again and again spoken very highly of the way in which agriculturists generally have, under intense difficulties and lack of labour and insufficiency of manure, been developing the cultivation of the land and the production of food; end it would be a pity to mar that perseverance and cause any irritation, which will assuredly be the case unless the farmer feels that he is farming his land
2080
in the best possible way, having regard to the nature of the soil and the circumstances, and he would resent under these conditions the interference of the agricultural committee. If the farmer could refer his case to a single arbitrator he would feel that, after all, there was a tribunal set up to decide these matters; he would put his case before the arbitrator and accept his decision. I think he would feel that he had been able to state his case and he would accept the decision in a very different spirit from that which would animate him if he felt that he had been dictated to by the members of the agricultural committee, without a right of appeal. Farmers are very often jealous of one another; they do not like other farmers who may be members of the executive committee going on to their farms and saying how they ought to farm the land. I admit that under the circumstances it may be necessary to raise the standard of farming and that the agricultural committee should have that power. But what I do suggest is that the farmer should have the right of appeal to a single arbitrator, so as to avoid any injustice being done as a result of a difference of opinion between the committee and himself regarding what is good farming.
Mr. R. McNEILL: I wish to support the view expressed by the last speaker. The speech made by the hon. Member for Wilton Division (Sir C. Bathurst) has placed me in some difficulty. I always regard him as an expert on these matters and should be inclined in very many cases to follow his judgment. But I cannot see that the speech he made just now really offered any reason against this particular Amendment. I am inclined to agree with every word he said. I agree it is much more important under present circumstances that close scrutiny should be kept on old arable land rather than on newly-broken pasture land. I also agree as to the very great importance of keeping a watchful eye to prevent the present foulness of land increasing. All that is very well, but wherein is to be found any reason for cutting this particular appeal out of the Bill? I should like very much to know what the reason of the Government is for this differentiation. Here we have a number of evasions of the ordinary liberty of the farmer—proper evasions under present circumstances, no

2081
doubt. There may be a different opinion as to whether a farm is being conducted properly or not, but no appeal is to be allowed. Why that differentiation? I should have thought that if an appeal were just and proper in the cases in which it is admitted by the Government, it is equally just and proper in the case in which it is now proposed to exclude it. I do not know whether the Government have explained their views on the point. If they have it would be unreasonable for me to ask for a second explanation for my own benefit, but I am at a loss to know why the differentiation is being made, and if the matter is pressed to a Division I shall vote against the Amendment.
Mr. MOUNT: As the hon. Member was not here when this question was first raised, I should like to explain to him that the Amendment does not go nearly so far as the Committee might be led to believe by what was said by the last speaker, because it is not in any way the intention of the executive committee by this Amendment to take away the powers of appeal with regard to the way in which land should be farmed. There is bound to be a difference of opinion as to the kind of farming. For instance, there is a keen agriculturist whose name is known probably to most members of the Committee, I refer to Mr. Christopher Turner, who believes in a kind of farming which many farmers do not believe in, and no one suggests for a moment that the agricultural committee should be able—neither do I think they would desire—to say that that particular class of farming was not in accordance with the rules of good husbandry, and that there shall be no appeal against any order they might make to alter the method of cultivation. What is intended by this Amendment, and what I think undoubtedly can be read into it, is that where land is being badly cultivated, where it is not being kept properly clean, it should be open to the committee to require that certain acts of cultivation be done with the least possible delay, and the Amendment says that in these cases it is not necessary there should be a right of appeal. I do not believe that farmers so far as I have had any experience of them, are frightened at the work which is being done by the agricultural committees. I believe it is felt that the best work they have done has been in gingering up those farmers who have not cultivated their land properly, and
2082
farmers generally are only too glad that something is being done in that direction by the committees. It is in order that they may have a free hand for that purpose that I have moved the addition of these words.
Sir F. BANBURY: May I call the attenattention of the Committee to what the last speaker has said as to the meaning which can be read into this Amendment.
Mr. MOUNT: I should not have said "can be read into it": it is there already.
Sir F. BANBURY: That may be the interpretation which the hon. Member puts on the Amendment, but I would like to point out that the Amendment goes further than that, and should this Bill become an Act of Parliament it will not be interpreted in the light of what may have been said by the Mover of the Amendment; it will be interpreted by the words which actually appear in it. The Amendment refers to the rules of good husbandry, and those words may be held to mean a great deal more than the hon. Member has suggested. Those who have to interpret the Act will not look at the speeches which appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and which have been made by Members of this House, but their interpretation will depend on the actual words in the Act, and I venture to repeat that the words, "according to the rules of good husbandry," go very much further than suggested by my hon. Friend.
Mr. PETO: It seems very important, before this Amendment is voted upon, that its meaning should be clearly understood. The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Mount) told us he would never think of supporting an Amendment which would give arbitrary power without appeal to the war agricultural committee to insist on a change from one mode of cultivating a farm to another according to the rules of good husbandry. But on what ground will these matters have to be decided. According to Section 9 of the principal Act, if the Board of Agriculture are of opinion the land is not being cultivated according to the rules of good husbandry, they may serve notice on the occupier of the land requiring him to cultivate the land in accordance with such directions as the Board may give him with the object of securing that the cultivation shall be according to the rules of good husbandry, or for securing the necessary change in the mode of cultivation or in the use of the

2083
land. Now that goes far beyond any mere question of foul land, and it is perfectly clear to everybody that this Amendment if carried is going to do what the Mover of it says he would not on any account support.
Mr. PROTHERO: Under Section 9 of the Corn Production Act there are two cases dealt with; one is that of land not being cultivated according to the rules of good husbandry and the other—which the hon. Member who last spoke omitted to refer to—is a change in the mode of cultivating the land or the uses to which the land is being put. Our denial of the right of appeal refers to the cases of land not being cultivated according to the rules of good husbandry. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), who, unfortunately, is always absent from the House when I am explaining Amendments and who repeats arguments which I have previously dealt with, seems to think that the rules of good husbandry are really arbitrary rules. They really are this: the customary mode of cultivating land by good farmers. Who are the best interpreters of these methods? Are they valuers? Then, if so, I may inform the hon. Member for one of the Divisions of Kent that the best valuers in that county are already acting for the war executive committee, and there will be considerable difficulty in finding a valuer there of any repute who is not in the employment of the committee. Therefore, you get an appeal from the committee to a man acting for the committee. I repeat for the benefit of the right hon. Baronet that these committees include the best farmers in the district. He gave us a fancy portrait of a war executive committee which included a few ladies and a solicitor with strong political views. That is not how these executive committees are made up. Let me give his own case. It contains six of the largest tenant farmers in the county, men actively engaged in the industry at the moment. There is one retired farmer who was a very large farmer in his own day, and the three other members are Lord Lansdowne's agent, the agent of Lord Radnor, and the agent of Mr. Fuller, three of the largest landowners in the county of Wiltshire. What better tribunal could you suggest for saying what is good cultivation, and why, when these men have decided that a field requires to be immediately weeded or to be stirred
2084
about at once, should the tenant farmer have a right of appeal to a single arbitrator, and thereby delay the very moment when that act of cultivation can be done and done with advantage? There is only a short period in which it can be done. I quite agree with the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) that I have said we have "broken the bargain." I fully admit it, and have said it. This time last year many of us hoped that by now we should be living not in a period of war, but under very different conditions. However, our hopes have not been realised, and we have to remember that we are still living in a period of war.
We have to consider that though the food supply for the moment may be more satisfactory than it was a short time ago a change at any time is possible, and if we have given up, as we have given up for the time, if we have suspended because labour is short, our ploughing programme—I am glad to hear the right hon. Baronet applaud that decision—there is all the more reason why we should sec that we get the last ounce of food out of the existing arable land, and why we should strengthen rather than weaken the executive committee in grading up farming. Let me remind the Committee that this particular Clause is not directed against the good farmer; it is directed against the sleepy farmer, the incompetent farmer, and the negligent farmer, and I hope very much, if the Amendment is resisted, that we shall have our view triumphantly supported.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.
Proposed words, as amended, there inserted.
Mr. PROTHERO: I beg to move, in paragraph (c), after the word "where," to insert the words "before or after the passing of this Act."
I put this Amendment down to make it quite clear that the Bill was to run from 21st August, and I did so, because I felt that the right to compensation, which is the subject of certain other Amendments that follow, was one which ought to be governed by the rules of the Losses Commission. I had had an opportunity of consulting the chairman of that Commission. I have had another opportunity, and I want to say at once that we are prepared to accept the Amendments that follow and to let compensation be determined locally before an arbitrator in all cases which at present have not been

2085
heard and determined. Under the Corn Production Act there is a legal right to have claims to compensation settled by arbitration. We propose to accept that principle and to apply it retrospectively to claims that have already arisen. It is a reasonable change for this main reason. It would be very difficult indeed for one tribunal to be determining cases which happen to have been brought sooner than others according to one principle, and at the same time another determining other cases according to another principle. Many of these cases are very small, and to bring a man up to London before the Losses Commission where only £2 is at stake seems to be a great waste of time, trouble, and expense. We can get them settled locally more rapidly and, I believe, more cheaply, and we therefore propose to make this change.
Mr. HARDY: The right hon. Gentleman has made an announcement of some importance in connection with the question of carrying back the proposal under this Section in order to cover every case. I am, perhaps, in rather a delicate position as a member of the Losses Commission, and a member who was put on that Commission to a large extent to deal with these food production cases. I cannot and I do not desire to raise any question about the policy of the Commission. I only rise in order to enable the House to obtain a little of the experience that I have gained in connection with these cases during the past year. Personally, I rather regret that the Government yielded to the original proposal in the House of Lords to make an exception in cases of compensation. I believe that people generally have no idea of the extreme difficulty of the cases which are arising in connection with food production. They are not cases—at all events, the compensation cases—which can be treated as lightly as a good many Members this afternoon seemed to think. They cannot be dealt with in five minutes by any person appointed by the Surveyors' Institute. They are cases which give rise to extremely difficult legal questions upon which the Commissioners have had to get not only the legal advice of their own members, but also other opinions. There are questions still in abeyance which require very careful treatment, and I do not think the President will find that the system of local Courts, which are paid Courts, instead of an unpaid Commission, will be cheaper in the end. I do not wish,
2086
however, to go into that matter. To-day we have to decide whether that arbitrary date of 21st August is to decide the process by which these claims of compensation are to be dealt with in future. The right hon. Gentleman is probably wise in his second thoughts. There would have been very great difficulty and there would have been dissatisfaction if people had found that there were two processes going on—if, on the one hand, there had been cases dealt with locally before a single arbitrator who would be able to take into consideration every circumstance; and if, on the other hand, there had been cases determined in London by the Losses Commission, who are very seriously hampered by the terms of their Warrant and who can only give an ex gratia payment, whereas an arbitrator is able to give actual compensation.
The practice of the Losses Commission has been to urge applicants to wait and not to bring their claims at once. It is almost impossible in many cases to decide immediately whether there is any loss, and the Losses Commission have urged applicants to wait for the crops to be realised. Many landlords therefore have reserved their right to come at a later date. Perhaps they will not come for three, four, or five years. It would have been a still greater difficulty if when they came they found that they were bound by the fact that the order was served this last year and that they had to go before the Losses Commission instead of before an arbitrator. Unless Parliament provided some means of escape from that position, you would have had two processes going on side by side. I do not think that would have been satisfactory. I do not believe that in the end this will be the cheaper course and probably it will be extremely awkward to deal with the precedents which will be established by a great number of Courts, but, on the whole, I think it was wise of the Government to have taken this matter into consideration and in this case to have decided to introduce the unusual practice of retrospective legislation. There are, of course, the very small cases to which the right hon. Gentleman alluded, and it is an advantage that they should be dealt with on the spot. I only had a case before me last week in which a tenant farmer in Yorkshire was differing from his agricultural committee over a sum of £3, and it was quite clear that at least 30s., if not more, must be awarded to him. That case

2087
should have been settled on the spot instead of having to bring two or three people up to London to determine it. A good deal has been said about the farmers and agriculturists of England, and I should like to mention one fact, which, though perhaps not particularly connected with this Amendment, is interesting. If it is imagined that agriculturists are very grasping persons and desire to get compensation for everything that is forced upon them, it will be rather interesting to the country to know that out of all the enormous number of notices and orders, which have undoubtedly thrown great anxiety and very often a great deal of inconvenience, and in many cases loss, upon the tenant farmers and landlords, only 179 cases have come up to the Losses Commission. I do not wish to boast at all, but if any question of delay is raised I may also add that so far as the Losses Commission are concerned only twenty-six cases remain untouched, and as thirty-four have come in this month I do not think that anybody can say that delay has rested on our shoulders. I only wanted to mention this fact because it is interesting as showing how very patriotically the agriculturists of the country have, as a rule, accepted inconvenience thrown upon them.
Captain WRIGHT: As the member responsible for putting down the next Amendment on the Paper, I should like to say how much the agricultural committees, farmers, and owners are indebted to my right hon. Friend for accepting the Amendment, and introducing one system for the assessment of these claims to compensation, and providing for a local system, rather than a system under which farmers had to come up to London and appear before the Losses Commission to have their claims assessed. I was asked by the Executive Committee of the Federation of War Agricultural Committees to put down this Amendment, and the President, in accepting it, has done a great stroke of work to encourage both the committees and the farmers to increase food production. As was said when it was suggested that this Amendment should be put down, they attach more importance to it than anything else.
Mr. DUNDAS WHITE: It is regrettable that we did not have a fuller warning on the Notice Paper of what the Government propose to do in this matter. The pro-
2088
posal which my right hon. Friend is making raises a very important question—the question whether certain matters should be determined by the War Losses Commission or by local arbitrators. I have listened to the whole of the Debate, and no reference whatever has been made to a very recent Report issued by the Expenditure Committee, which was appointed by this House, who, in either their last Report or the one before the last, went most carefully into the question of the various dealings with land, and declared themselves very strongly against the practice of local arbitrators, pointing out that local arbitrators almost invariably favoured the local interests at the expense of the taxpayers. The Defence of the Realm Losses Commission is a tribunal specially set up. They have various ways of doing their work. They need not all go down to a particular place to hear a particular claim. Claims can easily be presented to them. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashford (Mr. Hardy) gave us a very strong argument in favour of leaving the matter in their hands when he pointed out how well that Commission had undertaken the work, and how very few cases there were yet undealt with. In these circumstances I regret that there should be this marked tendency to transfer the decision of these compensation matters from the War Losses Commission to local arbitrators and to local committees, who are not nearly so careful of the general interests, but who are far more apt to favour the particular interests of the locality at the expense of the general interests of the taxpayers. I merely wish to enter my protest, and to express my regret that the course that has been taken has found favour in the eyes of the authorities.
Mr. ACLAND: I was not here when the Amendment was proposed, but following the speech we have just heard, I should like to ask a question. I understand that local arbitrators will be called in instead of the War Losses Commission, and they will have to decide what loss has been sustained in the case of land taken compulsorily or in the case of compulsory cultivation orders. Will it be possible for them to do, what arbitrators have got into the habit of doing in their work under the Lands Clauses Acts, that is, automatically adding—I think in England 10 per cent. and in Scotland up to 30 per cent., simply on account of the fact that

2089
compulsory possession is going to be taken? That practice of these arbitrators has made the acquisition of land for public purposes almost impossible from one end of the country to the other, because they always weigh the scales heavily against any public interest. The House will like to be assured whether anything in the nature of the automatic addition of these absurd percentages will be made possible by the arbitrators having to carry out this work.
Mr. PROTHERO: I would like to point out to the Committee that on the 21st August this year, as the Corn Production Act stood, all the claims for compensation would have gone before a single arbitrator appointed as is proposed in this case. That is the justification and the explanation of the course we are now adopting. The arbitrator is to be appointed in accordance with the provisions of the Second Schedule of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908, and, in default of agreement, by the President of the Surveyors' Institution. That was already sanctioned by the House as the arrangement which was to come into force on the 21st August. All that we are in effect doing is to say that cases which have already arisen should be dealt with on the same principle as was laid down in the Corn Production Act. It is not the vast change which some hon. Members might be led to imagine. It is a question of the date, the inconvenience and the great difficulty which would arise in having two sets of bodies determining the same class of case, when really the only possible reason why the one should be employed and not the other would be that they happened to have had notice a few days earlier or a few days later. That is the explanation, and I think it is a justification for the course we are pursuing.
Mr. RAFFAN: I desire to ask the President for some information. His explanation is hardly good enough. Surely all these circumstances were in contemplation when the Corn Production Act was passed last year! What has occurred in the meantime to cause the right hon. Gentleman to change his view and to alter the date which was adopted last year as the fitting date for placing the cases in the hands of a single arbitrator?
Mr. PROTHERO: Perhaps I might put it in this way: We struck a compromise as to our continuing to exercise certain com-
2090
pulsory powers in dealing with land. We have got, so to speak, to go to those who already have limited the exercise of our powers to the 21st August, and we say, "We want, because these are emergency times, exceptional times, you to let us to continue to use those compulsory powers." Of course, that is a big concession from cultivators of the soil. If we are allowed to continue to use them, I do not think it is an unreasonable bargain that we should meet them over the other part.
Mr. RAFFAN: But it is a concession?
Mr. PROTHERO: Yes; I state perfectly frankly that is the case.
Mr. ACLAND: Surely the Corn Production Act does not come to an end on the 21st August this year?
The CHAIRMAN: I think hon. Members ought to read the Act they are amending, and know what it is.
Mr. ACLAND: I do know.
The CHAIRMAN: The last hour has been taken up by hon. Members who have either not heard the discussion or have not read the Bill. This Amendment is quite simple to anyone who has read, for the purposes of discussion, the main Act.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: In paragraph (c), leave out the word "is" ["any notice is served"], and insert instead thereof the words "has been or shall be."—[Mr. Prothero.]
Mr. PROTHERO: I beg to move, in paragraph (c), to leave out the words "said Regulations," and to insert instead thereof the words "powers continued in operation by this Sub-section."
This is really only a drafting Amendment, but in order to explain it I may say that this particular provision refers only to the powers under the Corn Production Act and does not refer to all our other powers which we exercise under the Defence of the Realm Act, such as our fisheries Orders. The Amendment merely limits it to the matters within the purview of this particular Bill.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: At end of paragraph (c), add the words "except in any case in which the compensation has been otherwise determined."—[Mr. Prothero.]
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

BOARD OF TRADE.—Class 2.

  BRITISH DYE INDUSTRY.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1919, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade and Subordinate Departments."
  Mr. HOLT: This is a vote which is to give assistance to the dye-making industry. I think we should have some explanation from the President of the Board of Trade. It is marked on the Paper as being a new service; therefore it has apparently nothing whatever to do with the scheme of British Dyes which has already passed this House. The explanation tells us that this is only part of a total Vote of £2,000,000. This is the first instalment of a very big scheme. This money, we are told, is to be spent in the following ways: £1,250,000 are to be loaned, but it does not say to whom. That is a point on which the President of the Board of Trade should give us a full and ample statement. We must know who are to receive these very large loans, which I should imagine are being offered on very favourable terms. We are told that they are to get credit for twenty years. People do not get credit for twenty years without giving some sort of security. I have no doubt the President of the Board of Trade will give us information as to the character of the security which we are going to have for these advances. We are also told that £600,000 are to be paid in contributions in aid of extension of plant and buildings. That, I suppose, means a gift. I should like to know who are the persons who are to receive this very large gift of public money. We might also be informed what the public is going to receive in exchange for this gift of money. We are told that £150,000 are to be paid in Grants in aid of research. I do not know who are to get this. That, I have no doubt, will be explained. We ought to be told whether it is to be given to the manufacturers.
  2098
  [Mr. BOOTH: "Yes!"] There is a possible alternative, namely, universities or learned bodies. So far as the information given to us in this Vote is concerned, there is nothing to show that these Grants in aid of research are not to be given to learned institutions. I cannot help thinking that it would in itself be a more appropriate action to make Grants for research to learned institutions rather than to trading co-operations, which might use the research work as the foundation for a trading monopoly. On all these points I do not think it is possible for us to say anything much at present, and I do not propose to do so. Having brought these matters before the attention of the President of the Board of Trade, I would ask him if he will give us information on these points.
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD Of TRADE (Sir A. Stanley): I am very glad to have this opportunity of giving a brief explanation of the reasons for this Supplementary Estimate. It is quite true that it represents a very large sum of money. I am very glad to have an opportunity of explaining the position as far as the dye industry in this country is concerned, and I trust I shall secure as a result of the explanation the unanimous support of the Committee. In so far as the dye industry is concerned, it may be truthfully described as one of the essential industries of the country. Therefore, because it is an essential industry, it must be treated in a very special manner if necessity arise. I am sure it is within the knowledge of the Committee what was the position of the dye industry in this country at the outbreak of war. I think it would be well within the truth to say that this country was practically entirely dependent upon Germany for the supply of necessary dyes used in this country. That position, in so far as the industry itself is concerned, is important enough, but it goes far beyond that. The enormous number of industries of vast magnitude depending upon dyes for their existence makes it vital that the dye industry should be established in this country competently, not only to meet the needs of those who require dyes in this country, but perhaps more competently to take its place in the world of trade in respect of this particular product.
  At the outbreak of the War the industry in this country was not extinct, but nearly extinct. We were at that time almost entirely dependent upon Germany for the

  2099
  dyes that were required. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Runciman), my predecessor at the Board of Trade, recognising the importance of this industry, immediately took steps, very wisely, to establish the industry in this country, so that it might be entirely independent of any foreign source of supply. The first step was to establish British Dyes, which was aided at that time by funds from the Government, and established with the object of making this industry a great national industry, not national in the sense that it was controlled by the Government, but national in the sense that it would be competent to meet our demands. For that purpose the Government granted to that undertaking very considerable assistance at that time. As a result of the steps taken a very considerable advance has been made in the manufacture of dyes in this country. British Dyes, under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Forfar (Mr. Falconer) has been of very great assistance in advancing the industry in this country. It is true that British Dyes has been handicapped—perhaps that is the best word to use—because of the demands which have been made by the Ministry of Munitions for explosives, which, at that time, had to take a preeminent place The fact that the resources of British Dyes have been used for explosive purposes has, perhaps, to that extent, impeded the development of the undertaking along the lines which my right hon. Friend had in mind when he undertook the establishment of it. The mere fact that it was used for the purpose of explosives proves the importance of this industry to this country, not only as an industry essential in times of peace, but as an industry equally essential in times of war.
  What I have said about British Dyes making great advances is also true of other undertakings in the country, which were operating upon a very small scale at the outbreak of war. Messrs. Levenstein, and also, I think, the British Alizarine Company, have made very considerable progress. Perhaps they may have measured their progress more rapidly than that of British Dyes, because they have, I think, almost entirely been free from the need of supplying explosives to the Government. Both these undertakings have made progress, and perhaps one might say great progress, when one con-
  2100
  siders the limit of time they have had in which to develop themselves, the limited facilities, the limited amount of material, and the limited number of experts at their disposal. Taking those circumstances into consideration I think it would be true to say that they have made great progress. Still, the goal which my right hon. Friend had in mind, to establish in this country the industry so that it would be independent of supplies from foreign sources, and in particular from Germany, has not yet been accomplished. That is the goal that we will have in front of us—a goal which, I am advised by those competent to speak on this matter, that if we adopt certain methods can be accomplished within a reasonable time. We recognise the vast importance of this industry, and the imperative need for establishing it so that, if possible, when we come to discuss peace terms with Germany, this particular trump card of being able to say that this country depends upon Germany for its dyes will not be allowed to remain in Germany's hands.
  Time is the essence of the whole problem, and it is because we have so little time, as I trust we have so little time, in which to make the necessary advance in this industry that we have found it necessary to take special steps of a financial character and otherwise, to aid this industry to make more rapid progress than would otherwise be the case. It is not necessary for me to remind the Committee that the amount of materials at our disposal for extension of buildings and plant is very limited, and the numbers of trained chemists and the trained staff necessary for this work are also limited. It is vitally important that we should exercise the greatest care in the use of the limited materials and trained staff available for the purpose, and it is for that reason that I have, in consultation with different interests, come to the conclusion that it is in the national interests that there should be some fusion of interests, certainly with the more important undertakings involved in this enterprise. But that in itself is not sufficient. Those who are engaged in this industry have to consider the commercial aspect of the problem. That cannot be ignored entirely. Perhaps what may be described as the commoner range of dyes is adequately met by our own manufacture, but the more intricate colours, involving considerable plant and a great deal of research and a lot of patience, are matters still in the future. We have not

