Sitting of 6 November 1918

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Cowdenbeath Water Provisional Order Bill,
"To confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Cowdenbeath Water," presented by Mr. Munro; read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday, 14th November, and to be printed. [Bill 106.]

SAVINGS BANKS AND FRIENDLY SOCIETIES.
Account [presented 5th November] to be printed. [No. 128.]
REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1918.
Copies presented of Four Orders in Council, dated 23rd October, 1918 (provisional except with respect to Scotland), made under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
SMALL HOLDING COLONIES ACT, 1916.
Copy presented of Report of the Interdepartmental Conference on the subject of the proposed extension to Ireland of the Small Holding Colonies Act, 1916 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
MINISTRY OF RECONSTRUCTION.
Copy presented of Report from the Advisory Council of the Minister of Reconstruction upon Standardisation of Railway Equipment [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
TRADE BOARDS ACTS.
Copy presented of Regulations, dated 31st October, 1918, made by the Minister of Labour under the Trade Boards Acts [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
NAVY, ARMY, AND AIR SERVICES, WARLIKE OPERATIONS, AND OTHER EXPENDITURE ARISING OUT OF THE WAR, 1918–19 (SUPPLEMENTARY VOTE OF CREDIT).
Supplementary Estimate presented of the Amount required to be voted during the year ending 31st March, 1919, for general Navy, Army, and Air Services, Warlike Operations, and other Expenditure arising out of the War [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 129.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.
    MERCANTILE MARINE.

      SHIPYARD HOUSING.
      Mr. RUNCIMANasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the housing schemes for shipyard and marine engine works employés are to be proceeded with; if not, what alternative means are to be adopted to house the extra 75,000 men declared by the Controller-General of Merchant Shipbuilding to be necessary for the existing yards and their extensions; and whether, in view of the urgency of accommodation being found for these men as they come forward without subjecting them to any hardship or delay, he can announce that the housing and hostel schemes for this purpose will be pressed on immediately?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): My right hon. Friend is, of course, aware that the claims for priority—both labour and material—are very urgent indeed from many directions. Nevertheless, the Controller-General of Merchant Shipbuilding will be bound, and so proposes, to press the schemes he has already prepared for

      2077
      securing accommodation for the additional men required, before the War Cabinet Priorities Committee and the War Cabinet itself.
      Mr. RUNCIMAN: May I presume that my right hon. Friend and the Controller-General are aware that some berths are being kept at present vacant owing to shortage of labour?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: In one of these cases, apparently the most urgent, the men have been provided forthwith, and the accommodation is being secured today by commandeering.
      As regards housing, the next most urgent will be placed before the War Priorities Committee on Friday.

      BRITISH TONNAGE LOST.
      Mr. SHAWasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can state the gross tonnage of British steamships lost during the War up to the 31st October last and to what extent the loss has been made good by new construction and by purchase from abroad?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: By arrangement with the Allies the losses for October cannot be published until three weeks have expired from the end of the month. During the War, up to the 30th September last—

      Gross tons

      The gross tonnage of British merchant steamships lost by enemy action and marine risk amounted to

      8,946,000

      This has been made good by new construction, tonnage purchased abroad, and enemy tonnage captured and brought into service, to the extent of

      5,443,000

      Leaving a net deficit on the 30th September last of

      3,503,000

      Mr. SHAW: Does that mean that, as compared with July, 1914, there is a deficit of British ocean-going ships to the extent of 20 per cent?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: My hon. Friend raises a question that I should like to look at in regard to "ocean-going." I should not like to say offhand.
      Sir C. HENRY: Can the right hon. Gentleman state approximately the amount of the mercantile gross tonnage before the War?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: I should want notice.
      Mr. HOUSTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give separate figures of war loss as against marine loss?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: I have no doubt that could be done if a question were put down.

      INTERNED OFFICERS.
      Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the number of shipowners who have agreed to pay full wages during the period they have been interned in enemy countries, and the proportion of officers who will be so provided for; and whether he can say what the Government intend to do in other cases for which no provision has been made by the shipowners?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Wardle): Eighteen shipowners have, up to the present, informed the Board of Trade that they are paying full wages to all officers and members of their crews interned in enemy countries. It is not possible to state what proportion of interned officers will be so provided for. As regards the last part of the question, I am afraid I can only refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on this subject on 24th October.
      Mr. PETO: Am I to infer, therefore, that the Government do not propose to do anything more than merely ask shipowners whether they are prepared to make any provision or not?
      Mr. WARDLE: No, my hon. Friend is not entitled to infer that.

    ROYAL NAVY.

      SCHOOLMASTERS (PAY).
      Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, seeing that schoolmasters, Royal Navy, are unaffected by the recent published changes in the pay and status of warrant officers, Royal Navy, he can say when the scheme which has been under consideration by their lordships for some months for the improvement in pay and status of schoolmasters, Royal Navy, will be promulgated?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: I am afraid I cannot say more than that the matter is under consideration.
      Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: When does the right hon. Gentleman think the consideration will be brought to a conclusion?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: It is not in our hands alone; there are other Departments. I should like to see it concluded at the earliest possible date so far as I am concerned.

      NAVAL AND ROYAL MARINE OFFICERS (PAY).
      Colonel LESLIE WILSONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether consolidated rates of pay granted to Naval and Royal Marine officers employed in the Admiralty have been increased since the outbreak of hostilities; and, if so, by how much?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: There have been a number of increases, and with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, I will circulate with the OFFICIAL REPORT the answer setting them forth.
      The following is the statement referred to:
      Consolidated rates of pay were introduced for certain classes of Naval and Marine officers serving at the Admiralty with effect as from 5th May, 1915. These have, in some cases, been increased with effect from 1st February last, as follows, namely:

      £

      £

      Commanders

      530

      increased to

      600

      Majors, R. M

      500

      increased to

      600

      Lieut.-Commanders of over two years' seniority

      430

      increased to

      500

      Lieut.-Commanders of under two years' seniority

      400

      increased to

      500

      Captains, R.M

      400

      increased to

      500

      Paymaster-Lieut.-Commanders

      450

      increased to

      500

      In other cases, consolidated rates have been introduced which show a considerable increase over the emoluments (full pay and allowances) which the officers were previously in receipt of, e.g., as from 1st February last, sub-lieutenants, Royal Navy and Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve, receive £300 a year instead of £204, newly-promoted paymaster commanders, Royal Navy, £600 a year instead of £478 10s.

      RECRUITING OFFICERS (PAY).
      Colonel L. WILSONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty
      2080
      whether in view of the fact that no increase has been made to the pay of naval recruiting staff officers during the War and that such pay is only at the rate of £200 a year, instructions can be issued for these salaries to be raised as soon as possible, taking into consideration the greatly increased cost of living and the fact that in some cases non-commissioned officers serving under senior staff officers are receiving larger emoluments than the officers under whom they are serving?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: My hon. and gallant Friend will be glad to know that it has been decided to revise the salaries of the recruiting staff officers, Royal Marines, and the naval recruiting officers, temporarily, as from the 1st September, 1918. If my hon. and gallant Friend wishes, I will show him the details.

      ROSYTH NAVAL BASE (SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION).
      Mr. PONSONBYasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether any arrangements have yet been made by the Admiralty with regard to school accommodation in the Rosyth district?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: The local naval authorities are carefully investigating the present schooling arrangements at Rosyth in conjunction with the Dunfermline School Board, in order to determine the extent to which, if any, additional accommodation is required. From the information at present available the requirements would not appear to be in excess of accommodation.

      GERMAN SUBMARINE WARFARE.
      Mr. ALBION RICHARDSONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any and, if so, what number of British passenger ships have been attacked by German submarines since the undertaking given by the German Government to President Wilson to abstain from such attacks?
      Mr. HOUSTONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can give the last date on which a vessel of British or other nationality was sunk by enemy action?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: As regards attacks on British merchant vessels, we have no reliable and precise information. The last date on which a British ship or ship of

      2081
      other nationality was sunk by enemy submarine action was in the Mediterranean on 2nd November.
      Mr. HOUSTON: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that a British merchant steamer, the name of which I have just given to him, was torpedoed in the English Channel and reached port only two days ago?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: I have no report of that, but I will take it from the hon. Member and make inquiries.
      Mr. ALDEN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if any food ships have been sunk?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot say.
      Mr. KILBRIDE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what was the last case of an Irish mail boat being attacked?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: The last Irish mail boat sunk, as we know to our regret, was the "Leinster."
      Mr. KILBRIDE: I said attacked, not sunk.
      Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not know.

    INFLUENZA EPIDEMIC.

      CRYSTAL PALACE.
      Mr. CHANCELLORasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state what is the total number of cases of influenza at the Crystal Palace since the present epidemic broke out; how many of these were treated at the Palace; how many in hospital; how many were sent home for treatment, with the number of deaths in each class, respectively; and how many of the total cases had had inoculation of any kind?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: Since the present epidemic broke out there have been 784 cases at the Crystal Palace: 538 were treated at the Palace; 233 were transferred from the Palace to local hospitals, and none was sent home for treatment. I should, however, add that 442 cases have been reported to us of men contracting influenza at home while on leave. As regards the number of deaths during the present epidemic, three died at the Crystal Palace, ninety-three died in local hospitals, and ten died at their own homes. I have already informed my hon. Friend that in none of the cases of death had there been inoculation against influenza or pneumonia.
      Mr. CHANCELLOR: I did not ask that question. I said "inoculation."
      Dr. MACNAMARA: My hon. Friend asked how many of the death cases had been inoculated at any time. I confined my answer to cases of death. In cases of death there had been no inoculations. I am not certain whether, in a small number of other cases, men did not apply voluntarily for inoculation. So far, I am glad to say, those men are going on all right.
      Mr. CHANCELLOR: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the question I have put down.
      Dr. MACNAMARA: I must ask the hon. Member to put the question down again. I have tried to answer it.
      Mr. CHANCELLOR: I have put it down twice.

      COAST WATCHERS (IRELAND).
      Brigadier-General McCALMONTasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that only 5 per cent. of the coast watchers in Ireland have ever served either in the forces of the Crown or in the Mercantile Marine during the present War, he will state how many of these men are of military age; whether he is aware that many ex-Service men are qualified and anxious for such work; and whether immediate steps will be taken to ensure that they are not kept out of employment by men who have never served although eligible?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: Detailed inquiries are necessary in connection with my hon. and gallant Friend's question. Perhaps in the circumstances he will put it down again one day next week. I may remind my hon. and gallant Friend that, as I told him two days ago, in filling vacancies preference is given to discharged soldiers and sailors.
      General McCALMONT: I will put it down again next week.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

      SEAMEN'S WIDOWS.
      Commander BELLAIRSasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether it is the fact that the maximum alternative pension which the widow of an ordinary seaman can obtain if the man dies of a disease certified as contracted on duty, such as influenza, is £130 per annum?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Colonel Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen): The answer is in the affirmative.

      OFFICERS' WIDOWS.
      Commander BELLAIRSasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether the maximum pension of the widow of a captain of one of His Majesty's ships is £80 per annum and of the widow of an admiral of £120 per annum, unless it is certified that he died from disease caused by extraordinary exposure or exertion on service; and whether the Board will represent to the Treasury that the condition for granting alternative pensions should be the same for officers' widows as for men and that the time has come for the amounts to be raised?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: The ordinary service pension of the widow of a captain of less than three years' seniority is £80, and of other captains £90, while that of the widow of an admiral is as stated in the question. The question of increasing the ordinary rates of pensions to widows of officers whose deaths were not attributable to or accelerated by the Service, is at present under consideration.
      Commander BELLAIRS: Will the Board of Admiralty bear in mind that the answer to my first question by the Pensions Department showed that pensions are now from £30 to £10 less for admirals and captains than the maximum for ordinary seamen?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: I gathered that the purpose of the former question was to prepare an argument in favour of a favourable answer being given to the second.

      SEPARATION ALLOWANCES.
      Sir J. D. REESasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the payment of separation allowances to the wife is in some cases deferred till three weeks after the husband has been called up, whereby hardship is occasioned; and will he issue instructions that no such preventable delay shall occur in future?
      The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): So far as the issue of instructions can prevent delay, it is already prevented; but there are still inevitably isolated cases of failure. If my hon. Friend is aware of any cases of excessive
      2084
      delay, and will give me particulars, I shall be happy to have them inquired into.
      Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister if he is in a position to state whether the new separation allowances are to be retrospective, and, if so, from what date; whether any other alterations are to be made; and whether he is able to say what war bonus it is proposed to give on war pensions?
      Mr. FORSTER: I understand that my right hon. Friend the Member for Black-friars will make a statement on this subject after questions.

      HALF-PAY (OFFICERS).
      Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked whether it is possible for an officer without private means to live on half-pay?
      Mr. FORSTER: This is, I suppose, largely a matter of opinion, and depends upon the officer's rank and the calls upon his income; but my Noble Friend will remember that half-pay is not intended to be regarded as an adequate income for an indefinite period.

      APPRENTICES ON ENLISTMENT.
      Sir GEORGE TOULMINasked whether applications are received by the special grants committee from mothers of men who were apprentices when they enlisted; whether a grant is made where there was no dependence according to the regulations; and whether the basis of the grant is the wage the apprentice would have received had he been now working as an adult at his trade?
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I have been asked to reply to this question. The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the last part, the basis of the grant is the wages the apprentice would have been earning if he had remained in civil life.

      DISABLED OFFICERS (MAINTENANCE ALLOWANCES).
      Colonel Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Pensions Minister whether an ex-officer who applies for training and cannot be placed can draw maintenance allowance whilst waiting in the same manner as is possible for the discharged soldier?
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: The answer is in the negative. The circumstances

      2085
      are very different, and in the case of officers the necessity for this special provision is not found to exist.
      Colonel ASHLEY: Is it not a fact that unfortunately in many cases the ex-officer has only his pension to live on; and has no private means of his own?
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: That may be so, but the question is whether there is a waiting list and we are not aware of it.
      Colonel ASHLEY: If there is a waiting list, will they get it?
      Sir GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: If that state of affairs arises, we shall be prepared to consider it.
      Mr. HOGGE: Are you training any?
      Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Pensions Minister whether any increase in the maintenance allowances for officers undergoing treatment has been made similar to that recently granted to the men?
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: No revision of the scale of maintenance allowances for officers undergoing treatment is considered to be necessary. In this connection I may refer my Noble Friend to the answer I gave to the question put to me on the 22nd October by the hon. Member for the Hornsey Division of Middlesex.
      Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Is there any reason why officers should be treated less generously than the men?
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I do not think they are treated less generously. As I pointed out in reply to the question, the pensions are put up to the highest rate of the total disablement rate; in addition to that, any maintenance due for treatment is paid by the State.

      ALTERNATIVE PENSIONS (DELAYS).
      Mr. COTTONasked the Pensions Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the hardship occasioned to widows and dependants of soldiers reported killed or missing by reason of the delay which takes place in the grant of the alternative pension after the cessation of the separation allowance or other allowances; and whether steps will be taken for the more expeditious consideration and settlement of claims for alternative pensions, so that such pensions may become payable concurrently with the ordinary pension?
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: The delays referred to are mainly caused by the difficulty experienced in verifying pre-war earnings, owing to the fact that many employed have never kept books or have destroyed those which they had. But if the widow applies immediately after notification of the death of her husband, the claim can be investigated during the twenty-six weeks' continuance of separation allowance. Failure to comply is generally due to ignorance, and steps have been and are being taken, by announcements in the Press, to make the provisions in regard to alternative pensions more widely known.
      Mr. HOGGE: Why cannot the Ministry of Pensions, seeing that they have got twenty-six weeks during which the separation allowance runs, make the necessary investigation during that twenty-six weeks, so that the alternative pension will start at the close of the twenty-six weeks?
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: That would mean that we should have to make investigations in every case, whether there was a prima facie case for an alternative pension or not, and it would involve a great deal of additional work for the staff.
      Mr. HOGGE: I do not mean that. In cases where the widow applies immediately the husband is killed, cannot the Ministry do it in the twenty-six weeks that the separation allowance runs, so that the alternative pension would begin immediately in the twenty-seventh week?
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: That is precisely what I have just said in another question. If the woman applied directly, we could and should make, and in fact we do make, investigations during the twenty-six weeks.

      OXFORDSHIRE AND BUCKINGHAMSHIRE LIGHT INFANTRY.
      Mr. COTTONasked the Pensions Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the case of A. Diwell, late No. 6767, 2nd Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire Light Infantry; can he explain the delay which took place in the rectification of a mistake in the matter of this man's pension; is he aware that, as a result, the wife and family of the man were left without means of support for several months; and will he state why, in view of the admission made by his

      2087
      Department that the man's illness was attributable to service, the full pension which has now been awarded to him has been paid to him only from the 31st July last and not from the date of his discharge from the Army?
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: My attention has been drawn to this unfortunate case, the delay in the settlement of which has been due to a conflict of medical opinion. It has now been decided to regard the disability as aggravated by service and to award full arrears of pension as from the date of discharge. Instructions have been given for the immediate payment of the arrears.

    TURKEY.

      PEACE TERMS.
      Mr. BLISSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will say whether, behind the published terms of armistice concluded with Turkey, a secret understanding has been come to with that Power relating to the retention of Constantinople and of Armenia?
      Sir G. TOULMINasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any condition was made in connection with the terms on which Turkey was granted an armistice by which the position of Armenians was or might be prejudiced; and whether this country at the Peace Conference will be free to advocate terms securing the full liberty of Armenia?
      The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Balfour): With regard to question No. 17, I have to say that no understanding of any kind has been entered into with Turkey other than the terms of the armistice as published, except that we have agreed that Allied prisoners of war may be handed over to us wherever it can be done most expeditiously, and not necessarily at Constantinople. The answer to the last part of question No. 18 is in the affirmative.

      ARMENIAN PROVINCES.
      Mr. HUGH LAWasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government, when concluding peace with Turkey, will insist, as an indispensable condition, upon the removal of all Turkish sovereignty over the Armenian provinces?
      Mr. BALFOUR: I do not think it a convenient course to announce beforehand what His Majesty's Government will "insist on" when the Powers come to discuss terms of peace at the final Conference. As regards Armenia, it will perhaps suffice to say that we have always regarded the freeing of the Armenians from Turkish misrule as an important part of our Middle Eastern policy, and that we confidently look forward to its accomplishment.
      Mr. ANEURIN WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman say sovereignty as well as misrule?
      Mr. BALFOUR: I think I have gone far enough in dealing with the question.

    CHINA.

      DEUTSCH-ASIATISCHE BANK (LIQUIDATION).
      Colonel FABERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state why the Deutsch-Asiatische Bank, which is the keystone of the German commerial system in China, has not been put into liquidation; and when it is likely to be so put?
      Mr. BALFOUR: The Chinese Government in August, 1917, immediately after China's declaration of war on the Central Powers took steps to put into liquidation the branches of the Deutsch-Asiatische Bank at Shanghai, Tientsin, Canton, and other places in China. Foreign banking experts were appointed by the Chinese Government to assist the Chinese officials entrusted with the liquidation proceedings. His Majesty's Government have, of course, no power to take action themselves in the direction suggested. The Allied representatives at Peking have called the attention of the Chinese Government to the inadequacy of the measures so far taken in regard to enemy property and businesses in China.

      MOMBASA (SEGREGATION OF INDIANS).
      Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the policy of segregating the Indian population in Mombasa in a special area was decided on and carried cut by the recent land sale without consulting the India Office; and, if so, why?
      The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Hewins): I would refer the hon. and gallant Gentleman to the reply which I gave to a similar question by him on the 28th of October.
      Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he declined to answer the question I put on the Paper?
      Mr. HEWINS: No; if my memory serves me, the question of my hon. and gallant Friend was the same question, but in another form, and it was fully answered.
      Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I ask definitely whether this policy in Mombasa was or was not carried out without consulting the India Office?
      Mr. HEWINS: The question was answered in the reply to which I have referred my hon. and gallant Friend.
      Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether the India Office was consulted or not?
      Mr. HEWINS: I can only refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer I gave.
      Colonel WEDGWOOD: I will raise it on the Adjournment to-night.

    GERMAN PRISONERS.

      EMPLOYMENT BY BRITISH GOVERNMENT.
      Mr. STEWARTasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that Richard Starcke, a German prisoner of war, has been appointed to a Government post in Togoland; whether he is also permitted to travel about and do work of a private character; whether even British residents in Togoland have to obtain permits to travel in that Colony; and whether it is necessary to take Germans of any sort into Government employment in either West Africa or elsewhere?
      Mr. HEWINS: Richard Starcke is a German who was taken prisoner at Lome, in August, 1914. He is employed by the Public Works Department at a small salary, which he is allowed to supplement by private work under the supervision of the Controller of Enemy Property. This work consists almost entirely in repairing enemy property buildings under the Controller's charge. He is not allowed to leave Lome without a permit from the police, which only allows him to travel to a specified destination for a definite
      2090
      period. I am not aware whether British residents also require a permit. The Officer Commanding the British Forces in Togoland states that Mr. Starcke's knowledge of local affairs makes him extremely valuable to the Occupation Government, and in the circumstances I am not prepared to direct that his services should be dispensed with.
      Mr. STEWART: Will the hon. Gentleman, in considering future appointments, give due consideration to the grave objection there is both at home and abroad to the employment of Germans in the British Government service?
      Mr. HEWINS: I agree with the general sentiments of my hon. Friend, but this is a case in which I have given him the view of the officer commanding the British forces, and I see no reason for not acting in accordance with it.

    PRISONERS OF WAR.

      PARCELS (TURKEY).
      Mr. PETOasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that parcels sent in as long ago as July last for conveyance to officer prisoners of war in Turkey by the exchange ship were refused by the military forwarding officer at Avonmouth Docks on the 23rd October immediately prior to the departure of the last steamer which could possibly catch the exchange ship; whether he can say why these parcels could not have been examined in the intervening three months to enable any error in packing to be rectified; and whether arrangements can now be made for all these refused packages to be conveyed by some other route to catch the exchange ship?
      Mr. HOPE (Lord of the Treasury): I am informed that the incident in question appears to have arisen owing to a delay in issuing instructions, which is much regretted; but it does not seem that blame is to be attached to the forwarding officer. Under the arrangements for carrying out the armistice it may be hoped that the prisoners will be released long before fresh parcels could reach them.

      MILITARY HOSPITALS (WOMEN DOCTORS).
      Sir PHILIP MAGNUSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if, having regard to the fact that women doctors

      2091
      serving in military hospitals discharge similar duties, and receive the same pay as men doctors, and are entitled to wear the Royal Army Medical Corps badge, he will take steps to rectify the anomaly of their being refused even honorary commissions or to wear badges of rank which would be helpful to them in maintaining discipline; and if he can arrange that they obtain equivalent relief from Income Tax as is granted to men doctors under the Service rate?
      The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): I have been into this question very thoroughly, and find that it is legally impossible to grant commissions in the Army to women. Legislation would be necessary. I should be glad to consider the granting of marks of distinction among themselves.
      Sir P. MAGNUS: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he has any hope of his introducing the necessary legislation this Session; and may I further ask him whether the marks of distinction which he proposes to confer are such as would enable a woman doctor or a woman surgeon to maintain the necessary discipline in order to carry out satisfactorily the work in which she is engaged?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: As regards the first part of the question as to the introduction of legislation, I will consult my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. With regard to the marks of distinction, I personally am strongly opposed to the utilisation of the present Army marks of distinction for women, because if a woman has not the qualifications for a commission, it is no good camouflaging her with marks of distinction. I myself prefer the marks of distinction to take the form of the marks of distinction which are given to the administrators and directors of Queen Mary's Army Auxiliary Corps and the Wrens.
      General McCALMONT: Did my right hon. Friend's reply cover honorary commissions when he said it was impossible to grant commissions?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: Yes.
      Mr. GULLAND: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think legislation, giving these commissions, could go through this House very quickly?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: My personal view upon that particular point would be of no
      2092
      value. I have already told my hon. Friend that I will state the case for and against to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
      Mr. ACLAND: Will the right hon. Gentleman go a little further than that and use his best efforts to have legislation prepared and passed through this Session?
      Mr. KING: Failing legislation, cannot an Amendment be inserted in the next Army Act which would cover this?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: That Act, of course, will not come up for reconsideration until March or April next year, and, as I understand the position, the body of opinion in this House seems to be favourable to some speedy action.
      Mr. CURRIE: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of Question 26?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I have already answered that privately to my hon. Friend. It is purely a question for the Treasury.
      Mr. CHANCELLOR: Could not this desirable and desired legislation be carried through under the Defence of the Realm Act, seeing so much undesirable legislation has been so carried through?

    MILITARY SERVICE.

      SOLDIERS UNDER NINETEEN.
      Mr. P. A. HARRISasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he has any statement to make as to why a draft of lads under nineteen years of age was sent overseas from the Gordon Highlanders early in September; and how they came to be sent into the firing line?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: The draft in question was due to leave this country on the 30th August, but, owing to a delay, did not cross to France until the 4th September. The men have already been withdrawn from the firing line, and those under nineteen years of age are being returned to England.
      Mr. HARRIS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that owing to this gross blunder a certain number lost their lives, and there is a very strong feeling amongst parents at this serious breach of faith in sending these lads into the firing line?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I am not aware of any such thing. I do not regard it as a gross blunder. There were military considerations.
      Mr. BYRNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether that Order applied to recruits in the Royal Air Force? [An HON. MEMBER: "Ireland!"]
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I have nothing to do with the Royal Air Force.
      Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Gunner J. F. Newman, No. 174783, aged 19, Penlee battery, Royal Garrison Artillery, No. 2 Fire Command (D. and C.), Cawsand, near Plymouth, has, since 21st May, 1918, been in Rouen, Trouville, Torquay, Derriford, Newhaven, and Cawsand military hospitals, respectively, and that his illness, valvular disease of the heart (mitral), has been confirmed at each hospital; can he state why this young soldier has been moved from place to place instead of being discharged; whether his former employers have made representations that this soldier should be allowed to resume light clerical work; and whether he will give consideration to this case with a view to the boy's discharge?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: This case is being inquired into and I will acquaint my hon. Friend of the result as soon as possible.
      Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Thank you.
      Mr. JOWETTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is aware that notwithstanding the decision of the Army Council at the end of August last not to send soldiers under nineteen years of age overseas, airmen who are under nineteen years of age, and in some cases under eighteen and a half years of age, have been sent overseas so recently as October last; and whether this is in accordance with the intention of the Army Council?
      The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE to the AIR MINISTRY (Major Baird): The decision to which my hon. Friend refers applied to the Army only. Having regard to the conditions of overseas service with the Air Force, the Air Council do not consider that it is necessary to make a similar rule.

      HAY CUTTERS.
      Sir ARTHUR FELLasked why such delay is being experienced in the release
      2094
      of hay cutters from the Army when the names have been supplied of men available in this country, and they have been recommended for release, and the want of hay is acute at Great Yarmouth and Norwich, and, although there is plenty of hay in the county, it is not available owing to the dearth of cutters, and the horses are bordering on starvation in both the above cities?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: Inquiries are being made, and I will communicate with my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

    FOOD SUPPLIES.

      AGRICULTURE (HORSES).
      Mr. PETOasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the shortage of heavy draught horses for agricultural work, he will see that at the earliest possible moment all suitable animals at the remount depots in this country are released primarily for use on the farms?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: All cast horses suitable for work on the land are offered to the Food Production Department, and those which are not accepted are sold by public auction. As regards horses still fit for military purposes, the requirements of the Armies in France are such that it is impossible to spare any for work on the land.
      Mr. PETO: May I call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that I worded my question quite generally, and that what I wanted an answer to was whether agriculture would have a primary place when there was a possibility of a large release of heavy draught horses from the remount depots?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I cannot say that. That is largely a question to be considered by the Committee on Demobilisation. I will certainly bring that point and other points to the notice of the Committee.

      BACON AND CHEESE.
      Mr. MACMASTERasked the Food Controller if he is aware that retail dealers in the country are compelled to take bacon and cheese, etc., of bad quality and to pay for the same; that 30 per cent. of the cheese imported into this country is damaged and is sent to retailers as part of their allotment, and that

      2095
      they are compelled to take it and pay for it; and that when retailers return this damaged cheese to wholesalers they are unable in many cases to get repayment of the price paid for the unmerchantable article?
      The MINISTER of FOOD (Mr. Clynes): I am aware that the quality of imported bacon and cheese is frequently inferior to that of home-cured bacon and British-made cheese, but there is absolutely no ground for the suggestion that 30 per cent. of the cheese reaches this country in a damaged condition, and I regret that such a suggestion should have been made. Retailers receiving damaged cheese as part of their allotment should return the cheese, not to the wholesalers, but to the Government damaged cheese agents, when they will be credited with the invoice value of the cheese returned.
      Sir C. HENRY: Do they get any more cheese in its place?
      Mr. CLYNES: Certainly, if cheese is available.
      Colonel Sir F. HALL: May I ask whether steps are being taken to provide the people of this country with better bacon than they have been having during the last two or three months?
      Mr. CLYNES: Yes; steps are being taken.

      MILLERS' OFFALS.
      General COLVINasked the Food Controller whether millers' offals for chicken food are being retailed at 9s. 6d. per half-bushel, or at the rate of £7 12s. per quarter; and whether, in fairness to the producer, the Government will control these prices so that the price of millers' offals is proportionate to the price of corn?
      Mr. CLYNES: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The price of millers' offals has been fixed since the 7th February, under the Cattle Feeding-stuffs (Maximum Prices) Order, 1918, at £13 a ton ex mill, with certain authorised additions which in no case should exceed £3 a ton. If the hon. and gallant Member will inform me of any instance in which these prices have been exceeded, I will see that proper action is taken.

      LINCOLNSHIRE MARKETS.
      Colonel WEIGALL (by Private Notice)asked the Food Controller whether all
      2096
      Lincolnshire markets are to be closed against the sale of grading sheep and cattle; whether the action is contrary to the advice of local Commissioners, and whether there has been any resignation in consequence?
      Mr. CLYNES: I was advised by a special committee appointed by the Central Agricultural Advisory Council that, in order to deal with the present heavy surplus of cattle from the grazing districts, supplies should first be taken from such districts, and that the markets should be closed for local supplies in arable districts. I have consented to this arrangement which in volves the closing of fat stock markets to local supplies in Lincolnshire, with the exception of Spalding and possibly one or two other places, as from to-day for a brief period, and meanwhile the markets in the closed area will be supplied from the adjacent grazing counties. The answer to the two last parts of the question is in the negative.
      Colonel WEIGALL: May I ask my right hon. Friend, for the information of the agriculturists in Lincolnshire, how he proposes that these cattle are to be kept alive? Grass is over, and in some cases there is no accommodation. How are feeding-stuffs to be provided where there is accommodation? May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in conjunction with the Board of Agriculture, he will now ask the Priority Committee if further feeding-stuffs can be imported in order to keep these cattle alive?
      Mr. CLYNES: As to the last part of the question, we are doing everything that we can to increase the quantity of feeding-stuffs. As to the first part of the question, I am quite satisfied that less loss will be incurred by the arrangement which has been made. We made that arrangement on the strength of the advice of the Advisory Council referred to.
      Mr. HARRIS: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider as an alternative the question of increasing the meat ration before Christmas, so as to absorb the surplus that is available?
      Mr. CLYNES: That matter did not escape our attention, but finally we reached the conclusion that it was better to take a little now than to be absolutely without in the early part of next year.
      Mr. CRUMLEY: Why does the right hon. Gentleman preclude Irish cattle that have been fattened during the grass

      2097
      season from being shipped to Great Britain, seeing that there are no means of keeping them in condition from this month onwards, and that in four or five months' time, under the present Regulations, they will be nothing but stores and springers?
      Mr. CLYNES: We are not in this matter in any way prejudicing the position of Irish cattle supplies, because we are treating both countries alike. It is an action which ought to receive no opposition from the Irish Benches, because, as my right hon. Friend knows, I have discussed this matter at length with representatives from Ireland and an arrangement, which I concluded was satisfactory, was come to.
      Mr. SHEEHY: Are you not wasting the meat that the cattle have on them now?
      Mr. CLYNES: I must say that in the arrangements which we have made I am satisfied that there will be a greater saving.
      Mr. DIXON: Is not the trouble due to the fact that after the disastrous experience you had last year yon have done nothing to increase the feeding-stuffs, and this stock is being wasted?
      Mr. CLYNES: I would reply that it is simply due to the War.

      GABBARI (ALEXANDRIA) MILITARY PRISON.
      Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that prisoners in Gabbari military prison, Alexandria, Egypt, have been warned that they must not quote scripture in writing their letters and that friends who write to them must not make Biblical quotations; and whether there is a general rule precluding such quotations?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I have no information as to the statements contained in my hon. Friend's question, but will have inquiry made of the military authorities in Egypt and acquaint my hon. Friend of the result in due course.
      Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Private C. W. Kapeller, No. 477205, Royal Army Medical Corps, now in Gabbari prison, Alexandria, Egypt, enlisted in September, 1914, as a non-combatant, went
      2098
      through the Gallipoli campaign as a stretcher bearer, later was fourteen months a stretcher bearer in Egypt, and did duty at the 65th casualty clearing station in Palestine; is he aware that on 23rd February, 1918, this man was sent to Cairo against his will for Infantry training, and was there threatened with trial and the death penalty for mutiny; why was the man after two years and nine months in the firing line court-martialled and imprisoned; whether he is aware that a promise had been made to his parent that Private Kapeller should be sent home; and why has that promise not been carried out?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I am making inquiry into this case, and I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

    ROYAL AIR FORCE.

      BLANDFORD CAMP.
      Mr. W. ANDERSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he can give the percentage of deaths among young soldiers at Blandford Camp; whether they are still living under canvas and rendered liable to cold and pneumonia; whether he is aware that a number of soldiers have died in the camp from these causes; and what action is being taken?
      Sir GEORGE GREENWOODasked the Under-Secretary of State to the Air Ministry whether his attention has been called to the serious state of things existing at the Royal Air Force camp at Bland-ford; whether he is aware that there are, and have been for many months, between 4,000 and 5,000 men at that camp under canvas; that all recruits, irrespective of age or ailment, are sent at once into tents; that ten men sleep in each tent on hard boards; that there are no drying-rooms; that the blankets frequently get wet through and the men have to sleep in them; that a man once wet through has to let his clothes dry on him; that among these men are many men over 40, some of them of the professional class, such as lawyers, university professors, and retired merchants, who have to sleep with rough companions who are frequently verminous; that in one section of the camp are some 2,000 men, all more or less invalids, many suffering from acute rheumatism, kidney or heart disease, diabetes, acute indigestion, and other complaints;

      2099
      that the total death-rate has of late been from 50 to 60 per week; and that, of these deaths, a large percentage has been due to pneumonia following cold and exposure and to other causes not due to influenza; whether he will cause an inquiry to be held immediately into the management of this camp and at once take steps with the view of saving human life and suffering and wasteful expenditure; and will he say upon whom the responsibility rests for the existing state of things there?
      Major BAIRD: As stated in answer to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Watford on 30th October, the conditions at Blandford Camp have been engaging the close attention of the Air Council. Personal inspections have been made by Sir Humphrey Rolleston, a member of the Medical Administrative Committee, by the Inspector of Hospitals, and by the Medical Administrator. Additional doctors and nurses have been sent there, the hospital accommodation has been materially extended, and the camp has been kept well supplied with all necessary medical stores and equipment.
      The total number of men who now are, or have been, stationed at Blandford from 21st September to 2nd November, 1918, is 32,593. The total number of deaths has been seventy-eight. Of these, seventy-seven were due to influenza or pneumonia consequent on influenza. The percentage of deaths is, therefore, 24 per cent., and the weekly average 13.5. The average daily number of men under canvas for this period has been 6,611. The number has been steadily reduced, and it is hoped that all the men will be in buildings by to-night. From now on no recruits will be put under canvas.
      The regulation number of men sleeping in a tent is ten, and in no case have there been more than ten in a tent at Blandford; the usual number is eight. Boards are supplied to all men sleeping in tents. There are ten drying rooms, one for each section of the camp. In huts each man has four blankets; men under canvas have six. Each man has two sets of clothing. If one set gets wet through, he can change into dry clothing and have his wet ones dried in the drying rooms.
      It is clearly impossible to give preferential treatment to recruits who may have previously belonged to the professional classes. No discrimination is made in this respect.
      2100
      The number of men awaiting invaliding boards, suffering from the diseases mentioned in the question by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough, is 1,500. These men are now all in huts.

      AERODROME, WEYHILL.
      Mr. PETOasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that at the aerodrome at Wey-hill, near Andover, a two-foot gauge line has been constructed for a distance of about 300 yards on level ground from the sidings constructed at the railway; whether this involves delay of railway goods trucks and the unloading of goods for the aerodrome to the small two-foot gauge stock; if he can explain the reason why a full gauge line should not have been laid for this short distance; and whether it is proposed to now rectify this defect?
      Major BAIRD: A temporary two-foot gauge track, about 600 yards long, has been laid. I am informed that no delay of railway trucks is involved. Apart from the difficulty of procuring standard track, it was not considered necessary to extend, as from whatever point the line might have finished, it would still have been necessary to tranship into two-foot gauge wagons, so that the building materials brought by rail could be distributed on to the site of the buildings under construction. The siding will not be required for the aerodrome after the construction work, which is approaching completion, is finished.