  2101
  yet succeeded in being able to say that, taking the dye situation as a whole, our position is anything like satisfactory. In order that this position may be secured within a reasonalbe time, as I am advised, and as I believe, possible, it is not only necessary to secure the best possible use of the material and labour that is there, but it is also necessary we should make extensions to existing plants and that we should also give them aid, where necessary, in their research work. As I have said before, time is the essence of this problem. We have got to hurry; we must make haste if we are going to reach our goal. Therefore the Government propose, inasmuch as this is an essential industry, that some assistance should be given to these undertakings where extensions of their buildings and plant are necessary. This assistance takes, in so far as that aspect of the problem is concerned, two forms. One is in the nature of a loan; and there the security, of course, would be upon the undertaking, and at a fair rate of interest. The other would be in the form of assistance which is not recoverable, and that is by making a contribution towards the cost of these extensions. The reason why that is proposed is owing to the very high cost of extensions at this time and to the natural reluctance of those engaged in this industry to make these extensions without assistance; and, following the principle which has been adopted by the Ministry of Munitions where extensions of work on Government account are necessary, we propose to give some assistance towards the cost of these extensions, and, as I have said, that will not be a recoverable sum. Here, again, it is because of the imperative need of making these extensions as quickly as possible during the War, and not waiting until the War is ended, that we feel justified in asking the Committee to agree that the Government is warranted in giving this form of assistance.
  The third form is by making a contribution in aid of research. I hope the field of research will be very wide, that it will not necessarily be confined to manufacturers alone, and that our institutions of learning will adopt the practice that exists in Germany, whereby these thousand and one institutions, so far as this problem is concerned, practically constitute themselves part of the great combines which deal in dyes in Germany. These combines, by encouraging these institutions in the research work connected with dyes,
  2102
  and by offering substantial rewards, obviously enormously widen the field of men competent to deal with this research work. It is not proposed that it should be necessarily limited to manufacturers. I trust the field will be wide, thereby securing great benefits to these institutions and to the country as a whole. That is the position as regards the dye industry. We have been given every assurance by those best competent to advise us on this matter that it is possible, and that there is no reason why, within a reasonable time, we should not be able to make the necessary progress which would secure this country being quite independent of any sources of supply, in particular from Germany. It is because we recognise that fact that we have suggested that this sort of aid should be given to these industries during the War. There is, perhaps, one other point which I may mention, so that I shall then have given to the Committee the whole of our programme in respect to dyes.
  Mr. HOLT: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will give me the names? I asked him specially if he would give the names of the people who will get this money. Will he do so?
  Sir A. STANLEY: I had better complete what I was going to say. I was going on to say, so that Members might have complete knowledge of our programme, we are proposing that for a period of ten years after the War imports of dye-stuffs into this country shall be prohibited except by licence. There is an obvious reason for this. If it is necessary that the dye industry shall be established, so that it should be quite independent of any foreign source of supply, then I suggest it is important that the industry should not be in a position to be assailed during its infant years by the attempt which these great German combinations are certain to make to re-establish their supremacy in this country, such as they had before the War, and completely destroy all we have done during the War. With regard to the use to which this money will be put—that is, those who will be in receipt of this benefit—I can only put it in this way, those who are now engaged in the industry in this country will be in a position to make application for relief, and in the consideration of these applications and the distribution of the funds placed at our disposal, we propose that a representative committee shall

  2103
  be appointed—a Committee representative of users and manufacturers, with an independent chairman appointed by the Board of Trade——
  Mr. BOOTH: Equal numbers.
  Sir A. STANLEY: Equal numbers, and who will advise the Board of Trade with respect to any applications that may be made for assistance by the Government? I trust, with this explanation, the Committee will accept this Supplementary Estimate.
  Sir W. ESSEX: I have listened with a good deal of pleasure and some satisfaction to the statement made by the President of the Board of Trade in introducing this Estimate. I hope I shall not be considered unsympathetic to the right hon. Gentleman in his presentation of the case if I suggest that the very heavy and onerous duties falling upon him in this House, in addition to the heavy burdens he has to carry in his great office, may possibly be urged in extenuation of the somewhat limited and technical illustration he has given of the matter he has brought before us to-night. Will he forgive me for saying it would have been a great help if he could have given some more definite evidence that this steady bolstering up with British capital of one particular industry in the country, deserving as it is—I am not offering any objection to it, but it does call for a certain amount of detail, supported by a quotation of facts such as would not in any sense be helpful to our enemy competitors, but such as would bear witness to the successive steps his Department has taken towards the goal which his sanguine expectation looks forward to reaching in the next, how long shall we say, six months? I should like to have known, and I hope the absence of that information is not due to its non-existence, that the work, which is very considerable, of these "dry nursed"—I am not using the term offensively—undertakings, in their output and their efficiency, has, so far as it goes, given a measure of satisfaction to the people whom they affect to supply.
  There can be very little doubt that Read, Holliday and Company, and Levinstein, and the rest of them prior to the Government taking them up, were making dyes which had a market value and a certain measure of success. But the country has a right to know, after the considerable
  2104
  period that has elapsed and the large amount of public money devoted to these undertakings, whether any great progress has been made in adding considerably to the bulk of those dyestuffs which these firms in the past had successfully produced. I do not know what are the root dyes, or what is the exact number of valuable recipes which were held by various German firms. If my memory serves me aright, there were about something like 2,000 of these recipes, and we had at the beginning of the War only about 500 of these recipes which we were able to manufacture; but the other 1,500 were not anything like the same high average usefulness. At the same time, those of us who are interested in our products, which depend for their perfectibility upon the fine and complete realisation of top tones in colour, have always noticed that they have of late, owing to the absence of some of these fine tinctorial products which they have been accustomed to use, and which came from Germany and, of course, Switzerland, lacked the essential finish. We want to know how far we are on the road to supplying ourselves with the dyes which will give us that top note, that pinnacle of excellence in tinctorial work. We have not had the slightest information on that, nor as to how many recipes the research which has been done has added to our list. It may be said that it would be inadvisable to give this information in a place like this, which is the sounding board of the whole world; but something might have been done by pointing out some evidence of increasing satisfaction on the part of customers to show that you are marching steadily along the path which you had set out for yourself.
  I did like one note in the President's speech. That was the cheery and almost juvenile optimism with which he expressed the opinion that sooner or later—and no doubt sooner rather than later—we should be quite independent of foreign products. The fight hon. Gentleman nods his head in approval. It is nice to be young and optimistic. I only wish, from the experience that I have got in these matters, that I felt the same confidence, and if that were so it would not be £1,000,000 or £2,000,000 which I would be ready to vote to-night, but I would not bother about even £10,000,000, because your business is bound up, as the President pointed out, not only with the important question of tinctorial products, but also with that of

  2105
  drugs. That he cannot deal with here, but it is a closely allied industry, and it may very well be that the Board of Trade would be able to reduce the cost by keeping that still more in mind, and also by encouraging analytical chemists by bonuses on further discoveries. Though these factories and chemists may co-operate in the production of war material, God send soon the time when we shall not have to use public money for those purposes, but at the present time it is of prime importance, and I am glad to know that so much has been done. I would ask the President to make himself in the allocation of money for the support of chemical research to consider and balance the expenditure as between a bonus system for all analytical chemists and sundry as well as for university and other specialised training to produce a large number of chemists in this country.
  What I have in mind is this: The prizes of applied chemistry have for many years past been almost wholly reserved to chemists employed either as shareholders, managers, directors or what not of industrial undertakings, and there were very few experts on chemical research who were used as referees or revisers, as this has not been a productive or very remunerative calling. I have never been able to discover that the Board of Trade have thought it worth while to offer bonuses or encouragement in this direction in order that there might be a production of new recipes. Say that there is a chemist engaged in some particular research work for a gigantic firm of chemical manufacturers, that industry must have his first, second, and third care. At the same time he may very easily here and there come across things which would be useful to the Board of Trade in these industries which it is patronising, and you will never get the advantage of that unless the man happens to be a man of unusual public spirit, because otherwise he will not think it worth while to trouble you with what he has discovered. But if you have a scheme of bonuses in many eases the man would be able to pick up things which would be useful, and I sincerely hope that we may be able to do something along these lines. I do not think that this application of a ten years' restriction is necessary. Unless within a much shorter time than ten years our industry can stand firmly alone, we shall not be throwing the £1,000,000 or £2,000,000 into the bottomless pit, but we
  2106
  shall have had to add many millions more in the interval. A great deal of care and thought has been given to this matter. I have no doubt that the President of the Board of Trade will be glad to welcome all suggestions of a helpful character, and from the bottom of my heart, as a humble Member of this House, I do sincerely hope that the commercial organisation of these industries, which have been too long under the enemy whip, the production of drugs and of tinctorial products, may result in the great development of industries which, after all, had a beginning in this country. The past position has been a matter of profound regret to me for many years, and I hope that we are on the high road now at last to recover the ground which we have lost, and bring about a more creditable and happier state of things in our commercial undertakings.
  Colonel COLLINS: I listened carefully to the speech of the President of the Board of Trade. He has not given us sufficient information to enable us to pass this Supplementary Estimate to-night. The only information which we have had was contained in the White Paper received from the Vote Office yesterday, and this evening we are asked to sanction the further sum of £1,000,000 to British Dyes. There is no indication in the White Paper that this Supplementary Estimate refers to British Dyes, and this evening for the first time we are asked to vote this £1,000,000 to this particular company.
  Sir A. STANLEY: May I say, by way of explanation, that this £1,000,000 is not to be used in the interest of any one undertaking, but is to be used in the interests of those undertakings existing in the country now, which are considerably more than British Dyes. We do not for a moment propose that this £1,000,000, or anything like it, should be used exclusively for the benefit of British Dyes.
  Colonel COLLINS: I am sorry if I have have misrepresented the position taken up by the President of the Board of Trade: but the explanation which he has offered is a further reason why the Government should not ask us this evening to pass this Supplementary Estimate. The first question which I desire to ask is, How much of this money is to be allotted to British Dyes—can the right hon. Gentleman give any information on that point? The right hon. Gentleman is unable to furnish the House with any information.

  2107
  Much public money is to be allowed to the British dyers, and it is an extraordinary position that the Government take up. In the Debate of two years ago this House was assured, when asked to vote for £1,000,000 for this company, that the public at that time would be asked for £1,000,000 also; and the House was also assured that if more money were required from the British Government, for every £100 voted by this House, the British dyers and the public outside would be asked for £400. For every £1 of public money the public outside were to subscribe £4. But this evening the President of the Board of Trade tells us that he is unable to say how much money is to be allotted to the British dyers, and we are unable to judge whether the Government are carrying out the obligation which the Government of that day entered into with this House when they gave us the assurance that in future if further capital were required, further large sums of private money would be forthcoming at the same time that any public money was Asked from the Government. I think the position is very unsatisfactory. Here we are asked this evening for a sum of £1,000,000, and we are given little or no information as to how the money is to be spent. We are told that £1,250,000 is to be lent to this company at 5 per cent., or not less than 5per cent., and it is to be repayable in twenty years. In other words, these companies need not repay for twenty years a single penny of this money. They may get this money for twenty years, and not pay a single penny in that time. Surely they should be asked to repay a certain fixed sum every year.
  Then they are also to receive the contribution of £600,000 in aid of plant and buildings. Can the President of the Board of Trade tell us what percentage that £600,000 is of the total cost of the buildings? We are asked to devote £600,000 as a Grant in aid of extensions and buildings, and this House is not given any information as to whether that sum represents the whole cost of the buildings, three-quarters of the cost, half the cost, or a quarter of the cost. Surely it is trifling with the House of Commons to come here and ask for these large sums of money, and not give us that assurance. This is public money; this is coming from the taxpayers of the country. I have already said that when this scheme was originally instituted the taxpayers were
  2108
  given to understand that if further public money was lent to these companies, large sums would be lent by outside shareholders. The result of this granting of £1,250,000 will be to largely increase the interest of the original shareholder. We are by our action this evening increasing the value of the shares which were taken up by the original shareholders two years ago. Let us do that, at any rate, with our eyes open. Let us realise that by our action this evening we are placing large sums of public money in the pockets of private individuals. That is the result of the action of the Government. I am not speaking against the general question of the State helping the dye industry. It was generally agreed in this House that steps should be taken to manufacture dyes in this country. The capital of the company two years ago was £2,000,000. This evening we are going to Grant them another £1,250,000; that is £3,250,000. How much money is really required to develop the dye industry in this country?
  Sir WATSON RUTHERFORD: Forty millions.
  Colonel COLLINS: Might I ask my right hon. Friend if he can tell us what the total value of the imports of dye into this country was before the War? I have the figures here, and the total value of imports of dyes into this country before the War were £2,250,000 a year. My hon. Friend says £40,000,000 is required, but as a business man I would not ask this House to believe that to produce £2,250,000 each year would require a capital of £40,000,000. That is a statement which, as a business man, I can hardly accept. I am not a manufacturer of dyes—I know nothing about it—but I am approaching the subject from the point of view of the public interest. I learn that the value of the dyes imported into this country was £2,250,000.
  Sir W. RUTHERFORD: In this country alone?
  Colonel COLLINS: I am speaking of this country alone.
  Sir W. RUTHERFORD: That is leaving the Colonies out.
  Colonel COLLINS: I am speaking of the value of the dyes imported into this country, and I am trying to find out what capital is required to produce 2¼ millions' worth each year?
  Sir W. RUTHERFORD: It is an absurd question.
  Colonel COLLINS: It is a question which must have been in the mind of the President of the Board of Trade. He must have applied his mind to that subject. How can he come to this House and ask for public money, so as to secure that dyes are manufactured in this country in the future sufficient to supply our needs, unless he has, at the same time, prepared some estimate showing the capital required to produce the necessary dyes. Surely that is a self-evident proposition. There must be somewhere in the office of the President of the Board of Trade some such statement as I am trying to obtain. I suggest that we should have further information from the Government before this Supplementary Vote is passed this evening. For the first time, we have been told this evening, that ten years after the War the import of dyes is to be restricted, and that imports are only to take place under licence. That is conferring a great benefit on the original shareholders of this company. I am not arguing whether it is a sound step to take or not. I say it is a step depending upon the action of the Government. Those who have put their money into this company in the past are receiving a very large sum voted indirectly by the Government. Not only are they going to receive 1¼ millions of public money, or rather £1,000,000 this year, but they are going to receive protection for ten years. Surely the public has an interest in this matter. Here are we, in the House of Commons, conferring this big financial privilege on these shareholders. We who represent the taxpayers, we who represent the public, are required to find this money, and on behalf of the taxpayer, and on behalf of the public of this country, I say that we are entitled to demand from the Government that if they grant big concessions to these companies, they should, in return, demand that a certain limit should be fixed, and a return paid on the capital sunk in these companies.
  If we are to grant these privileges to these particular people, we should demand, and we will insist upon demanding, that the return on capital of profits to the shareholders will be limited and restricted. What right has the President of the Board of Trade to grant these privileges to these people? Why take these particular men, and grant them this new privilege? What reason is there why these men should be singled
  2110
  out by the Government? Why should they receive this privilege while at the same time one-man businesses are being closed by the hundred, and no public money is forthcoming for these poor men? I do not know a single individual amongst these people, but they are powerful men, and if we grant this privilege to them we are entitled to demand some return from them, and by the Rules of the House we are unable to move any Amendment which would secure the result I have in view. Our only course is to oppose the Supplementary Estimate at every stage, and, unless I can have some assurance or explanation from the Government, I say that they are breaking faith with the public on this subject. If my information be correct—and here I go back to my first point—this House was given a definite understanding that, when further public money was granted for making dyes, for every £1 lent by the Government in future £4 would be lent by outside shareholders. If that statement be correct, the Government are breaking a distinct pledge given to this House and to the public. All of us agree that the dye industry should be developed, but I take exception to the dye industry being developed with Government money, and the profits being disbursed into the pockets of private shareholders. On these broad grounds, when the question is put later on I will divide the House on the subject, and I hope that hon. Members in all quarters of the House will oppose this Supplementary Estimate and record a vote against the Government, asking for public money, while at the same time not taking steps to secure that private interests will not benefit unduly.
  Mr. DILLON: The form of this Estimate is certainly an amazing illustration of the looseness which has invaded the voting of public money in this House. I have been a very long time in the House of Commons, and until quite recently to bring in an Estimate proposing to grant enormous sums of public money to private enterprises was absolutely unheard of, and I venture to say that it is an extraordinarily dangerous precedent to set. I know perfectly well how strong the grounds are for claiming that something exceptional should be done to develop the dye industry in this country, but there are other industries which are equally important, or very nearly so, which have been monopolised by Germany and other countries, and which also require to be developed. There

  2111
  are the sugar industry, the glass industry, and the drug industry. The loss of this last-named industry is perhaps greater in inconvenience to the public than the loss of the dye industry, because we can all go about in clothes badly dyed, or not dyed at all, much better than we can go about without drugs. There are various different industries, and when you once adopt this principle you open a door which is so wide that it is very hard at all to know where it will land you. But what I really rose to call attention to was this: I am not prepared to deny that it might be maintained that a Grant should be made for the improvement of the dye industry in this country, but anything like the statement made by the President of the Board of Trade in justification of this Grant I have never listened to in my life, because certainly one would expect that in so unprecedented, so unusual, so strange, and, to the practice of this House, so foreign a system of granting public money, the President would have gone into the whole of the details, first of all, as to the results achieved by previous Grants to the British Dye Company. I do not at all gather that we have got an adequate account of what has been the result of the previous Grants which we have made, and we certainly were entitled to a most detailed and specific account of the results that have been achieved by the great outlay which has been incurred already, and also a justification on the part of the President of the Board of Trade of the methods by which that money was expended, and the plan which was adopted for its expenditure.
  The Manchester firm which was mentioned, and was, I believe, one of the few successful private enterprises in this country making dyes and competing with the Germans before the War, might or might not have been given a share of the money that has been granted. I do not know whether they have or not, and I think we ought to know exactly what they obtained, whether they made an application, and, if they did not get a share of this money, why they did not: Although I know nothing about the dye industry, I should have imagined that the first thing to be done by the Government, if they really desired to encourage the industry in this country, would be to ascertain whether there were any firms who, before the War, had been able to compete
  2112
  successfully, or to compete at all, with the Germans in this industry, and on general business principles those firms ought unquestionably to have been made the main starting point of the new encouragement of the industry, because anyone would naturally say that the firms who had been able to compete with the Germans before the War, if such there be—and I understand there is at least one in Manchester—would be able to make far better use of any Grants or loans to extend their industry than any new enterprise started without any tradition or experience in the trade. I do not know whether it is true or not, but if it be true that the money was not distributed to these firms we should know from the President of the Board of Trade the grounds on which that course was taken.
  In addition to that, we have this extraordinary fact: We are asked now to make a Grant of £1,000,000, which is to be lent at 5 per cent. for twenty years, to certain firms unspecified. Nothing is said as to how it is to be distributed. It may all go to the British Dyes, for all we know. The President said it is not all to go to the British Dyes, but we have no information as to where this money is going. We are to vote it in the dark, and not only is that large sum to be voted, but we are told now that this is only the
  "first instalment of a total sum of £2,000,000 to be provided for the purpose of assisting, by way of loans, Grants, etc., the expeditious development of the British dyemaking industry."
  There is not the slightest information given in the statement as to what is to become of all this money. £600,000 is an immense sum of public money to grant for the extention of plant and buildings, and really I think the claim of the hon. Member who last addressed the Committee that there should be some security that this money is not to go into the pockets of shareholders, and not to go for the purpose of increasing the value of capital invested in these companies, ought to be supported. It is a very dangerous practice that has how been introduced into the House of voting these large sums of money, and voting them really in the dark, without any explanation as to whether the money is to be distributed to aid private enterprises. The Reports of the Committee on Finance in this House have given such an appalling account of the methods in which public money has been distributed that we are

  2113
  entitled to be far more cautious and far more exacting in dealing with proposals of this kind than if those Reports were not before us. There is nothing more atrocious and terrible than the Reports that have been issued by that Committee, one of which has come out this morning, some of the details in which are really staggering. If the check on the expenditure of public money is reduced to such a chaos as is displayed in these Reports, all the more ought we to be cautious about voting such immense sums as we are asked now to vote for the benefit of private institutions, unless we are afforded some greater promise of strict economy, and more detailed information to the House of Commons than any that has been promised so far.
  Sir W. RUTHERFORD: I think the President of the Board of Trade ought to be congratulated by the Committee for bringing forward his Estimate in this way. To my mind—and I have been a constant critic of the financial methods of Government Departments for the last fifteen years in this House—this is an agreeable departure in the right direction. We have had over and over again, and I think we have had this Session on several occasions, transactions in the shape of contracts entered into committing our Government to the expenditure of very large sums of money, and, when the committal has actually been made, Supplementary or other Estimates have been brought in, and we have then been told that the Government has been committed to the expenditure. Here we have an illustration of exactly the contrary course. The President of the Board of Trade comes to us and he says, "We propose in connection with the dye industry to take the power to lay out over a period of three years the sum of £2,000,000, and we tell you quite candidly what we propose to do about it. We are going to make loans, and we are going in some cases to make Grants." I understand those Grants will be in small sums in aid of research and matters of that sort.
  Mr. DILLON: £600,000!
  9.0 P.M.
  Sir W. RUTHERFORD: No; £150,000. If the hon. Member, instead of contradicting me flatly across the floor of the House, would take the trouble to look at the Paper before him, he would see that he is wrong, and the interruption would be perfectly unnecessary. The Board of
  2114
  Trade come here, and tell us they want to have the power in connection with this important industry, which was entirely in the hands of the enemy up to the outbreak of the War, to make certain loans, which, I understand, would be Government security, would bear a rate of interest, would be repayable, and, in some cases, would be accompanied by a share of the profits in the undertakings, and that they want to have the power to deal with those people who are helping to secure for this country this important dye industry. I, for one, confess that it is a much honester and more satisfactory method of going about the business than if the President of the Board of Trade had come to us in the last week of the Sitting of the House before Christmas next and had said, "I have put so much into such concerns, so much more into certain other dye undertakings, and lent so much money to the British company. The contracts are made, and the money has been advanced, and you have practically no option but to turn the Government out or to ratify what they have done." That is the kind of way we have always been treated in the past, and I think it is much better to come to us and say, "Place at my disposal this sum of money. I have not agreed to advance part of it already to this, that, or the other undertaking, and therefore I cannot give you particulars of it, but I see that this important industry, which is one of the key industries of the world, in which we were at a great disadvantage when war broke out, should be assisted in a financial way, and you must have some confidence in the Board of Trade with regard to the way in which the money is laid out, and we are taking you into confidence in advance and telling you that is the plan which is intended to be followed." I was rather struck with the observations of the hon. and gallant Member for Greenock (Colonel Collins). He put a point with reference to the £2,500,000. It is perfectly true that that was the value of the dyes imported in this country before the War. That amount to-day, I suppose, would represent a value approximately of £5,000,000 or £6,000,000. As I understand it, the institutions, the big concerns making these dyes, this industry in Germany was probably employing from £30,000,000 to £35,000,000 of capital when the War broke out. They were supplying the United States, neutral countries, all our present Allies, ourselves,

  2115
  and our Colonies with these dyes. I have been agreeably surprised in looking at this Estimate to see that the President of the Board of Trade not only thinks that he can be of substantial use to this industry and to its necessary development, if he gets placed at his disposal a sum not exceeding £1,000,000 this year and £1,000,000 next; but I was agreeably surprised to find that only £150,000 out of this £2,000,000 is apparently not going to be repayable. The rest of it, as the Paper shows, is to be in loans and in contributions in aid of extensions of plant, which, I gather, will be repaid. Only £150,000 will probably not be remunerative. But if that amount will help research, will help us to get one step nearer towards solving the great problems of this great industry, surely that £150,000 will help our young people.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Put them in the Army.
  Sir W. RUTHERFORD: That is another question altogether.
  Mr. PRINGLE: But it is so!
  Sir W. RUTHERFORD: I am not talking about putting anybody into the Army. The hon. Member's unseemly interruption has nothing to do with the point.
  Mr. PRINGLE: It has.
  Sir W. RUTHERFORD: I was dealing with this question of loans, which is before the Committee.
  Mr. PRINGLE: And of research.
  Sir W. RUTHERFORD: Really, I think it is desirable I should be allowed to make my point. If the hon. Member wishes to address the House about recruiting and these other matters he has a perfect right to do so afterwards, if he be in Order. I was just finishing my observations, and I again would take the opportunity of congratulating the Board of Trade upon this new departure, upon this very desirable system being introduced into these public Departments when it is intended to spend money. Regarding the particular undertaking which has been assailed by the hon. Member for Greenock, we have a director whom the Government appointed on the benches opposite. If it had been a question as to how that concern was getting on—which it is not to-night—I am quite sure the hon. Member would have been able to give us an account of what that undertaking is doing and its progress in the
  2116
  country. That is not the point before the House. The point before us now is, are we going to trust the Board of Trade with the administration of £2,000,000 which, they tell us, they are going to lay out in loans at interest to help this key industry, which requires help and development, and which would find it difficult to get outside money during the War; that £150,000 is being used in Grants for purposes of enabling research to be undertaken. There is hardly a Department in the United Kingdom that is so badly off as research in all our industries. There is no endowment fund. We are alone as a country in that respect. Almost every other country endows research. Here is £150,000 given to help it. I congratulate the President upon asking for this money, and on the methods by which it is intended to be used.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am afraid I cannot agree to the appeal that has been made by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. Particularly I must join issue with him on his financial estimates if they are on the basis of the Grants to which Parliament is now asked to make a contribution. Nor do I agree with hire that there is a new departure in the way this Supplementary Estimate is introduced by the Government. He says the Government are taking the House fully into their confidence beforehand, and apparently framing their schemes afterwards. If I remember rightly, in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade made at Manchester some little time ago, he informed his audience—as reported in the Manchester papers—that the Government had already decided on some such schemes as are now provided for out of the Grants which we are now asked to make. The difficulty the Committee is in to-night is that the Board of Trade are asking for the administration of these large sums of money—I presume they have Treasury sanction for the proposals which are being made—without giving the Committee full information of the terms on which the money is to be granted. I have some recollection of the first Grant which was made for the benefit of the dye industry of this country in the early stage of the War, when not only our supply of explosives but our munitions supplies were in question, and the shortage of dyes then was likely to leave both Lancashire and Yorkshire without sufficient raw material to carry on. In that case, however, the whole prospectus

  2117
  of British Dyes, Limited, was under discussion in the House. I think it was the Member for Pontefract who raised the whole question on two or three occasions, and we had full discussion in the House on every detail of the prospectus then issued.
  Mr. PENNEFATHER: I took part in that discussion. I then made my maiden speech. There was some discussion in detail, but we got very few answers to questions that we put.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Doubtless my hon. Friend has a more vivid recollection of his maiden speech than I have; but certainly one distinction between the proposals made to-night and those made then is that the actual prospectus was before us, with the names of directors, the terms under which the Grants were to be made, the terms of repayment, proportions of capital expenditure, and so on. They were all made public by the discussions in the House.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Or else my hon. Friend opposite could not have made his maiden speech.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I, for one, certainly do not object to Government assistance being given in the manufacture of dyes, provided it is understood that the Government and the country get a quid pro quo. It is difficult to say whether or not the country is getting a quid pro quo until the right hon. Gentleman has given us more information than he gave when he opened the discussion this evening. I take the second item, £600,000, as a contribution-in-aid of the extension of plant and buildings. What is that to be the proportion of? The right hon. Gentleman who sits behind the Front Bench said that he thought about £40,000,000 would be necessary for the proper production of dyes in this country.
  Sir W. RUTHERFORD: I was giving the figures of what actually had been the capital of the concerns in Germany that were doing the business before the War. If we are to take the place of them, it will probably come to about the same amount of money—ultimately!
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: That is a very rough and ready way of forming a foundation for Government Grants. I say if the figure given by the hon. Gentleman is the figure in the minds of the Government, it is obvious that £600,000 is a very small
  2118
  percentage of the total expenditure; and it is perfectly obvious, too, that if they had no such figure in their mind they are not thinking of establishing such analogous establishments. They must have been thinking of something else. This amount is to be devoted to the putting up of plant and buildings, the total expenditure upon which we have no information. My right hon. Friend did not tell us what the total amount was likely to work out at. We ought to know what percentage of the capital that has to be spent on these extensions and plant is covered by this £600,000. The House is well aware that through the Munitions Department and the Admiralty and the Shipbuilding Department large advances have been made for extensions, but in every case, and certainly in the Shipbuilding Department, the advances are made under the general unvaried rule of 40 per cent. basis on the capital expenditure, which is the limit of the advances made. Does this sum represent 40 per cent. on the average or in particular cases? Is there to be more than 40 per cent. in some cases and less in others? That is an item of information to which the Committee is entitled before it gives the right hon. Gentleman complete and unlimited control of such a large sum of money. The loans amount to £1,250,000, and they are to remain under certain conditions mentioned in the footnote at
  "not less than 1 per cent. above bank rate, with a minimum of 5 per cent."
  But the Treasury stipulated in the advances made three years ago that for every £l that was put up by the State there should be £2, £3 or £4 put up by the companies, who will get the benefit of these advances, and therefore you are entitled to know what proportion the State advances bear to the money provided by the private concerns. The amount which is to be paid as Grants-in-Aid for research must have been made with some estimate to guide the Department, and can we be given some information as to the direction in which research is likely to proceed—whether it will be under the control of private companies or whether the work will be done by the modern universities or groups of universities, or the National Physical Laboratory. This information can be given without my right hon. Friend giving away anything that is likely to weaken him in his negotiations with concerns outside.