      GALLIPOLI (BRITISH TROOPS).
      Mr. SHAWasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether any decision has yet been arrived at with reference to conferring upon the British troops who fought in Gallipoli the decoration already given to Dominion troops for that campaign?
      Colonel L. WILSONasked the Prime Minister whether any replies have been received from the Colonial Governments with reference to the proposals of the Government as to the issue of a decoration for the operations in Gallipoli; and whether he is in a position to announce the decision of the Government on this question?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I regret I cannot at present add anything to the answers

      2101
      given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to questions on the subject on the 17th and 21st October. Replies have not yet been received from all the Governments of the self-governing Dominions to whom the matter was referred.
      Mr. SHAW: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the very strong feeling that exists in this matter in Scotland, and that many gallant Scotsmen played a distinguished part in this part of the War, and will he try to do something to expedite the matter?
      General McCALMONT: Can the right hon. Gentleman promise an answer next week in view of the fact that the Leader of the House promised an answer within a few days?
      Colonel Sir C. SEELY: Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware of the very strong feeling in many parts of England as well as in Scotland, in the districts from where these men come who fought, and will he arrange for this to come under the notice of the Army Council?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I can assure the House that I am very well aware of the feeling, and I will bring the matter to the notice of the Army Council.
      Colonel WILSONasked the Prime Minister whether any steps have been taken, or will be taken, for members of the Graves Commission to visit Gallipoli as soon as possible, so that the graves of British and Colonial officers and men who lost their lives during the operations in that Peninsula may be properly cared for?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: As soon as the signing of an Armistice with the Turkish military authorities was announced, instructions were cabled to the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Salonika, to form a special Graves Registration Unit for dispatch to the Gallipoli Peninsula at the earliest possible moment. A reply has been received that this Unit will form part of the first military contingent landing there, and will at once proceed to register, mark, and put in order all graves which are identifiable, with the assistance of the records of burial which have been collected and preserved by the Graves Registration Unit, Egypt. Instructions were at the same time sent to the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Egypt, to detail officers of the
      2102
      Australian and New Zealand Forces to be included in the Staff of the Graves Registration Unit going to Gallipoli.

      TEMPORARY CLERKS, DUBLIN (WAR BONUS).
      Mr. BYRNEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War when the temporary clerks in the Army pay offices, Island Bridge, and the Record Office, Dublin, will be paid the war bonus of 1st July last; and if he will take steps to speed up the payment?
      Mr. FORSTER: There has been no award of bonus which is directly applicable to these clerks, but the question of the grant to them of a further bonus is under consideration, and every effort is being made to expedite a settlement.

      CADET SCHOOLS.
      Sir J. D. REESasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether existing cadet schools, battalions, and corps will be abolished when the War ends or within any already ascertained period; if so, within what period after the War; and whether information on this subject will be made public as soon as possible, in view of the occupation of private buildings for housing such schools, battalions, and corps, and in view of the future destination and disposal of the cadets concerned?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I am afraid it is not possible to say at present when officer cadet schools will be abolished, as it must depend on the requirements of the Army. The whole matter is, however, being closely watched, and notice of the abolition of the schools will be given as early as possible both to the cadets and the owners of private buildings concerned.
      Sir J. D. REES: Has the right hon. Gentleman any notion when he will be able to make a statement?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: As soon as I possibly can.

      SOLDIERS' LEAVE.
      Sir J. D. REESasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that, notwithstanding the

      2103
      endeavours made by the commanders-in-chief of the various expeditionary forces to ensure that all men are considered in turn for a period of leave, cases have occurred in the Notts and Derby Regiment in which men have served for upwards of two and even three years without leave; and will he inquire into such cases?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: From information which reaches me, I am sure that all concerned endeavour, as far as is practicable, to consider the claims of all men in turn. I regret that there are cases where men have been overseas for long periods without leave, but this is due, as I have frequently explained, to circumstances of the military situation which it is impossible to control.

      BRITISH ARMY, SALONIKA (REPORT).
      Colonel HAMERSLEYasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether any dispatch or Report of the operations of the British Army in Salonika prior to the surrender of the Bulgarian forces has been received by the Government; and, if so, when such Report will be published?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: We have not yet got a Report.
      Colonel HAMERSLEY: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information as to when he is likely to get it?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I think within the next week or two; but whenever we do get it there will be no avoidable delay in publishing it.

      HOSPITALS (CONSUMPTION OF LIQUORS).
      Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will supply the House with the particulars, which have already been circulated among the officers in command of military, war, Territorial, and general hospitals and hospitals established by the War Office in Poor Law institutions in the London district, giving the consumption of malt liquors and of wines and spirits by officers and other ranks in the above-named hospitals during the period 26th January, 1918, to 22nd February, 1918, and during
      2104
      the period 23rd February, 1918, to 29th March, 1918, taken out on the basis of 100 patients per day?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I find on further inquiry that these figures are available, and I shall be pleased to circulate the information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
      The following is the information circulated:

      OFFICERS.

      Hospitals.

      23 Feb., 1918, to 29 March, 1918.

      26 Jan., 1918, to 22 Feb., 1918.

      Malt Liquors.

      Wines and Spirits.

      Malt Liquors.

      Wines and Spirits.

      Pts.

      Ozs.

      Pts.

      Ozs.

      1/London General Hospital

      11

      92

      4

      59

      2/London General Hospital

      11

      21

      11

      24

      3/London General Hospital

      —

      3

      —

      3

      4/London General Hospital

      4

      7

      6

      6

      Queen Alexandra's, Mill-bank

      4

      32

      2

      1

      Queen Alexandra's Imperial Military Nursing Service

      1

      18

      1

      1

      Grove Military

      —

      4

      —

      —

      Prince of Wales, Marylebone

      17

      21

      12

      50

      Shepherd's Bush, Orthopædic

      32

      97

      21

      93

      Endell Street

      —

      —

      —

      —

      Hampstead

      8

      34

      8

      13

      OTHER RANKS.

      1/London General Hospital

      9

      13

      6

      10

      2/London General Hospital

      2

      11

      2

      12

      3London General Hospital

      —

      1

      —

      —

      4/London General Hospital

      3

      4

      3

      3

      Bethnal Green

      —

      1

      —

      2

      Caterham

      —

      —

      —

      —

      Census and Barracks

      2

      10

      —

      4

      City of London Military

      1

      1

      —

      —

      Endell Street

      4

      10

      4

      6

      Fulham Military

      No return

      Grove

      3

      7

      8

      6

      Grove Road

      No return

      Hampstead

      No return

      King George

      4

      19

      4

      9

      Mile End

      1

      3

      —

      2

      Rochester Row

      —

      —

      —

      —

      Southwark

      1

      5

      —

      2

      Shepherd's Bush

      2

      2

      2

      3

      Tooting Military

      1

      2

      2

      —

      Tooting, Springfield

      —

      —

      —

      —

      1st Australian Auxiliary

      No return

      New End Military

      1

      4

      1

      5

      Lewisham Military

      —

      —

      —

      —

      Bermondsey Military

      No return

      Richmond Military

      3

      11

      2

      8

      Holborn Military

      1

      3

      1

      4

      Albany Military

      1

      2

      No ret'n

    ALIENS.

      NATURALISATION.
      Mr. RUPERT GWYNNEasked the Prime Minister how many cases have been dealt with up to date by Mr. Justice Atkin's Committee which is considering the certificates of naturalisation granted to aliens; and how many naturalised aliens in the country still remain to be dealt with by this Committee?
      The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir George Cave): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. I would refer the hon. Member to the answers which I gave to the hon. Member for the Brentford Division on the 31st of October. The number of cases under Section 3—i.e., post-war naturalisation—remaining to be dealt with is about sixty. I cannot give figures as to the cases under the other Section.

      INTERNMENT OR REPATRIATION.
      Mr. GWYNNEasked the Prime Minister how many cases of internment or repatriation of enemy aliens have been dealt with up to the present time by Mr. Justice Sankey's Committee; and how many are still on the list waiting for consideration?
      Sir G. CAVE: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. The Committee are proceeding rapidly with their work, and the numbers vary from day to day. I cannot at the moment add anything to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for the Brentford Division on Thursday last.

      SOLDIERS' PAY AND BOUNTIES.
      Colonel ASHLEYasked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to state what further increase it is proposed to make to the pay of sailors, soldiers, and airmen, in view of the pay given to members of the Dominion and Colonial Forces?
      Colonel ASHLEYasked the Prime Minister whether he can now announce if it is the intention of the Government to grant, on demobilisation, a war bounty to all who have served in the War, on similar lines to those issued on the conclusion of campaigns in the past; and, if so, what will be the amount?
      Mr. FORSTER: I hope an announcement on this question may be made very shortly.

      MINISTER OF INFORMATION.
      Mr. COTTONasked the Prime Minister whether he proposes to appoint a successor to Lord Beaverbrook as Minister of Information, or whether, in view of recent developments, it is intended to wind up the Department?
      The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): It is not proposed at present to make any appointment to the Ministry of Information.

      LEASEHOLDERS.
      Mr. ROWLANDSasked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill to give relief to leaseholders; and when will it be introduced?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the last part, it will not be possible to introduce such a Bill this Session.
      Mr. HOGGE: Next one!

      HOUSING (GOVERNMENT POLICY).
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUELasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will arrange for a discussion on an early day on the housing policy of the Government?
      Mr. L. SCOTTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will arrange for a discussion on an early day on the housing policy of the Government?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think that it is possible to give a day for this discussion during the present Session.

      OLD AGE PENSIONS.
      Mr. SOMERVELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps, by increasing the maximum income limits for old age pensions, more nearly to equalise the position of new applicants

      2107
      for pensions with that of existing pensioners, the former being now disqualified by an income which the latter are entitled to earn and receive?
      Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): I am unable to add to the previous replies that have been given on this subject, both by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and myself.
      Mr. HARRIS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the great discouragement to thrift by the imposition of these limits?

    GENERAL ELECTION.

      PARLIAMENTARY REGISTERS.
      Mr. GULLANDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can now say that a reduction will be made in the price of the electoral registers?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I am sorry, but that is a question for the Local Government Board.
      Mr. GULLAND: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the recent Debate the late President of the Local Government Board said he would consult the Treasury and give an early answer: this has really arisen from that?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I did not know that, but if the right hon. Gentleman will put the question to me by private notice I will give him an answer. I am sorry for the mistake.
      Mr. LOUGH: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in some constituencies the registers are not ready—that is the case in my own Constituency?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: No; I was not aware of the fact—
      Mr. LOUGH: Why not?
      Mr. BONAR LAW:—still less that there had been such a bad exception made in the constituency of my right hon. Friend.
      Mr. JOYCE: Will the right hon. Gentleman also give some answer to question 53, standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Cork County, West (Mr. O'Leary)?

      POSTERS.
      Mr. HARRISasked the President of the Board of Trade whether paper has been or will be supplied to political organisations for posters for the General Election; and if consideration will be given to the prohibition of the display of posters during the next General Election?
      Mr. WARDLE: No paper has been, or will be, supplied through the Paper Controller's Department to political organisations for posters for the General Election. The question of prohibiting election posters altogether has been considered. It has, however, been decided to leave to the decision of candidates and their agents the use to which the paper supplied to them through the Department is put.
      Mr. HARRIS: Am I to understand that the only paper that can be used for posters is the paper supplied to individual candidates?
      Mr. WARDLE: I should like notice of that question. It is rather difficult.

      PETROL ALLOWANCE.
      Mr. O'LEARYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether a Parliamentary candidate who is his own election agent will be entitled to obtain, in addition to the petrol allotted to him as candidate, the quantity of petrol which would be allotted to his agent as such if the agent was another person?
      Mr. WARDLE: The answer is in the negative.

      PARLIAMENTARY REGISTER.
      Mr. MACMASTERasked the President of the Local Government Board if he will state what are the numbers of registered male and female voters in England, Ireland, and Scotland, respectively; and the numbers of military voters and voters on the absent voters' list?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Walsh): I would refer the hon. and learned Member to the reply given to his question on the 17th October. The materials for the Return there mentioned are not yet fully completed; but on an estimate derived from the returns received in respect of upwards of 70 per cent. of England and Wales, the number of male electors for those countries may be expected to be in round figures ten

      2109
      millions, and of female electors seven millions, and of naval and military voters three and a half millions. The question as to the figures for Scotland and Ireland should be addressed to the Scottish and Irish Offices.
      Sir W. DICKINSON: When will the hon. Gentleman be in possession of information that will give him the full electorate over the whole country?
      Mr. WALSH: That is rather difficult to say, because, of course, the absent voters' lists will be in process of compilation up to the day of nomination, but as far as the figures are available, they are already given.
      Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Does the hon. Gentleman propose to issue a Parliamentary Paper showing the number of electors for each constituency on the printed roll?
      Mr. WALSH: That matter will be submitted to my chief.
      Mr. KING: Has not a Return already been moved for in this House of these figures, and will it be provided?
      Mr. WALSH: That does not arise on this question.

      ABSENT VOTERS.
      Sir WILLOUGHBY DICKINSONasked the President of the Local Government Board by what date after the Royal Declaration dissolving Parliament candidates will have to post their election addresses to naval and military voters in order to ensure their delivery to absent voters before they receive their ballot-papers; whether he will guarantee that at least ten days before that date candidates will have access to corrected addresses supplied to returning officers by the record offices; and what arrangements will be made by returning officers to render possible the copying of the corrected lists by candidates or their agents in sufficient time for them to be of service?
      Mr. WALSH: On the first part of the question I would refer my right hon. Friend to the Regulations issued by the Postmaster-General. In regard to the second part, he will see that the giving of guarantees is impossible, but the arrangements which have been made contemplate that as soon as notice of a General Election is given—which will be eight days before the issue of the Royal Proclamation—the record offices will supply as rapidly as
      2110
      possible to the returning officer the latest particulars which they possess as to the addresses of the absent voters entered in their records. These, it is hoped, will reach the returning officers from two to four days from the date when notice is given, and returning officers are being warned to do their utmost to make the particulars available for the agents of the candidates.
      Mr. HARRIS: Is the hon Gentleman aware that the returning officers are only to be supplied with two lists? How will it be possible for the candidates' agents or representatives, to make copies of those lists in the short time available?
      Mr. WALSH: There is only a very short time indeed available under the whole of the regulations and the law itself for this purpose, and we are using it to the very best of our ability.
      Mr. HARRIS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this House was determined that soldiers should have a chance of recording their votes and of getting the election addresses?
      Mr. WALSH: We are trying to do that to the best of our ability, and no one can do more.
      Mr. GULLAND: Is there any chance of any absent voters having a vote at all?
      Mr. WALSH: Undoubtedly. I do not think that question ought to have been put.
      Mr. ROWLANDS: Is it not possible to state some day up to which the Postmaster-General can receive the addresses with some chance of them being delivered to the absent voter; otherwise there is no security whatever that the absent voter will get the addresses of the candidates?
      Sir W. DICKINSON: Cannot the Local Government Board guarantee that the candidates will have access to the corrected addresses a known number of days before the last day on which the Postmaster-General will guarantee that these letters will reach our naval and military voters?
      Mr. WALSH: Really, I think that hon. Members ought to see that the giving of guarantees is physically impossible, but the whole of the arrangements that are being made are with the special object of enabling absent voters to be placed upon

      2111
      the absent voters' list right up to the very day of nomination to the candidates getting their addresses to them.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Have the Local Government Board placed the conditions of the election before the War Cabinet?
      Mr. WALSH: That is the case. There have been communications between the Local Government Board, the Postmaster-General and the War Cabinet, with a view of making the whole matter as effective as possible.
      Mr. ROWLANDS: Is it not possible for the Postmaster-General to be supplied with early information by his colleagues so that he may issue some information to the candidates and their agents as to the time that they can post the addresses?
      Mr. WALSH: I can only say that all the Departments concerned are working together with the one special object of rendering the absent voter a really effective vote in the election.
      Mr. COTTON (by Private Notice)asked the President of the Local Government Hoard whether it is the case that instructions have been given to returning officers to prepare and print ballot papers forthwith for the purpose of early dispatch to absent voters on the naval and military lists; and, if so, what are the arrangements he has made for obtaining a complete and accurate list of the candidates in each constituency before the actual day of nomination?
      Mr. WALSH: The returning officers have been warned to make all practical arrangements in advance, so that ballot papers may be dispatched to absent voters as soon as possible after the nominations have taken place and the seat is found to be contested, but no instructions have been issued that the printing is to be done forthwith.

      UNIVERSITY CONSTITUENCIES.
      Sir P. MAGNUSasked the President of the Local Government Board whether it is intended that the polling at the elections for university constituencies, which may be continued for a week, shall take place before or after the day to be fixed for the polling at other constituencies.
      Mr. WALSH: Under the Fifth Schedule to the Representation of the People Act,
      2112
      1918, the intervals between the receipt of the writ for a university constituency and the nomination, and between the nomination and the poll, are within certain limits to be determined by the returning officer. It will thus depend on the returning officer whether the poll will take place before or after the day for polling in other constituencies.

      MILITARY CAMP, BLANDFORD.
      Mr. PETOasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether a light railway is going to be constructed from Blandford Station to the military camp on the downs near Blandford; and whether, in the course of the War, ten times the cost of such a railway has been spent in road haulage and road repairs?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: This camp is now under the control of the Air Ministry who, I understand, have put in hand the construction of a railway of standard gauge. I regret I have no information as to the amount expended on road haulage, but the expenditure on the repair and maintenance of the approach roads from Blandford Station during the period that the camp was under War Office control amounted to £1,324. Since the Air Ministry took over the camp I understand that further expenditure has been incurred owing to the damage to the roads by the continuous heavy construction traffic. A new road is also being constructed to reduce the distance from the station to the camp by about 3 miles, and to relieve the Blandford-Salisbury road of the heavy traffic which has recently congested it.

      AGRICULTURE (EMPLOYMENT REPORT).
      Major PEELasked the President of the Board of Agriculture when he will issue the Report on employment in agriculture prepared under the direction of Mr. Geoffrey Drage?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Richard Winfrey): The general Report by Mr. Drage on wages and conditions of employment in agriculture is now in the press, and will be issued as soon as possible.

      AGRICULTURAL WORKERS (MINIMUM WAGE).
      Mr. HAYDN JONESasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the fact that the reduction of the qualifying age for the minimum wage payable to agricultural workers to eighteen has resulted in the non-employment of youths of that age; and whether, in view of the importance of retaining such workers on the land, any action is to be taken in the matter?
      Sir R. WINFREY: I am not sure that I understand the hon. Member's question correctly, but I have certainly not heard that any alteration in the scale of ages for the minimum wage has resulted in the non-employment of men usually employed. If he will be so good as to send me fuller particulars of the matter, I will gladly have them investigated.
      Mr. JONES: I will send the hon. Gentleman complete information.