  2119
  There has been no instance within my Parliamentary experience, which began about nineteen years ago, which I can recall where a sum of money anything like this has ever been granted to any Department on the strength of so little information being imparted to the House. The first instance I remember was under the Cunard Agreement, and that was safeguarded by an Act of Parliament in which the agreement appeared in the Schedule. It was debated in every stage, and I do not think there were any further advances made to any industry outside the area of munitions except that made to British Dyes. I have given some particulars of the safeguards provided by the House in order that full information might be imparted as to the financial position of these concerns. If there are further Grants of this kind we shall have to discuss them from time to time, but on this occasion the Board of Trade has asked for a large round sum of money to carry out their policy, and under these circumstances I think it is encumbent upon my right hon. Friend to give us an answer to the question which I have put.
  I would like for my own part to say that I do not agree that we can treat the dye-making industry in the way we treat other industries, because it has a munition value almost peculiar to itself. It has already been shown how dyes and explosives are interlocked, and I believe I am saying what is correct when I say that at least three-fourths of the new plant for British Dyes has been devoted to the manufacture of explosives. Of course, that has been a disadvantage to the dye users, but a great advantage to the Munitions Department and the country as a whole. Not only explosives but drugs also are mixed up with the production of these aniline dyes. From our recent experience we know that we must treat the manufacture of explosives and drugs in the same category as being absolutely necessary for the defence of this country, and just as essential as the building of destroyers and battleships or the making of guns. But if that be a distinction which we must apply to this industry, we are bound to give to every Grant of financial assistance to those who make money out of it the most carefully prescribed safeguards, and the House must be well satisfied that this money cannot be used merely with the object of bolstering up the interests of private shareholders.
  2120
  The hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) referred to great Manchester firms which had been successful in the manufacture of dyes before the War. Those who know the facts about one firm in Manchester will agree with me when I say that my hon. Friend did not give a correct description of their prosperity. I may mention that Messrs. Levenstein's shares could be bought for a very few shillings before the War, and it is only the exclusion of enemy products which now makes those shares worth as many pounds as they were formerly worth shillings. I think we ought to know whether any Grants are going to be made to Messrs. Levenstein. They have not been bound to manufacture explosives, and I think we ought to be told whether they may be one of the firms to which these Grants should be made. Then there is the Patent Aniline Dye Company, which is more specialised in its products. Will they be receiving any advance? Will Major Holliday's firms in Huddersfield be receiving any advances under this proposal? If my right hon. Friend will give us an answer, as I have no doubt he can, I am sure the Committee would be much better disposed towards giving him a freer hand in the distribution of this money than it has ever given to any of his predecessors. These inquiries may cover a wide range, but I am sure my right hon. Friend will see that there is a general anxiety in many parts of the House to receive more information than the right hon. Gentleman was able to give when he first spoke.
  Sir A. STANLEY: My right hon. Friend who has just sat down makes the same criticism in respect to this Estimate that has been made during the Debate by several hon. Members, and that is that I have failed to give to the Committee the necessary information so that they might be able to fairly consider whether this is a proper sum to be voted or not. I am sure hon. Members will quite realise that some of the information in my possession with regard to the position of the dye industry to-day should not be disclosed at this time. Information of a technical character, information which will disclose to the enemy what progress we have been able to make in the development of this industry during the War, should not be disclosed at this time, and I am sure, as far as that aspect of the problem is concerned, hon. Members will not press me to go too far. But there is other information which has been asked for which I am

  2121
  only too glad that Members of this Committee should have. I lay no claim, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Dews-bury (Mr. Runciman) has done, to nineteen years' experience of this House. It so happens that my experience is measured by that exact number of months, and I cannot possibly say whether the form of this Estimate is unique, and whether or not the Board of Trade is asking this Committee to give it power with respect to special expenditure which goes beyond the ordinary procedure in matters of this kind.
  It may be for that reason, before the Committee entrusts the Board of Trade with the expenditure of this large sum of money, that it is desired I should give them, as far as possible, not only the reasons why this sum should be expended, but also necessary details of the expenditure itself. The Committee, I am sure, will realise there are certain special reasons why it is impossible for me to give all the information asked for. One is, we have not yet involved ourselves in any of this expenditure; it will all arise in the future. We desire that this industry should be placed on a secure foundation, and in order to do that we feel there is a certain amount of money required, money which perhaps the ordinary investor would not be prepared to provide. I am afraid I cannot associate myself with the suggestion that we are launching upon an adventure which may eventually involve us in something approaching £40,000,000. That is rather far from my mind, and something much more modest than that will, I think, be found adequate to meet the necessities of the case. In so far as the Estimate is concerned, I propose to deal with the loan first of all. We are proposing that certain loans should be made not to any one particular person but to any person or firm in the country who can, if this loan is granted, be of assistance to the country in the establishment of this dye industry on a broader and more secure foundation. It might be that the firm would not be in a position to secure the money on, perhaps, the same favourable terms as the Government itself would be prepared to give. But if we do involve ourselves in any loan, we expect something in return for it. First of all, there must be adequate security for the money lent. But, beyond that, there will be an undertaking on the part of the firm that during the time this loan is in existence a limit shall
  2122
  be placed on the profits which may be available for the purposes of dividend—on the amount of money which may be paid out to the shareholders. That amount will be limited so long as this loan is outstanding. The hon. and gallant Member for Greenock quite rightly raised that point, and I trust he will be satisfied with the explanation I have given.
  Colonel COLLINS: What rate of dividend will the Government propose to allow these firms to pay to their shareholders? Is it to be limited to 6 per cent.?
  Sir A. STANLEY: I do not know that I can at this time definitely state how much they will be allowed to pay. "British Dyes," if I remember rightly, is already limited to the rate of dividend it may pay. Certainly, whatever the limit may be, hon. Members may take it that it will in every case be a limited return on the capital invested.
  Mr. ROCH: May I ask if, while the dividend is limited, the firms will be allowed to carry the surplus to reserve, or what will happen with the surplus over the limit?
  Sir A. STANLEY: The surplus I suggest would. I do not say it would be so in every case, but, generally speaking, any surplus that was made would go towards the repayment of the loan. I should not, however, like to say that that would be so in every instance. It may be that in some cases it would be of advantage, broadly speaking, if some part of this surplus were used for the purpose of extensions, and that instead of obtaining further loans for That purpose the reserve could be utilised. But these are business propositions upon which you cannot lay down any cast-iron rule; you must be guided by circumstances with respect to each particular firm. All I suggest is that so long as the profit which may be secured by the shareholders is limited, and the Government can be secured with respect to its loan, in so far as the financial part is concerned, that may be considered satisfactory. Then, to secure the advantage of this loan and also to secure the advantage of any contribution towards the cost of establishment, the firm will be placed under a further obligation, and this I suggest is a very important aspect of the problem. The firms will be put under an obligation—a deadly obligation—to manufacture a range of dyes which perhaps at the present moment cannot be pro-

  2123
  duced upon a commercial basis, but a range of colours which it is essential in the national interest should be produced.
  Those who are familiar with this particular industry will realise that the dyes made, generally speaking, can be classified under two heads—one the commoner range of dyes, for which there is a considerable demand in bulk and from which the manufacturer makes a goodly profit, and the other, the, finer range of dyes, which involve very considerable investments for plant which require long and painstaking research, and from which there is only a limited return in so far as bulk is concerned, and therefore upon which a small profit only is generally made. It is for that particular range of colours more than perhaps time, involving considerable expenditure of money on research work, that we propose to make advances to those firms not only in the way of loans, but as contributions which will not be recoverable towards the cost of establishing the undertaking. We feel justified in making the loans because of the increased cost involved, especially at the present time. My right hon. Friend raised the question as to the proportion which this £600,000 would bear to the total cost. I cannot give the exact figures. We made no bargain, but I think I can safely say to the Committee that on the average—there will be exceptions, of course—it will not exceed the figure which my right hon. Friend gave and which was 40 per cent. As I have said, there will be exceptions perhaps one way or the other, sometimes a little higher and sometimes a little lower, but, on the average, I think that I can safely say that it will not exceed the figure that I have mentioned.
  Mr. HOLT: Do you mean that 40 per cent is about the correct figure?
  Sir A. STANLEY: Yes; that is about the figure.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there will be any restrictions on the prices to be charged by these firms to the users?
  Sir A. STANLEY: Both with regard to the prices which will be charged to the consumers and the distribution of the products amongst the consumers, which I venture to suggest is equally important, so that not only the large users but the smaller users as well, will equally secure
  2124
  fair treatment. It is proposed, in so far as we have authority to do it, that the Board of Trade shall have the right to interfere if complaint is made that unduly high prices are being charged for their products or if, on the other hand, complaint is made that there has not been a fair distribution amongst the users of the products of the firms who are receiving the benefit of these Grants from the Government.
  Colonel COLLINS: Are the public going to be asked to subscribe any money?
  Sir A. STANLEY: I desire to lay particular emphasis upon that point. This proposition cannot fairly be compared with the origin of British Dyes. It is not proposed, in so far as this money is concerned, whenever any loan is made or any contribution is made to any firm, that the shareholders, or the public, if you will, should be asked to contribute either an equal or a less amount. There is a very good reason for that. This sum of money is intended for a particular purpose. Briefly, the object is to establish the dye industry in this country within a very narrow compass of time upon such a basis that, at the close of hostilities or shortly afterwards—here, of course, one dare not prophesy, but-assuming the War goes on a reasonable time——
  HON. MEMBERS: Oh!
  Mr. HOLT: What is a reasonable time?
  Sir A. STANLEY: Then, in so far as one can judge the position to-day, it is thought that we shall be able to establish this industry within that time upon the basis which I have mentioned. I quite appreciate why that remark creates a laugh. In so far as one to-day can possibly foresee, given the necessary encouragement and assistance, this industry should be able properly to establish itself within that time. Therefore, it is for a particular purpose that this money is intended, and it must be looked at, I suggest, rather differently from the proposal when British Dyes were first established.
  Mr. SAMUEL: My right hon. Friend has not answered several of the questions put to him by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Runciman). I took a note of what he asked. The only information that my right hon. Friend has so far given is to the effect that the sums which are to be granted for exten-

  2125
  sions will be about 40 per cent. of the total amount which will be invested in these undertakings. He was asked what further Grants are in prospect, to what extent is it proposed to carry this enterprise, and what proportion of the £1,000,000 which we are now asked to Grant bears to the total sum which the Board of Trade calculate will be expended upon this industry. Further, he was asked through what agencies the research work is to be carried on. A very large sum is to be devoted for research. Who is to undertake the research? Is it to be done under the auspices of the Committee of the Privy Council on Industrial and Scientific Research, and, if not, under whose auspices? Further, he was asked what is the position of a very important firm in this industry, Messrs. Levenstein. All those important questions were put by my right hon. Friend, and I think that they should receive specific replies. I would add another one. Will the financial arrangements proposed to be made by particular companies with the assistance of public money be laid before Parliament and be open to our consideration?
  Mr. PRINGLE: The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade told us that he has only had nineteen months' Parliamentary experience, but his statement was marked by all the art, all the skill, and all the ingenuity of a muck older Parliamentary hand. He gave the appearance of taking the House completely into his confidence. He would tell us overything except the technical details. Of course, the technical details must be reserved because obviously that would be giving important information to the enemy as to the progress that we are making in this highly important industry. But on every other point except technical details all the cards were to be placed on the table. I waited, but I did not see a single card, not one. The hon. Member for Liverpool (Sir W. Rutherford) thinks that this is really the best way in which to treat Parliament. Formerly the Board of Trade used to come down and put a cut and dried agreement upon the Table. They said, "These are the terms of the prospectus. These are the names of the directors. This is the capital which the public are going to be invited to subscribe. This is what the Government are going to provide." The House used to know what was the agreement that the Government had entered into. It was far better that
  2126
  these things should be kept in the dark, that the House should not be told, and that a free hand should be given to the Minister "to distribute largesse as he pleased." He was going to tell us in advance. What has he told us in advance? He has told us the money, but not the details or to whom he is going to give it. We know who was going to get the money in connection with British Dyes. The Board of Trade told us. They told us that the Government were going to be represented on the Board for the purpose of safeguarding the interests of the Treasury in the matter. All we know about this is that some private companies are going to receive assistance, partly in the way of loan and partly in the way of Grant, but we have no security as to the way in which these private corporations will use the money. There is some indefinite check to be placed on the amount which is to be divided by way of profits. Well, we have had a great many promises and a great many statements from the Government about the limitation of profits and the limitation of dividends during this War, but we know that the great majority of these have been entirely illusory. To use a vulgarism, they have been "eye-wash." It is quite easy for any private company to walk round all the provisions that have been made. It has been done under the Munitions Levy, it has been done in connection with excess profits, and it will be done in connection with the Grants which the right hon. Gentleman now asks the Committee to make. We want something more definite. I suggest that before the Committee assents to the very large Vote it is now asked to make that it should insist on much more definite information being given than the Government is evidently prepared to give. The hon. Member for the West Derby Division of Liverpool (Sir W. Rutherford) is prepared to trust the Board of Trade. Some people have good grounds for trusting the Board of Trade. The gas and other statutory companies have good reason to trust the Board of Trade after yesterday's experience. No doubt the hon. Gentleman is well advised in saying that he can trust the Board of Trade. But what about the public—the people who are going to find the money?
  Sir W. RUTHERFORD: If the hon. Member insinuates that I have any interest in any of these statutory undertakings, he is quite wrong, and giving the Committee an entirely erroneous impression. I have

  2127
  no such interest, and I have no personal grounds such as he suggests for trusting the Board of Trade.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I never made any insinuation. I said the hon. Gentleman trusted the Board of Trade. I said that a good many other people had good grounds for trusting the Board of Trade, and I appreciated that attitude. It was a very innocent and fair observation to make. We know that the gas shares have gone up because the directors of those companies, who were so well represented here, trusted the Board of Trade. I have no doubt that the dye shares will also go up, because the people who are interested in those things trust the Board of Trade. But we want to know who are going to get the money. There is no technical reason for failing to disclose that. The late President of the Board of Trade put two definite questions: Are Levensteins going to get any of it; are the Patent Aniline Company going to get any of it? Those are specific questions. Before the Government asked this Committee to vote the money they must have had in their minds who the beneficiaries are. They have no right to come here unless they have in their minds who the beneficiaries are, and unless they are prepared to disclose to the Committee who are the beneficiaries. Who are the beneficiaries? Those two questions were definitely put by the late President of the Board of Trade. They have been repeated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland (Mr. Samuel), and no answer has been given. We know what has happened in the past. Levenstein's shares were worth a few shillings before the War. They are now worth as many pounds as they were worth shillings before the War. Why is an industry that is doing so well as that to be made the recipients of Government Grants? We were told—this was a very interesting observation which the President made, and it was characterised by a vagueness and evasiveness entirely laudable in such a young Parliamentary hand—that he was anxious to place the industry upon a durable and stable basis——
  Mr. S. MacNEILL: Foundation.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Yes, "foundation" was the word—within a certain period after the conclusion of hostilities, if the War went on for a reasonable time. We should ask for a little interpretation of that.
  Mr. HOLT: How long are they going to keep the War going?
  Mr. PRINGLE: What do the Government contemplate as a reasonable time for the duration of the War? First, has it any reference, for instance, to the General Election? Secondly, what do they consider a stable foundation? We are entitled to know these things. The hon. Member for the West Derby Division of Liverpool told us what he regarded as a stable foundation—that is, the basis upon which the German companies were—namely, having £40,000,000 of capital. That is a stable foundation. Is that what the Government contemplate as a stable foundation for the industry in this country?
  Sir W. RUTHERFORD: It would take ten years. The hon. Member is continually misquoting the statements I made. I do not want to interrupt, but it is very difficult to sit still and listen to misquotations and perversions of the truth.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I do not complain of the heated observations of my hon. Friend. A gentleman who has been rewarded by the Government is entitled to show a little heat, but when he accuses me of perversions of the truth and of misquotations, and when I give him the opportunity of correcting me, he does not avail himself of the opportunity of correcting me. I have quoted as faithfully as I could the ipsissima verba of the President of the Board of Trade. I am in the recollection of the Committee, and I think every hon. Gentleman who listened to the statement of the President of the Board of Trade and who has listened to my quotations, will agree that I have given a faithful representation of what the right hon. Gentleman said. Of course, the hon. Member for the West Derby Division of Liverpool is now such a faithful follower of the Government that he must protect the President of the Board of Trade against himself. Obviously, that is his present position. I maintain that the right hon. Gentleman, in the course of his second statement, has added nothing whatever substantial to what is disclosed in the footnote to this Estimate. There has never been a less satisfactory and a more meagre account of the details of expenditure in any Estimate for a similar sum of money at any time, except in regard to some of the general Estimates during this War. What is the Estimate? You have here £1,250,000 in loans, £600,000 in contribu-

  2129
  tions in aid of extensions of plant and buildings, and £150,000 in Grants-in-Aid of research. I would like to know what is the difference between a contribution and a Grant? I assume that the £000,000, which is by way of contribution, is a free gift to the companies by way of buildings, and that no repayment of any kind is desired by the Government. It is very strange that such generous terms should be made to companies undisclosed and beneficiaries unknown. This Committee, as representing the public, has no right to assent to anything of the kind. If we are going to give Grants to people tell us who they are. We remember a former Government telling us that at least while they were in office they would look after their friends. That was the statement of a former Cabinet Minister. There are some suspicions abroad at present, and obviously if there are £600,000 going there will be a great many people who will be friends of the Government. It is a very useful thing to have £600,000 on the eve of a General Election. We are entering upon a course of the subsidising of industry new to this country. The hon. Member for Greenock says it is American politics. I was not going to say that because America is an Ally, and it is not fashionable to say things about Allies in these times. But we have seen a little Lobbying in these last few days, and if this kind of thing goes on we are going to see more Lobbying. We are going to see all kinds of directors in that Lobby wanting to know where they come in, and there will be a great many more directors making speeches in this House about "the company which I represent," as we had the other night. There are some people who do not want to see this kind of thing in this country. They think, although America is an Ally, there are a great many American things we had better avoid in this country, and this is one of them.
  10.0 P.M.
  Then let us take this £150,000 for research. Who is going to get that? My right hon. Friend (Mr. Runciman) put a specific question as to the people who were to have the administration of that money. That question has been repeated by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Samuel; No answer has been given. I wonder if it is these powerful companies which are going to be the people who will deal with research. It is usually the big companies that get these things. While I am referring to these companies, I will tell the
  2130
  President of the Board of Trade a little incident which is less than twelve months old. I happen to have a friend who is a chemist. He was a German-trained chemist. He had given special attention to the study of this question of dyes in a German university, and when it was said that there was a great need of dyes in this country he thought he might go into the business, and, with another man, he started a small industry. He did not come hat in hand to the Board of Trade for a subsidy. He and his friend had a little capital, and they started works in London. Then the Military Service Act came in. He made the plea that he was doing work of national importance, not with any money from the Treasury, but on his own money. He was turned down. He was put into the Army, and the business in which he had put his little capital was closed down, and he has lost it all, and for six months he has been in the Royal Artillery. And that is scientific organisation! When I know of incidents of that kind of my own knowledge, where a man is willing to use his own money for the purpose of promoting this industry, who was not looking for any boodle, and is treated in that way by people who say they are looking after the national interests, I look with suspicion on Grants of this kind, and unless the right hon. Gentleman tells us who are going to get these loans and Grants, and who are going to administer the research, this Committee has no right to part with £1,000,000 of the taxpayers' money.
  Mr. HOLT: I had the privilege of opening this discussion, and have listened to the two speeches which the right hon. Gentleman has made, and I think they are both extremely unsatisfactory. He let fall a very interesting remark about the duration of the War, and the War lasting a reasonable time. I cannot think he meant exactly what he appeared to say, but he appeared to say the Government intended to continue the War until the dyeing industry had been put upon a satisfactory footing. If that is really the view of the Government peace offensives and peace negotiations become an absolutely useless proceeding. I cannot think that can be the considered opinion of the Government, but that is what the right hon. Gentleman said, and we must believe for the moment that it is true. Then, why did he tell us he could give no information as to the progress of the dyeing industry