      SHERIFFS-PRINCIPAL.
      Mr. WATTasked the Secretary for Scotland whether the sheriff-principal of Aberdeen, Kincardine and Banff counties had, during the year 1916, twenty-four cases appealed to him, of which the decisions of sixteen were simply affirmations of his substitute, and during the year 1915 sixteen cases appealed, of which the decisions of twelve were affirmations of the Court below; whether the salary of the sheriff-principal is £1,000 a year, with permission to continue his private practice as before his appointment; and, if so, will he say whether his Department has considered the advisability of further amalgamating sheriffships in war time?
      The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. On the general question I have nothing to add to my recent replies.

      PRISON TREATMENT (JOHN MACLEAN).
      Mr. KINGasked whether John Maclean is still in Peterhead prison; how many times he has been forcibly fed since July last; whether his bodily health
      2114
      and nervous condition are sound; and whether he is capable of being nominated as a Parliamentary candidate in the constituency where he is the adopted Labour representative?
      Mr. MUNRO: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Maclean has been artificially fed twice a day since July last, but no application of force has been required on any occasion. In reply to the third part of the question, Maclean's condition is reported to be satisfactory. His weight has not diminished since artificial feeding commenced, and I am advised that under existing conditions there is no reason to anticipate serious consequences to Maclean's health. As regards the fourth part, I have no authority to express an opinion.
      Mr. KING: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's answer and the fact that the question about his nervous condition was evaded, has the right hon. Gentleman any intention of allowing this man, who is regarded in Scotland as a sort of martyr, to be released?
      Mr. MUNRO: I cannot accept the last part of my hon. Friend's question as being correct, and I see no reason, as at present advised, why he should be released.
      Mr. KING: Does he really mean that there are not thousands of men in Scotland who regard this man as a martyr?
      Mr. MUNRO: I am not aware of it.
      Mr. KING: I am.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Would the right hon. Gentleman allow the gentleman representing him at his election see him in prison?
      Mr. MUNRO: I have considered that question very carefully, and I do not see my way to comply with it.

      TRAINED NURSES (POLMONT INSTITUTIONS).
      Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he will give the names of the prisons and Polmont institutions in which trained nurses are employed, the number of such nurses, and the training and qualifications possessed by each; whether such nurses wear any distinctive uniform; what other duties, if any, besides nursing they

      2115
      perform; and what provision is made for sick prisoners in institutions in which no trained nurses are employed.
      Mr. MUNRO: Trained nurses, in the professional sense, are not employed on the Scottish prison staff, but in the mainland prisons and institutions there are male and female officers trained and certified after examination to be qualified for simple nursing. Medical officers are authorised to engage trained nurses from outside when required; and there is power to remove serious cases to hospital.

      COAL SUPPLIES (ANTHRACITE).
      Mr. FIELDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether a quantity of anthracite coal is available in Wales and Ireland; if so, whether he will make inquiries with regard to its utilisation by providing greater facility of transit; whether he can state when it is likely that the lines connecting certain coal mines in Ireland will be finished; and whether improved transport can be arranged in Ireland for timber and turf to the populated centres?
      Mr. WARDLE: Anthracite coal is available in the South Wales district; and if by "greater facility of transit" shipping tonnage is referred to, this is a matter for the Shipping Controller, as no difficulty will ensue in the working of the fuel from the colliery to the port. There is no surplus of anthracite coal available from Irish mines, as the whole output is being distributed upon production. The question of improved transit on railways in Ireland for timber and turf is one affecting the Irish Railway Executive Committee, and I am communicating with them thereon. The construction of a new railway from the Castlecomer Collieries to join up with the Great Southern and Western line near Kilkenny is being pushed on. The new railway to the Wolfhill Collieries is completed, and the construction of the two new sidings at Gracefield and Modubeagh Pits is being expedited. The Arigna Valley Extension Railway is also under construction.
      Mr. KILBRIDE: Is the hon. Member aware that Messrs. Guinness, in Dublin, have every railway facility for bringing their supplies into Dublin, and will the same railway facilities be given to any
      2116
      organisation in Dublin now employed in trying to supply the poor with fuel?
      Mr. WARDLE: That is quite a different question, and if the hon. Member will give me notice I will inquire into it.

    IRELAND.

      RAILWAY CLERKS (PAY).
      Mr. BYRNEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state what steps have been taken to remedy the grievance of Irish railway clerks, who are denied payment of war allowance on overtime from 1st September, 1917, to 30th April, 1918; whether instructions were issued by the Board of Trade Department to the Irish Railway Executive Committee authorising payment of overtime as from 1st September, 1917, at the combined rate, i.e., salary plus war allowance, and why were such instructions not given effect to; if he is aware that the overtime performed by the clerks on Irish railways between the dates given was compulsory, inasmuch as that it was necessitated by the compilation of Government statistics of urgent importance and could only be done by clerks conversant with such duties; and if he will now take steps to have these arrears paid?
      Mr. WARDLE: The war bonus granted to members of the clerical staff on the Irish railways has not, I understand, been converted into a war wage, and the Irish Railway Executive Committee see no grounds for taking this course. The overtime worked by Irish railway clerks is, the Committee have stated, relatively inconsiderable, and such overtime as has been worked has been undertaken voluntarily at the rates of pay then current, no such depletion of staff having taken place as to render overtime practically compulsory.
      Mr. BYRNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the overtime worked in these cases is compulsory?
      Mr. WARDLE: I am not aware of that.

      SUPPLIES (TRANSPORT DELAYS).
      Mr. FIELDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Dublin Port and Docks Board complain of the methods recently adopted whereby the usual supplies of tobacco, tea, sugar, and other commodities are brought across the Channel, contrary to former

      2117
      practice, thus entailing avoidable delay, expense, and a lesser quantity of goods delivered for city and country distribution; and whether he will cause inquiries to be made with a view to provide a remedy?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING (Sir Leo Chiozza Money): I have received particulars of this complaint and have made inquiries. It is, I think, undoubtedly the case that, owing to convoy arrangements and to some extent to a change in the character of the traffic, certain overseas cargoes discharged direct in Ireland have decreased. I fear, however, that this is inevitable under present conditions. For example, in the case of sugar not only are supplies restricted, but for a long time past only unrefined sugar has been available, and this has had to be brought to the United Kingdom to be refined. I can, however, assure my hon. Friend that everything possible will be done to restore the trade to normal conditions at the earliest moment.
      Mr. BYRNE: Will the hon. Gentleman give an interview to the Dublin Members on this point?
      Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: Certainly; with very great pleasure.

      COAL SUPPLIES.
      Mr. BUTLER LLOYDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Shrewsbury Gas Light Company has less than a week's supply of coal in hand and are losing stock; if he is aware that many Government offices, barracks, hospitals, railways, and public institutions depend on this company for light and heat; if he is aware that a considerable part of the coal allocated to them came from North Staffordshire from the Minnie Pit which has been put out of action by an explosion months ago, and has not resumed work; if he is aware that this company has been refused coal from Ruabon, twenty-seven miles away, and are obliged to fetch it from North-East Durham, 200 miles away; if he will take immediate steps to ensure that this company has at least one month's supply, namely, 2,200 tons, in stock, considering the importance of the district served; and, in the interest of transport, if he will arrange that coal be supplied from some of the many coalfields near to Shrewsbury?
      Mr. WARDLE: The Shrewsbury Gas Company's supplies have been receiving special attention for some weeks past, and their stock has recently been increased by 485 tons. Arrangements have been made to maintain supplies at the present level in order to meet as far as possible current consumption without reducing the stock. The Minnie Pit explosion cut off coal from several undertakings, and as all coal raised at the collieries in the Ruabon district is consumed at places in North Wales, it became necessary to obtain supplies from Durham, the nearest point having available gas coal.

    MUNITIONS.

      POST-WAR UNEMPLOYMENT.
      Colonel ASHLEYasked the Minister of Reconstruction whether in view of the fact that numbers of men and women now employed in munition factories will be thrown out of work on the declaration of peace, he is in a position to state the arrangements which have been made by his Department to deal with the problem thereby involved?
      The MINISTER of RECONSTRUCTION (Dr. Addison): The War Cabinet has approved certain proposals for dealing with the situation which may arise on the cessation of munitions work. I am not in a position to make an announcement today, but I will do so in a general statement which, if it is convenient to the House and to Mr. Speaker, I hope to make on the Vote of Credit on Tuesday next.

      DEMOBILISATION.
      Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Minister of Reconstruction whether demobilisation is to be arranged by the release of men in proportion to the need for them in industry; whether this is to be done by trades; if so, whether the order of such trades has been decided in whole or in part; and whether he will circulate the list in the order proposed so far as it has been decided?
      Dr. ADDISON: It is not possible to state the principles adopted in regard to the demobilisation of the forces in an answer to a question. In general, demobilisation will be primarily governed by industrial needs and opportunities of

      2119
      employment. As to the order of priority of release by industry, the matter is in the hands of the Minister of Labour.
      Mr. CHANCELLOR: Cannot we have that in advance, because very much depends on our knowing the order?
      Dr. ADDISON: It will be published at the earliest possible moment.
      Mr. G. TERRELL: Is it intended that the munition workers should have priority over the men serving in the Army?
      Dr. ADDISON: I cannot answer a general question like that. It will depend on what the man is in the Army, or what his employment is.

      ELECTRICITY SUPPLY, AYRSHIRE.
      Mr. SHAWasked the Minister of Munitions whether he is aware that a private house in the neighbourhood of Crosshouse, Ayrshire, has recently been fitted with an electric installation; whether the Crosshouse Co-operative Association has applied for an electric installation for the purpose of their bakery; whether the supply of electric current is readily available; why a licence for the necessary material has been refused; and whether, in view of all the circumstances, the matter will be reconsidered at an early date?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY OF MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): Permission for an electric installation at the Crosshouse Co-operative Bakery was refused on the ground that the association already possessed a sufficient source of light and power, the necessary calcium carbide and petrol for which had been released to them by the Ministry and the Board of Trade. I have no information to the effect set out in the first part of the question, but if my hon. Friend will give me particulars of the case he has in mind I will at once make inquiries.

      SALT (EXPORT).
      Mr. BRUNNER (by Private Notice): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether a vessel, the name of which I have given to the right hon. Gentleman, has been thirteen days in dock waiting for a cargo of salt already prepared; whether
      2120
      this salt is intended for curing fish at a French port; whether he has any information that fish has been wasted in consequence; whether the shippers have been notified by the War Trade Department that they may have to wait another three weeks?
      Mr. WARDLE: Owing to the very short notice I have received of this question, I am not prepared to say whether the facts are as stated in the question. Having regard, however, to the general position as to supplies of salt, we are not able to spare any at present for exportation to destinations outside the Empire.
      Mr. BRUNNER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when I previously asked about this matter it was said that the Colonies were to come first, and that licences have been refused to the Colonies?
      Mr. WARDLE: I have no knowledge of licences having been refused to the Colonies. I said that the Empire was to come first. If the hon. Gentleman has any instances of any refusal to the Colonies, I wish he would send them to me.

SEPARATION ALLOWANCES.

  STATEMENT BY MR. BARNES.
  Mr. BARNES (War Cabinet): With the leave of the House, I desire to make a brief statement arising out of the Debate last week on separation allowances. It will be remembered that we were pressed to bring in the revised scale at an earner date than had been contemplated, and I promised that the matter would be submitted to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Pay Committee. This has been done, and, as was foreshadowed last week, the Chancellor of the Exchequer took a sympathetic view of the matter, as did the Pay Committee at a meeting subsequently held. The Departments concerned now agree to make the payments retrospective as from 1st November. The first payment will be made in a lump sum about the 15th December, and subsequent payments will be made thereafter in two lump sums up to March, when the scale will be paid week by week. But the effect, on the whole, will be that the increased payments are made as from 1st November. It has also been decided that the sole condition of the receipt by the childless wife of the supplementary sum of 6s. 6d. will be that she is not earning waged.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: May I ask whether they also considered the case, which was put and supported generally in the House, of the difference which arises between the amount paid to the widow with three children and the wife with three children, which they promised would receive attention?
  Mr. BARNES: That matter is still under consideration, but it is a matter primarily for the Ministry of Pensions, and no doubt will be dealt with sympathetically.
  Mr. PENNEFATHER: Arising out of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that the sole condition on which this extra 6s. 6d. will be given is to be that the childless wife is not earning wages, may I ask whether that means that if a childless wife is earning 2s. 6d. or 5s. or some small sum she is thereby to be deprived of the 6s. 6d.?
  Mr. BARNES: Of course, there are two or three other matters still left to the discretion of the pension committees. I have sufficient faith in the pension committees to believe that such eases will be considered favourably and the women given the 6s. 6d.
  Mr. HOGGE: May I ask my right hon. Friend what is the reply to that part of my question to which he is replying, in which I asked him whether he is able to say what war bonus it is proposed to give on the war pensions? The Chancellor of the Exchequer said a statement would be made about this, but no statement has been made.
  Mr. BARNES: I do not know that I can say much more than I have said in reply to the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Runciman). The matter is under the consideration of the Treasury, having been put to them by the Ministry of Pensions some time ago. I have every reason to believe that it is being favourably considered, and that a declaration will be made very shortly.
  Mr. HOGGE: I will raise this matter on the Vote of Credit on Monday.
  Mr. ROWLANDS: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that instructions are sent to the local war pension committees clearly indicating that they are not to
  2122
  debar childless wives from the 6s. 6d. if some small sum is coming in which is not a regular stated wage?
  Mr. BARNES: I am quite sure explicit instructions, or advice rather, will be sent to every pension committee. It has already been done, but, of course, a change will be made in consequence of this alteration.

PRISONERS OF WAR.

  STATEMENT BY MR. MACPHERSON.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I hope that I may be allowed to make a personal explanation which I intended to make yesterday. In the course of the Debate on Prisoners of War last week, while my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Christ-church (Brigadier-General Croft) was speaking, I appeared, according to the OFFICIAL REPORT to have "nodded my head." I did this after my hon. and gallant Friend had made this statement—a statement which was published by my hon. and gallant Friend in a bowdlerised form in yesterday's "Morning Post." This was the statement he made:
  "The Government, as the right hon. Gentleman has told us—"
  he was referring to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary—
  "has had a great mass of evidence before it. We have heard a few cases this evening, but they are only a few cases out of thousands, and the Government has had this evidence all the time; but not only have they kept the truth from the people, but I believe I am right in saying that the War Office, or some other authority, has compelled escapers and exchanged prisoners to promise that they will not tell the truth about this question on the platform or in the newspapers. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but I have been told that by at least a score.
  Sir E. Carson: Is it true or not?
  Mr. Macpherson: I am informed it is not true. The Wittemberg Report—"
  For example, I believe I added,
  "was published two years ago."
  4.0 P.M.
  Now, there are two grave charges—(1) that the Government had abundant evidence of cruelty, which they deliberately hid from the people, and (2) that the War Office had compelled escaped and exchanged prisoners of war to promise that they would not tell the truth about this question, on the platform or in the

  2123
  newspapers. What are the facts? The collection of evidence is not under my Department. It is obviously important that this evidence should be taken from prisoners of war and others and carefully sifted. This has been done by a Government Committee under Mr. Justice Younger. When that Committee is thoroughly satisfied of the truth of the evidence, of which there has been a great mass, the evidence is published in a White Paper. This Committee has been unremitting in its careful and laborious work and the House knows that a number of these documents, with accurate and responsible charges of cruelty against the German Government have been published. No case mentioned in last week's Debate was more cruel than some of the cases which have been thus published. But the Press itself has been unrestricted in practice in its comments and in its letters and in its descriptions of the life of prisoners of war. So much for that charge.
  Now let me take the second definite charge—that the War Office compelled prisoners of war to promise that they would not tell the truth about the question on the platform or in the newspapers. I said that I was informed that this charge was also not true, and at the end of my speech I said, "I will try to get what particulars I can about the statement which has been made by my hon. and gallant Friend, and if I am wrong I shall confess that I am wrong." I venture to say that I am not wrong. Long before I took office there was an order, of which I had no knowledge, issued by Lord Kitchener which has been materially altered and is now, I understand, handed to repatriated prisoners of war prohibiting communications to the Press by prisoners of war in Germany. It was issued shortly after an agreement was reached with the German Government for the repatriation of severely incapacitated prisoners of war. He feared that should Germany learn that we used as propagandists to her detriment those whom she returned to this country she would be disinclined to send others back, and thus our officers and men in her hands would be the sufferers. Some time after, as I said, this order was altered, upon representations made, I understand, by the Intelligence Department. These instructions are headed
  2124
  "For the Guidance of Escaped and Repatriated Prisoners of War" Paragraph (1) of the instructions reads as follows:
  "It has been brought to the notice of the Army Council that in some instances officers and other ranks who have been prisoners of war but who subsequently have escaped or have been repatriated have delivered public lectures treating of their experiences whilst detained in enemy territories, and in doing so have given publicity to information of military import acquired during the period of their detention."
  I need hardly ask the House to realise how important it is to remember that even a small item of no importance in the mind of one man may have enormous national importance. For example, I know of one man who had escaped who gave us the most useful information about Zeppelin sheds, and if this had been published the raids which were effected upon those sheds would have been impossible. Much has been said about this instruction, and the inequity of handing it to a returned prisoner of war as if it were in substance specially made for him. But it is merely a recapitulation of Section 453, King's Regulations, which has been in force in war and in peace for many many years, and is applicable to all officers and to all men. I would draw the attention of the House to Section 2 of the instructions referred to. It is there made clear that if an officer or a soldier wishes to deliver lectures in any way dealing with military subjects, or on matters connected with the War, he can do so with the express permission of the Army Council, which maybe sought by application through the proper official channels. It is obvious that if an officer or soldier wishes to deliver lectures in any way dealing with military subjects, or on matters connected with the War, he can do so, and he is not compelled to hide the truth; he can do so with the express permission of the Army Council, and I believe that even now returned prisoners of war are actually doing this for the War Aims Committee. It is, therefore, clear that the statement that the War Office compelled repatriated prisoners to promise that they would not tell the truth—a terrible allegation to be made—about this question, as was stated by my hon. and gallant Friend, is not, I venture to say, after the closest inquiry, true in substance or in fact. This is the first opportunity I have had after completing the inquiries which I have made of making a statement. I indicated to my hon. Friend that I would make this inquiry. I indicated also that I would make confession if I were wrong, which the House, I believe, would trust me

  2125
  to do, and I am, therefore, astonished that my hon. and gallant Friend, without his usual courtesy, and certainly without the traditional courtesy of the House, should have rushed this morning to the public Press without any reference to me on a question which was, in the main, one of personal accuracy and personal honour, which should, in the first instance, have been settled on the floor of this House. I thank the House for the indulgence it has accorded to me.
  Brigadier-General CROFT: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not the fact that every single officer and man is given this definite order in a printed sheet, of which I have had numerous copies sent me during the last few days, telling them that they were not to communicate in any way either privately Or in the Press or to lecture; whether I did not make that charge in the House; and whether it is not inaccurate to say that what I stated was untrue, although the right hon. Gentleman always pointed out he was informed that it was?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I do not think the House will expect me to add anything to the very full statement I have made. The charge made against me was that the War Office compelled escaped and repatriated prisoners of war to promise that they would not tell the truth.
  General CROFT: May I ask whether there is any difference between "compelling" and "ordering"?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better postpone that wrangle until next week.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to—
  Midwives Bill,
  Special Commission (Belfast Prison) Bill,
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill,
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill,
  Local Government Provisional Order (No. 7) Bill,
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 8) Bill, without Amendment,
  South Metropolitan Gas Bill, with Amendments.

  TRANSPORT.
  First Report from the Select Committee brought up, and read; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 130.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: May I ask the Leader of the House if the House is to sit on Friday?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I believe there is such a general feeling, as a result of the present circumstances, that the House should not sit on Friday, that I have decided it is not necessary to sit on Friday this week.
  Colonel ASHLEY: How many Orders on the Paper are to be taken to-day. Is the Naval and Military Pensions Bill to be taken?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes, that Bill will be taken, and we shall take as many Orders as we can, but not the Housing Bill.

  SCHOOL TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
  TITHE BILL
  As amended, considered:

  CLAUSE 1.—(Temporary Limitation or Variation of Tithe Rent-charge.)
  The sum which on or before the first day of January, nineteen hundred and twenty-six, becomes payable under the Tithe Acts, 1836 to 1891, in respect of any tithe rent-charge, shall be the sum payable in respect of that rent-charge as ascertained by the septennial average prices published under the Corn Returns Act, 1882, in the month of January, nineteen hundred and eighteen.
  The Board of Agriculture and Fisheries shall, after the twenty fifth day of December in the year nineteen hundred and twenty-five, and in each succeeding year, compute in the same manner as the septennial average is directed to be computed under the Corn Returns Act, 1882, and shall publish in the "London Gazette" in the month of January following the average price of each sort of British corn for the preceding fifteen years, and the sum payable under the Tithes Acts, 1836 to 1891, in respect of any tithe rent-charge payable after the first day of January, nineteen hundred and twenty-six, shall be ascertained by the average prices so computed for the preceding fifteen years in substitution for the septennial average referred to in the Corn Returns Act, 1882.
  Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: I beg to move, at the end of the first paragraph, to insert the words:
  "and such sum shall be deemed to be the amount of the tithe rent-charge according to the septennial average in force at the date of Disestablishment of the Welsh Church within the meaning of the Fourth and Fifth Schedules of the Welsh Church Act, 1914, if the said Act comes into operation before the first day of January, nineteen hundred and twenty-six.
  I am not going to weary the House again with any detailed explanation of why this Amendment is necessary. I went into the matter in Committee last week when I moved an Amendment in identical terms, and I think every hon. Member who listened to that Debate came away with the impression that I had made good the case I had sought to make, and even the right hon. Gentleman who was in charge of the Bill admitted the great hardship that would result if this Amendment were not accepted. As I shall point out presently he adumbrated a nebulous suggestion of what might happen in the future in the way of an arrangement between the Welsh county councils on the one hand and the Representative Body of the Church on the other. The Welsh Members and the Welsh people are not satisfied with that assurance. They want to make it perfectly clear in this Bill itself what the Government propose to do. As the House is aware next year at the conclusion of the War—I do not know whether it will be this year or next year, but probably next year—the Welsh Church will be Disestablished and Disendowed according to the provisions of the Welsh Church Act, 1914. That Act was put on the Statute Book in September, 1914, and but for the accident of the War it would have been in operation, certainly since March, 1915. The result of the War—the effect of the War has been that the value of the tithe which in 1915 was put at 77 has gone up by leaps and bounds, so that this year—on the 1st January it was 109, and its value on the 1st January next year will stand at 123. According to Schedule 4 of the Welsh Church Act the Welsh county councils, immediately on the date of Disestablishment, will have to buy the life interest of the clergy in Welsh tithes on the septennial average in force at the date of Disestablishment. If, therefore, the septennial average in force on the date of Disestablishment be the septennial average, which will be declared on the 1st January next year, the Welsh county

  2151
  councils will have to buy up the Welsh tithe at the value of £123 per cent. The Welsh Members and the Welsh people have never demurred to that position. They have thought it was rather hard luck upon them that owing to the War the price of tithe should have risen from 77 in 1915 to 109 this year, and 123 next year, but in spite of the fact that they have felt it was hard on many of them they have never complained, they have never raised this question in the House, they have never used it except in answer to complaints on the part of the Church that it has lost certain money through vacant benefices. They have, in fact, never made any complaint at all, and we should not complain to-day—indeed we do not complain to-day of the fact that, owing to the fortune of War the value of tithe has gone up from 77 to 109 and 123 next year. But what we do complain of is that this Bill, which has been introduced, not at the instance of the Welsh Members but in order to safeguard the interests of English and Welsh landlords and tithe owners, should add an additional grievance to the already bad bargain which the Welsh people made in 1914 owing to the operation of the War.
  Next year the Welsh tithe will have to be bought by the county councils. They cannot help themselves. They are compelled to buy under the Welsh Church Act if the Representative Body ask them to. They are in a different position from the English tithe payer under this Bill. It is true that the Bill fixes the price of the tithe for the next seven years at 109, but it does not compel the English tithe payer to redeem at 109. The English tithe payer can do exactly as he likes. If he thinks it is a good bargain, he can redeem; if he thinks it is a bad bargain, he need not. It entirely depends upon his own view of the matter. But the Welsh county councils will be compelled to buy the life interest of the clergy in tithe next year at the figure either of 109, as fixed by this Bill, or 123 if the Welsh Church Act is held by the Courts to be the Act which decides what the price of tithe will be next year.
  If it be right and fair, as far as the English tithe payer is concerned, that the price of tithe for the next seven years shall be fixed at a uniform rate of 109, why should you leave it at Large, as you do in this Bill, whether the Welsh county
  2152
  councils will have to buy up the Welsh tithe for all time at 123 or 109? Is there any hon. Member who can really Bay that this is not a perfectly reasonable suggestion? The Representative Body of the Welsh Church met in September at Cardiff, and, I understand, decided to accept commutation, and they will meet the representatives of the Welsh county councils next year in order to arrange the terms. In order to show what benefit the Church has already had owing to the operation of the War, let me give one figure. The first question which will arise will be on what basis are you going to the value of the Welsh tithe. Is it to be ascertained on the septennial average in force at the date of Disestablishment as defined by the Welsh Church Act, in which case it will be 123, or is it going to be ascertained by this Bill, namely, at 109? It is a matter of vital concern to the Welsh county councils. Neither they nor the Representative Body will be able to decide it. They will have to go to a Court of law to ascertain what the legal position is. If the Court decides in favour of the contention that the price is to be ascertained by this Bill, the Amendment only makes it perfectly clear now, and avoids having to go to the Courts next year. If the Courts decide that the price should be not 109, as fixed by this Bill, but 123 as fixed by the Fourth Schedule of the Welsh Church Act, does anyone think it fair and just to force public authorities in Wales to make a ruinous bargain which would end in bankruptcy? They would have to buy up the life interest of the Church at thirteen years' purchase; they would have to borrow money under Government security in order to buy up something like £180,000 a year of Welsh tithe. I am told that, instead of the £2,250,000 which the then Home Secretary mentioned as the figure which would have to be paid for commutation purposes, the county councils would have to pay between £3,000,000 and £4,000,000, so much will the Church, or, if you like, the individual clergy, have benefited owing to the accident of the War having taken place.
  In addition to that, they will have to borrow the money and pay at least 4 per cent. on it, besides losing the difference between 109 and 123, namely, 14 per cent. every year. In seven years they will have lost 98 per cent., in addition to the interest on the borrowed capital. Am I,

  2153
  therefore, saying too much when I say that if the Bill does not provide what I ask to make perfectly clear in this Amendment, the Welsh county councils will be bankrupt at the end of seven or eight years? If the Amendment is not accepted, they will refuse to accept the position which has been thrust upon them. Why should they with their eyes open go into bankruptcy? If the Bill fixes the price for commutation purposes, my Amendment leaves the thing in exactly the same place. If it does not, it perpetrates an injustice which I am perfectly certain not a single hon. Member, whatever his political views, will dare to defend. Moreover, this is a Redemption Bill. The second Clause and the Schedule combined compel the tithe owner to allow the tithe payer to redeem. Assume, if you like, that the price of redemption is 109. By the Welsh Church Act you compel the Welsh county councils to buy up tithe at 123. By this Act the Welsh county councils, having become tithe owners, you compel them next year to allow the tithe to be redeemed at 109. If the Bill were applied to England, every English Member in the House would be up in arms against it. Are you going to have it said that because we are small and insignificant, as far as numbers are concerned, we are to be treated with greater injustice than any other part of the Kingdom? I ask hon. Members if they do not think in their hearts that we Welsh Members are right in asking that this form of words should be accepted. I made this appeal to the right hon. Gentleman last week, and he put me off with vague expressions of sympathy and with some nebulous suggestions of a future conference between the Welsh county councils and the Representative Body. He went so far as to say that before the Report stage was reached the conference will have taken place.
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. Prothero): Will you read the words?
  Mr. WILLIAMS:—
  "I very much hope that these two bodies—that is to say the Welsh county councils, on the one hand, and the Representative Body of the Welsh Church on the other—may meet, and that before the Report stage of this Bill—"
  Mr. PROTHERO: The hon. Member is not reading from the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: I am reading a note that I made out of the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Mr. PROTHERO: You are not reading the words I used. I ask you to read the words.
  Mr. WILLIAMS:—
  "I very much hope that these two bodies may meet, and that before the Report stage of this Bill they may be able to announce some scheme."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th October, 1918, col. 1532.
  They are exactly the words I read.
  Viscount WOLMER: There is no promise there.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: I did not say a promise; I said a nebulous suggestion. The right hon. Gentleman, in spite of the ingenuousness of his manner, is too careful a politician to give anything in the nature of a promise, but there is a distinct suggestion there, and what he says is that he hopes that before the Report stage of the Bill these two bodies may be able to announce some scheme. What on earth could the Welsh Members deduce from these words except that the right hon. Gentleman was going to act as a sort of honest broker between the Welsh county councils on the one side and the Representative Body of the Church on the other; that the Report stage was not to be taken in a hurry; and that sufficient time was to elapse before the Report stage so as to enable the Welsh county councils to meet and to consider and discuss the matter and to approach the Representative Body of the Church? The Representative Body is derived from all parts of Wales and, I think, from some parts of England. The Representative Body would have to meet. We understood that these two public representative bodies would come together to discuss the matter and prepare a scheme. The right hon. Gentleman said,
  "Before the Report stage of this Bill they may be able to announce some scheme."
  That was said last Wednesday. Will it be believed that on the following day, when the business of the House was being arranged, the Report stage of this Bill was put down for last Monday, the very first Parliamentary day after Thursday, and, but for a protest made in this House, the Report stage would have been taken last Monday! It is taken to-day. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has taken any steps to approach the Welsh county councils? Has he taken any steps

  2155
  to approach the Representative Body? I venture to say that he has not. Why this haste? Why not put it off for a fortnight? There is no pressure of public business in this House. Why this hurry if it is not that the right hon. Gentleman wants to get rid of this question before the election takes place? Yesterday we got rid of Home Rule. To-day he thinks he is going to torpedo Welsh Disendowment and then there will be a clean slate for a General Election. I confess that I have been disappointed with the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman. I admired him, even before I saw him in this House, as the author of "The Psalms in Human Life," one of the most delightful devotional books ever written in the English language. But I am afraid that contact with politics, and especially experience in a Coalition Government, which is bound together by no common conviction or common principles, but only by the ties of expediency, has rather detracted from the purity of the right hon. Gentleman's conduct. Holy Writ tells us that we ought to combine the wisdom of the serpent with the harmlessness of the dove. I am afraid I have to confess that when I regard the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman in this matter I see in it more traces of the slippery trail of the serpent than of the silvery wings of the dove. He has deliberately, as I am compelled to believe, added a new injustice in regard to this matter. Why? This does not affect the tithe payer in Wales, but it affects the Welsh county councils, who will be the tithe owners in Wales next year. Why has he done it? He supplied the answer last week, when he refused to accept this most reasonable Amendment. He said last week that the Welsh Church had a grievance over the taking of certain benefices. He has deliberately added to the grievances of the Welsh county councils in order to make the Welsh people reopen the finance Clauses of the Welsh Church Act, although when it was put upon the Statute Book they thought it was there for good and that it would come into operation on the day of Disendowment.
  I am surprised that the Welsh Members of the Ministry have not approached the right hon. Gentleman to force him to accept this Amendment. Has he asked the Law Officers of the Crown what the legal position is to be next year? Has he asked either the Attorney General or the
  2156
  Solicitor-General? I think he ought to have done that after last week's Debate. If I am right that the price of tithe for commutation purposes will be at 123 next year, then a manifest injustice is done. I think the right hon. Gentleman himself expects that the price of tithe next year will be 123. If, on the other hand, as some leading lawyers in this House have told me, I am wrong, and that this Bill fixes the price for next year, what harm is there in accepting this Amendment? The right hon. Gentleman gambles on the chance that next year it will be found the price will be 123 and not 109. Why does the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Flint (Mr. Herbert Lewis) not use his great influence to have this common act of justice due to Wales? He says he aspires to be the Member for the University of Wales at the next election. The University of Wales will benefit to the extent of thousands of pounds a year by the Welsh Church Act, but this Bill, if my reading be correct, will make it impossible for the University of Wales to get one penny piece in our lifetime from the Welsh Church Act. Is the right hon. Member for Flint so blind and deaf to the interests of his future constituents that he is not going to move his little finger in order to help his Welsh colleagues to get a proper act of justice done to them in this matter? What about the right hon. Member for Swansea (Sir A. Mond). Where is he? He has succeeded to a fine old Liberal Nonconformist seat. His predecessor was Lewis Llewellyn Dillwyn, a man who by his persistence in moving year after year for twenty or more years a resolution in favour of Disestablishment, brought Disestablishment within the realm of practical politics. Where is the successor of Lewis Llewellyn Dillwyn in this matter? Where is the rev and hon. Member for East Carmarthen (Rev. Towyn Jones) in this matter? He was sent into this House to ginger up his Welsh colleagues who were supposed to be lax in the matter of Disendowment. Is he going to Whip for the Government to-night? Is he going to stand up for a Coalition Government which brings in a Bill which defeats the hopes and aspirations of Welshmen for many generations? He has already announced that he is going to stand as Coalition candidate against all comers at the next election. Is he going to defend this? Is he going to say a word in favour of this Bill, or has he made his peace with the right hon. Gentleman?