  2131
  in this country? Clearly because it is unsatisfactory. If it were satisfactory there is no information which it would be more useful to disclose. The effect upon the German mind would be discouraging. It is quite obvious that if the dyeing industry was put on a thoroughly sound footing it would be a very good tiling to let the Germans know it, because they would be discouraged, and the reason for not disclosing it is that so far the great efforts which have been made by artificial means to stimulate the dyeing industry are not satisfactory. Then the right hon. Gentleman tells us the dyeing industry is an essential industry which should be treated differently from other industries. But is that so? I have always had a quarrel with my right hon. Friend (Mr. Runciman) for the way in which he has acted in some of these matters, and I think he knows what I think about his conduct. I want someone to prove to me that the dye industry is different in any essential shape from many other industries in this country—for instance, the shipbuilding industry. Would it not be more inconvenient for us to see the collapse of the shipbuilding industry than the collapse of the dyeing industry? And if you are going to have special treatment for the dyeing industry, ought you not to prove that in some material respects it differs from half a dozen other industries, such as shipbuilding and engineering?
  The right hon. Gentleman told us he was going to give this assistance to the dye manufacturers in accordance with some precedents which have been set by the Ministry of Munitions. A great many of those precedents are extremely bad. A great many things the Ministry of Munitions has done are signs of what is to be avoided. They are a warning. For instance, in a very short time the House will get a good deal of information as to a company which the Ministry of Munitions set on its feet, in which, before anything material has been done, a gentleman who had subscribed for a 6d. share got 14½ shares of £1 each. I do not know whether that is the sort of precedent that the right hon. Gentleman asks us to follow. I want to follow the calculations of the right hon. Gentleman. He told us that £600,000 was, as near as possible, 40 per cent. of the capital of the businesses.
  Sir A. STANLEY: What I meant to say was that £600,000 would be practically, as
  2132
  nearly as possible, equivalent to 40 per cent. of the total cost of the extensions, not of the capital.
  Mr. HOLT: Let us see. £600,000 is 40 per cent. of £1,500,000. If you take £600,000 from £1,500,000, £900,000 is left. I understand the Government propose to lend £1,250,000. How does that work out? If you gave £600,000 and lend £1,250,000, surely you have a total of more than £1,500,000. I would like to understand the sum. Even supposing the £600,000 gift is to be additional to the £1,500,000, then if you lend £1,250,000 the total amount to be provided by the people is only £250,000. So far as I know, my sums are correct, and it needs some explanation. I want to know whether it is really the case that the Government propose to advance as a gift £600,000, and as a loan £1,250,000, to persons who are only going to produce £250,000 of their own. Is that the proposition? So far as I can judge from the figures given to the Committee by the right hon. Gentleman, that is the correct sum. If so, it is thoroughly unsatisfactory, as security to the public. I think we ought to know with regard to the Grant for research a great deal more as to what are the terms. It is quite clear that if large Grants are going to be made for research to people to make discoveries, they have no right to patent them against the public. It is a monstrous thing that when a person is paid to make discoveries that when he makes discoveries he should be able to take out a patent to prevent those persons who have paid him for his time while he is making those discoveries using the patent, and that he should be able to establish a manufacturing monopoly. That will not do. We ought also to have particulars as to the price at which goods are to be sold. In his first speech the right hon. Gentleman told us that he was contemplating not only the manufacture of stock for home requirements but that he contemplated setting up this industry as an exporting trade.
  Sir A. STANLEY: For the Dominions.
  Mr. HOLT: For the Dominions! For the Dominions only, we are to have ten years guarantee of exclusive importation. Is that really what is contemplated? Are we to have a dye-exporting trade limited to the Dominions? Am I to understand that an exporter will not be allowed to export, say, to China, but will be required only to export to Australia and Canada?
  Sir A. STANLEY: I want to be quite clear. Obviously, there is a very large trade to be secured within the Empire. India plays a very important part. It will be desired that we should secure that trade with India and help India if we can rather than that she should secure her dyes from Germany, but there is no reason why, in dealing in the export trade, we should not attempt to secure markets in China as well as in India.
  Mr. HOLT: Then, are we to understand that we are to subsidise manufacturers of dyes in order that China may get dyes cheaper than she otherwise would? Is it contemplated to ask the British taxpayer to pay large sums of money in order that India, Canada, Australia, and China may get dyes at a less price than they otherwise would? In other words, the British taxpayer is to make himself more or less insolvent in order to make that provision. I think that is very bad economics, and I think we ought to know a great deal more about this plan. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman knows what his plans are. His plan cannot be quite as bad as he says it is. He must have thought of something better than to pay subsidies to manufacturers to make dyes in order to sell them cheaper to India and China He said there must be a limit as to the amount of dividend, and that the surplus must be used to repay the Government loan. Surely it might occur to the Government that if they are going to have their loan repaid by the surplus, that surplus might also be used to repay the gift as well as the loan! Why should there be any gift at all if you contemplate a very large surplus which will be available for repayment of loan after paying a fixed rate of dividend? Would it not be better for the Government to make it all loan, fix a maximum dividend which the company may pay, and direct that the whole of the surplus should be used for repayment? There could be no possible objection to that plan, and if at the end it was discovered that the company was insolvent, then you could treat them like you treat the trustees of Eye-mouth Harbour, and write off the loan annually.
  This scheme is by no means amply considered. I think it is very doubtful whether it is a proper scheme at all. It is quite clear that there has been no real conson of it. The right hon. Gentleman does not really know what persons are in need of such assistance, or if he
  2134
  does he will not tell us. If we are to have a scheme of this sort, it is essential in the public interest that we should have a regular agreement, like the Cunard Agreement, ratified by Parliament, stipulating exactly what it is that each party has to do in return for the sum of money which he receives from the State, what he is to sell, and what terms he is to sell at. It will be very difficult after voting this sum of money, having regard to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, to refuse to these manufacturers ten years' protection against all importation. I understand that it is part of his bargain with the persons to whom he is giving these advances of money that he should give them a ten years' monopoly in this country. If these people do not get a ten years' monopoly they will be entitled to refuse to repay the loan. That, I presume, is the proposition. He has told us that it is the policy of the Government to prohibit the importation of dyes except under license, and he is going to lend money on the faith of that promise. Therefore, the fact is that we are tying ourselves for ten years to certain private persons on the faith of a money transaction, and during that time we are not to allow importation of dyes. That is the effect of the arrangement proposed. I am not going to agree to it. All this is part of a mad scheme that leads people to suppose you can in this country establish every conceivable trade. It cannot be done. You can only establish this and other trades which we did not have before the War at the expense of destroying trades we did have before the War. To deal with this as an isolated case without giving general consideration to the whole trade of the country is madness. I, at any rate, would ask the Committee to divide against this very improper proposal.
  Mr. O'SHEE: I have had the pleasure of hearing the right hon. Gentleman as President of the Board of Trade for the first time. I have heard of him in other capacities as a great business man and a man who reorganised the electrical railways of London, but I never heard him address the House until this occasion, and having heard of him as a man with a great business reputation, I was rather surprised to find the statement he made to the Committee to-night did not bear evidence of very careful research on the question which is under consideration. The statement was very vague and ambiguous. For

  2135
  instance, he said in one part of his statement that loans would be made to any firms which want assistance. When the Estimates were made out four or five months ago, I see under the heading of "Original Estimates" nil in reference to "this matter, and the revised Estimate is £1,000,000 which we are asked to vote tonight. I should have thought he would have told us something as to the genesis of this proposal. Members of the Committee know something of the history of this question at any rate, but members of the Committee know nothing of the genesis of this proposal to vote £1,000,000 for the expenses of his offer during the current year. Surely this proposal must have a history! What caused the right hon. Gentleman to bring forward this proposal? Who suggested it? Was it suggested by any firm who proposed to carry on or to set up this industry, to carry on a particular industry to make the finer range of colours to which the right hon. Gentleman referred? As he informed the Committee, the commoner dyes are made on a commercial basis already, and the object of these loans and these Grants which it is proposed to make from the money that is to be voted by the Committee to-night is to encourage this industry in the finer range of dyes. But surely the right hon. Gentleman must be in a position to tell the Committee of some organisation or proposed organisations, some firm which has approached his Department, which has told the Board of Trade that they desire, with the assistance of a Grant or a loan from the public fund, to set up on a stable basis this manufacture of the finer range of dyes. He has told the Committee nothing of that. He has made a very general statement, a most unbusinesslike statement I should call it. He started by saying why he could not go into details—the usual reason. Then he went on to say the money required, the money the Committee was asked to vote, is money beyond what the ordinary investor would be prepared to give.
  As the hon. Member who has just spoken has pointed out, in the limitation of 40 per cent. which the right hon. Gentleman imposes with regard to the Grants which he is to make for buildings and extensions, some investors must be ready to find a gum of £900,000 in order to enable them to claim from the right hon. Gentleman's Department the total of £600,000 allocated for those purposes. He has not given the Committee an idea as to any single firm
  2136
  or organisation which has come to him and said, "We are prepared to find a sum of money, £10,000, £20,000, £100,000, what-ever it may be, if you will give us in addition to that 40 per cent. by way of Grant towards these extensions, buildings, and plant." Why should he not give us even one instance to show that there is some basis in fact for the proposal now made, which was not thought of four months ago when the original Estimate was prepared? He says that in making a loan he would stipulate, first of all, for adequate security. Adequate security implies that the firm applying for the loan has, first of all, a business organisation, has capital, plant, and buildings. Otherwise it cannot offer adequate security. Therefore the firm must be an organised entity at the present time, though his remarks that he proposed to make loans to a firm which can give assistance in the matter seem to suggest that he invites applications for loans from individuals or groups of individuals who are not organised at present for carrying on this business. A second condition of making a loan was that the persons applying for the loan should undertake to restrict dividends. He will certainly be able to get many people to take a loan from him on an undertaking of that kind. There is no difficulty whatever in any group of persons proposing to carry on business with the help of public funds giving an undertaking that they will limit dividends. Limiting dividends does not cover limitations of salaries, and when salaries and management expenses are taken out there will be very little left in some of these cases for dividends.
  Then as to repayment of the loan, he says that in making stipulations as to that he would be guided by the circumstances of each firm. In other words, the right hon. Gentleman asks, first of all, for an absolutely free hand as to the persons or firms to whom he is to distribute this sum of £1,000,000, a large proportion of which is to be given away as a Grant, and then he asks for an absolutely free hand as to how he would distribute the loan, so far as loans are to be made, and as to how these loans are to be repaid. The right hon. Gentleman has to determine in each individual case, without any regulation, or guide, or standpoint, how each individual firm is to act in connection with a loan. He has to stipulate with a firm which gets a loan that it shall manu-

  2137
  facture a range of dyes which cannot be manufactured on a commercial basis, and for which there is a small demand. Therefore, we have a very important limitation, the first of a definite kind the right hon. Gentleman has put upon himself for making grants and loans to firms. I presume that this applies to firms which get Grants for extensions of plant and buildings, and that they are to undertake to manufacture a certain range of dyes or no Grant or loan will be made to them. The contribution for research is only £150,000. The right hon. Gentleman was asked by the ex-Home Secretary whether the accounts of the firms which are to be subsidised will be available to the Committee of this House, whether Parliamentary Papers will be published giving the particulars of the accounts of the firms to whom those loans and Grants are made, showing the progress that they are making, and the use they make of public money.
  This is a very novel Vote for a Committee of the House to consider. I think the right hon. Gentleman who spoke from the Front Opposition Bench said that, in his experience, there had been no such Vote asked for in a Committee of this House for nineteen years past. Certainly I have never heard in my experience as a Member of this House of such a Vote being asked to be made by a Committee of the House, and for that reason it is manifest that it was most desirable that the right hon. Gentleman, in asking for a Vote of £1,000,000 to-night, should have given a full and complete statement, leaving out small details which no Member of the Committee desires, as to how he proposes to allocate this money. He has made no attempt whatever, further than that he has given us the White Paper to indicate how the money is to be allocated. He has not told us anything as to the development of existing firms in the dye trade, and how he is to get a return on this money. It has been suggested that one of the leading firms in this dye industry, Levensteins of Manchester, has no need of loan or Grant of public money. They are a firm so prosperous at the present moment that they do not require to ask for public money or the taxpayers' money to enable them to carry on and extend and enlarge the industry in which they are engaged. If a firm of that kind is so prosperous, I should say that any other firm engaged in this industry on a basis
  2138
  similar to that on which Levensteins is engaged in ought to be similarly prosperous at the present time.
  But the right hon. Gentleman suggested that these firms are engaged in making what he called the commercial or commoner range of dyes, for which there is a large demand, and that his only object in asking the Committee to Vote this million of money is to enable the finer range of dyes to be made, so as to set up in this country business organisations for the manufacture of the finer range of dyes, against which, at the termination of the War, the German dye manufacturers would be unable to compete. I have only to say, in conclusion, that I think this Committee ought not to Vote this money without a more adequate statement of the intentions of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the use of it. He has given no substantial explanation at all. This fund of £1,000,000 may be used the Committee knows not how, or in what direction, because it has got no guidance or illumination on that matter from the right hon. Gentleman, and it is very unfair of him to ask us to Vote this large sum of money without a full explanation. This Committee would willingly vote this money if the intention was really to set up a national industry, not for the benefit of private individuals, an industry that would be worked for the benefit of the taxpayers, as it is the taxpayers' money that is asked to be used to set it up. Why should these private firms or private individuals get this large Grant of three-quarters of a million, in addition to a loan of a million and a quarter? Why should not the one limitation to be placed on the giving of this money be that all the surplus profits, that will be realised in setting up this industry, with a maximum of 10, 15, or 20 per cent., to the shareholders who find the money for this very speculative undertaking—for it must be speculative to make it necessary for the right hon. Gentleman to ask the Committee for these loans—should inure to the benefit of the taxpayers? I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider this question and to consider whether he ought not to come down to this Committee on a future, and an early, occasion and make a fuller statement as to the use that is to be made of this money and tell the Committee plainly what has been done with it and whether he will stipulate that the profits over and above

  2139
  a fair return to the private investors should inure to the benefit of the general taxpayers.
  Sir A. STANLEY: It may possibly save the time of the Committee if at this stage I reply to the questions put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and my right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury. The first question was whether any further Grants are contemplated. I myself know of no further Grant beyond the £2,000,000 which we have in contemplation in connection with this particular industry. I was further asked, with reference to the research, who was to receive the benefit of this research fund and how the fund would be distributed. As I said in the early part of the Debate, it is very desirable that this research fund should be spread over the widest field possible, that it should not be limited solely to those who are engaged in the industry, but that opportunity should be afforded for university and other institutions to share in this research so that, as I have said, the field may be as wide as possible, and necessarily beneficial to the industry in that way. The research fund will be administered by a committee, which will be composed of an equal number of representatives of dye-users and of dye manufacturers, under an independent chairman, so that we may be assured that in the distribution of this fund the very best use will be made of it. With reference to the firm of Levenstein, I am not prepared at this time to accept the suggestion, which has been made in several quarters, that we should indicate now what firms are to secure any of these loans or contributions. I suggest that it would be folly for us at this stage publicly to say who would be entitled to receive any of these contributions. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] It would certainly open the door to these people to come forward and ask for this money.
  Mr. S. MacNEILL: Is there any understanding of the right hon. Gentleman with Levenstein? How long has Levenstein been naturalised?
  Sir A. STANLEY: I am afraid I cannot say how long he has been naturalised. So far as any understanding between myself and Levenstein is concerned, I am sure the hon. Member is not suggesting any impropriety.
  Mr. MacNEILL: Oh, no!
  Sir A. STANLEY: It is quite unnecessary for me to say again that there is no understanding of any kind or description between myself and anybody else.
  Mr. MacNEILL: Certainly not.
  Sir A. STANLEY: I repeat what I said before, but I think it would be folly for me at this stage to give any indication by mentioning any name of any firm who would be entitled to receive any benefit from this fund.
  Mr. P. A. HARRIS: Will the names be submitted to the House before money is given?
  Sir A. STANLEY: The firms who are to have the benefit of this will be those firms in the United Kingdom who are established here, and who can prove to the satisfaction of a committee, which, as I said before, will be composed of representatives of users and manufacturers, that by the use of public money they will be able in return to secure to this country at least a corresponding benefit. As regards the last question about giving information to the House with reference to the use of this money, there certainly can be no objection whatever to laying before the House from time to time information which will indicate the names of the firms and the amount of money they receive from these loans from time to time.
  Mr. H. SAMUEL: Before the agreements are made?
  Sir A. STANLEY: Obviously; I am sure that my right hon. Friend would not suggest that in a matter of this kind before any Grant is made we should come to the House and secure its assent? I am sure that would be beyond what would be reasonable. I do respectfully suggest—I am sure hon. Members realise how very serious is this matter—that they do not think I should leave this matter alone and not make any effort to establish these industries upon a proper basis? I do respectfully suggest, that if this money is voted and the machinery is set up, as I have suggested, that we can leave to the Board of Trade and that organisation the responsibility for determining who shall have this money. So long as we indicate to the House the firms who receive this money and amounts they get, that really, under the circumstances, should be satisfactory.
  Mr. SAMUEL: I am sorry to ask leave of the Committee to intervene again,

  2141
  but the right hon. Gentleman's speech has left this matter in a position which is far from satisfactory. As he says, this is a very grave matter, which raises large questions of policy, and the House of Commons must consider its relation to these proposals. I regret the more having to intervene again, because I am in sympathy with the general purposes that my right hon. Friend has in view. I do not share the view expressed by the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Holt), who seemed to be of opinion that nothing need be done by the State in regard to dyes. I think it is necessary to take action, and that the action is well advised in seeking to establish the industry in this country on a sound footing. There are such things, I believe, as key industries which are of vital importance to the great staple trades of our country. It is not safe for our country to leave itself entirely dependent upon foreign supplies. My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham has said that if there is a key industry, surely shipping is one! Happily, most of our essential industries are long and firmly established in the country, and I am sure my hon. Friend would not deny that even shipowners in ordinary times have been able to make a fairly comfortable livelihood. The course adopted in regard to these exceptional industries in regard to which the State and the national interest must take unusual steps is attended with very grave dangers. We may be quite sure that in these matters private profit will seek to come in under the cloak of national necessity; that industries that are not key industries at all will endeavour to obtain the use of public money under that guise; that trades which ought to and really are able to stand alone will declare that unless they have Government aid they will be the helpless victims of foreign competition. All these are very grave dangers. Furthermore, there is this risk, that the Government Department may make such bargains with particular trades as really to bind the hands of Parliament in respect to matters of fiscal policy. If my right hon. Friend, without the assent of Parliament, makes a binding agreement that these amounts are only repayable to the State if the State excludes all foreign competition for a term of years, then the hands of Parliament are really tied without the representatives of the people ever being consulted. In addition, agreements which are entered
  2142
  into in one industry may be regarded as precedents to be quoted by others. Others will say that if the Board of Trade made such-and-such agreement with respect to a certain firm, other firms would say, "We claim a similar agreement in our case." Therefore I think it is essential that the House of Commons, if it assents to embarking upon a policy of this kind—and I think it is inevitable—should be very watchful and jealous to prevent this. Therefore I do press upon my right hon. Friend that Parliament ought to be made cognisant of these agreements before they are definitely entered into. It is reasonable for the right hon. Gentleman to say to-night, "I cannot negotiate with these people at all unless you express some general approval of this policy, because I may negotiate these agreements and then find that Parliament will have nothing whatver to do with them." That is an attitude which I can understand, and it is not a position that I would propose to take up. I suggest, if the House of Commons passes this Vote, the right hon. Gentleman should give a binding Parliamentary undertaking that before any agreement is actually signed it should be placed in draft on the Table of the House. The right hon. Gentleman may say that negotiations of that kind are impossible, but they are actually required by Parliament.
  Mr. HOLT: Far from being impossible, it was actually done in the case of the Cunard agreement.
  Mr. SAMUEL: I was about to quote that instance, but before the Cunard agreement was signed it was laid upon the Table of the House and Parliament had to pass the necessary measures to endorse it. Standing Order 72 provides, in regard to any mail contract that, before it becomes operative, if it imposes any obligation or charge, it must be ratified by a Resolution of this House. I had the great honour to occupy for five years the position of Postmaster-General, and again and again I had to negotiate contracts for the carriage of mails, and one had to enter into the terms and consider the figures, and it was always understood by the contractor that the contract would not become operative unless it had lain upon the Table and this House had passed a specific Resolution endorsing it. I submit, with that precedent before him and the Cunard agreement, the right hon. Gentleman cannot brush aside this suggestion as wholly impossible.

  2143
  As this is a very grave matter embarking upon a new field where every step may involve the country in very grave risks and dangers, I think we ought to press upon the Government to-night before agreeing to this Vote that such agreements should become operative only after being laid upon the Table of this House and after there has been a due interval for discussion if desired to take place.
  Mr. ANDERSON: I think the statement of the President of the Board of Trade is really most unconvincing. Nobody denies the importance of the dye industry or that it was in an unsatisfactory condition prior to the War and that it should be established on better lines. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would receive no opposition from any part of the House in regard to that matter although there may be a difference of opinion as to how this can best be done. I should have been glad to see the dye industry established in such a way that if public money is to be given it would not be used, for the paying of any private dividend or private profit, and we ought to lift the dye industry out of the realm of private profit making. That is an arguable matter about which there will be a difference of opinion, but you enter a very dangerous region when you propose to scatter some £2,000,000 of public money over a large field of private industry, and surely the House, if it is going to sanction an arrangement of that kind, must hedge it round with the strictest conditions, in order to see what is really going to happen. Who is going to get this money? Are we going to vote a blank cheque to the President of the Board of Trade, and is this money going to be spent, or distributed, or given away by the Board of Trade without any control by this House over the conditions which is to be applied to this or that firm?
  That raises a very dangerous principle indeed; it takes us one further step on the road along which we have been moving recently. We have been more and more adopting the policy of subsidising and guaranteeing with public money this and that industry. Yesterday we were using our votes to establish the position of various gas companies; later on the Government will be able to go to the country with the cry that they are going to give public money to everybody who needs it—a very good election cry
  2144
  with very corrupt politics at the end of it—politics which, I hope, this country will long refuse to endorse and adopt. What guarantee are we going to have that this money will be wisely spent? What guarantee are we going to have that a large part of this £2,000,000 sterling will not be wasted? What tests are going to be applied to the companies? What questions are going to be asked of them? If the President of the board of Trade says to a company, "If we give you £100,000, will you pledge us it shall all be spent to the national advantage?" what answer do you expect from the company? What tests are you going to apply to see that the money is wisely spent and that no part of it is used to relieve the company of its ordinary financial obligations or to enable it to pay higher dividends? These are matters which are vital from the standpoint of Members of this House, and I associate myself heartily with what the right hon. Gentleman has said that we ought very strongly to endeavour to secure that Parliament shall absolutely and strictly control this expenditure before we vote it, and make sure that the money is going to be used for the public good and not to provide dividends.
  Mr. MARTIN: There is a matter which seems to have a bearing on this question which has not so far been referred to. Has the President of the Board of Trade made any inquiries as to the position of the United States on this question? When the War broke out they were in exactly the same position as this country. They had hitherto been dependent on Germany for dyes, and as a result of the blockade they were no longer able to get dyestuffs from that country. They at once took up the question. The other day one of the largest New York papers published a commercial supplement detailing the commercial position of the United States in all the leading industries. In that country, on these questions, they take up an entirely different position to that position to that adopted by the right hon. Gentleman and they gave in that in detail the position of the United States in the dyeing industry. They do not refuse to disclose it; they published the amount each company is manufacturing and they were able to make a glorious sttement showing how they have eclipsed this country. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that in spite of subsidies we

  2145
  are not yet in a position to manufacture the dyestuffs we need. But in this commercial supplement it was stated that the United States to-day were absolutely independent of Germany or any other country; that in the four years since the War began they had from the stage of dependence on other countries got to that of being able to produce all the dyeing stuffs they required at prices which even German firms could not compete with. In addition, it was stated that they were making dyestuffs much superior to any made by Germany. They had made great success with these finer kinds of dyes. They had produced dyes of great brilliancy and great commercial value, much superior to anything produced by Germany. The right hon. Gentleman told us that one of the objects was to enable them to export dyestuffs to Canada. How does he think that this country could send dye-stuffs to Canada to compete with the dye-stuffs manufactured in America? To my mind, the £2,000,000 is a small matter compared with this agreement absolutely to exclude all foreign dyestuffs for the long period of ten years after the end of the War. That is the really serious matter. It is protection such as has never been adopted by any other country. What will be the position of the manufacturers in this country who use the dyestuffs? They are the people who ought to be considered. What will be the position of these manufacturers of clothing and other goods in China and India in competition with the manufacturer of the United States, where they have built up an industry by their own energy and ability unaided by any State subsidy? This ten years' agreement is going to hamper British manufacturers and make it impossible for them to sell their goods cheaply throughout the world as they have done in the past. Under this agreement the manufacturer of dyestuffs will demand his pound of flesh. Under these circumstances, before this country binds itself by any such agreement, we ought to have the fullest information with regard to the position of the United States in this matter. I would further suggest that a part of the £150,000 which is to be devoted to research should be invested in sending experts over to the United States to find out how it is that their chemists have so much eclipsed ours in the four years that they have been at work.
  Mr. HOGGE: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
  2146
  11.0 P.M.
  I do so because we have had no satisfactory statement with regard to this Vote. I was, unfortunately, prevented from hearing the speech of the right hon. Gentleman in introducing the Estimate; but I heard his explanation in reply to some of the points raised in the Debate. I propose to justify the reduction by two of the arguments which he used in his reply, which seemed to me not to meet at all the case which has been presented to the Committee. The question was asked of the President whether the £000,000 in contributions in aid of extensions of plant and buildings were contributions which would not be recoverable or whether it was a sum which the State could recover. I take it, from the absence of any reply from the President, that the £600,000 is a gift to whomsoever is lucky enough to secure it. If hon. Members will read the preceding Clause they will see that £1,250,000 is to be loaned
  "at not less than 1 per cent. above bank rate…repayable in twenty years or earlier if the profits of the manufacturer are more than 9 per cent."
  I suggest that if it is at all possible inside that period of time that so large a profit as 9 per cent. may be made, there can be no reason why the people who have the £600,000 advanced to them as well as the £1,250,000 should not repay to the State the £600,000 advanced to them for plant and buildings. That is a reasonable point to put. I do not know whether the President can tell us what security he has, for example, for the recovery of the £1,250,000 which he proposes to advance to these people? This is a fairy tale, so far as it is set out in the Estimate. He hopes, inside twenty years, if the profits rise to 9 per cent., to recover the £1,250,000 of public money which is advanced for this purpose. I put these two further questions to the President, or whoever is going to reply: First, will he tell the Committee what security they have for the repayment of the £1,250,000, and why, if that £1,250,000 can be advanced for the purposes of the industry and is recoverable, the £600,000 which is put down here as a contribution is not also recoverable on the same terms as the loan of £1,250,000? That is a perfectly fair point to put to the right hon. Gentleman.
  The second argument upon which I urge the reduction is with reference to the question of research. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out that the £150,000

  2147
  would be spread over a very wide field. First of all, you cannot spread £150,000 over a very wide field. It is absolutely impossible to spend £150,000 in scientific research and spread it over a wide field. Anyone who knows anything at all about scientific research in our universities or in the laboratories attached to our great industrial centres knows perfectly well that £150,000 would not go very far. The President was deliciously indefinite as to the use of that money. For instance, he threw out the hint that the universities would also share in the £150,000 for research. I do not know whether he has consulted his colleague, the President of the Board of Education, as to how many universities there are in this country, and particularly in the industrial centres of this country, and as to what it would mean even if it were distributed equally among those universities.
  I should like to draw attention to the rather interesting information given by the President of the Board of Trade as to the Committee which is to determine the Grants which are to be made. They are to be made to a class of people, the people who use dyes and the people who make dyes, and the right hon. Gentleman suggested one reason why he could not tell the Committee who was going to get them, that if he did he would have a procession of other people coming and asking him for Grants out of this £600,000. But the essence of all true success in this country has been the individual energy that is put into business, and why should those firms which are outside this close ring of dye makers and dye users who are to be upon this committee be excluded from coming to the President of the Board of Trade and asking for these Grants? It is perfectly evident that if you have a committee composed of dye makers and dye users, and there is £600,000 available for plant and buildings, there is very little money to distribute, and that that money will be distributed very probably between those who are able most quickly to get the ear of the committee, and that all independent, energetic, alert, intelligent business men who are interested in the development either of dyes or any other business in the country will be precluded from developing their business as a result of their individual abilities, because, forsooth, here is a committee of dye makers and dye users appointed by the President of the Board
  2148
  of Trade, without whose consent they cannot enlarge their buildings, and because we have had no information at all with regard to these points, whether the £600,000 is recoverable, whether it could not be recoverable in the same way as the £1,250,000, of which we have no information as to how it is secured, because the committee is composed of interested persons who, according to the President of the Board of Trade, will exclude all outside individual business men in making grants till that money is expended, I move, to reduce the Vote.
  Colonel COLLINS: Our request to the President of the Board of Trade is a simple one. It is that before these agreements are entered into between the company and the Government they should be laid on the Table of the House. Under this estimate we are going to provide very large sums of money for a particular industry. We have no information from the Government as to how much money is to be provided by the private shareholders themselves. Calculations have been made to show that this £1,250,000 will be distributed to these firms, which will only require to find £250,000 themselves. If that statement be correct—and we have had no figure given to us by the Government on that subject—surely the request put forward by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Samuel) should be met by the Government! I hope the Government may meet us, but if the President of the Board of Trade does not give us that assurance, I hope we may carry into the Division Lobby Members from all quarters of the House. This estimate opens out a new policy, and if this new policy is to succeed, namely, the policy of subsidising private interests out of public funds, it can only succeed and remain permanently a policy in this country if there be complete publicity at every stage. We require publicity at every stage. First, as to the agreement, we want to know exactly where the money is going—into whose pockets it is going, into what industries, and into what districts—and that there should be applied to these matters the standard which Britain has always applied in past days, and where money is concerned full publicity should be given.
  Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £999,900, be granted for the said service."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 52; Noes, 103.