  2157
  Misfortunes bring together very strange bedfellows. One of the greatest misfortunes in my opinion is a Coalition Government, and this Coalition Government, in bringing the President of the Board of Agriculture and the rev. and hon. Member for East Carmarthen into the same bed, has brought together strange bedfellows. In the privacy of their chamber, or of the right hon. Gentlemen's chamber, I can well imagine the scene that will be enacted when this Bill has gone through triumphantly, with the aid of the Coalition Whips. I can imagine the rev. and hon. Member for East Carmarthen leaning his head upon the manly bosom, of the right hon. Gentleman, and, looking lovingly into his eyes, saying, "I have wrought for you, I have fought for you, I have voted for your Bill, and I have even Whipped for your Bill. You love me a little now, don't you? "It reminds me of a story I heard from America of a young lady who died, and on whose tombstone was inscribed these words:
  "Our Mary Ann here lies at rest,
  Her head is on old Abraham's breast,
  Its very nice for Mary Ann,
  But not so nice for Abraham."
  I can quite imagine that the right hon. Gentleman, when he views the reverend and hon. Member asleep upon his breast, will feel something like old Abraham with Mary Ann upon his breast. I have nothing to say against this Bill as it stands except so far as it incidentally touches the question of tithe in Wales. I have never said a word against the Bill. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that when you told me on the Second Reading that I could not move to omit Wales from the Bill without moving the rejection of the Bill, I refused to accept your invitation. I have nothing to say against the Bill itself. It is a proper Bill. It is a Bill that has been forced upon us. In-deed, I think it was a question which I put down in April last that first directed the attention of my right hon. Friend to the abnormal increase in tithe. In the introduction to the Bill the Government admit that something ought to be done in order to limit the increased value of tithe. If that be the justification for the Bill, as I presume it is, what justification is there for saying that the Welsh county councils should have to buy up tithe at the abnormal figure of 123 for the next thirty years? That is what it amounts to, and the Welsh county councils will receive from the tithe 109.
  2158
  If the right hon. Gentleman is still open to an appeal, I would urge upon him at this last hour to accept this Amendment, which is only a declaratory Amendment. It does not alter the Bill in the slightest degree. It can do no harm; but if it smoothes the passage of the Bill it will at the same time soothe a great number of susceptibilities in Wales, and will avoid an agitation among the county councils of Wales on the eve of a General Election, which will have a tremendous influence upon the effect of that election one way or another. Why should the right hon. Gentleman go out of his way to make his chief unpopular in the country he loves? Why should he hold up the Prime Minister—the greatest Welshman of the day and of all time, the man who has done more for Welsh Disestablishment in the past than any other—to ridicule, contempt, and odium in Wales by turning into a travesty the Welsh Church Act, for which two generations of Welshmen have fought and sacrificed? I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman even at this last moment to accept this Amendment. I do not appeal for a concession. This Amendment is not a concession at all. There are injustices inherent in the whole position which cannot be removed by any amending of this Bill. The proper way would be to bring in a Bill dealing with those injustices. I am only asking him to remove the injustice which he himself is perpetrating in this Bill. I am only asking him to declare that he does not mean to perpetrate that injustice. I appeal to him, therefore, at this eleventh hour to accept this Amendment, and if he does so I will not say that he will have the gratitude of the Welsh people, because he will only be doing justice; but, at all events, he will clear the fair fame of the Prime Minister and his five Welsh colleagues of the aspersions which will otherwise be cast upon them in the course of the coming election, and will remove a source or contention and agitation which will embitter the whole social and political relations in Wales for the next twelve months. If he does not accept these words the Welsh county councils and the Welsh people are not going to suffer this injustice. Therefore, whether he does it now, or whether his sucessors will be compelled to do it hereafter, matters very little, except from the point of view of his own honour and his reputation as a just and honourable man.
  Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: I beg to second the Amendment.
  This Bill, I understand, proposes to do two things. The first is to relieve the landowner from further liability than 109 in respect of tithe for the next seven years, and it is going to do so at the expense of the Church. That, however, is an aspect of the question which does not concern me. There is in this Bill a further provision that the landowner for the next seven years, however valuable tithe may be, can redeem at 109. So the result of the Bill is, first of all, that the tithe owner will only pay 109 for the next seven years, whatever the value of the tithe may be, and no relief is being granted to the county councils. The position of the Welsh county councils will be that while they must next year possibly pay 123 for the tithe, the landowner in Wales will still be entitled to redeem at 109. I agree with my hon. Friend that if it was a question purely of commutation, we should have to face the burden and take it as the luck of war. For my part I would not object to that. My objection to the Bill is that we may be compelled to commute at 123, while, on the other hand, the landowner, who certainly has no claim upon the generosity of the country at the present time, can redeem at 109. For, in any event, he is doing exceedingly well out of the War. Sir Howard Frank, who is a great authority, says—
  Mr. SPEAKER: Surely this has very little to do with the Amendment before the House.
  Mr. DAVIES: I am sorry if I am rather irrelevant on the point. While we must commute for the Church at 123, the landowner, on the other hand, according to the provisions of this Bill, can redeem from us at 109. I submit that that is an act of gross injustice. The landowner is to be allowed to come forward and say, "Though you paid 123 for tithe last year, you must hand it over to us for 109." That is the legal effect of this Bill. My hon. and learned Friend merely proposes to have a declaration in this Bill that if commutation is to take place, it shall be at 109—that is the price of the tithe next year. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment, or, if he cannot do that, that he will provide that, so far as land in Wales and Monmouth is concerned, the price for redemption of tithe for the next seven years shall be 123.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I shall not follow the Mover of this Amendment in his interesting speech. I have the privilege of knowing my hon Friend longer than I have known the right hon. Gentleman opposite. He has given us a terrible account of the depravity of the right hon. Gentleman, and how he lost his innocence by rubbing shoulders with people like myself. I know that if my hon. Friend is moving a simple Amendment for which he has got a good case, nobody can put it more clearly, precisely, and persuasively; but when he is talking about Abraham and Mary Ann, and reverend Members on the Front Bench, and when he wants to know, as we often did, I am afraid, in opposition in 1906, where various members of the Government should be; when he goes into all those figures, I generally get a little suspicious of the strength of the Amendment which he is moving. If he had a strong case he would put it strongly, and leave my hon. Friend and the Whip alone. Seriously, what is this Amendment? The facts are these. By the Welsh Church Act the county councils have to buy tithe after peace is concluded next year at the current rate of the day, which, it seems pretty clear, is likely to be 123. To that extent the Welsh county councils will have the worst of the bargain. My hon. Friend says he does not object to that in the least, and the Seconder of the Amendment says that he does not object to it in the least. If they do not object, so much the better. I think, perhaps, the reason is this. If Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Church had taken place, say, in 1915, they would have paid less for the tithe; but they would not have got the very large sum which they have got in the way of lapsed annuities. Particulars have been got out. I do not wish to trouble the House with figures, but if the Act had been carried in 1915 instead of in 1918, though they would have gained upon the tithe they would have lost upon other matters, in consequence, to more than double the amount. If you take the figures, that is perfectly clear.
  That was the bargain. This Bill has nothing to do with the bargain. It does not affect it. The Bill is a totally different matter. Those are the simple facts between the Welsh Church and the Welsh county councils. They will have to pay more than in 1915, and

  2161
  to that extent they will lose. The Mover and the Seconder of the Amendment said that they do not object to that, because it happens to be a matter of luck. But further than that, if they look into the figures for 1915 instead of 1918 they will see that the county councils will be considerably the gainers. All that the Amendment does is to say that, instead of paying 123, they will have to pay 109 to the Welsh Church. If they do not object to the bargain, why ask to have it altered? Can anybody fairly vote for the Amendment when the Mover and Seconder say that they do not object to have to pay the Welsh Church 123, as it is the luck of the bargain, but wish to get an Amendment passed which has the effect of saying that they shall not pay 123, but shall only pay 109? Their real grievance is a grievance which a lot of tithe owners will have, for if they pay 123 for this tithe, or whatever they have paid, this Bill gives the tithe payer a power to redeem at 109. That is a grievance which every tithe owner will have under the Bill. I pointed it out on the Second Reading of this Bill. There is no doubt that next year, in the case of any person who owns tithe in England or Wales which is worth 123 the landlord can come along at any moment and redeem at 109, and the Welsh county councils will be really in the same position as every other tithe owner. That is the general position. If they are serious in their objection, then, I say, that every tithe owner in England will have the same grievance as they. The suggestion was made—in fact my hon. Friend did put down an Amendment, if I remember rightly—that the Bill should not apply to Wales, and that therefore justice should not be done in this matter in Wales. Not a single Welsh Member was in favour of that. Not one single Welsh Member dare go into the Lobby in favour of it, and the Amendment was taken off the Paper.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: No.
  5.0 P.M.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: It was withdrawn. Occupying farmers would have a good deal to say to hon. Members from Wales if they got up and moved that this Bill should not apply to Wales, because those farmers like it, as it gives them the opportunity of redeeming tithe below the sum likely to be reached in the next four or five years. For the reasons which I have mentioned, I shall support the Government and oppose this Amendment.
  Mr. HOHLER: It seems to me that the Seconder was proceeding under a misapprehension. I do not understand this Bill to alter the principles of redemption established by the Tithes Commutation Act of 1836, except in this respect, that under that Act tithe has to be redeemed by twenty-six years' purchase at par, while under this Bill all that is done, as I understand, is to reduce the number of years' purchase to twenty-one. Redemption is one thing, and the value of tithe is quite another. What Clause 1 proposes is to fix the price paid for tithe at 109 for a limited period, and otherwise it would have risen to 129, or a higher sum.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: It is taken at what the tithe was on the 1st January, 1918, and that happened to be 109, and next year it will probably be 123.
  Mr. HOHLER: Surely it is twenty-one years' purchase! [HON. MEMBERS: "In the Schedule."] I thought so, for there it mentions twenty-one times the amount. With regard to the Amendment, the provisions of the Welsh Church Act are somewhat different, but in that Act there is a special bargain which proceeds, as I understand, on a wholly different basis from that of redemption of tithes, and has got nothing to do with the redemption of tithes, but deals with the sum that the Welsh county councils should pay to the incumbent who loses his tithe. That money was to be invested at a certain rate to produce a certain income. Owing to the War that bargain has gone against those who sought the Disestablishment of the Church in Wales. In other words, the price has risen, and the result is that when they are going to give an annuity to the incumbent they will have to pay more; but, on the other hand, it must be remembered that when that Act was passed those who sought Disestablishment made a very good bargain, because the price then was about 80 and there was no prospect at that time that it should ever rise to 100 or anything like it. What is the position under the Welsh Church Act? In one respect the county councils lose, but in other respects in regard to lapsed livings they win, and therefore you want the account adjusted. What I understood my right hon. Friend the President to say was that at the proper time and in the proper Bill they would introduce an Amendment to the Welsh Church Act, to adjust fairly on the one side and on the other the considerations that have now

  2163
  arisen owing to the War. That seems to me to be perfectly just. I confess, having listened to the arguments of my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. L. Williams), I was not impressed with the fact that he established any injustice of any sort or kind.
  Mr. C. REES: Admittedly on all sides of the House there is a grievance in this matter with regard to the position of the county councils. The grievance being admitted, the point is how to raise and ventilate it and, if possible, remedy it. There is some force in the argument that in this attempt to remedy the grievance we may be perpetrating an injustice, as it were, to the Welsh Church, who are entitled, under the Fourth Schedule of the Welsh Church Act, to redemption at the price six months after the end of the War or Disestablishment. That was their bargain, and they say, We are entitled to that bargain. But the county councils, in having to pay 123 by this Bill, are put in this position. They have to accept 109 instead of 123, so that the grievances of the county, councils is clear, admitted, definite, and there is no suggestion as to how it is to be met. Some say, "All right; if you Welsh Members object to this, ask that Wales be excluded from the Bill." The hon. and learned Member (Mr. Rawlinson) said that we would object to that proposal. It is only natural that the farmer in Wales objects to the farmer in England being allowed to redeem at 109 when he himself is not allowed to redeem at all except by private bargaining between the tithe owner and himself. So Wales would say. "We do not want to go out of the Bill, because we would be doing an injustice and simply going from one injustice to another." In this instance it would be doing an injustice to the farmers in Wales, and we do not want to do any injustice to them. I suggested in Committee and suggest again that there is only one way to meet the difficulty. The Amendment is proposed in order to try and get some remedy. The question is, who is going to pay the difference between 109 and 123? If the county councils buy at 123 and sell at 109 the difference has to fall on the ratepayers of the county councils or on the taxpayers. This difficulty has been created by the Government and if it is important to get this Bill through then the nation ought to shoulder the payment of that difference. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will make that clear and
  2164
  that this injustice will be removed and the suggestion which I have put forward may receive the whole-hearted support of the House.
  Mr. PROTHERO: I should like, after the somewhat warm attack made upon me by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. L. Williams) to look at this question purely as a matter of business, and it is the more easy for me to do so as the hon. Member is not in his place to hear my answer. I hope the House will forgive me if I go into some detail about the question. Let us go back to the origin of the Bill and to the circumstances that made it, as I think, necessary to bring it in, and to the objects which it seeks to attain. Owing to the War the value of tithe rent-charge went up wholly abnormally. It was 77 in 1914, and in 1918 it was 109, and in 1919 it will be 123, and in 1920 it will be 136, and between the years 1923 and 1924 it will reach a maximum height of something like 176. It was considered by the general body of tithe owners that when the tithe had risen so abnormally from causes arising out of the War it was inexpedient that they should attempt to exact the full rate to which they were legally entitled. They agreed that some restrictions in the tithe rent-charge was advisable, and I may say that they have agreed in the main to the restrictions imposed by this Bill as reasonable restrictions. I think that attitude a wise one. I do not think that in 1923 and 1924, when the War, as we all hope, will have been finished three or four years, and prices may be falling, you could possibly exact these excessive tithes without provoking organised opposition. The difficulty if prices have fallen would be simply trebled, and in no country and in no part of the country would the difficulty be so great as in Wales, and this for two reasons: In the first place, Wales largely consists of small occupying owners, who are therefore tithe payers, and, in the second place, the staple cereal product of Wales is oats, and it is in oats that the greatest fall may confidently be anticipated. Consequently, you would be calling upon small poor men to pay this excessive rate of tithe on falling prices. Therefore I think this Bill is not only sound in principle but necessary in practice. What it does is this: It restricts the rate to which the tithe rent-charge may rise. It restricts it at the figure at which it stands to-day for the next seven years. Then it goes on to

  2165
  limit the range of variation, and by the quindecennial average it restores to the tithe owner a portion of the money he would have received on this higher rate of tithe, only it gives it in a deferred form spread over a term of years instead of a violent rise of two or three years in the middle of the War. That is the object of that part of the Bill.
  Now lot us see how it applies in the special case of Wales, where, I admit, difficulties and complications have arisen. Under the Welsh Church Act the index figure at which the vested existing interest of the clergy are to be commuted is a single year at the septennial average. That single year was, as the Act contemplated, 1914, when tithe stood at 77. Now suppose the date of Disestablishment under the Welsh Act had actually taken place in 1915, what would have happened? That figure would have told heavily against the members of the Church, because all this enormous increase in the value of tithes would have gone away from them and into the pockets of the county council. Would the members of the Church, if they had then come to this House and complained of the bargain struck in 1915, have received the support of the Welsh Members? I do not think so. I think they would have argued skilfully, eloquently and quite fairly that the bargain was a bargain and ought to be adhered to.
  Mr. ROCH: The right hon. Gentleman I think forgets they have an option whether they will be bought out, whereas the county councils have no option if the clergy think they shall be bought out.
  Mr. PROTHERO: That is one of the terms of the bargain—quite so. I say the bargain taken as a whole. What is complained is that that single-year figure owing to the War has turned against the county councils. The bargain is no longer in their favour, it is against them, because if you take the figure of 1919 (as the date on which Disestablishment will come into force) they have to commute the vested interest of the clergy at 123. Therefore the bargain goes against them, and they argue in effect that it should be amended in their favour and against the Church. That is what the Amendment practically means. Now one thing they say is, "We are quite satisfied with the bargain; we only want to be left alone. Leave us alone and we will carry out the bargain," because they say that if tithe is allowed to
  2166
  reach this abnormally excessive height they will then be able to finance their transactions of commuting the vested interests of the clergy. Well now, if they think they could exact from the small tithe-paying occupying owner of Wales this very heavily increased tithe without provoking organised opposition, I disagree with them. You remember that they are not at the present moment tithe owners; they are potential tithe owners. They have had no experience of that kind of property, and the present tithe owners from their long experience are convinced they could not obtain these highly increased tithes, I agree with them. I believe the county councils would be burned in effigy in every county of Wales. If the Welsh county councils really think they should be left alone in the bargain, that they should be left absolutely out of this Bill, if in effect they think this, that they could compel the small occupying owner who in 1915 was paying on every pound of tithe 15s. 3d., if they think they could compel him in 1923 on falling prices to pay £l 15s. 3d., let them accept the offer made them and be excluded from the Bill. They refuse that alternative, and they bring forward this proposal to amend the bargain of 1915 in their favour by reducing the figures at which the vested interests of the clergy are to be commuted from 123 to 109.
  Now look at that proposal. This Church Act was to be brought into operation in 1915. The operation of it has been postponed, and during these four years of War the whole financial arrangements which were made in 1914 for carrying out the Act have been disturbed. They are upset in various details; there are gains on one side and losses on another. If yon are going to amend the bargain of 1915 at all, then I submit the only fair way to do it is to take the whole financial arrangements together, look at them actuarially, examine them closely and readjust them fairly and equitably as a whole, and I understand that the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. L. Williams) rather holds the same view. That is the fair thing to do. If the county councils reject the alternative of being taken out of the Bill, why do not they accept the other alternative, that is a consideration of all the various points on which the finance requires readjustment, look at it together and readjust them on equitable lines? But I submit to this House that it is quite unfair in the interest of one side to the bargain to pick out one

  2167
  point and amend that, and leave all the other claims untouched and without relief. Manifestly, if a man has a claim and another man has a counterclaim, the right thing to do is to consider the claim and counterclaim together at the same time. You cannot deal with one side, and at the same time leave the other side outside your relief without prejudicing the position of the other party, and that is what this Amendment proposes to do. You are going to prejudice the position of the members of the Church by relieving the county councils of their grievances under the Welsh Church Act, and leave the members of the Church wholly unrelieved. I venture to submit to the House that that is an unjust and unfair thing to do. I submit to the House also this, that where you are dealing with a body of men who are not directly represented in this House, it behoves the House to be careful that it does not, on the representation of parties who are directly represented, do those unrepresented parties an injustice and an unfairness. I am perfectly confident that this Amendment, if carried, will inflict this injustice upon the members of the Church in Wales.
  Then you come to what is, after all, if I may say so, the real ground of grievance which the Welsh party has in this matter, and it is this. They say—and they say with some force—"You are going to make it more difficult for us to carry out our financial arrangements, because you are going to reduce our receipts from the property which we are compelled to purchase." That is so. To a certain extent that is absolutely true, and I admit there is that difficulty. I do not think it is so great as you imagine. In the first place, if I am right, you cannot put the possible receipts that would be received by county councils from tithe at the very high figure which tithe would reach in 1923 and 1924, because you would not be able to realise without provoking organised opposition throughout the country. Another point is this: You do get under the quindecennial average the greater portion of the moneys you would have got in 1923 and 1924 restored to the tithe owners, but in a deferred form spread over a term of years. That is a considerable advantage. The hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen, on the Second Heading of this Bill, drew a perfectly lurid picture of the state of the Welsh county councils when tithe drops year after year away to next
  2168
  door to nothing, and he said, "Look at the position after the Napoleonic Wars, and take example of that as a proof of the point to which tithe will dwindle." Apart from the fact that the conditions then and now are wholly different—absolutely and entirely different—we have met his point under this Bill. We have given him a range of values, and below that range tithe cannot fall, though, if that is his fear, it is met by this Bill, and we do, therefore, not make the financial problem of the county councils seriously more difficult than it would be in any circumstance. We do make it, I admit, slightly more difficult, and for this reason: We ask the county councils—the potential tithe owners—to accept the same sort of sacrifice of exceptionally abnormal profits which we ask every tithe owner in England and Wales—nothing more and nothing less.
  Therefore, I submit to the House that this Amendment, if carried, will be grossly unjust to the members of the Church in Wales, and that the proper remedy is a finance Bill, which shall go into the two sides of the account, examine them critically, calculate them actuarially, and readjust them. The hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen has appealed to me in what would have been very moving terms if I had felt guilty of any of the charges which he somewhat freely levelled against my head. May I make an appeal to him? I make it with all the more force, perhaps, because I am one of those Members who have never known a Welsh Church Debate in this House, and know nothing of the bitterness and exasperation which those Debates have provoked, but I would say this: In business, when two men who have got to do business together fall out on a question of principle, it is sound policy for the man who has won on the point of principle to make it easy for the other to go on doing business with him in every possible way. The Welsh party in this House have won the point of principle, and if it is good policy in business to do that, I submit to the hon. and learned Member that it is good policy in political life. If you look at the particular subject-matter, you can put that a good deal higher. Here is a matter of religion. There are two great religious communities at variance. They have been in the past enemies. Well, I hope they will always be rivals in the sense of being emulous of each others' religious activities,