  Division No. 75.]

  AYES.

  [6.25 p.m.

  Baker, Maj. Sir Randoll L. (Dorset, N.)

  Dairymple, Hon. H. H.

  Terrell, George (Witts, N. W.)

  Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G.

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Boyton, Sir James

  Pennefather, De Fonblanque

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Colonel Royds and Mr. Peto.

  Cator, John

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Cory, Sir Clifford John (St. Ives)

  NOES.

  Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke

  Crooks, Rt. Hon. William

  Hudson, Walter

  Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

  Crumley, Patrick

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

  Cullinan, John

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

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, E.)

  Anderson, William C.

  Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Jones, W. Kennedy (Hornsey)

  Anstruther-Gray, Lieut.-Col. William

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Astor, Major Hon. Waldorf

  Devlin, Joseph

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Dillon, John

  Joyce, Michael

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Doris, William

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir J. B.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Barnett, Captain R. W.

  Duffy, William J.

  King, Joseph

  Barnston, Major Harry

  Duncan, Sir J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

  Edge, Captain William

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

  Barran, Sir Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Bathurst, Col. Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.)

  Esmonde, Capt. John (Tipperary, N.)

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

  Bathurst, Capt. Sir C. (Wilts, Wilton)

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Beach, William F. H.

  Falle, Sir Bertram Godfray

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Lonsdale, James R.

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Fell, Sir Arthur

  M'Calium, Sir John M.

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

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

  Bellairs, Commander C. W.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Macleod, John Mackintosh

  Bird, Alfred

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes (Fulham)

  McMicking, Major Gilbert

  Blair, Reginald

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

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

  Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

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

  Boland, John Pius

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Malcolm, Ian

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Gibbs, Col. George Abraham

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Gilbert, J. D.

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Brace, Rt. Hon. William

  Gilmour, Lieut.-Col. John

  Mason, Robert (Wansbeck)

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Goddard, Rt. Hon. Sir Daniel Ford

  Meagher, Michael

  Broughton, Urban Hanlon

  Goldstone, Frank

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Greenwood, Sir G. G. (Peterborough)

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

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Greig, Col. J. W.

  Millar, James Duncan

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Gretton, John

  Molloy, Michael

  Butcher, Sir John George

  Gulland, Rt. Hon. John William

  Morgan, George Hay

  Carnegie, Lieut.-Col. D. G.

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Morison, Thomas B. (Inverness)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Hackett, John

  Mount, Wiliam Arthur

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hall, Lt.-Col. Sir Fred (Dulwich)

  Muldoon, John

  Clough, William

  Hambre, Angus Valdemar

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Harbison, T. J. S.

  Newman, Major J. R. P. (Enfield)

  Coats, Sir Stuart A. (Wimbledon)

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Newman, Sir Robert (Exeter)

  Cochrane, Cecil Algernon

  Harmood-Banner, Sir J. S.

  Nolan, Joseph

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, S.)

  Nugent, J. D. (College, Green)

  Colvin, Col. Richard Beale

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Henderson, John M. (Aberdeen, W.)

  O'Dowd, John

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

  O'Leary, Daniel

  Cory, James Herbert (Cardiff)

  Hickman, Brig.-Gen. Thomas E.

  O'Shee, James John

  Cotton, H. E. A.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Parrott, Sir Edward

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W.

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

  Partington, Hon. Oswald

  Rutherford, Sir W. Watson (W. Derby)

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Peel, Major Hon. G. (Spalding)

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

  Whiteley, Sir H. J.

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Pratt, J. W.

  Samuels, Arthur W. (Dublin U.)

  Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Sanders, Col. Robert Arthur

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

  Prothero, Rt. Hon. Rowland Edmund

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Wilson, Lt.-Cl. Sir M. (Beth'l Green, S.W.)

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel Sir E.

  Sharman-Crawford, Col. R. G.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Pulley, C. T.

  Sheehy, David

  Wilson-Fox, Henry (Tamworth)

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Winfrey, Sir Richard

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Wing, Thomas Edward

  Reddy, Michael

  Stanton, Charles Butt

  Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

  Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, E.)

  Stewart, Gershom

  Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

  Rendall, Atheistan

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Yeo, Sir Alfred William

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Young, William (Perthshire, East)

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Younger, Sir George

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Rowlands, James

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

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

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dewsbury)

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Division No. 76.]

  AYES.

  [11.12 p.m.

  Anderson, William C.

  Henderson, John M. (Aberdeen, S.)

  O'Dowd, John

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Jowett, Frederick William

  O'Shee, James John

  Clough, William

  Joyce, Michael

  Peel, Major Hon. G. (Spalding)

  Collins, Major Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Keating, Matthew

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Cotton, H. E. A.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Crumley, Patrick

  King, Joseph

  Reddy, Michael

  Cullinan, John

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Devlin, Joseph

  McGhee, Richard

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Dillon, John

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

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Doris, William

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Duffy, William J.

  Martin, Joseph

  Sheeny, David

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Whitty, Patrick Joseph

  Ffrench, Peter

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

  Wiles, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Morgan, George Hay

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Hackett, John

  Nolan, Joseph

  Harbison, T. J. S.

  Nugent, J. D. (College Green)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Holt and Mr. Hogge.

  Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, S.)

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Hearn, Michael Louis

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

  Gibbs, Col. George Abraham

  Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Gilmour, Lt.-Col. John

  Pratt, J. W.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Greenwood, Sir G. G. (Peterborough)

  Pryce-Jones, Col. Sir E.

  Barlow, Sir Montague (Salford, South)

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Pulley, C. T.

  Barnett, Captain R. W.

  Gretton, John

  Rees, G. C. (Carnarvonshire, Arton)

  Barnston, Major Harry

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, E.)

  Barran, Sir Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

  Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Bathurst, Col. Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W.

  Bellairs, Commander C. W.

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Rutherford, Col. Sir J. (Lancs., Darwen)

  Bird, Alfred

  Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

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

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

  Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

  Hunter, Major Sir Charles Rodk.

  Samuels, Arthur W.

  Boyton, Sir James

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

  Sanders, Col. Robert Arthur

  Brace, Rt. Hon. William

  Jessel, Colonel Sir Herbert M.

  Sharman-Crawford, Colonel R. G.

  Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Shortt, Edward

  Bridgeman, William Clive

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

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Sir A. H. (Asht'n-u-Lyne)

  Bryce, John Annan

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Stewart, Gershom

  Butcher, Sir John George

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Stirling, Lieut.-Col. Archibald

  Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverton)

  Lonsdale, James R.

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Carnegie, Lieut.-Colonel D. G.

  McCalmont, Brig. Gen. Robert C. A.

  Swift, Rigby

  Cave, Rt. Hon. Sir George

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

  Tickler, T. G.

  Clyde, James Avon

  Maitland, Sir A. D. Steel-

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Malcolm, Ian

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Coats, Sir Stuart A. (Wimbledon)

  Mason, Robert (Wansbeck)

  Wardle, George J.

  Colvin, Col. Richard Beale

  Morison, Thomas B. (Inverness)

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

  Cory, James H. (Cardiff)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Whiteley, Sir H. J.

  Dairymple, Hon. H. H.

  Newman, Major J. R. P. (Enfield)

  Wiliams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Newman, Sir Robert (Exeter)

  Wilson, Col. Leslie C. (Reading)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Norman, Rt. Hon. Major Sir H.

  Wilson-Fox, Henry

  Falle, Sir Bertram Godfray

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Winfrey, Sir Richard

  Fell, Sir Arthur

  Pearce, Sir Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Wing, Thomas Edward

  Finney, Samuel

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbt. Pike (Darl'gton)

  Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. H. A. L. (Hallam)

  Pennefather, De Fonbianque

  Younger, Sir George

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Ganzoni, Francis John C.

  Pete, Basil Edward

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord E. Talbot and Captain Guest.

  Original Question put, and agreed to.

  SECRET SERVICE.—Class II.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £650,000 (including a Supplementary sum of £500,000), be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1919, for His Majesty's Foreign and other Secret Services."—[NOTE.—£350,000 has been voted on account.]
  Mr. S. MacNEILL: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  We have sat for several hours on these Votes. This is a Supplementary Vote for a sum of £5,000,000,000. [Laughter.] That shows how far advanced the evening is. Mr. Chamberlain chose to think in continents. I am bound to think, owing to the doings of the Government, in millions. This sum of half a million of money, in addition to the half-million for Secret Service, on which I wish to say a few words, should not be discussed at midnight, and one great reason why it should not be discussed now is that the Minister who is responsible for this Vote, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, is not here. Will not the Government make

  2151
  a compromise? There are two other Orders which the Leader of the House said he would take to-night. Will he not accept the Motion to report Progress, and have this discussion to-morrow? Half a million of money even now is a very important thing, especially when we do not know how that is disposed of. I shall endeavour, please God, to-morrow to show some of the means by which it is disposed, but I would like to have the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs here. There may be an excuse for the right hon. Gentleman's absence, because it is his birthday, and may he have many others! In his very distinguished career he has never made an enemy, although he has given hard knocks and perhaps received some. I hope, under all the circumstances, the Leader of the House, who looks at things reasonably, will allow this Motion to be carried, and go on with the other Orders. I promise him I will not oppose them.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: There is a good deal to be said for this Motion at this late hour. Of course the Government have no desire to keep the House longer than is necessary to get through the business. The Motion is not unreasonable in these circumstances, and the hon. Member was good enough to say I am willing to look at these things in a reasonable way, which is gratifying as coming from him. But if the Motion itself be not unreasonable, I cannot say I was impressed with the argument brought forward by the hon. Gentleman. He gave as a proof of the undesirability of continuing the business his own vagueness as to the figures. Although it is a good rule generally to judge one by yourself; it is not always safe to do it in a case like this, and to assume that everyone is as hazy as legards the figures as the hon. Member is, even at this time of night. But the Government will be willing to report Progress, because I think we shall, in one way or the other, get through the business. If so, I would like the House to take two Orders on the Paper with regard to which, I think, there is no difference of opinion—the Lords Amendments to the Parliament and Local Elections Bill and the Financial Resolution for Scottish Education. If those be agreed to, I will accept this Motion.
  Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.
  Resolutions to be reported upon Tuesday next; Committee also report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

CLAUSE 2.—(Short Title, Construction and Commencement.)
This Act may be cited as the Corn Production (Amendment) Act, 1918, and shall be construed as one with the Com Production Act, 1917, and shall come into operation on the twenty-first day of August, nineteen hundred and eighteen.
Amendment made: Leave out the words "and shall come into operation on the twenty-first day of August, nineteen hundred and eighteen."—[Mr. Prothero.]
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill reported, with Amendments.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be now considered."—[Mr. Prothero.]
Mr. D. WHITE: I would really venture to put in a protest. This is a Bill which has undergone considerable changes. The Government introduced it in another form in another place. Then various changes were made in the nature of concessions in favour of the landed interest. Then the right hon. Gentleman came to this House and, instead of standing by the Bill as it left the other House, accepted it subject to several variations. Those variations have been made, and, as he said, the last Amendment was a concession. The Bill, as compared with what it was when originally introduced by the Government, is really a series of concessions without any corresponding advantage to the taxpayer, who is placed under a heavy liability under the Corn Production Act. In addition to that, many of the Amendments made have been manuscript Amendments, and it has been very difficult to (follow them. I submit that before we proceed to the Report stage and the Third Reading we ought at least to have a print of the Bill as amended in Committee—it is a very short Bill—so that we may really see what we are discussing on Report. I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, who has been in many ways conciliatory and whose conduct of the Bill we all admire, not to force it on Report, but to wait until we can see how the Bill stands before taking those stages. If he does that, I am sure that those stages will involve no delay.
Mr. RAFFAN: I would like to support what has been said by my hon. Friend, and I do so in no spirit of hostility whatever either to the right hon. Gentleman or
2092
to the Bill. I think you must agree that if the Report stage is taken now the House generally will not have an opportunity of really understanding what the position is. I have seldom known a Bill so drastically amended in Committee. It is no exaggeration to say that something like a third of the Bill has been excised and other words substituted. If so serious a change is made an opportunity ought to be given to the House to peruse the Bill in its new form. I take no exception to the right hon. Gentleman entering into Parliamentary bargains as such. This may be a good or a bad bargain, but I should like an opportunity to look at the Bill as amended. I do not take this course with the view of indicating that there will be any hostility to it on the Report stage, but I plead that we should have an opportunity of seeing the Bill. I entirely concur as to the right hon. Gentleman's courtesy, and we are making no complaint in regard to him; but we ask him to give us this opportunity of looking at the measure in its revised form before proceeding to further stages.
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir R. Winfrey): If either of the hon. Members who have spoken had been in the House during the Debate——
Mr. RAFFAN: I have been present right through.
Sir R. WINFREY—he would have realised that very little change has been made in the Bill, and I cannot see why they should object to proceeding further.
Mr. PETO: Having been in the House during the whole Debate and taken some part in it, I find myself in complete agreement with the hon. Member (Mr. White). I see on the Paper that we are asked to take the Committee stage of the Corn Production Bill. Nearly every Amendment of importance has been a manuscript Amendment, and we have had to follow it as best we could, and it is perfectly true that practically a third of the Bill will have to be reprinted. I really think under these circumstances, and considering specially that we have it from the President of the Board of Agriculture that he believes these further Amendments, or Amendments to the Lords Amendments, will be agreed to in another place, we should have some opportunity of finding out whether this bargain is one which is really considered reasonable by all the

2093
interests concerned, both those particularly dear to the hon. Members immediately below me and to those with whom I am more associated, and it is not reasonable, considering the circumstances in which it came from another place, that we should take the further stages without seeing what it looks like when it is in print.
Mr. ACLAND: I am bound to back up the appeal which the hon. Members have made. I have asked the right hon. Gentleman a question, which I hope was put in all courtesy, as to whether these valuers were to have the power of adding this 30 per cent. or 10 per cent. on account of the land being taken compulsorily or other work having to be done compulsorily? He made me no answer of any sort or kind. It is rather an important point, and one ought to have a chance of making a point of that kind which is really substantial.
Mr. PROTHERO: I should not like to go against the opinion of so many hon. Members, but I hope if we put the Bill down for next week the House will allow us to get it. It is a matter of some urgency, because we are very far on in the Session.
Mr. ACLAND: Agreed as far as we are concerned.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 78.]

GOVERNMENT WAR OBLIGATIONS BILL.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Extension of Section 1 of the Government War Obligations Act, 1914.)
(1) Section one of the Government War Obligations Act, 1914, which, as extended by Section one of the Government War Obligations Act, 1915, and Section one of the Government War Obligations Act, 1916, relates to the provision of money for the fulfilment of Government war obligations incurred before the passing of the last-mentioned Act, shall be further extended so as to include the provision in the like manner of money for the fulfilment of any Government war obligations incurred before the passing of this Act.
(2) The Schedule to the Government War Obligations Act, 1914 (which as extended by the Government War Obligations Act, 1915, and the Government War Obligations Act, 1916, sets
2094
out the Government war obligations), shall be further extended so as to include 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.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
Mr. BOOTH: I wish to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he can say what amount is likely to be incurred under Sub-section (2)? I understand that the new obligation will ultimately lead to loss to the Exchequer.
Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): I cannot give an estimate of the amount involved, but I do not think any charge at all will come upon the Exchequer, because the liability is for any claims which may be made against the Portuguese Government in the matter of British goods which were interned in enemy vessels in Portuguese harbours. For these claims we have also secured an indemnity for ourselves from the cargo owners, which is backed by the guarantee of a British bank of standing. So it is, humanly speaking, quite impossible that any loss should fall on the Exchequer with regard to this obligation.
Mr. BOOTH: I take it the Government may have to pay something out on account of these Portuguese cargoes?
Mr. BALDWIN: Possibly.
Mr. BOOTH: But my right hon. Friend is quite confident that it will not be a very serious amount, and the bulk of it should come back.
Mr. BALDWIN: The whole of it.
CLAUSE 2 (Short Title) ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time upon Monday next.

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS [REMISSION OF DEBTS].
Resolution reported,
"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 Harbour, in pursuance of any Act of the present Session relating to Local Loans."
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
Mr. BOOTH: On reperusing this Resolution, I do not see why there should not have been a limit inserted. I know an explanation was given before. I will not trouble the Minister to repeat it, but on reading it again I was not satisfied with it.

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair]
Clause 1 (Grants for Public Works) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 2.—(Certain Debts not to be Reckoned as Assets of Local Loans Fund.)
Whereas it is expedient that the principal of the several local loans specified in the tables contained in Part I., Part II., and Part III. respectively of the Schedule to this Act should, to the extent specified in the last column of those Tables, not be reckoned as assets of the local loans fund established under the National Debt and Local Loans Act, 1867, and that the several sums specified in the second column of the Table contained in Part IV. of the said Schedule should not be reckoned as assets of the said fund:
Now, therefore, the principal of the said loans to the extent aforesaid and the said sums shall be written off from the assets of the local loans fund, and the provisions of Section fifteen of the said Act shall, so far as applicable, apply thereto.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
Mr. BOOTH: I think this is the right place to ask for an explanation of the Schedules which are referred to in this Clause. I have had some difficulty in trying to decide what is their meaning. Broadly speaking, I should like to know whether the actual loss falls upon the Exchequer. According to this Clause you are writing off certain assets. In the Schedule one sees £200 in Eyemouth Harbour and nearly £2,000 in Portness. I should like the Minister in charge to give a little explanation. When we come to Part II. there is a list of Irish borrowers who are having a number of amounts written off. I hope it is not writing off bad debts. I think it is a readjustment of accounts, but it is very difficult without an explanation from the Minister really to understand what these amounts are. Why
2096
should Jeremiah Murphy have £232 5s. written off his account? I feel sure it would not be done unless it were all right, but there is no explanation, and I do not think it can be considered unreasonable to ask for one.
Mr. BALDWIN: I do not know whether the hon. Member was in the House on the Second Reading.
Mr. BOOTH: I am sorry I was not.
Mr. BALDWIN: I do not think he would wish me to give again the Irish story. A complete explanation was given, and I regret to say these amounts as to Portness and Eyemouth Harbours are all irrecoverable. In eases where it is possible that sums of money may be recovered they go ultimately to the credit of the Exchequer, but they are written off the local loans account. I gave a detailed explanation of the amounts to which the hon. Member has referred on the Second Reading.
Mr. BOOTH: I quite agree it would not be reasonable to ask for it again. It seems that all the bad debts are made either in Scotland or in Ireland. I do not see that any Englishman has absconded or avoided payment. To that extent my own nationality—poor England, often neglected in this House!—deserves to be congratulated that it does not figure amongst the bad debts.
Clauses 3 (Remission of Arrears of Principal and Interest in Respect of Eyemouth Harbour Loan), 4 (Explanation of Effect of Section 4 of 7 and 8, George 5, c. 32), and 5 (Short Title) ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

SUPPLY.

  CIVIL SERVICES SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1918–19.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  NATIONAL GALLERY.—Class 4.
  8.0 P.M.
  Resolved, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £11,750, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will

  2097
  come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1919, for the Salaries and Expenses of the National Gallery, and of the National Gallery of British Art, Millbank, including a Grant-in-Aid for the purchase of Pictures."

PARLIAMENTARY AND LOCAL ELECTIONS BILL.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Lords Amendment be now considered."
Mr. BOOTH: On the general question, I rise to suggest that on this Motion the Minister in charge of the Bill, the President of the Local Government Board, should make some general statement as to the Amendments. I think it would facilitate business.
The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): There is only one Amendment which has been moved in another place to this Bill. It is to insert the words "in Great Britain, and before the 15th day of March, 1919, in Ireland." That Amendment was inserted in order to meet the case of Belfast. On the 1st day of March was originally to apply to Ireland, but the Belfast local election takes place on the second Tuesday in March, and I believe it is far more convenient that the date of the election there should be altered. The alteration of date does not affect any other local election in Ireland, and I think there is no opposition to the inclusion of this Amendment.
Question put, and agreed to.
Lords Amendment considered accordingly.

CLAUSE 2.—(Further Postponement of Local Elections.)
(1) The next statutory elections of county and borough councillors, district councillors, guardians, and parish councillors shall, subject to the limitations hereinafter contained, be postponed, or, in the case of elections already postponed under the Elections and Registration Act, 1915, the Parliament and Local Elections Act, 1916, the Parliament and Local Elections Act, 1917, or the Parliament and Local Elections (No. 2) Act, 1917, further postponed, for a year; and the term of office of the existing councillors and guardians shall accordingly be extended, or further extended, by one year.
This provision shall apply only where the next statutory election (whether a postponed election or not) would take place before the first day of March, nineteen hundred and nineteen.
Lords Amendment: At end insert the words "in Great Britain, and before the fifteenth day of March, nineteen hundred and nineteen, in Ireland."—Agreed to.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND; [GRANTS],
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it is expedient to authorise 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."
Mr. BOOTH: As there is no limit in this Resolution, perhaps the Lord Advocate will say whether or not it is convenient that an Amendment should be inserted limiting the amount. I say frankly that if the Minister does not consider it a suitable case, I shall not press it.
The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Clyde): The Vote is certainly not one which it would be convenient to state in definite figures. Put broadly, the Bill, which is at present under consideration upstairs, is one which in Scotland carries forward the constitution of the whole education system on lines, broadly speaking, parallel to those which this House has already agreed to with reference to England. There are, of course, differences due to the peculiarities of our own local conditions in Scotland, some of which, we think, carry this Bill even further in the direction of educational improvement than has been done in England. It will be obvious, from the very nature of such a proposal, dealing very largely as it does with secondary and intermediate and technical education, that to name a figure in the Vote is not practicable.
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolution to be reported to-morrow (Friday).

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do sit To-morrow."
Mr. GULLAND: May I ask what business will be taken to-morrow?
Mr. BONAR LAW: Trading With the Enemy (Amendment) Bill, Committee, and the Report stage of the Financial Resolution to which the Committee has just agreed.
Mr. GULLAND: Not the Supplementary Estimates?
Mr. BONAR LAW: They cannot be taken to-morrow. They were put down for Tuesday.
Mr. GULLAND: I understood that they were postponed to be taken first to-morrow. The right hon Gentleman to-day announced other Supply business for Tuesday—no fewer than three Votes—and that does not leave much time for the Supplementary Estimates. I am sure the Committee generally understood that the Supplementary Estimates were adjourned till to-morrow, and I know the hon. Member for South Donegal (Mr. Swift MacNeill), in moving to report Progress, thought so—indeed, he said so to me.
Mr. BONAR LAW: I am sorry if there be a misunderstanding. When the Supplementary Estimates were called my Noble Friend (Lord E. Talbot) said "Tuesday," and I thought that was the understanding.
Mr. GULLAND: I was keeping my ears open, and I heard that the Report of the Financial Resolution on the Education (Scotland) Bill was put down for Tuesday.
Mr. HOGGE: Could not the right hon. Gentleman take the Supplementary Estimates to-morrow? We stopped here to-night in order to finish them. The right hon. Gentleman hopes to adjourn for the Summer Recess on 8th August, and the business he announced at the close of questions to-day carries us over the whole of next week without touching the Vote of Credit, for which he requires five days. If my right hon. Friend wants us to assist him in reducing this period of the Session and getting to the Summer Recess, I think he ought to take the Supplementary Estimates to-morrow.
Mr. GULLAND: May I say again that I distinctly heard the report of the Vote that the Government got to-night put down for Tuesday, and I thought the other Votes were put down for to-morrow.

2155
There was a mere whisper from the Treasury Bench, and I had the assurance from the Noble Lord, and thought it was clear that the other Votes were put down for the first thing to-morrow. I am sure that that was the understanding in the mind of the hon. Member for South Donegal, because he asked me, and I said distinctly it would be taken to-morrow.
Mr. PRATT. (Lord of the Treasury): When the Report of the Supplementary Estimates was called I said "Tuesday," and when Mr. Speaker said "Committee to sit again?" I said "Tuesday," in a perfectly distinct voice, and Mr. Speaker repeated "Tuesday" after me.
Lord E. TALBOT (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): My right hon. Friend said clearly that if we did not get the Trading With the Enemy Bill to-day, we should have to sit to-morrow in order to complete it.
Mr. BOOTH: The hon. and learned Member who moved to report Progress
2156
said distinctly that he would come tomorrow. I am not suggesting that there was any mistake on the Front Bench, but I know what was in hon. Members' minds.
Sir G. YOUNGER: Is there any use in discussing this matter further now?
Mr. SPEAKER: I believe the Order has been put down for Tuesday.
Question put, and agreed to.
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
It being after Half-past Eleven of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order, until To-morrow, pursuant to the Resolution of the House this day.
Adjourned at Twenty-three minutes before Twelve o'clock.

WAR.
  LORD MILNER.
  LORD MILNER.
  BOY SCOUTS, DUBLIN.
  BOY SCOUTS, DUBLIN.
PRISONERS OF WAR.
  CHEVRONS.
  CHEVRONS.
  CLOTHING.
  CLOTHING.
  MONEY ALLOWANCES.
  MONEY ALLOWANCES.
  REPATRIATION (SHIPS).
  REPATRIATION (SHIPS).
  GOVERNMENT SECURITIES (DIVIDEND WARRANTS).
  GOVERNMENT SECURITIES (DIVIDEND WARRANTS).
  JOINT INDUSTRIAL COUNCILS (GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS).
  JOINT INDUSTRIAL COUNCILS (GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS).
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  FEEDING STUFFS.
  FEEDING STUFFS.
  COLD STORAGE.
  COLD STORAGE.
  JAM PRICES.
  JAM PRICES.
  WILD FRUITS.
  WILD FRUITS.
  MEAT.
  MEAT.
  MARGARINE CLEARING HOUSE, GLASGOW.
  MARGARINE CLEARING HOUSE, GLASGOW.
  CROPS PROTECTION (CARTRIDGES).
  CROPS PROTECTION (CARTRIDGES).
  CATTLE (EXPORT FROM IRELAND).
  CATTLE (EXPORT FROM IRELAND).
  ALLOTMENT-HOLDERS (TENURE).
  ALLOTMENT-HOLDERS (TENURE).
  COUNTY MEATH RESIDENT MAGISTRATE.
  COUNTY MEATH RESIDENT MAGISTRATE.
  IRISHMEN INTERNED.
  IRISHMEN INTERNED.
  SOLDIERS' LEAVE.
  SOLDIERS' LEAVE.
  CAPTURED GERMAN GUNS (EXHIBITION IN PARKS).
  CAPTURED GERMAN GUNS (EXHIBITION IN PARKS).
  GALLIPOLI OPERATIONS (DECORATION).
  GALLIPOLI OPERATIONS (DECORATION).
  SOLDIERS KILLED IN WAR (COMMEMORATIVE PLAQUES).
  SOLDIERS KILLED IN WAR (COMMEMORATIVE PLAQUES).
  CLIPSTONE CAMP.
  CLIPSTONE CAMP.
  HOSPITALS AT BATTLE FRONTS.
  HOSPITALS AT BATTLE FRONTS.
  ARMY NURSING SERVICE (TRAINING).
  ARMY NURSING SERVICE (TRAINING).
  GERMAN PRISONER CAMPS (DR. MARKEL).
  GERMAN PRISONER CAMPS (DR. MARKEL).
MILITARY SERVICE.
  TRANSFERS TO RESERVE.
  TRANSFERS TO RESERVE.
  FOOD DISTRIBUTORS (EMPLOYES).
  FOOD DISTRIBUTORS (EMPLOYES).
  CASES UNDER INQUIRY.
  CASES UNDER INQUIRY.
  SPECIAL CONSTABLES.
  SPECIAL CONSTABLES.
  WIDOW'S SOLE SURVIVING SON.
  WIDOW'S SOLE SURVIVING SON.
  HAY CROP, IRELAND.
  HAY CROP, IRELAND.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
MUNITIONS.
  USE OF CINEMAS.
  USE OF CINEMAS.
  EXPLOSION (COMPENSATION CLAIMS).
  EXPLOSION (COMPENSATION CLAIMS).
  SOLDIERS' CORRESPONDENCE (POSTAGE).
  SOLDIERS' CORRESPONDENCE (POSTAGE).
  GOLDBEATER SKIN.
  GOLDBEATER SKIN.
  ALLIES' TREATIES.
  ALLIES' TREATIES.
  NATIONAL INSURANCE (PANEL DOCTORS PRACTICE).
  NATIONAL INSURANCE (PANEL DOCTORS PRACTICE).
  Royal Irish Constabulary (Pensions).
  Royal Irish Constabulary (Pensions).
  Lunatic Asylums (Maintenance).
  Lunatic Asylums (Maintenance).
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order).
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 5) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order).
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PRO VISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PRO VISIONAL ORDER (No. 2) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

UNION OF BENEFICES BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH: My Lords, I rise to move the Second Reading of the Union of Benefices Bill. In some ways this Bill attaches itself to, and is a development of, the Act that was passed last year as a piece of war legislation, authorising the discontinuance of services in churches to enable the clergy to be free for other and more exacting duties at this time. If it was held that without some adjustment the man-power of the Church would not be used to full advantage in time of war, this, I believe, is equally true in time of peace. It cannot occupy a man's whole time to minister on Sundays and to visit on weekdays 100 or 200 people, and the amalgamation of two small benefices or more together offers to a man a fuller occupation and a larger sphere of
1162
usefulness, and in some cases provides him with a better, or, rather, a less inadequate stipend.
When I say that it offers a man a larger sphere of useful occupation, I do not for a moment mean to depreciate the good work that is done by the clergy in our country districts. I know how very good it is, and I know that their work is never over in the sense that they can leave it. They have always to be on the spot, and they find it more difficult in many cases than their brothers in the towns to get away for even one Sunday's holiday in the year, and in many cases they cannot afford the expense of such a little change. Some people speak of the country clergy as if they did only one day's work in seven, but no one could do that who is aware of the way in which our country clergy are always at the disposal of their people, who constantly turn to them for help of every kind, and never turn in vain. A parish clergyman is a source of the best kind of guidance and assistance to his flock in spiritual and in other matters, and we gratefully remember all that our country owes to the parsonages dotted all over it and to the sympathetic work done by the wives and families of our country clergy.
During the war some people have been casting about for ways in which the clergy could best serve the nation, and we are thankful for the manner in which they have sprung forward at this time of the nation's need; we honour those who are serving abroad, and we treasure the memory of those who have laid down their lives for their country. But in our thankfulness we cannot forget those who have been left at home to do most important, if less romantic, work. They have interpreted the war to the people of our country districts; they have broken bad news when it has arrived to the families in their charge; they have helped them in all the filling up of forms; and they have guided the young people in choosing a form of war service in which to serve their country. And I believe that the war would have been regarded with an aversion that is not the case in our country districts had it not been for all this gallant work day by day being carried on by our country clergy.
But in many cases a man could do this sort of good work for a larger flock. And I may add that in a very few years it may come about that with the smaller value of money and the shortage of clergy it will

1163
become almost impossible to draft a sufficient number of clergymen to incumbencies in our country districts. In the sad position of a clergyman ministering to a very small flock a very small remuneration tells against his work, when he is not in a position, perhaps, to get a pony or to ride a bicycle or in any way to come in contact with the cultured association of men similarly educated with himself.
I know that it is urged that the union of benefices is always unpopular. It punishes the particular parishes concerned and especially the people who live in the parish in which the clergyman does not propose to reside. Then it is said that the curtailment of services is likely to throw the people into the hands of Nonconformist ministers and places of worship, where they can find facilities of worship at the time when they wish to go to church. Then it is said that the endowment belongs to the parish to which it was originally given, and that it is not open to any redistribution on some general scheme. But it cannot really be right to take an entirely selfish view in these matters, and our people must be asked to learn—even if they learn slowly—to take a larger view, and to be willing to identify themselves with their neighbours. This may take time, but a generation is a short period in the life of the Church.
Nor can it be desirable to check such a movement because the people are halfhearted in their adherence to the Church. It may be that the regulated use on a more extensive scale of the ministries of educated laymen may come to supply the additional services which may be required on Sundays. It would be wrong, of course, to re-arrange parishes if it meant taking away the endowments of one parish and leaving the parish from which they were taken unprovided for in regard to its spiritual needs. But adequate provision does not necessarily mean continuing unaltered the habits of the past. There is a considerable difference between principle and custom in these matters. In neither case do the parishioners stand to lose if the union of two benefices attracts to them a clergyman of greater vigour and stronger personality, and one who is better able to keep in touch with the thought of the outside world.
I hesitate to mention any of the failures among the clergy, because it would be unfair to speak against the high standard of life that is almost universally shown.
1164
But if ever failure is found I believe it most readily springs from loneliness and isolation, and from the lack of a full week's work dragging down a man who yet all the time is tied to the limited area of his post. Any step which can help to make the occurrence of these unfavourable cases as few as possible is prudent and to be recommended. This Bill does not introduce the idea of the union of benefices; it merely alters the existing machinery for bringing it about. Whether the Bill is passed or not it will still be possible for benefices to be united, though only Bishops know the patience and effort at present required to carry through such unions. The Bill strives to improve the method by which unions, when thought desirable, may be carried into effect.
Your Lordships will observe that the Bill provides for an inquiry on the part of a competent tribunal in order to weigh up the pros and cons of each case. This is substituted for the cumbersome procedure of a protest to the Archbishop on the part of those interested in the matter. This tribunal will consist of three commissioners, and the whole case will be argued before it. To this proposal I attach great importance. Both patrons and parishioners will be able to state their cases before this tribunal, and it is clear that if patrons are to lose their right of veto it is only fair that, with the parishioners, they should have ample opportunity of saying their say to the full. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners will nominate one commissioner, and no doubt valuable experience will quickly gather round their nominees; but the commissioner who is appointed locally will see that special local features (like distances, roads, situation of houses and hamlets) are observed. And here I give notice that in Committee I propose to move an Amendment, if the Bill is read a second time to-day, to the effect that the alternative provided for use in this Bill as it stands if the patrons do not agree on a nominee, should be employed in all cases. The Bishop's nominee will presumably be conversant with the spiritual and clerical aspects of the ease and with the individual characteristics and needs of the praishes concerned. The Bishop's veto, being the veto of the final and supreme spiritual authority, is retained.
The Bill removes any population limit. It is very hard to fix such a limit, for a union may be desirable where the population exceeds by a few whatever limit happens

1165
to be fixed upon; and it is really the collective judgment of the three commissioners on this tribunal which will be a safeguard against any misuse of this freedom. Then the final scheme will settle the terms of the union. Among them, of course, are the terms of patronage of the amalgamated benefice, if more than one patron is concerned. This Bill is no sense requires that some parish churches should be subordinated in their relation to others. Such a step can be taken, but one may be sure that in country districts where such unions take place, though the benefice will be made one, each parish church will usually hold its own position unimpaired. This will still be the case even in a group of little parishes close to one another where the desirable step might sometimes be taken of making several parishes into one benefice to be worked under one incumbent with an adequate staff of curates radiating out from the one strong centre. An unnecessary parsonage, I suppose, would in most cases be sold for the benefit of the benefice, and it would be very rare that there would be occasion to pull down a parsonage; and I imagine that the pulling down of a church would be a very rare event indeed.
I ought to add that this Bill has the approval of both the Canterbury and York Houses of Convocation, and the little Amendment to which I alluded just now will be moved in deference to the wishes of the Upper House of the Canterbury Convocation. I may also add that the Ecclesiastical Commission, which is largely concerned in the working of the Bill, fully approves of it; and this, again, is true of Queen Anne's Bounty; though neither of those is a proper body actually to initiate legislation. Moreover, this Bill is in accordance with resolutions passed in the Canterbury House of Laymen some few years ago. I cannot believe that the Bill will lead to a wholesale attack being made on the country parishes; it would only mean that where there is a sound case for union it would make sure that the matter was not checked by unreasonable prejudice and ignored simply through the indifference of a patron or his unwillingness to take a wide view of all the interests involved.
But I come back to that with which I began—namely, that the Church cannot continue to take an obsolete view of her man-power, or refuse to reconsider the redistribution of her men at home and in the field abroad. It is very desirable that, when it is possible, the Church should
1166
reform old-fashioned and discredited ways I dating from the time when parishes were more isolated from one another than they are in these modern days; otherwise the Church runs the chance of losing the respect of many efficient and careful critics, not least among the working classes. Such arguments as I have indicated are much reinforced when we consider the shortage of clergy which must result from the war. In the last years all our able-bodied students in theological colleges have gone to the Front, and are fighting there, and the only men whom the Bishops have been ordaining have been elderly men or men unfit for service in the field, and there are senior men at the present time still holding on in their benefices just until the war concludes. At the end of the war there will be many resignations among them, which will immediately reveal and intensify our difficulties. A small measure, therefore, of this kind, which can do something in the right direction, I venture to think is valuable.
I repeat that this Bill creates no new system, but only makes an accepted principle more available for use. The reason why it has fallen upon me to introduce this subject is that the diocese of Norwich has such a very large number of these little parishes. In the city of Norwich the number of parishes is beyond the present requirements of the population living where many churches stand—namely, in the business quarters of the city. The last thing which I wish to do is to inflict statistics upon your Lordships, but I may be permitted to say just this much—that there are about 600 parishes in the diocese of Norwich; that the population of 200 of these is actually under the figure of 200 persons; that 100 of these parishes out of the 600 are already united with other parishes; and that some twenty-five more are held in plurality. There is plenty of scope in the diocese of Norwich for further efforts in this direction of union, and it will be a great thing if the machinery for achieving such unions could be modified from the manner at present provided by the law. As the law now stand a union that must commend itself as desirable to any independent judgment can be held up, not as the result of a business-like discussion of all the circumstances of the case, but just by indifference or mere parochialism. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Bishop of Norwich).
THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: My Lords, the right rev. Prelate has given such a clear and concise account of the Bill and of the reasons for it that I do not think it would be desirable, to take up your time by many more words. I only rise lest there should be any misapprehension within this House or beyond it that the Bishop of Norwich has taken up this matter on his own single initiative. Those who listened to him just now know how far that is from being the case; but I think it is just as well that it should be said that this Bill represents the desire of nearly all those who as Bishops or as administrators, or persons otherwise acquainted with the inner working of the Church, wish to see its efficiency improved.
I think, too, that it is right that we should say a word to justify this Bill as a timely measure. The noble Earl who moved the Second Reading of the Education Bill the other night defended himself from the criticism that in war-time we ought not to be concerned with matters other than those connected with the war. I think his defence was felt to be a perfectly convincing one, and I venture to apply it to a very much smaller but very material subject—namely, to a bit of reform in the arrangements of the Church as they touch the affairs of the people at large. There is a very strong feeling indeed that our system is in many ways embarrassing and archaic, and I think people would feel, the better they know the matter, that instead of this being pushed on with unnecessary haste it is really a very belated proposal, and I believe it will be welcome to people who approach the subject from very different points of view. I think that persons who desire simply to see what they think an admirable system relieved of some of its drawbacks ought to welcome a Bill which attacks what is so generally felt to be a very embarrassing feature of our present system. On the other band, I believe those who think that changes in the Church's secular position ought to go very much further would still be glad to see that Parliament was ready to do something towards remedying its most obvious and pressing defects.
There is only one other observation, or perhaps two which I desire to make. One is this. This House has always represented very largely the interests of patrons of benefices. I, for one, and I think many of my brethren on the Episcopal Bench will agree, am no enemy to the rights of patrons.
1168
On the contrary, I believe that our system of preferment, which includes different elements, is on that account better and does its work better But I am quite sure that the arbitrary power of patrons to veto schemes which are desired by all the rest of those interested in the matter is a very undesirable one, and one which would tend to bring about the destruction of patrons' rights altogether. The other remark is a very humble one indeed, and may amuse your Lordships, but I believe it to be real. We are always told that we should live up to our material and mechanical advantages. I believe that in the present case circumstances have been immensely changed by the simple fact of the invention of the bicycle.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, the right rev. Prelate who moved the Second Reading of this Bill referred to the attitude in its favour taken by the House of Laymen of the Province of Canterbury, and I am in a position to say that there are a very large number of Churchmen interested in important Church organisations who are in favour of the proposal contained in the Bill. I do not desire to say more except this, that I think the proposals themselves have been well devised and will bring about what the right rev. Prelate desires—namely, a far easier method of procedure—and at the same time will give all reasonable protection to the various interests involved.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, I should like to say a few words about this Bill, because it happens that during a long life I have had a great deal to do with the temporal side, at any rate, of small livings. Under the direction of successive Lord Chancellors I have had to do with matters connected with what is called the Lord Chancellor's patronage, which is really his duty to fill up livings of the kind that are most difficult to fill. The origin of what is called his patronage is that the King at the time of the Reformation, or spoliation, or whatever you may call it, handed over to the Lord Chancellor all those livings which were not worth keeping. Then at Queen Anne's Bounty, for a great many years, I had occasion to see the business connected with the small livings with which they are mainly concerned—livings that are under £200 a year.
I therefore venture to give the opinion, from that long experience, that some

1169
better scheme for facilitating the union of benefices is very greatly to be desired. The right rev. Prelate has pointed out very fully what are the reasons why such unions are desirable. It unfortunately happens frequently—in an enormous number of cases, I am sorry to say—that the income of the incumbent is wholly inadequate. The incumbent also is in the unfortunate position of having too little to do, though, as a humourist I think once said, he "thereby becomes in time well qualified to do it." It is, therefore, very desirable to have a Bill of this sort, which interferes very little with any rights, which enables these unions in proper cases to be carried out with reasonable facility, which gives a right of appeal in any case where the individual might possibly be injured, and which—in the form nowadays so familiar in legislation, of giving rule-making powers—enables the Lord Chancellor, who is given the power under this Bill, to lay down what the rules of procedure shall be.
I cannot but think that your Lordships should at least give this Bill a Second Beading. I hope that the right rev. Prelate will allow me before the Committee stage to make one or two suggestions merely on points of form. I do not think that I should venture to differ from him upon the point which he has indicated this evening as to the position of the patron, but I do venture to express the opinion—having had occasion, as he knows, to consider this matter very carefully—that the Bill is right and that the Amendment that he proposes will not be an improvement upon the Bill. I beg to support the Second Reading.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I should not like this Bill to pass its Second Reading without having stated on behalf, as I believe, of the whole Episcopate that there is no difference of opinion among the Bishops as to the expediency of passing it. You have had it put before you by two Bishops with large rural dioceses, where the difficulty is most felt, and supported by the Chairman of the House of Laymen and by the noble and learned Lord who has taken so active a part in Church affairs of this sort for a great many years. I believe the proposals made are exactly what were described so clearly and well by my right rev. brother, and I hope that your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading.
LORD BRAYE: My Lords, I venture to ask the right rev. Prelate whether he could include cases where two benefices have been united according to a former Act of Parliament, and include those cases so as to allow power to sell one of those benefices which has become practically useless in a depopulated parish. I speak from experience, because I have been connected with a case of that kind, which I believe is quite unique. At all events, if there is any similar case, attention has not been called to it. The parish to which I allude has practically no inhabitants. Sometimes there are ten, but I believe they do not belong to the Church of England, so that practically it has no Anglican population at all.
What renders the parish very peculiar is that it owns a church which is one of the very finest, not only in Northamptonshire, but I believe in the whole of England, and this church contains relics of bygone ages which are certainly unique. The stained glass of that parish is worth I do not know how much, but I should think it would make the mouths of the authorities at South Kensington water if they saw it and it ever came into the market. There are other belongings to this church which attract attention. Among them is the organ of Whitehall, which was there in the time of Charles I. I believe it is the very oldest organ in England—quite innocent of works or bellows at this time, but there it is as a work of art. I mention these particulars only to show that this is one of the most peculiar cases in England. This living, which is worth £10 a year, was united about thirty years ago under the old Act of Parliament by the authorities of Queen Anne's Bounty or the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, in whom the power was vested, with another living in another county contiguous to it, worth about £230 or £240 a year at that time. This church has become practically useless. As a matter of fact, for a whole year or more no service whatever was conducted in it. The vicar was a great invalid, who could hardly perform the services in the church to which he was attached in the contiguous parish. From whatever cause it arose, the fact remains, and there again, I believe, is a unique fact among the benefices of the Anglican communion. There is no Archdeacon, nobody to look after the church, and I take this opportunity of drawing attention to the matter. I hope it is not quite irrevelant to the subject before us.

1171
I think it is worth mentioning in the Legislature that there is no person whatsoever responsible for the upkeep or sustentation of that magnificent building. We all know that church rates were abolished under the Gladstone Administration a generation ago, and that in those days, when a church threatened to fall down, the parish was enabled to raise subscriptions for its repair. That was the universal law of the land. Church rates were abolished, and no substitute was provided for the sustentation of churches. Therefore if this magnificent stained glass, which dates from the time of Edward III and is perfectly unique as a work of art, or if any of the other appurtenances of the fabric which I have mentioned—and I have not mentioned all by any means—if any of these were injured no human being is responsible for the restoration, or the protection, of what might remain. I think this really is a subject which ought to commend itself to the notice and the attention of the Legislature. Possibly some right rev. Prelate may take up the matter and introduce a Bill to that effect.
The right rev. Prelate has introduced this very necessary and desirable Bill, as I believe it is, creating if possible a body which may be responsible for the saving of these churches, or any others in the same category, which are rendered totally useless, which have no congregation whatsoever, and the living of which, as in this case, is only £10 a year. Your Lordships will recollect that when the monastic churches were the property of powerful and rich abbots, and the income of these parishes went to the monastery, the superior of the monastery paid one of his monks to serve as parish priest. The Pope ordained that this should be so, and at the time of what is called in this country the Reformation the land was seized, or stolen, by the Crown, and the liability to pay income was vested in the purchaser of these properties. Therefore, we have in this country, which after all is the most conservative country in the world in these matters, the fact that the owners of these estates are charged with the responsibility of paying the incumbent, who is called vicar, and not rector He is called the vicar; that is a person who represents the ancient authority of the living. I hope the right rev. Prelate will vouchsafe to consider these remarks which I have ventured to offer, and I think he would be earning the grati-
1172
tude of those who are concerned with these matters.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

MATERNITY AND CHILD WELFARE BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Peel.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, before the House goes into Committee, I should like to put a question to my noble friend. I was unfortunately not able, through indisposition, to be present when he made his speech on the Second Reading, but I have had the great advantage of reading it. I should like to ask him, having regard to the great variety of powers which would be wielded by the committees under this Bill, and also the powers given under the Midwives Bill, whether he has considered how far this Bill reads with the Midwives Bill now passing through Parliament. He will remember that the Midwives Bill provides for a certain inspection under particular authorities, and we had a slight difference of opinion as to whether the authority should be the county council or the lesser local authority. The present Bill includes both authorities, and it might be that the intention of Parliament (and what, I hope, may be the ultimate intention of confining the power of the Midwives Bill to the major local authority) will be counteracted by this Bill which entrusts midwifery powers to the lesser councils. I do not know whether he has considered that point. If he has not I will not press him for an answer now, but I should be glad if he would consider it at his leisure and give me a reply during the next stage of the Bill.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, I regret that I was not able to be here in proper time for saying anything on the Second Reading, because I should have liked to state how glad I was to see this Bill introduced. I happen to be connected with societies that are affected by and who feel a great interest in the Bill. The same point which has just been mentioned by the noble Marquess occurred to me. I did think there might be some inconsistency, or some confusion created, be-

1173
tween this Bill and the Midwives Bill, and I think it would be a great advantage if the noble Viscount would be good enough to consider, before the next stage, whether any such difficulty is likely to arise.
The part of the Bill which most interested me personally, and to which I wish to call attention is, if I understand, the intention of the Bill under the provisions of Clause 2, she provision to maintain all existing voluntary organisations as far as possible, or at least to utilise the services of those persons who have done very valuable work hitherto. It seems to me as if that was the intention of Clause 2, but I am not at all clear that the provisions, as detailed in the text, carry that out. It appears to me that you cannot, under the clause as it stands, actually hand over and delegate powers to one of the existing associations, such as the one with which I am connected and of which I am chairman—the Westminster Health Association. It would certainly be a great misfortune if the work of those engaged in these societies, especially the ladies, were to be thrown over and their services not utilised. I am not sure whether under the text of the Bill it will be possible to do that, and I should be very glad if the noble Viscount will reconsider the language of that clause.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL of DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Maternity and child welfare committees.
2.—(1) Every council in England and Wales exercising powers under this Act or under section two of the Notification of Births (Extension) Act, 1915, shall establish a maternity and child welfare committee, which may be an existing committee of the council or a sub-committee of an existing committee, and all matters relating to the exercise of the powers of the council under this Act or under the Notification of Births (Extension) Act, 1915 (except the power of raising a rate or of borrowing money), shall stand referred to such committee, and the council, before exorcising any such powers, shall, unless in their opinion the matter is urgent, receive and consider the report of the maternity and child welfare committee with respect to the matter in question, and the council may also delegate to the maternity and child welfare committee, with or without restrictions or conditions as they think fit, any of their powers under that Act or this Act, except the power of raising a rate or of borrowing money
(2) The council may appoint as members of the committee persons specially qualified by training or experience in subjects relating to health and maternity who are not members of the council, but not less than two-thirds of the members of every maternity and child welfare committee shall consist of members of the council, and at least two members of every such committee shall be women, and whore the duties of the maternity and child welfare committee are discharged by an existing committee or sub-committee any members appointed under this provision who are not members of the council shall act only in connection with maternity and child welfare.
(3) The committee established under this section shall take the place of any committee appointed under subsection (2) of section two of the Notification of Births (Extension) Act, 1915, and the provisions of that subsection relating to the exercise of powers by a committee shall cease to have effect.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved the addition to Clause 2 of a new subsection. The noble Marquess said: The object of this Amendment meets the observations, as far as I gathered them, of my noble friend who spoke just now. The real difficulty in the administration of all these local Acts is to adjust properly the limits of the jurisdiction of the county councils and the lesser local authorities. There has been a tendency at one time to put everything in the power of the district councils, and at another time the tendency has been to put the power into the hands of the county councils. Those are the two different schools of thought. Personally, so far as I am entitled to have an opinion on the subject, I belong to the second school of thought. I believe that the great line of progress in the reform and development of local government is to use the larger local authorities. They carry, I think much greater authority than the lesser local authorities, and they are also not exposed to the same tendencies to action which is not altogether disinterested which beset the small local authorities. I am very glad, therefore, to find that in this Bill the county council is recognised. I wish it were more recognised.
This Bill is a compromise, or rather the principal Act which it amends is a compromise, under which both local authorities are recognised, and it depends upon very little more than a matter of chance which local authority is to undertake the work of the principal Act of which the present Bill is a development. It is an important matter, because although this is only in one sense a development, it is a very large development of the principal Act. As the