  2169
  but, as long as human nature remains the same, we have got to have these different religious organisations. It is a question of temperament more than anything else, and I would ask that the Welsh party here should not attempt—as, in my opinion, they are in effect doing—to hamper the religious activity of a body which may be a rival but can no longer, I hope after the four years of war, be considered an enemy. Further than that, there are in Wales a number of men—I do not know how many, but a considerable number of men—who are members of the Church but who are willing to sacrifice unity for the sake of freedom from secular control. They are ready at this moment to act loyally with the Welsh, whatever their religious feelings may be—loyally with them to take part in the national religious and local life of the Principality; but if you take advantage, on a side issue like this, to settle in your own interest one side of grievances which are felt on both sides, you do a great damage to that cause of religious peace which we all hope to see in the Principality of Wales.
  Mr. McKENNA: The right hon. Gentleman does not seem to me to have fully appreciated the strength of the case put forward by my hon. and learned Friend. The whole of his argument, if it is a substantial argument, is an argument against this Bill. If it is grossly unjust to the Church in Wales to accept the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend, it must be equally grossly unjust to the whole Church of England to pass this Bill at all. I cannot help thinking that my right hon. Friend has allowed himself to be carried away by a slight misuse of language. He tells us that in 1914 we came to a certain bargain which was thought advantageous to the laity in Wales, but now has turned out advantageous to the Church in Wales owing to the War, and we are not entitled, he says, how to go behind the bargain of 1914. But there was no bargain in 1914. If there were a bargain in 1914, there was a bargain in 1836. It is just as wrong to break the bargain of 1836 as it would be wrong to break the bargain of 1914. Let us look at the history of this case. The Act of Parliament of 1914 settled certain conditions under which the Church, a representative body in Wales, would have the right of claiming the commutation of tithe. The operation of that Act was postponed owing to the War. Owing to the War certain new conditions have arisen—conditions which have raised
  2170
  enormously the value of tithe. For this country the right hon. Gentleman, I dare say quite rightly, recognises that those new conditions have got to be dealt with by Act of Parliament, and a limit has got to be put to the rise in the value of tithe. These conditions have arisen through the War. Had there been no war the Welsh Church Act would have been in operation, and it is owing to the War that these new conditions have arisen, and owing to the War that the operation of the Welsh Church Act has been postponed. If the new war conditions have rendered this Tithe Bill necessary, the same conditions have rendered a reconsideration of the conditions under the Welsh Church Act. We would have been quite content to have had the Welsh Church Act in 1915 come into operation. It was postponed owing to the War. Advantage must not be taken of the postponement in order to put a new burden on the county councils in Wales which was never contemplated at that time. The right hon. Gentleman says, "Oh, yes; if you are going to reconsider the conditions of the Welsh Church Act because, owing to the lapse of time, the conditions and circumstances of the War, they have operated unfavourably to the Welsh people and to the county councils, and favourably to the Church, you must go into the whole question of finance." That does not follow. I agree, if the right hon. Gentleman can show any single particular in which the Church has been damnified by the postponement owing to the War, then we would be quite willing to consider that.
  Mr. PROTHERO: Lapsed interests.
  Mr. McKENNA: By all means set off the lapsed interests against the tithes. Take a general account of what the Church has lost by the operation and what the Church has gained by the postponement. The Church has gained enormously by postponement. [An HON. MEMBER: "Work it out and see!"] We are willing to accept that as a bargain. At least, I accept it for myself.
  Mr. L. WILLIAMS: Restore the 1915 conditions.
  Mr. McKENNA: I say more than that. I speak for myself and, I believe, for the whole of those for whom I used to speak in the past when I carried the Welsh Church Act in this House. We are willing to go back to the 1915 financial conditions, or we will be willing to bring into hotch-potch

  2171
  all that the Church has gained and all that the Church has lost since 1915, and we will include this Bill as it applies to England as one of the conditions. Will the right hon. Gentleman take that?
  Mr. PROTHERO: If the right hon. Gentleman means a finance Bill going into the question of commutation on both sides I do accept.
  Mr. McKENNA: I do not mean reopening the 1914 basis, except so far as that basis has been altered by the lapse of time—by the War. We do not wish to take any advantage from the Church—not one farthing—owing to the lapse of time since the War. It was not their fault; it was not our fault, that the Act was postponed. We postponed it because of the War, but do not let either side get an advantage. Certainly I would suggest to my right hon. Friend he ought not now to raise a subject of the greatest controversy in Wales. He ought not to throw a permanent charge on the county councils which cannot be defended for a single instant, for if it is right to fix it at 109 for all the Church outside Wales, it is right to fix it at 109 inside Wales.
  The only other point with which I have to deal is this: My right hon. Friend says, "Stay out of the Bill altogether if you like." Of course, that is impossible. How could you expect the tithe payers in Wales to go on paying at the present prices when other tithe payers under the Bill do not do so? If you were to make such a difference of treatment in England and Wales, you would get every sort of disturbance. My right hon. Friend knows as well as I do that the offer is an idle one. If my right hon. Friend will reconsider his Bill, and will go through the whole account between the Welsh county councils and the Church, taking credit, if he likes, for the lapsed interests, but giving the county councils the benefit of the Bill, and taking into account the benefit which the Church has received from the increased value of the tithes, I know on which side the balance of profit will lie. We shall be quite satisfied. Otherwise I do not think the right hon. Gentleman is justified in refusing to accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend.
  Viscount WOLMER: I am very glad the Government has refused to agree to this attempt to upset the settlement which the Radical party forced in the Welsh Church Act of 1914, and which they now find is not
  2172
  working out quite so much to the benefit of the Welsh county councils as they then thought. I would not have arisen had it not been for the speech of the right hon. Gentleman beneath me (Mr. McKenna). Speaking on this subject, he has not, for the first time, been guilty of misstatements of fact. One of the most important was his assertion that the Welsh Church, as a body, had made money out of a rise in the value of tithe caused by the War. That is not the case at all. Any money which the Welsh Church receives from tithe by the Welsh Church Act is received only as a trustee, and has to be repaid to vested interests. Therefore any gain in the case of tithe is not that of the Welsh Church but that of the Welsh clergy.
  Mr. McKENNA: Oh!
  Viscount WOLMER: It is a very important point, and people in the position of the right hon. Gentleman ought to be careful of such points. Especially so when they are offering bargains in the name of the whole Liberal party, of the whole Welsh Disestablishment party, to the Representative Body of the Church in Wales. The point I desire to make is that what the right hon. Gentleman asks us to do is fundamentally unfair. In the Act which he himself passed a certain compensation was fixed for the clergy under Welsh Disestablishment on the septennial value of the tithe. That was, in 1914, compensation which seemed just to him. The effect of this proposed Amendment is to reduce that compensation from the figure of 123 to 109. That is not fair. If the septennial average seemed just to the right hon. Gentleman in 1914 it ought to seem just to him now. The fact that the value of tithe has gone up is scarcely to the point. As the hon. Member said, it is the fortune of war. The cost of living has also gone up immensely. The Welsh clergy are not gainers out of the bargain, as is thought by some hon. Members. A very extraordinary statement has been made by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. McKenna). He says, if we can show that in any point the action of the War has been prejudicial to the financial settlement fixed by the Liberal party in 1914—
  Mr. McKENNA: By Parliament!
  Viscount WOLMER: By the large majority of the Liberal Party.
  Mr. McKENNA: By Parliament!
  Viscount WOLMER: If we can show that the influence of the War, the events of the War, have had a prejudicial influence on the interests of the Church, then that matter ought to be reconsidered. I say this is an extraordinary statement, because the right hon. Gentleman seemed to assume that there was none. I ask him to consider the amount the Church is losing through the lapse of vested interests. It runs into hundreds of thousands of pounds. For these vested interests no one is going to receive a single penny compensation when Disestablishment takes place, and to come down to this House and to say that the whole question—
  Mr. BOOTH: I understood the Noble Lord to correct my right hon. Friend for using the term "Church" when he meant "clergy." Is the Noble Lord not falling into the same mistake?
  Viscount WOLMER: No, no!
  Mr. BOOTH: I was trying to follow the Noble Lord.
  Viscount WOLMER: No; the point is this: During the four years of war a large number of the clergy have died. If these clergy had been alive when the Act comes into force there would have been paid as commutation to the Representative Body in Wales a sum which would have been greater by several hundreds of thousands of pounds than what will be paid now.
  Mr. BOOTH: As trustees?
  Viscount WOLMER: Yes, as trustees! But the successors of these people are still there! They have to be paid somehow. Therefore it is true to say in this case that the Welsh Church is made poorer by hundreds of thousands of pounds. The point is a very important one.
  Mr. ROCH: But the Noble Lord must be aware that where there is a credit side to the Welsh Church financial claim there is also a debit.
  Viscount WOLMER: The hon. Member may think so.
  Mr. ROCH: Do you accept it?
  Viscount WOLMER: No; I do not accept it. If that, however, is the view of the hon. Member, by all means let his proposals be put forward; but for heaven's sake do let us bury the hatchet in this Welsh Church question!
  Mr. L. WILLIAMS: Does the Noble Lord agree with the proposal put forward by my right hon. Friend to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture, namely, to put the whole thing into a, hotch-potch?
  Viscount WOLMER: I would be willing to accept the offer that the whole of the financial arrangements of the Welsh Church Act should be reconsidered in the light of the events of the War and the situation produced by the War. That I am willing to do and am desirous of doing.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: May I ask the Noble Lord to make the thing clearer? Is he willing to accept the basis of the Disendowment of the Welsh Church Act, and endeavour to readjust the financial position, giving credit to the Church for vacancies, and also taking into account the gain accruing from the rise in tithe, and so on?
  Viscount WOLMER: I am certainly not willing to accept the 1914 settlement as a basis, because it was a basis that was proposed under circumstances which are entirely different to present circumstances. What I am willing to do is to reconsider the whole question of finance. I do not want to reopen the question of Disestablishment. I am perfectly willing to meet the right hon. Gentleman on that ground—I hope in the most friendly way possible. But to come down to the House and ask to introduce a side Amendment into the Bill that has not got anything to do with the Welsh Distestablishment question is to attempt to ask something which is unfair to the clergy in Wales, unfair to the Church of Wales, and unreasonable in itself, and I am very glad the Government have not accepted it.
  Major DAVIES: It appears to me the Government ought to give us some indication, some answer, to the speech of my right hon. Friend opposite as to whether they are prepared to enter into a financial arrangement on the basis of the arrangement come to in the Act of 1914. I gather from the speech of the Noble Lord opposite that that is not his view; that he is not prepared to take the settlement of 1914 as the basis; to try and arrange a figure, so that neither side, neither the Church on the one hand nor the county councils on the other, are to gain by the position created by the War. If that is the question my right hon. Friend put to the Government, as to whether they were willing to

  2175
  accept that as a basis of a discussion, we have had no reply, and I submit very respectfully we ought to have, as to their views on that important matter. It appears to me that the trend of this discussion for some time has been that the House is endeavouring to deal with a matter which really concerns Wales and Wales alone. Welshmen are concerned in this. They well realise that whereas the landlords of Wales are going to have 109, the county councils for some or other reason will have to pay 123. That is a matter which concerns the Welsh people and they alone. We know perfectly well that the Welsh Members in this House are a very small number. We shall be voted down by outsiders who have not heard this discussion. I think it is a clear case of the House endeavouring to deal with an Act which has reference solely to Wales by an Act which deals with England and Wales together. I suggest that this is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs, and that it shows more and more the need for devolution, and for allowing Wales to settle these matters in its own way—by the Welsh people. I see the Noble Lord has come down from the Foreign Office. I know he takes a very great interest in this question. I am sure we shall be very delighted if he can give us a reply on behalf of the Government as to their attitude in this matter. You cannot separate the arrangements between the Welsh Act and those which are proposed in this measure. We ought, I think, to have some guidance, some leading from the Government, before we go to a Division.
  Mr. PROTHERO: There is no doubt it is the opinion of the Commissioners on Church Temporalities that a Bill dealing with the financial arrangements which were carried out in the Welsh Church Act
  is urgently needed. It is imperatively necessary, quite apart from the present Bill. The Government would be quite willing that all the questions at issue between the Church and the Representative Body on the one hand and the county councils on the other which arise out of the commutation question should be gone into in that Bill and actuarially calculated and adjusted.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: On what basis!
  Mr. PROTHERO: I do not quite understand what is meant by "On what basis"?
  Mr. McKENNA: May I make the matter more simple? There were certain principles settled in the 1914 Act. These principles would have been in operation now but for the War. The events that have followed in the wake of the War may very properly be taken into account, for, owing to the War, tithes have risen in value, and it is owing to these events that this Bill has been introduced. All these post-war factors arise out of the War, and ought, quite reasonably, to be taken into account in a general settlement; but as to the Act itself, you must not go behind it.
  6.0 P.M.
  Mr. PROTHERO: The question arising out of the commutation we are willing to submit in a general finance Bill. My only objection to this Amendment is that it takes one side only of the commutation question. I believe the Welsh Members would find that provided they had their own claim on the lapsed interests, for instance, properly considered it would be found that they would be met in a generous and liberal spirit.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 106; Noes, 159.

  Division No. 89.]

  AYES.

  [6.2 p.m.

  Anderson, William C. (Attercliffe)

  Donnelly, Patrick

  Hazleton, Richard

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Doris, William

  Hearn, M. L.

  Bliss, Joseph

  Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir J. B.

  Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Boland, John Plus

  Duffy, William J.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Esmonde, Capt. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E. H.

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Ffrench, Peter

  Hogge, James Myles

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Field, William

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Byrne, Alfred

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Fleming, Sir John

  John, Edward Thomas

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Glanville, H. J.

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Clough, William

  Gulland, Rt. Hon. John William

  Joyce, Michael

  Cory, Sir Clifford (St. Ives)

  Hackett, John

  Kelly. Edward

  Cotton, H. E. A.

  Hancock, J. G.

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Crumley, Patrick

  Harbison, T. J. S.

  Kenyon, Barnet

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Harmsworth, Sir R. L. (Caithness)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Davies, Ellis William (Elflon)

  Haslam, Lewis

  King, Joseph

  Dillon, John

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Layland-Barratt, Sir F.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Smallwood, Edward

  Lundon, Thomas

  O'Dowd, John

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Macdonald, Rt. Hon. J. M. (Falk.B'ghs)

  O'Leary, Daniel

  Somervell, William Henry

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  O'Malley, William

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  MacGhee, Richard

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Parrott, Sir James Edward

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Pearce, Sir Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Tennant, Rt. Hon. Harold John

  Maden, Sir John Henry

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Thomas, Sir G. (Monmouth, S.)

  Mallalieu, Frederick William

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Thomas Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)

  Marshall, Sir Arthur Harold

  Reddy, Michael

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Rees, G. C. (Carnarvonshire, Arton)

  Weston, John W.

  Mason, Robert (Wansbeck)

  Richards, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Whitehouse, John Howard

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

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Whitty, Patrick Joseph

  Molloy, Michael

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Wiles, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Mooney, John J.

  Rowlands, James

  Williams, Thomas J. (Swansea)

  Morgan, George Hay

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Muldoon, John

  Runciman, Sir Walter (Hartlepool)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Nolan, Joseph

  Sheehy, David

  Mr. L. Williams and Mr. Hinds.

  Nugent, J. D. (College Green)

  NOES.

  Anderson, G. K. (Canterbury)

  Foxcroft, Capt. Charles Talbot

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

  Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

  Ganzoni, Francis John C.

  Newman, Sir Robert (Exeter)

  Anstruther-Gray, Lieut.-Col. William

  Gardner, Ernest

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Ashley, Wilfred W.

  Gastrell, Lieut.-Col. Sir W. Houghton

  Norman, Rt. Hon. Major Sir H.

  Astor, Major Hon. Waldorf

  Gibbs, Col. George Abraham

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Baird John Lawrence

  Gilmour, Lieut.-Col. John

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G.

  Goulding, Sir Edward Alfred

  Parkes, Sir Edward

  Barlow, Sir Montague (Salford, South)

  Greenwood, Sir Hamar (Sunderland)

  Partington, Hon. Oswald

  Barnett, Capt, R. W.

  Gretton, John

  Pearce, Sir William (Limehouse)

  Barnston, Major Harry

  Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)

  Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

  Barrle, H. T.

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

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

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

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord C. J.

  Pennefather, De Fonblanque

  Beach, William F. H.

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Harmood-Banner, Sir J. S.

  Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Harris, Sir Henry P. (Paddington, S.)

  Pratt, J. W.

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Prothero, Rt. Hon. Roland Edmund

  Bellairs, Commander C. W.

  Henry, Sir Charles (Shropshire)

  Pryce-Jones, Col. Sir E.

  Bonn, Sir Arthur S. (Plymouth)

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir R. T.

  Randies, Sir John S.

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Bird, Alfred

  Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

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

  Blair, Reginald

  Hickman, Brig.-Gen. Thomas E.

  Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Hills, Major John Waller

  Royds, Major Edmund

  Boscawon, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

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

  Boyton, Sir James

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

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

  Brassay, H. L. C.

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

  Samuels, Arthur W.

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Shortt, Edward

  Burn, Col. C. R.

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Carnegie, Lieut.-Col. Douglas G.

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

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Jackson, Sir John (Devonport)

  Stanier, Captain Sir Beville

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Jessel, Col. Sir Herbert M.

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Jodrell, Neville Paul

  Stewart, Gershom

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord Robert (Herts, Hitchin)

  Jones, W. Kennedy (Hornsey)

  Sykes, Col. Sir Allan John (Knutsford)

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Thomas-Stanford, Charles

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Tickler, T. G.

  Coats, Sir Stuart A. (Wimbledon)

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Turton, Edmund Russborough

  Collins, Sir W. (Derby)

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Colvin, Col. Richard Beale

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

  Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.)

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Weigall, Lieut.-Col. W. E. G. A.

  Coote, William (Tyrone, S.)

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Wheler, Major Granville C. H.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Lindsay, William Arthur

  White. Col. G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

  Cory, James H. (Cardiff)

  Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

  Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Lonsdale, James R.

  Wilson, Capt, A. Stanley (Yorks, E. R.)

  Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

  Wilson-Fox, Henry

  Currie, G. W.

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Winfrey, Sir Richard

  Currie, George W.

  McCalmont, Brig-Gen. Robert C. A.

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Dalrymple, Hon. H. H.

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

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

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

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

  Wood, Sir John (Stalybridge)

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Marriott, John Arthur Ransome

  Wood, S. Hill- (Derbyshire)

  Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

  Dixon, C. H.

  Meux, Adml. Hon. Sir Hedworth

  Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

  Falle, Sir Bertram Godfray

  Moore, Maj-Gen. Sir J. N. (Hanover Sq.)

  Yate, Col. C. E.

  Fell, Sir Arthur

  Morison, Thomas B. (Inverness)

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Mount, William Arthur

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Captain.

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Guest and Colonel Sanders.

  Motion made, and Question, "That the Bill be now read the third time," put, and agreed to.