1175
noble Viscount said upon the second reading, and as I have had occasion to remind your Lordships, the powers entrusted to the committee of the county council or district council, as the case may be, are very extensive. I am in favour of giving authority to the greater local bodies, but there is a position which the lesser local opinion ought to occupy. It ought not to be ignored. Control ought to be with the greater local authority, but the advice and co-operation of smaller local opinion ought to be maintained under the working of the principal Act. At the present moment this is secured by means of sub-committees, and in one case I know, the case of my own county, those sub-committees are used with great effect and very successfully. They assist very much in the working of the principal Act, but the effect of the clause as it stands will be to abolish them.
Clause 2 prescribes that on any committee working under this clause two-thirds of its members must be members of the council which appoints the committee. It may be the county council, or it may be the district council. All that my Amendment seeks to do is to enable sub-committees to be established in every case, and that those subcommittees should be freely appointed and not limited by this two-thirds provision. If that be done the difficulties to which I have called attention to-day will he got over. I do not think from what I understand—and I hope it is the case—that the Local Government Board have any objection to this Amendment. I have no desire to press it upon the Government if they do not wish to accept it, but I understand that the Local Government Board do not object, and I hope that my noble friend will signify as much in a moment.
The only other observation that I have to make is that the drafting of the Amendment is taken from the Education Act of 1902. I therefore imagine that it is workable. There are sub-committees in the schedule of the Education Act which are appointed exactly in the words of the Amendment which I have ventured to put on the Paper.
Amendment moved—
Clause 2, page 2, after line 22, insert as a new subsection:
"(4) A Committee established under this section may subject to any directions of the council appoint such and so many sub-committees consisting either wholly or partly of members of the Committee, as the Committee thinks fit."—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to say, before I deal with the Amendment, one word in reply to the question which the noble Marquess put? The point was as to the powers that may be exercised by this committee with reference to midwives under the powers of the Midwives Bill as it is at present. Perhaps the noble Marquess will allow me to give him a not very definite answer on the point, for this reason. The question of who is going to exercise those powers is at present under consideration of the Committee which is dealing with the question of the powers of the Health Ministry, and as the matter is so much under consideration, and has not been definitely decided, perhaps the noble Marquess will excuse me from giving a reply at the present moment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What Committee of the Health Ministry?
VISCOUNT PEEL: By a Committee of the Government to which the question as to what powers should be dealt with by the Local Government Board and what should not be has been referred. As regards the Amendment, which the noble Marquess has taken from the Act of 1902, the general intention no doubt is to assist the flexibility and elasticity in which these committees work, and I have no doubt this will be valuable in many counties, especially no doubt in the county he represents, and there is no objection on the part of the Local Government Board to accept this Amendment. I should also like to say, as regards these larger and smaller authorities, that the Local Government Board generally would rather lean towards schemes being made by the larger local authorities; but in some cases, where you have such close and intimate knowledge as is required by local conditions, the smaller authorities might very usefully deal with some of these powers.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.

LABOURERS (IRELAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether this Bill means that the authorities can now put off the building of cottages not only for two years but till one year from the termination of the war, and then at the end of that time I suppose the land can be got rid of, or can be conveyed. Is that the real meaning of it? It is rather difficult to understand exactly what this single clause means.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, this Bill suspends, but does not repeal, Section 15 of the parent Act. As Lord Mayo will remember, that Act stated that unless land acquired by the district councils was put to its proper use within two years the land should revert to the vendors. Owing to the war the operation of the Labourers Act is suspended, because no money can be advanced, and even if money were available no labour or material can be had. All that this Bill does is to say that these schemes, which from external causes are now in a state of suspense, shall not be abrogated, as would be the case under the parent Act, until at least twelve months after the end of the war. The Bill is to allow these schemes to continue, but it in no way prejudges or prejudices the right of the vendor.
THE EARL OF MAYO: When the year comes to an end the original Act comes into force?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: That is the case.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.
Bill reported without amendment.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
SUMMARY JURISDICTION (IRELAND) BILL.
Bill read 3a, and passed.

WAR LOAN BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD HYLTON: I ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill, which corresponds to the War Loan Acts of 1915, 1916, and 1917.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Hylton.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

FLAX COMPANIES (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

THE LOSSES COMMISSION.
EARL FORTESCUE EARL FORTESCUE rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether arrangements will be made by the Losses Commission to hear locally cases affecting agricultural properties; and whether persons skilled in agriculture will be nominated to sit as assessors in cases concerned with damage sustained by agricultural properties.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I do not know that there are a great many cases already pending which would be covered by the Question that I have put down. But the numbers may very easily become considerable, because many people who have been required to plough up permanent grass have provisionally registered claims so as to be able to safeguard themselves in case they should ultimately be heavy losers thereby, and if they all have to come up to London from every part of the country considerable hardship will be inflicted. I know of a case in the West of England. (I think it was a case where some land had been taken for military purposes) in which the claimant was given £100 by the Commission as sufficient proof that his claim was not a frivolous or unreasonable one, but the expense involved in bringing himself and his witnesses and his professional assistants somthing like 250 miles up to London and back again, including a couple of days' detention in London, reduced the sum which he actually received to some-

1179
thing quite uncommensurate with the loss which he had sustained. Cases of that sort could be multiplied in every county in England if all persons with agricultural claims are required to come up to London to establish them.
The question of agricultural assessors, I think, is one the advantage—the necessity almost—of which is tolerably obvious, for all sorts of questions will be raised which will require to be spoken to by experts whose opinions ought to be judged by other experts; and it is made all the more desirable, I think, by a recent decision of the Commission, in which they gave judgment on a claim for compensation for loss due to failure caused by wireworm on grass land, ploughed up by order of a war agricultural executive committee. I need not trouble your Lordships with the details of that claim. It is quite sufficient if I point out that the Commission gave the applicant a certain sum, finding that he had used his best skill and exertion on the land and that the failure of the crop was due to outside causes. I do not for a moment question the wisdom of that decision, but obviously matters of that sort are matters in which expert agricultural opinion is involved, and the value of the opinions expressed by expert witnesses can only well be judged by people who are experts themselves.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, my noble friend, in addressing this Question to His Majesty's Government, is perhaps under a slight misapprehension as to the powers possessed by the Government with regard to dictating or suggesting to the Royal Commission in question where or when they shall hold their meetings. My noble friend Lord Terrington who, I think, is present in his place this afternoon, and who is the Chairman of this Commission, holds, I believe, a very strong view that the Commission over which he presides has a perfect right to select its own places for sitting, its own time, and so forth.
I have been enabled to give certain materials to my noble friend in answer to his Question, and I am perfectly willing to give him what material. I have with regard to the action of the Commission, but he must clearly understand that the Commission, as I have said, hold very strongly that they are not responsible to the Government for the place or places where they will sit. They hold that there is no necessity for them to sit in various parts of the country
1180
for the purpose of hearing locally case affecting agricultural properties. They consider that any such action would involve considerably more expense than the present system since the expenses of the Commission and of the staff of the Department concerned, who would necessarily have to attend such a hearing in order to present the case of the Crown, would be considerably greater than the travelling expenses of the necessary witnesses allowed by the Commission in cases where the applicants have to come from the country. It would also involve a considerable waste of time on the part of the Commission, who are now enabled, owing to having their sittings in London, to sit continuously, and not to waste time in travelling.
The only departure which has been made was in the case of Scotland, when the Commission held a sitting in Edinburgh, where the number of cases and the distance involved appeared to justify such action. It has never been suggested that the present system by which the Commission get full reports from the Department concerned upon the allegations in the application, together with any maps or plans that are necessary, and then proceed to hear the evidence of witnesses on both sides who are intimately acquainted with the land, results in any injustice being done. In any cases of real doubt, however, the Commission have always reserved the right either of inspecting the locality in person or sending down one of the two expert agents appointed by them to make the necessary inquiries. Two members of the Commission—Sir Matthew Wallace and the Rt. Hon. Laurence Hardy, M.P.—are thoroughly acquainted with every aspect of agricultural practice; and in addition the appointment by the Commission of the two agents—Mr. Edwin Savill, F.S.I., of Messrs. Alfred Savill & Sons, and Mr. J. M. Clark, F.S.I., of Haltwhistle—has enabled the Commission to have their services either as assessors at the hearing, or as agents for the purpose of inspection in all cases where their assistance would appear to be required.
LORD TERRINGTON: My Lords perhaps I may supplement the answer which has been given by Lord Hylton, as I am Chairman of this Royal Commission, by saying that I think the noble Earl who put this Question has been moved to do so under some misconception. I wrote to the noble Earl some time ago when he put this Question on the Paper and asked him if he had any

1181
grounds, by reason of any case which had taken place, for putting it down and which has caused any grievance, adding that if he would kindly supply me with the particulars I should be pleased to give him all the information I could about it.
I understood from the noble Earl that his Question was directed rather to the future than to any case that had happened in the past; therefore I have not heard from him the particulars of the case to which he referred, and without having these particulars I cannot identify it; otherwise I should be able to explain fully, I think, why a claimant who obtained only £100 was mulcted in the expenses of the people be employed; and it might probably be found that the claim turned out on investigation to be not one of anything like the extent which he had made it out to be.
I should like to make one or two observations in order to satisfy the noble Earl as to the principle on which the Commission acts. The noble Earl has looked at it from the point of view of agricultural cases, but agricultural cases affect only about one-sixth of the cases which come before the Commission. The Commission are therefore bound to take a very much wider and broader view of their procedure than merely dealing with cases which apply to agriculture. When the Commission was first setup, my right hon. friend Lord Justice Duke, who was then Chairman of the Commission, carefully considered with the members of the Commission the procedure, including this question of sitting locally. I think it would be greatly to the disadvantage of agriculturists if that principle were adopted, for the reason that great delay would take place in hearing the cases, as it would be impossible for the Commission to perambulate the country and to hear cases without causing great delay.
The cases are now heard in the order in which they are set down. This would no longer be possible if cases had to be heard locally—for instance, in the county of Devon, in which the noble Earl is interested—because of the Commission having to go all round the country. There is no class of the community which has been more considered than the agricultural class, and if we have had any complaints in this direction they are negligible compared with the vast number that have been dealt with. Every class of the community has presented claims, and I believe that these claims have
1182
been dealt with to the satisfaction of all concerned.
Let me take the county of Devon as an illustration. If we had to sit down there for hearing cases we should have to look not merely to the agricultural cases but the commercial and other cases in that county, and we should have to take down the representatives of every Government Department concerned in those various cases; in one case it might be the War Office, in the next case the Ministry of Munitions, in the next the Food Controller's Department, in the next the Shipping Controller's Department, and so forth. The Treasury are satisfied that such a procedure would not be economical, and the Commission are equally of opinion that it would not be expeditious.
I assured the noble Earl that the most careful consideration has been given to the procedure of the Commission. There is the great advantage to claimants of knowing the day and the hour when their cases will be heard, and they are not kept hanging about, as in the Courts Of Justice, waiting for their cases to come on. This is done for the convenience of the claimants and of the Government Departments concerned. The Commission sits practically every day, and endeavours to get through an enormous mass of work. I am sure that every consideration is given to the agriculturists; and I have a letter from Mr. Prothero saying that he has had no complaints, and that, so far as he is concerned, he believes the agricultural community are satisfied with what has been done.
The noble Earl also mentioned the question of the hearing of the cases by experts. About a year ago Mr. Prothero made a suggestion to me that it would give satisfaction to the agricultural community if another agricultural member, well versed in agriculture, were added to the Commission. I said that we should be only too pleased to have him, and Mr. Prothero said that if we would name the member he would ask the Prime Minister to recommend him to the Crown. The name of the member selected is Mr. Laurence Hardy, and nobody will question his ability or his practical experience in agriculture. Since Mr. Hardy came on the Commission we have practically handed over to him and to Sir Matthew Wallace, the well-known Scottish agriculturist, the consideration of agricultural cases. I further advised the addition of,

1183
and added to the staff of the Commission, the two well-known agricultural experts mentioned by the noble Lord who answered the Question, and they are called in to advise the Commission on any particular cases if their services are needed.
In conclusion, I would also inform the noble Earl that if there is any case which requires examination on the spot the Commission spare no pains to go down and take a view of the district and the farm or the works that have been executed upon the land, and we have spent a good many days of our vacation at week-ends for this purpose. Every possible care is taken to arrive at just conclusions, and I think the noble Earl may be quite satisfied with the consideration given to all cases by the Commission.
EARL FORTESCUE: By your Lordships' leave, I should like to thank the noble Lord for the full explanation he has given of the method in which the Commission over which he presides does its work. What he has told me goes far to remove the apprehensions which caused me to put down my Question.

NATIVE OFFICERS OF INDIAN ARMY.
LORD SYDENHAM LORD SYDENHAM rose to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether steps are being taken to grant commissions to selected native officers of the Indian Army who have rendered distinguished service in the war; and whether provision is being made to confer commissions on young Indians trained in the Imperial Cadet Corps or elsewhere.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, a short time ago Lord Lamington and the noble Earl who was then Secretary of State for War paid a most deserved tribute to the gallantry of the Indian Cavalry at Cambrai. There were episodes on that occasion which will always shed lustre on the annals of the Indian Army, but they only form part of the very fine services rendered by the Indian Army to the Empire during the war. The India Office very wisely published an interesting book, written with great ability by Colonel Mereweather and recounting the achievements of the Lahore and Meirut Divisions, which began to arrive in France on September 26, 1914. Those divisions played a notable part in the desperate fighting by which the early German attempts to reach the Channel ports were shattered, and they helped to save a very dangerous situation. To
1184
Indian troops the experience of shell fire was quite unknown, and the terrible cold of the first winter in the trenches was a most severe trial of endurance.
I do not think it is realised what those two Divisions suffered. About 24,000 men landed originally at Marseilles, and I understand that in eight months 30,000 drafts were sent from India to fill up the ranks. Thus these divisions required their original strength and 6,000 men more to fill up the casualties. It is easy to understand what that means; and in addition there was a very heavy loss of British officers, on whom the Indian native regiments so much depend. Subsequently this much-tried Force went to Mesopotamia, to incur fresh sacrifices and fresh losses, and reflect new glory upon the Indian Army. Little can be done for these gallant men to whom the Empire owes so much. Some time ago I raised the question of land grants, and I was told that the subject was under consideration. I hope that by this time it has got far beyond that not very interesting stage.
To-day I want to ask whether the King's commission is to be offered to selected native officers of the Indian Army who have specially distinguished themselves during this war. There is no finer body serving in His Majesty's forces than the native officer class, which represent the pick of the yeomen of the warrior races of India. They constitute our greatest safeguard against the determined attempts to sow sedition in the ranks of the Indian Army which have been made in recent years. The number of them qualified by education and position for commissions is not large, but of late years a good many men of good families have entered the Army in the hope of promotion. There must also be a proportion who are not only well trained in the school of war but who have shown high qualities of leadership.
The question of admitting young Indians to direct commissions is one of quite a different kind. I well know all the difficulties which arise from the ancient customs and caste prejudices of what is really the most aristocratic country left in the world, but careful selection is essential, and Indian officers should serve only in regiments composed of classes which would naturally look up to them. I think the noble Earl the Leader of the House did hold out a hope that commissions would be given from the Imperial Cadet Corps, but after he left

1185
India I think nothing was done; and at Simla about nine years ago I pressed the matter upon Lord Kitchener, but he did not at that time see his way to take any step in the direction which I wanted. I think that a beginning should now be made with certain Cavalry regiments, which might in time be officered entirely by Indians, who, beginning at the bottom, would later on reach the command of the regiment. Already commissions have been granted to nine young Indians who have distinguished themselves during this war, and I think a few more are serving as officers in the Royal Air Force; but there must be others who, if well trained, would show really fine military qualities and qualities of leadership. I hope that my noble friend, whom I am glad to see back in the House after a very severe illness, will be able to say that these important questions have at last reached a satisfactory solution, and that we may in future be able to look forward to drawing upon the inherited military qualities of the families of the Princes, Chiefs, and gentry of the fine fighting races of India.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (LORD ISLINGTON): My Lords, my noble friend prefaced his remarks by a very well-merited tribute both to the splendid gallantry displayed and the great suffering which at one time was experienced by our gallant fellow-subjects from India attached to the forces of the Indian Army. I am sure that all that he said finds a very warm endorsement by every member of your Lordships' House. My noble friend has asked me to give him all the information I can with regard to the appointment to commissioned rank of officers of the native Indian Army, and I am going to take, if I may, this opportunity to broaden the subject and give an answer which will embrace other branches than the one which my noble friend specially dealt with.
This question of granting the King's commission to native officers in the Indian Army is an innovation, and one of such great importance to the future of the Indian Army, and also I may say to the interests of the Empire, that I make no apology for giving a considerably protracted answer, because I believe that your Lordships' house and the people of this country and of India are desirous of having as full a statement as possible in regard to all that has been and is being done in this connection.
1186
When the Secretary of State for India announced on August 20 last that the Government had decided to remove the bar that had hitherto precluded the admission of Indians to commissioned rank in the Indian Army, and announced at the same time that nine officers of the native Indian Land Forces, who had served in the field in the present war, were to be immediately commissioned, your Lordships may remember that he added that the whole general conditions under which Indians should in the future be eligible for the King's commission would be at an early date discussed by him with the Government of India and the Army Council with a view to the preparation of a carefully considered scheme both for the selection of these officers and their training. This scheme, as your Lordships will understand, is necessarily difficult and complicated in the extreme. It has taken a long time—longer, indeed, than was anticipated. While therefore an apology, I think, is due from me to my noble friend for the long time that has elapsed since he first placed this Question upon the Paper in this House, I feel sure that from his knowledge of the subject he will fully appreciate the reason for the delay. I am afraid this delay may even have created a certain amount of dissatisfaction and impatience in India on account of the long time that has elapsed since it was commenced and the recent announcement made in India on the subject. It has certainly been due to no desire to hold up the question, but has been due entirely, as I have said, to the complexity and delicacy of the subject and to the many issues attaching thereto.
I will now explain, briefly, the proposals which the Government have made and which have been approved. They fall under different categories. There is, first of all, the category which allows that every year a definite number of permanent King's commissions in the Army shall be given to young Indians who will go through a course of training at a Military College prior to the commission being granted. For the present it has been decided that ten a year will be granted under this category. Cadets so appointed are to come to this country and to be trained at the Military College at Sandhurst. On receiving their Commissions they will be posted to the Indian Army as second lieutenants. The appointment of these Indians to Sand-burst cadetships is not to be by means of an open competitive examination, but

1187
by nomination by the Viceroy, on the recommendation of the Commander-in-Chief, Local Governments and political administrations in India. Arrangements are also to be made by the Secretary of State in Council for the consideration of claims of any suitable candidates who may be going through their education in this country. The question as to the age of these candidates has not been finally decided, but it will, I hope, in a very short time be settled. It is under discussion now by the Government of India, and we are communicating with them on the subject. The Army Council—I think properly—are anxious that the age of the Indian candidate who goes to Sandhurst should approximate as nearly as possible to the age of the British cadet who is being trained there.
It is proposed that the qualifying examination which will be held shall include an oral examination, similar to that which is in practice by the Admiralty for the examination of naval cadets for the college at Osborne, designed as a test of general intelligence. The standard of education required to pass this qualifying examination will approximate to that which is necessary now to obtain a diploma at one of the Chiefs colleges in India—either that, or the school-leaving certificate which is recognised by Local Governments or the matriculation of an incorporated University in India.
At Sandhurst the course of training for these Indian cadets, when they are admitted, will be precisely the same as that for British cadets, and it is hoped that the first batch of these cadets will he admitted to Sandhurst in the month of January next.
This question of training cadets who are to be admitted to the commissioned ranks of the Army has exercised the attention of the Government of India, the War Office and the India Office for a long time. As I have already said, for the present it has been decided that all cadets should come to this country and should pass through the course at Sandhurst. I may say that there are two views held on this subject of training. The Government of India, including the Commander-in-Chief, and the War Office strongly urge that all these cadets should go to Sandhurst. There are, however, others—and they are competent to give an opinion on Indian questions—who believe that this course might well be carried out
1188
in India, provided a college could be established, in that country of a similar standard, from every point of view, to that of Sandhurst in this country, and that, if such a scheme could be established, it offers certain very preferable advantages to bringing these young boys away from their homes over the seas to this country. Speaking for myself—I only speak on this occasion for myself, and in no way with any responsibility for the India Office—I believe that India is the best place for the training of these cadets, provided always, of course, that a college is established there where the standard is in every shape and form equal to that of Sandhurst. As I shall show presently, a training college is now being established for Indian cadets who are to come under another category of commissions. I may also add that there are now established and in full swing two cadet colleges—with training in almost every respect similar to that of Sandhurst—in Quetta and Wellington, in India. I believe the Quetta college was formerly a staff college, and it may, it probably will, revert to that purpose after the war; but there is a college at Wellington as well which will be available. Speaking for myself, I am not without hope that the experience that will be obtained of the class of training that can be afforded in India will satisfy the military authorities both in India and in this country that a permanent training college can be established in that country after the war.
I now come to the second category of those who are to receive commissions. It refers to native officers alluded to in the Question and speech of my noble friend. A limited number of permanent and substantive King's commissions are to be given as special rewards to those native officers in the Indian Army who have distinguished themselves in the present war. There is already a not inconsiderable number about to be appointed who will come under this category. They have not been yet "gazetted," and the number of them has not yet been announced or actually decided upon, because, as the House will understand, it takes a considerable time to obtain all the information necessary from the General Officers Commanding in the various theatres of war, and all of them are being applied to. I am sure that your Lordships will join with me in rendering a testimony to the splendid and invaluable services of our Indian officers and

1189
troops who have fought with such gallantry on all those fronts of the war, and, who, indeed, are to-day lighting on some of those fronts and bearing, numerically, the main burden of the engagements.
As my noble friend truly said, the number drawn from this particular source must necessarily be somewhat modest, because, in spite of the magnificent character of their work, the majority of native officers, both owing to their age and to their educational qualifications, are hardly suitable to carry out the duties required of an officer holding the King's permanent military commission. Therefore as a mark of recognition of those whom it is found impossible for this reason to select for substantive commissions, it has been decided that a certain number of King's commissions for honorary rank in the Indian Army should be granted to specially selected Indian officers. These officers will be taken from those who have rendered distinguished service, not exclusively in the present war, though, of course, the majority will be selected from those who have served in this war.
The substantive King's commissions, to which I have alluded, will be granted in the rank of second lieutenant. The honorary commissions, which I have also alluded to, will have the rank either of lieutenant or captain, in accordance with the native rank of the officer, and it will be similar to the honorary rank which has been given in the past to Indian officers; but with this difference. Hitherto this honorary rank has been granted to them only on their retirement from the Service; now it is proposed that it should be given to them during their active service in the Army. These honorary commissions will confer no special powers of command. The amount of pay and pension that these officers are to receive is still under consideration. It is anticipated that it will raise their status in the regiments in which they are serving, and it is hoped and believed that it will be highly esteemed by them as an honourable recognition of their valuable services. The grant in these three forms which I have described to your Lordships is in compliance with the announcement of the proposal to grant commissions made by my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for India on August 20 last year.
My noble friend asks me a question with regard to the Imperial Cadet Corps. The Imperial Cadet Corps, which as he knows,
1190
was initiated by Lord Curzon during the time of his Viceroyalty and composed of the sons of chiefs of Native states, and sons of distinguished Indian gentlemen in British India, has been suspended during the war. At the outbreak of the war there were twelve cadets attached to that corps. Several of the Imperial Cadets were given commissions in the Native Indian Land Forces, and nine of them, from the Indian Native Land Forces, were given King's commissions on August 20 last, when the announcement was first made.
In addition to what I have said let me add a further development, which has been briefly announced in another place, in regard to the granting of commissions. The Government of India represented the other day at the recent Delhi Conference that at the present time more was required in this connection than had already been promised and announced. I would ask your Lordships to consider the circumstances under which the conference of native chiefs and leading men in India was called together by the Viceroy some months ago. The collapse of Russia had not only enabled the Germans to throw their forces on the Western Front, straining the man-power of this country and the Dominions to the utmost to resist it, but it had introduced a new threat to India, by opening to Germany another door through Southern Russia, the Caucasus, along the northern borders of Persia to the east, right to the frontiers of Afghanistan. In the face of this new danger an appeal was made by the Prime Minister to India to make still further greater efforts than that which they had already made during the war. That appeal of the Prime Minister's was promptly and loyally responded to by the Viceroy, on behalf of the people of India, who set to work to call upon India for further efforts in addition to her already great achievements. I would remind your Lordships that India has already during the war recruited over 1,000,000 men for the service of His Majesty's Forces. India has now, in response to this appeal by the Prime Minister on behalf of His Majesty's Government, offered to raise a further 500,000 during the present year, and I may say that all arrangements for the recruitment and organisation of this large additional force are now in active process of accomplishment.
It was felt, both by the Government of India and especially by the Commander-in-Chief in India, that such fresh sacrifices

1191
for the common cause could not rightly be taken advantage of without Indians in some measure of proportion being granted further commissions to correspond, in some sense at any rate, with the expansion of the Indian Army. On the strong recommendation, therefore, of the Government of India His Majesty's Government have approved the grant of a considerable number of substantive King's commissions, which are not to be permanent but are to be held temporarily during the war. The Indians nominated to these temporary commissions are to be drawn both from the civil life of the country and from the Army. The age limit is to be between nineteen and twenty-five, and those selected from civil life are to be nominated by the Viceroy, on the recommendation of the Commander-in-Chief, of Local Governments, and the political administrations. They will be drawn, I hope, largely from gentlemen who have rendered good service to the Government during the war, and especially from those who have actively assisted recruitment in India during the war. I may say also that it is hoped that many young Indians of high territorial position in the country will now come forward whose social status hitherto has made them refrain from joining the Army under the limited career that was then open to them. They can now come into the Army and make a life career, and I hope that they will come in large numbers, and that they will induce many in their districts to join the Army and so render valuable assistance to recruitment.
As regards those who will be granted these temporary commissions from the Army, preference will be shown to officers and non-commissioned officers who by their service have proved an aptitude for leadership. Every candidate will be subjected to a qualifying examination as a test of his general education. The standard of that examination will be prescribed by the Commander-in-Chief. In regard to those who are drawn from the civil community the standard of examination which will be prescribed for them will be identical to that which I have already described for those who are to enter for Sandhurst.
I will give you an illustration of the class of candidate we hope to obtain in not inconsiderable numbers for this temporary commission rank. There are three whom we are recommending to the Government of India now, and who, we hope, shortly will be occupying that position. One
1192
is the grandson of Mr. Naoroji, who will be remembered as a well-respected member of the House of Commons; another is Mr. Rudra; the third is Mr. Handit Singh. These three have distinguished themselves in British units in France during the war, and two of them are now being given the opportunity of joining a training battalion prior to their being accepted for temporary commissions in the Army.
All candidates who are to attain this position of a temporary commission will be required to attend a school of instruction and it has been decided to use for this purpose the Daly College of Indore. Their status in that college will be exactly that of the cadets in a British college. The length of the course will depend upon the attainment of military knowledge that the candidate possesses, but generally speaking will never be less than a year. No cadet will be granted a commission unless at the end of his course he is reported thoroughly qualified and fit as an officer, and then he will be commissioned, and when commissioned will be posted to an Indian regiment as a temporary second lieutenant. During his period as a commissioned officer he will be subject to the same regulations, he will enjoy the same status, position, and emoluments as a British officer, and at the end of the war all these temporary comissioned officers will be eligible for permanent commissions. Those selected who have proved themselves fit in the war will be gazetted to the permanent rank.
The proposals which I have described to grant Indians an opening in the commissioned ranks are now being carried out in India. It marks the close of a controversy which, as your Lordships are aware, has been of long standing. The subject has been discussed both here and in India by successive Secretaries of State, Viceroys, and Commanders-in-Chief. You have to-day all three of these high authorities strongly in favour of and indeed urging that the experiment should be tried. There are also to be found many statesmen and military officers of high distinction in the history of India who have urged this reform in the Indian Army, and I may say that you have also a united Indian people in favour of it. And among those who urge it most strongly in India to-day are to be found such conservative elements of the population as the Native Chiefs and the Zemindars. The present Commander

1193
in-Chief in India, in urging the adoption of the scheme, fully appreciates the delicacy of some of the issues involved, the consequences which might arise from ally hasty or ill-considered development, and the consequent need, therefore, of proceeding with caution and care. There has been no overlooking of the importance of maintaining the popularity of the Service, so that no falling off either in quality or quantity of the British officers of the Indian Army should ensue.
Let me say, in conclusion, that there is no intention of granting a commission to an Indian merely because he is an Indian, but only when, as in the case of an Englishman, he earns it and proves himself fit and qualified to occupy the position. The war has proved beyond question that there are many Indians available who fulfil to the letter this fundamental condition, and now, in opening the door for them to enter the commissioned ranks of the Army on a gradual scale, and after the most careful selection, there should be no ground for apprehension that there will be any falling off either in the quantity or quality of British officers entering the Indian Army. Those British families who have in the past contributed a splendid body of officers to the Indian Army will, I trust, realise that the fresh departure now being made, to which they have not hitherto been accustomed, as have been for some time past those who send their sons to the Civil Services in India, in no way lessens the need for a continuing supply of their best sons to maintain the high tradition of the Indian Army and to follow a career no whit less honourable because it will henceforth embrace comradeship with their Indian fellow officers.
The Army in India of the future should be in a more complete sense than has hitherto been the case a composite Army of British and Indian officers and troops. Upon its continued efficiency and loyalty must depend in no small measure the future access to all its ranks on terms of equality of both British and Indians. Service in this Army, with all its splendid traditions of the past, will I hope in the future, as hitherto, be regarded as a profession attractive to the very pick both of British cadets and Indian cadets. The measures which we are now taking will, we hope, be regarded as the first step of a great and inevitable Imperial advance which, as time proceeds, may bring more and more British and
1194
Indian fellow-subjects into their proper and natural relation to each other as comrades in arms, engaged in the common cause of the defence of India and the maintenance and security of the Empire
LORD SYDENHAM: My Lords, I beg to thank my noble friend for the extremely full and most interesting statement he has made. I am certain that it will go far to remove a soreness which has undoubtedly existed in the Indian Army and in India itself. I am glad that in the first instance the cadets who are to receive permanent commissions are to go to Sandhurst. I hope that the time will come, and that it will be soon, when an Indian College will be set up which will maintain the same standards as those maintained at Sandhurst, and which will replace the necessity for those young Indians coming to this country. I think I understood the noble Lord to say that native Indian officers would have open to them an honorary King's commission, and a full commission. The only question that I was not quite clear about was whether these honorary commissions, when given to native officers of the Indian Army, would carry with them the duties which their new ranks impose.
LORD ISLINGTON: No; they will confer no powers of command. I said that in my remarks.
LORD SYDENHAM: I am certain that the effect will be to link closer the best elements of the Indian peoples with our own officers, and to make the Army stronger than it has been in the past.

ENEMY APPLICATIONS FOR PATENTS.
LORD ARMAGHDALE LORD ARMAGHDALE rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether the Order of the Board of Trade with reference to payments to and on behalf of enemies in respect of patents, designs, and trade marks, will have the effect of revoking the 944 enemy applications for patents filed and accepted since the commencement of the war; or whether these accepted applications will continue to prevent the deposit of British applications for similar patents.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the object of my question is to clear up a doubt which exists as to the effect of the Board of Trade notice issued last week with regard to enemy patents. On the face of it, the notice simply revokes the general licence under

1195
which the payment was permitted of fees due in enemy countries for the grant, registration, or renewal of patents, licences, and trade marks. The effect of this Board of Trade notice is to prohibit all such payments in the future. That no doubt is very satisfactory so far as it goes. But the point I desire to have cleared up is, What is to happen to the application for patents from enemy subjects which have been filed and accepted at the Patent Office since the commencement of the war? The President of the Board of Trade in another place stated that 1,300 applications for the grant of patents had been received fron enemy subjects since the outbreak of the war, and out of that number no less than 944 had been accepted. I should like to know whether all these 944 accepted applications are still to stand on the files of the Patent Office, thus preventing the deposit of all British applications for similar patents. I think your Lordships will agree that, if they are allowed to stand, a great injustice will be done to British inventors, and I hope that the Government will be able to tell us that these acceptances will be cancelled.
The Home Secretary said last week that it is proposed to discontinue the receiving of applications from enemy subjects for the grant of patents, and of course the prohibition of the payment of renewal fees will, I presume, prevent the keeping alive of existing enemy patents, at all events for the benefit of enemy subjects. It seems to me, therefore, that the only logical course for the Government to take is to cancel the 944 accepted applications. It should, I think, be recognised that most of the patents that have been applied for by Germans are certainly not intended to assist the manufacturers of this country. On the contrary they are, I believe, intended to create a monopoly, to be used in order to impede British trade and manufacture. It is important, therefore, that every possible step should be taken to check these designs and to give free scope to our own inventors to obtain patents which will be used for the benefit of the trade and industry of this country.
Now that it has been decided that for four or five years after the war no German shall he naturalised in this country and no enemy banks will he allowed to reopen business, I think the Government ought also to decide not to grant any patents to
1196
the Germans for a certain number of years after the war. I observe that some of the Chambers of Commerce have passed resolutions to this effect, and there is undoubtedly a strong demand for such an embargo throughout the country. If this policy is decided upon, as I trust it may be, it follows as a logical consequence that the 944 applications which have already been accepted should be cancelled without further delay, and I trust that the noble Lord who will reply on behalf of the Government will be able to give us an assurance to this effect.
LORD SOMERLEYTON: My Lords, in replying on behalf of the Government I am obliged to my noble friend for the form in which he has raised this Question, to which a satisfactory answer is necessarily difficult without going very fully into the complicated provisions of the patent laws. The revocation of the licence by the Board of Trade in reference to payments to and on behalf of enemies in respect of patents, designs, and trade-marks will not have the effect of revoking the 944 enemy applications for patents filed and accepted since the commencement of the war. The publication of the invention on these accepted applications will not prevent the deposit of British applications for similar patents, but, like any other publication, will render invalid the grant of a patent for any precisely similar invention. Such cases, however, of the bona fide existence of identical and independent inventions would be extremely rare. The publication will not prevent the grant of a patent for an invention of a similar nature which consisted of improvements on the published inventions or of any features connected therewith which constituted a new inventive step.
As the Hole Secretary stated in the House of Commons on July 11, the procedure under which these applications were made was and is still in force throughout the Empire and also in Allied countries, and the German Government treated British applications in the same way. This arrangement secured to this country, I would remind the noble Lord, the benefit of new ideas originating in enemy countries, and secured also the protection of British industrial property in enemy countries. As regards cancellation, no other country has, it is believed, cancelled enemy applications, with the possible exception of Russia.

1197
The majority of these applications are already vested and all will eventually be vested in the Public Trustee, who will have full control over them and will, if required, grant licences to British subjects. Their future treatment and fate will depend, and must depend, on the terms of peace, and the general policy which is adopted towards enemy property.
It may further be pointed out that the cancellation of these applications would probably be followed by reprisals and the cancellation of British applications in Germany. The withdrawal of protection from inventions in such cases would mean a scramble by each country for the inventions of the other. If, therefore, further and definite action be taken on this head it must be done after the fullest consideration of all the various interests concerned and of the possible results of such actions, which may not be only those desired by the noble Lord who asked the Question.
With regard to the other points raised, I am informed that the majority of Allied countries have allowed time for the payment of all patent fees until after the war. The majority of countries have also allowed time for inventors to claim their right of priority for six months after the war, on reciprocity being given, and this, with the exception of Italy, applies to the dealings of the Allies with all enemy countries. With regard to what the noble Lord said as to banks and other businesses, I would remind him that there is no analogy between winding up banks and businesses, on the one hand, and the revocation of patents or applications for them on the other. The one is the final putting an end to the carrying on of the business; the other is the cancellation of rights of property or what is so recognised universally at the present time. The whole subject raised by the noble Lord is surrounded by a great many difficulties, and I have endeavoured to answer the questions to the best of my ability. I trust that if he desires to raise any point he will remember that this question is one which requires the very fullest consideration.
LORD ARMAGHDALE: I am obliged to my noble friend for the courtesy of his reply, but I am bound to say I regard it as highly unsatisfactory, and I beg to give notice that I shall take an early opportunity of raising the question in another form.

PRISONERS OF WAR.
THE EARL OF MEATH THE EARL OF MEATH rose to ask His Majesty's Government what is the daily allowance of meat and bread allowed to German prisoners of war under British control in France, and whether this amount is on a more generous scale than the meat rations and voluntary bread rations allowed to male civilians engaged in heavy manual work in the British Isles; and if so, considering the treatment experienced by British prisoners of war in Germany, why such exceptional privileges should be allowed to German prisoners.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, as your Lordships are well aware, there are a certain number of persons in this country, happily very few, who make it their business to try and create discontent and to shake the confidence of the public in His Majesty's Government. It makes very little difference whether these gentlemen are agents of the German Government, or whether they are pro-Germans, or pacifists, or defeatists, or simply gullible persons who believe the first story which come to hand. But as a general rule it is very difficult indeed to trace whence arise these rumours. Whenever it is possible to do so I think your Lordships will agree with me that it is the duty of a loyal subject of His Majesty to try and bring to light the origin of these stories, so that, if there is any real grievance, it may be rectified or altered, and if, on the other hand, there is no truth in these stories, that the lies should be nailed to the counter.
I have put down this Question because of the following incident. In may neighbourhood a sergeant, who stated that he was in command of German prisoners, came home on leave and produced a printed document which he asserted had been placed in his hands, as he was responsible for the feeding of the German prisoners, and he complained that German prisoners were systematically being treated far better than the working men of this country. The statement which he made was that the German prisoners in France under his control were allowed 20 ozs. of meat per day and from 16 to 18 ozs. of bread per day. I pointed out to this man, who had already heard him and who said he had seen the printed document, that probably they had made a mistake and that it was "per week"; but I was assured that this was not the case. Therefore I

1199
thought it well to inquire what is the truth of the matter. I have written to the Ministry of Food to find out exactly what is the proper ration for civilians at home. They informed me that it was very difficult to state exactly what the ration is, because it is a money-value ration now and not a weight ration. They also informed me that the ordinary civilian ration may be calculated as 3½ ozs. per day, and for heavy workers 5·10 ozs. per day, instead of 20 ozs. as had been stated the German prisoners were receiving per day in France.
Your Lordships will remember that in November, 1917, an appeal was made to all loyal subjects of the King to restrain their appetites as far as possible in regard to bread, so that the sedentary workers should eat only 10 ozs. a day, an ordinary industrial worker should eat 16 ozs. a day, and the heavy worker should eat 18 ozs. a day. This was, of course, a voluntary ration. I will not lay stress upon bread, because that is about equal to the amount which it is stated the German prisoners have, but I will ask that an answer be given to me with regard to these 20 ozs. of meat per day to which I have called attention. I still believe that it is "per week"; but those who heard the man say he stated that such is not the case and that it is "per day." I thought it right to take steps as the man had left, and a telegram was sent to him to produce this document. He asserted that what he had said was absolutely true, but that he could not produce the document because he did not think he had any right to have carried it away. A certain number of working men who heard him and who are spreading the report think there is something in it. Therefore I wish His Majesty's Government to state distinctly that there is no idea of the German prisoners obtaining meat to the amount of 20 ozs. each per day when a heavy worker at home is asked to limit himself to 5·10 ozs.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE WAR OFFICE (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords, German prisoners of war under British control in France receive 9 ozs. of bread daily, but if not employed on work they receive only 5 ozs. They also receive from 28 to 30½ ozs. of broken biscuit per week. Taking bread and biscuit together, the German prisoner receives an average of from 13 to 13⅓ ozs. of bread and broken biscuit per day. As the noble Earl knows, the ration for bread in England
1200
is voluntary, and it varies, I understand, between the different grades of workers and in different districts, but it is substantially higher than the ration given to German prisoners even if biscuit is included as bread.
As regards meat, German prisoners in France receive 20 ozs. of meat per week, which is issued at the rate of 4 ozs. on five days a week. This works out at an average of 2 ozs. per day. British civilians receive three coupons each for 7 ozs. of butcher's meat in the week, totalling 21 ozs.; and, including the two supplementary coupons for heavy manual workers, and the three coupons, each of 8 ozs., which are given for non-butchers' meat, totalling 24 ozs. a week, heavy manual workers receive 45 ozs. of meat per week, or an average of 6 ozs. per day, which is considerably more than double that which is given to German prisoners in France.
I hope that the noble Earl will be good enough to give me the name of his informant, because I entirely agree with him that when information of this kind is given it should be followed up and definitely run to earth. I am glad that the noble Earl has brought this question forward, because we know that certain statements have been made which have absolutely no foundation in fact, and therefore it is well that the real facts should be known. The noble Earl will see that the last part of his Question does not arise, in that German prisoners do not receive better treatment than our own civilians in England.
THE EARL OF MEATH: I am very much obliged to the noble Earl for the information he has given. As I understand, it is 4 ozs. of meat on five days a week?
EARL STANHOPE: Yes.
THE EARL OF MEATH: And 13 ozs. of bread?
EARL STANHOPE: Bread and biscuit.
THE EARL OF MEATH: What about the other two days in regard to meat?
EARL STANHOPE: They get no meat then. They get a total of 20 ozs. of meat a week, which is given on five days.

WOMEN WORKERS IN CAMPS.
LORD TENTERDEN LORD TENTERDEN rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether, as there are so many camps in which under various services groups of women are working under different conditions, an Advisory Committee could be appointed with the object of assuring a uniform standard of housing, recreation, and discipline, and that in each camp there shall be a responsible woman at the head of all the women employed.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as one of the early pioneers of the Women Suffrage Bill it will be easily understood that I am actively interested in the welfare of women; but more particularly am I interested in the welfare of the women war workers of the country; and it is with reference to that somewhat difficult problem that my Question has been put upon the Paper. The noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, asked me the other day to what camps I referred—did I refer to munition camps, or to the camps in France, or to what camps? I did not refer to munition camps as they are under a very ably conducted welfare scheme supervised by Dr. Collis. I did not refer to the camps in France; but I did refer to the camps in this country.
It is generally supposed that the camps in this country comprise only the Women's Army Auxiliary Corps, and that this is the beginning and end of it. That, of course, is not the case. In addition to the Women's Army Auxiliary Corps, there is the Women's Legion, the Navy and Army Canteen Board, the Army Service Corps, the Royal Flying Corps, added to which, I think, there is now the Women's Royal Air Force; the Lady Paget Military Massage Corps, Miscellaneous Tailors, Miscellaneous Canteen Workers, Miscellaneous Servants, and clerics enlisted by Commanding Officers and put into uniforms. Therefore there are a large number of different organisations all connected with this admirable war work. In many cases the welfare of the Women's Army Auxiliary Corps has been well looked after. That is easily understood because, as I mentioned just now, they have a proper administration to see that they are cared for. This corps sets a very high standard of efficiency in many respects, including the things I have mentioned in my Question—housing, recreation, and discipline; but I am sorry to say that my information is that this standard is not kept up with regard to the other organisations.
Your Lordships may remember that some time ago a very interesting article appeared in one of the leading London newspapers, the Pall Mall Gazette, in which the whole question of women's welfare was carefully gone into, and it was there explained that the conditions were very adverse and contrary to the interests of recruiting, and bad for the health of the women generally. This report was signed by Mrs. Alec Gilmour. That lady has shown greater patriotism, perhaps, than many women of this country. She has herself worked in camps both in France and here, and has had great experience as an organising secretary of one of the greatest charitable institutions of the country. She is therefore an authority on this matter, and it is on information that I have received from her that I have been able to study the facts of the real state of things existing in these camps. She has made it her business to study the conditions under which the women have to carry out this war work, and she drew up a most interesting report on the subject which I studied carefully before I came to your Lordships' House. In addition, this report was seen by Dr. Collis, head of the Welfare Department of the Ministry of Munitions, and he expressed an opinion that a very useful crusade was being started and he wished every success to the effort being made. The Right Hon. G. N. Barnes also considers that the report discloses a very serious condition of affairs in the camps.
Now it is a fact—and without any report it is so well known that anybody acquainted with the condition of the camps knows it is so—that in the matter of housing and recreation and discipline things are in a very bad state indeed. Women are invited to these camps, and no proper housing is provided. With regard to recreation there is none, beyond, it may be, a concert or a cinema. There are no rooms where women who want to be respected can assemble and have some sort of quiet recreation without being thrown upon the camp life. This leads me to the important point that these women having nowhere else to go are of necessity thrown among men and have to wander about the camps, and the results may be easily imagined. The consequences are very serious.
The question of venereal disease has been discussed and mentioned here by Lord Willoughby de Broke, and he alluded to the Royal Commission and asked when it

1203
was going to do something. I, too, should like to ask why we have heard nothing about it. They might well turn their attention to these camps, where disease of that kind is rife. It is perfectly obvious that unless there is some control of the camps this kind of thing must continue. Lord Stanhope pointed out to me the other day that there was a commander of every unit, and therefore there was control. I do not deny that there is a commander of every unit, but there is not any one responsible at the head of the camp. In some cases such a person as the camp cook has been placed at the head of the camp. That is not a suitable person to look after a large camp. He also pointed out to me that various camps differed in their conditions. Naturally they do. A camp in one part of England naturally differs from a camp in another part of the country, but that is no reason why the conditions in the same camp should differ to the extent they do. Why in one camp do you find things all right in regard to housing but no discipline, and in another bad housing and good discipline? Why also is no proper medical attention given? The question of medical attention is a serious matter. The only thing that is done for a woman in these camps when she gets ill is to send her home. But then you lose her, and that is not the way in which to carry on a properly conducted camp.
My suggestion is that there should be an Advisory Committee appointed of men and women having knowledge of camp life, who should have supervision over these camps without interfering with the actual work done—that they should be an advisory body to advise on the subjects of housing, recreation, discipline, and medical attention. Recently your Lordships discussed the question of a Ministry of Health, and Lord Willoughby de Broke in a most admirable speech, full of a most sincere desire to help, showed us how necessary it was that some sort of Bill should be introduced for the welfare of both men and women in regard to health; and he particularly pointed out the desirability of this in regard to the future generations, because of what was going to happen to them if the health of the women and children of the country was neglected. Is not this a case in which the health and welfare of the women are being neglected? At least that is my assertion, and I have very good authority for saying so.
It is common knowledge that these camps are in the condition which I have
1204
described, and it is perfectly evident that this is one of the cases in which the health of the women should be most carefully studied. Women have to do arduous work for the country, and even from the selfish national point of view we can ill afford to ignore their welfare. I trust that the Government will consider favourably the suggestions which I have made. The passing of the woman Suffrage Bill must surely have entitled women to become a political and industrial entity, and I am certain that the last thing in the world which the Government desire to see is a continuance of the conditions I have described in the camps of the women war workers.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, I wrote to the noble Lord in regard to his Question, because it was put down in such general terms that I really did not know whether it applied to this country or any other, or to munition workers or other bodies of women who were working for the State. The noble Lord was good enough to tell me that it did not refer to France or to munition workers, but that is all the information I received. I naturally expected that I should be given definite information as to why he recommended that an Advisory Committee should be set up, and why he thought that the present system was not working as well as it might.
I am surprised that the noble Lord should have made grave and general charges against women, and should not have brought forward one single case which could be definitely looked into. The noble Lord talked about women getting into trouble in the camps and unfortunate incidents happening, but he did not say where this was. He made that general charge against a body of women who are doing magnificent service to the State, and who, I believe, are far less likely to figure in unfortunate incidents than women who are not doing any work at all. The system at present is that all units have their own responsible officers and these officers again are responsible to senior officers, who inspect them and assist them in every way.
The standard of housing must necessarily vary with local conditions. For instance, in the one case you may have camps such as that on Salisbury Plain, or others even more recent and perhaps not so permanent. On the other hand, you have London, which the Germans describe as an "armed camp." It is perfectly obvious that you cannot have

1205
the same standard of housing in London as you would have in the middle of Salisbury Plain. Similarly with regard to recreation. The standard of recreation in a big town is different from that which you would set up in a country district. Then there is the question of discipline. The noble Lord wishes to set up apparently an Advisory Committee which should be appointed to co-ordinate housing, recreation, and discipline. All these numerous bodies—and the noble Lord mentioned only a small part of them—are enlisted under various conditions, with different standards, and they work under different rules. Therefore for any one Committee fully to grasp all the various conditions of service under which women are employed would be itself a task which would keep them fully occupied for many a day before they could give any recommendation of value.
Finally, the noble Lord in his Question points out that there are very many camps and different services, but he only proposes one Advisory Committee to deal with the whole of them. We believe that this would merely introduce further complication, and that the proper system is the one which is now in force—namely, that there should be a responsible woman in charge of each unit, and that she should be supervised and assisted by others senior to her. Every Department under which women are working is only too anxious that their conditions should be as good as possible, and if the noble Lord will bring forward definite cases we shall be only too glad to look into them and put them right.
LORD TENTERDEN: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Earl for his reply. He admitted that the standard is not uniform—that there are different standards—and he did not say that there is anybody in control of the camps. We know that there are unit commanders, but he said that the conditions vary. It is because I want to see the conditions uniform that I brought forward the suggestion.

ASYLUMS OFFICERS SUPERANNUATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a and to be printed.
STATUTORY UNDERTAKINGS (TEMPORARY INCREASE OF CHARGES) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a and to be printed.

A FRIDAY SITTING.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn until half-past four o'clock to-morrow.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[From Minutes of July 24.]

SOLICITORS (ARTICLED CLERKS) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
SMALL HOLDING COLONIES (AMEND MENT) BILL.
Returned from the Commons with several of the Amendments agreed to: One other agreed to with an Amendment: The said Amendment to be printed, and to be considered on Tuesday next.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS (INCOME TAX BILL [H.L.]).
Report from the Joint Committee made, and to be printed.
Bill reported with Amendments and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next, and to be printed as amended. Minutes of evidence laid upon the Table and to be delivered out.

ROTHERHAM CORPORATION BILL.
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: The Order made on Thursday last discharged, and Bill committed for Tuesday next.
House adjourned at five minutes past seven o'clock.