  Mr. PROTHERO: I beg to move, at the end, to add the words,
  "except that the sum so payable in any year shall not exceed one hundred and ten or be less than ninety pounds in respect of a rent-charge
  2178
  of the original commuted value of one hundred pounds, or a proportionate amount in respect of any greater or less rent-charge."
  This Amendment is in fulfilment of a bargain I made during the Committee

  2179
  stage. I believe that some arrangement of this kind is necessary, and I think tithe payers and tithe owners will recognise that the variations I suggest is a reasonable one.
  Viscount WOLMER: There is one point I wish to raise on this Amendment. I should be very grateful if the right hon. Gentleman or the Under-Secretary could answer my point, and it is this: What inducement will there be for any tithe payer to redeem if this Amendment is carried? It seems to me that if you fix tithe now at £109, and then say it shall never rise above £110, and yet it may go down to £90, what inducement is there to the tithe payer now to redeem?
  Mr. PROTHERO: The answer is a very short one. The price which the landowner can get for his land at the present moment is thirty years' purchase. If he sells a portion at thirty years' purchase he redeems the tithe rent-charge at the rate of 21.
  Viscount WOLMER: It all depends whether the value of the land is thirty years' purchase, and that is rather a big subject on which the right hon. Gentleman knows a great deal more than I do. I must say, looking at it from the point of view of a layman, it is not clear, and when the right hon. Gentleman is dealing with this subject later on I hope he will make it clear that these terms do give a reasonable inducement to the tithe payer to redeem; otherwise, simply reading the words as they stand, they will give the impression that it is not worth redeeming at £109. If the tithe is not going to rise above £110 it may go down to £90.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I understand that the effect of this Amendment will be that tithe will never rise above £110, and will never go below £90. The result of that is to throw a certain amount of cold water upon redemption. I cannot say what the price of land is going to be in a few years time, or whether it is going to command thirty years' purchase or not, but the way to look at it at the present moment is, if you redeem it now, you can do so on the basis of providing capital at 5 per cent. interest. Supposing the value of money goes down, and the rate of interest at which you employ your spare money is only 4 per cent in ten years' time, you would then have done better to redeem your tithe now, because you would have
  2180
  employed your spare money at 5 per cent. That would be the only advantage, but of course it would be met by the corollary that if money should go up to 6 per cent. in the future you would have got a bad bargain. I only rose, however, to ask whether I was right in thinking that the effect of the Amendment is that it cannot exceed £110 and cannot be less than £90?
  Mr. PROTHEROindicated assent.
  Sir C. HOBHOUSE: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what is the meaning of the last half-dozen words in the Amendment, namely, "or a proportionate amount in respect of any greater or less rent-charge"? I find considerable difficulty in interpreting these words, and perhaps he will tell us what they mean.
  Mr. PROTHERO: If the tithe rent-charge in any particular land happens to be £50, or £57, or £34, the proportionate amount will be that laid down here. If you simply said only £100, that would not cover all the sums which are smaller; but £1 in tithe is in proportion.
  Mr. HARDY: I raised some objection to the addition which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to make in the Committee stage fixing a maximum. He said it had been represented to him that a maximum without a minimum certainly would be a very unfair thing. I am bound to say the Amendment now on the Paper seems to have nearly revolutionised the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman accepted the quinquennial average the other day for the purpose of establishing a longer stage in the change of price and so levelling the matter a very great deal. But really that is rendered nugatory by fixing this maximum and minimum, because the tithe can only vary between a very small amount altogether. This question was before the tithe owners in the Lower House of Convocation, whose report was one of the most valuable reports on the subject. They look with very great suspicion on this fixing of a maximum and a minimum, especially where there is a narrow minimum like this of £90 and £110. If tithe were to at some considerable time fall in the future to the old levels at £66, there would undoubtedly be great agitation against having to pay for it at £90, and I do not think it is very wise to fix limits, and especially narrow limits, like these. Tithe has followed the general run of prices. By taking fifty years you would do more

  2181
  to adjust the run of prices, and it certainly is not very wise to put in a limitation for many reasons, and very specially for the reason raised by my Noble Friend below me, that, in very many cases, it would check that repayment that we all desire. All the Amendments have, I think, gone rather in the way of checking redemption. The Bill was introduced first with the object of encouraging redemption, but I think the Amendments have gone the other way. Certainly, this one has gone very much the other way, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he thinks it is worth while to press it when he has got a quintennial average in the Bill.
  Mr. PROTHERO: I am quite prepared to leave it out at this stage, and to reconsider it with a view to bringing it forward if we think it necessary in another place.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  CLAUSE 2.—(Compulsory Redemption of Rent-charges Exceeding Twenty Shillings.)
  A tithe rent-charge, notwithstanding that it exceeds twenty shillings, shall, except in exceptional circumstances, on the application of the owner of the land charged therewith, and without the consent of the owner of the rent-charge, be directed to be redeemed under and in accordance with the Tithe Acts, 1836 to 1891, as amended by this Act.
  Mr. PROTHERO: I beg to move, after the word "shall" ["twenty shillings shall"], to leave out the words, "except in exceptional circumstances."
  This and the next two Amendments are really drafting Amendments intended to meet the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet the Member for East Bristol (Sir C. Hobhouse). The words that I proposed on the spur of the moment did not appear to me to be particularly happy, and they are altered now. I think this Clause, as amended, will, enable the Board to deal with any exceptional cases of hardship such as those which the right hon. Member for the Ashford Division suggested.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made: After the word "directed" ["be directed"], insert the words "by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries."
  At end of Clause, insert the words "unless, owing to any exceptional circumstances, the Board otherwise directs."—[Mr.Prothero.]

  CLAUSE 3.—(Consideration for Redemption,)
  (1) The consideration money payable on the redemption of a tithe rent-charge on any land under the Tithe Acts, 1836 to 1891, or this Act, shall, in lieu of the amount authorised or directed by the Tithe Acts, 1836 to 1891, be such an amount as may be agreed by the owners of the land and of the rent-charge, and in default of such agreement as may, on the application of the owner of the rent-charge, or of the owner of the land or any part thereof, be determined by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, in accordance with the provisions contained in the Second Schedule to this Act, to be fair compensation for the redemption.
  Mr. PROTHERO: I beg to move, after Sub-section (1), to insert the following new Sub-section:
  "(2) An agreement made under this Section may provide that the consideration money shall be discharged by an annuity payable yearly or half-yearly for such period, not exceeding fifty years, as may be agreed, consisting of interest at the rate of five per cent. per annum on the consideration money, and of such sum as would be sufficient if the periodical payments thereof were accumulated at compound interest at the rate of four per cent. per annum, to produce an amount equal to the consideration money at the end of the said period, and in any such case the Board shall by order direct the discharge of the consideration money by such an annuity as aforesaid and shall charge the land therewith, and the order shall contain such provisions for giving effect to the agreement and for protecting the interests of persons interested in the rent-charge as the Board may think fit, and after payment of the first instalment of the annuity the rent-charge shall cease and be extinguished."
  In Committee I promised the hon. and gallant Member for Rye that I would bring up on the Report stage an Amendment to enable voluntary agreements to be made for discharging the liability for tithe rent-charge by charging the land with terminable annuities. This Amendment, as drafted, follows very closely the details of the Amendment which stood in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Rye, and certain other Amendments. But the provision is entirely voluntary, and any agreement made between a tithe owner and a tithe payer would require the consent of Queen Anne's Bounty, as is provided in the following Section, or, in the case of lay tithe, it is the consent required by the following Sub-section. I do not myself think that the power will be very largely used; but I see no objection to parties being authorised to agree to such arrangements if they wish to do that.
  Sir C. HOBHOUSE: I have got a notice on the Paper to move a new Clause.

  2183
  Would the right hon. Gentleman tell me whether that would come as an Amendment at the same point as his Amendment? Leaving out of consideration the application of the words which I have put on the Paper to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, I understand that the Amendment of my right hon. Friend really deals with the same points as that which I have raised, and does it for the same purpose. The position of a tithe owner is this. If he is required to find the sum which is to be chargeable on the property which he desires to relieve from the payment of tithe rent-charge, he can only do it in two ways; either by having so large a sum at his disposal in selling securities as to discharge at once the sum equivalent to the tithe rent-charge, or else by saving out of an agricultural income the sum which is represented by that equivalent. Now, it is quite clear that it would be very hard for the owner of agricultural land to save out of an agricultural income the amount required to discharge the tithe rent-charge. He would, therefore, have to raise the money by way of mortgage on the property. That would be a very undesirable thing to do, and would increase the cost of redemption very considerably. If, when the payer of the tithe rent-charge goes to the Board of Agriculture, he is pretty fairly certain that the Board will make an arrangement by which he can discharge the sum equivalent to the tithe rent-charge by yearly instalments, he will have added very little to the burden of the charge on the property by increasing that charge by the amount of the repayment of principal. It is difficult to make my point clear. I hope I have done so to my right ton. Friend. He will pay an equivalent to the present tithe rent-charge in the way of interest. He will add to that the amount required to discharge the capital, and if it is understood that it is the general policy of the Board that where the payer of tithe rent-charge desires so to discharge his obligations that that is to be the fixed policy of the Board, then his Amendment meets all my requirements, and all those of my friends who, outside this House, have suggested this to me, and I have nothing more to say. I should just like to have an assurance from the President of the Board of Agriculture that that is the case.
  Mr. PROTHERO: I am not prepared to go further in facilitating this arrangement than to say that there shall be a voluntary agreement between the parties. The right hon. Baronet proposes to make this arrangement of redemption by annual instalments compulsory in the case of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. I think it is quite true that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners are not under the same disabilities with regard to accepting annual instalments as are the owners of settled estates, who would find it extremely difficult to reinvest the small bits of capital which are represented in that annual instalment. There is, therefore, that ground, I think, for the right hon. Baronet's suggestion; but, at the same time, I do not think that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners should be treated differently from other bodies, like colleges, or other tithe owners. That is to say, they ought not to be forced to accept a redemption by annual instalments which might only amount to a few shillings at a time. I am quite sure that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners are, as a body, most reasonable in all transactions of the kind; and I think, if the right hon. Baronet has a case in his own mind, he might be able to persuade the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to agree voluntarily to accept the proposal which he makes. I do not know whether he has consulted them; but I may say this, that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners themselves are very reluctant to be forced to accept annual instalments. I am therefore obliged to resist his proposal.
  Mr. HARDY: As an Ecclesiastical Commissioner I desire to oppose the suggestion that the Commissioners should be singled out, in all the country, for exceptional treatment. As the President of the Board of Agriculture says, they may be able to make a voluntary arrangement rather more easily than other people, and in that case, no doubt, a voluntary arrangement will be made. But they are the owners of a very large amount of tithe, and I think it would be very unfair if they were put in a less free position than any other tithe owner in the country.
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 5.—(Power to Charge on Land Money Payable for Redemption of Tithe Rent-charge.)
  (2) A charge created under the provisions of this Section shall have priority over every other

  2185
  then existing charge and encumbrance affecting the land, whether created under the powers of an Act of Parliament or otherwise.
  Mr. PROTHERO: I beg to move, after the word "Section" ["provisions of this Section"], to insert the words "or Section three of this Act."
  This is really consequential on a previous Amendment. The charges in Section 3 and in Section 5 are the costs of extinguishing the tithe rent-charge, and thus increasing the value of the land.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. DUNDAS WHITE: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words
  "Whether created under the powers of an Act of Parliament or otherwise."
  It would seem to me sufficient to leave the Clause as it stands, without these words. It gives the new charge priority over every other then existing charge or encumbrance affecting the land. It is not easy to see what is meant by these additional words. In the former state of the section priority was given not only over existing charges but over future charges, but as it has now been limited to the then existing charges, these words seem hardly necessary, and I would like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman has any special object in leaving them in.
  Mr. HOLT: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. PROTHERO: In the almost precisely analogous case of the Improvement of Lands Acts the charges imposed are given priority, and the principle on which this Bill proceeds is the same. The value is increased by the improvement, or, as in this case, by the extinction of the tithe. All charges and encumbrances gain by that increase in value. The security is improved, and it is only fair that the cost of the operation which so increases the security should be given priority over everything else. We want to retain these words in the Act simply because if you leave them out there is a doubt whether a charge created by an Act of Parliament is an encumbrance to which priority would be given over the charge created under this section. It is not a point of very great importance. The words are included merely to remove all possible doubt.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. PROTHERO: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2), to insert the words
  "And such a charge shall be a land charge within the meaning of the Land Charges Registration and Searches Act, 1888."
  This Amendment is merely to ensure registration of the charge, and that due notice is given to anybody dealing with the land, whether by purchase or mortgage. It is, in effect, a drafting Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  An Amendment stood upon the Paper in the name of Mr. D. White—at the end of Sub-section (2), to insert the words
  "Provided that rates, taxes and assessments shall not be deemed to be charges or encumbrances within the meaning of this Section."
  Mr. WHITE: I want to have it made perfectly clear that rates, taxes, and assessments are not to be regarded as charges or encumbrances within the meaning of this Section. It seems to me that there might be a doubt, and I merely want to clear away that doubt. I understand that it is not the intention of the Government that the terms "charges and encumbrances" should include rates and taxes, and I rather fancy that the Amendment which has just been inserted renders this Amendment unnecessary.
  Mr. PROTHERO: That is so.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member move?
  Mr. WHITE: No, I do not move.
  Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.

  PARLIAMENT (QUALIFICATION OF WOMEN) BILL
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  PARLIAMENT (QUALIFICATION OF WOMEN) BILL

    CLAUSE 1.—(Capacity of Women to be Members of Parliament.)
    A woman shall not be disqualified by sex or marriage for being elected to or sitting or voting as a Member of the Commons House of Parliament.
    Sir C. HENRY: I beg to move, after the word "woman," to insert the words "if she shall have attained the age of thirty."

    2187
    I, and a great number of others, were rather astonished when we saw this Bill, to find that there was no limit fixed as to the age when women should become eligible to be elected as Members of Parliament. The Noble Lord is aware, as I said on the Second Reading, that I have been a persistent opponent of women's, suffrage, but I always held, if you gave the women the suffrage, that their admission into Parliament was a corollary and the natural result, but I never thought that you were going to have an age limit as regards the franchise and no age limit at all as regards women becoming Members of Parliament. I have always held that if you gave them the franchise you were bound to give them legislative functions, but under this Bill you are giving them legislative functions when they have not the franchise. My right hon. Friend, besides being a statesman, is also learned in the law.
    The ASSISTANT SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord R. Cecil): I was once.
    Sir C. HENRY: The Noble Lord is at the present time, and I would like to put to him a question. Perhaps he can enlighten me. We know that the minority of a male ceases at the age of twenty-one, and that he then attains his majority. Can the Noble Lord tell me when the minority of a female ceases, and when she attains her majority? It is rather important. I think he said, on the Second Reading, that a woman, under this Bill, could not be elected to Parliament unless she had attained the age of twenty-one. May I ask him on what ground he stated that? Has he any ground for stating it? Why is twenty-one the age? Of course, I am only a layman and I know nothing about the law, but, as far as I know, a girl or a woman never reaches her majority. The Noble Lord, on the Second Reading, told us that this applies to twenty-one. I say, quite respectfully, that I am not sure whether that is quite certain. In my opinion, there is no reason why a young girl of eighteen should not present herself as a candidate, and, if elected, sit in Parliament.
    Mr. HOLT: Why not eight?
    Sir C. HENRY: Eight would be rather young, but we will put it like this: A flapper might present herself for election. We know that there is an age limit for a
    2188
    male, but, as far as I can ascertain, it will not apply to women. I know it will be urged that men are not debarred from sitting in Parliament even if they do not possess the electoral qualification and cannot exercise the vote. That is one reason urged by my right hon. Friend the Member for the Cleveland Division (Mr. Herbert Samuel) why no age limit should be assigned to women.
    Viscount WOLMER: A man cannot be elected before he is twenty-one.
    Sir C. HENRY: I have already dealt with that question. I believe, under this Bill, that a young woman of eighteen, or even under eighteen, could become a Member. Therefore that argument has not much force. You give the franchise to women when they are thirty, but under this Bill you make them eligible to become Members of this House at an indefinite age, and certainly below the age at which we give them the franchise. It will be known to my Noble Friend that in the different Legislatures on the Continent there is a certain age limit fixed before which men cannot become either deputies or senators. I believe, in France, you cannot become a deputy till you arrive at the age of twenty-five. In Italy it is the same. In France you cannot become a senator till you arrive at the age of forty. I, therefore, do press my Noble Friend to accept this Amendment. I assure him that it is not moved in any way to obstruct his measure. I must say that I am not enamoured of the Bill, but I accept it as the corollary of the other, and I submit that this is a logical Amendment, and that view is held by many of those who were strong partisans of women's suffrage. The Noble Lord will remember that when the Franchise Bill was before the House the question of giving the vote to women was left free to the House to decide. I would ask him whether he would be willing to leave this question open to the House, by which I mean that the Government Whips should not be put on when this Amendment goes to a Division? I think that is only fair. It is a point on which there is considerable difference of opinion, and it will not affect the principle of the Bill one iota. I do therefore ask him to take that into consideration. No one imagined that when this Bill was introduced the age at which a woman might become a Member of this House would be below the age at which they are entitled to exercise the franchise.
    Sir F. BANBURY: My Noble Friend, when he spoke on the Motion for leave to introduce a Bill of this sort, founded his argument on the statement that it would not be logical to grant a woman a vote, and to refuse to give her leave to sit in this House. I did not deny that there was a considerable amount of force in that argument, but I did argue that we did not know what the effect of this revolution would be, and that it was advisable to wait a little and see the effect of it before admitting women to this House. There was one flaw in my right hon. Friend's argument, and I think he knew that flaw, because the clergy for years have had the vote but have not been allowed to sit in this House. A man of such deep religious feelings and convictions as my Noble Friend must have been well aware of that fact. Now that we have the Bill we find that it is totally different from what we were given to understand it would be when the Motion was before the House, because the Bill does not admit women who are entitled to vote; it admits women who are not entitled to vote. That is entirely against the argument of my Noble Friend. What really has happened is this: Whenever a woman takes a little she generally says, "That is all I want; it is absurd to think I should want any more," but as soon as she gets that she wants something more—something which she said just before that she did not want.
    During Mr. Speaker's Conference—I think I am correct in stating this, because I have taken some trouble to verify it—a deputation of women did attend some members and ridiculed the idea that, if the vote were given to them, they would never wish to sit in the House. Now, having got the vote, they proceed to ask to be able to sit in the House. By this Bill they would be so qualified. Of course, the next thing would be to say, "It is not logical to allow a woman of twenty-one to be a Member of Parliament and at the same time to refuse her the vote." We shall then immediately have a Bill to reduce the age qualification from thirty to twenty-one, and we shall be told, 'It is not logical for you to oppose it; you gave them power to sit in the House; how can you defend the suggestion that a woman who is capable of sitting in the House, perhaps of sitting in the Chairman's chair, or in Mr. Speaker's chair, or even sitting where my Noble Friend is sitting at the present moment and presiding over the destinies of the Foreign Office, yet at the same time she is
    2190
    not fit to vote?" The idea is absurd. Now we come to the question raised by the Amendment, as to what is the legal disqualification which prevents a woman being elected at the age of eighteen. I have taken the trouble to ascertain whether there is any legal disqualification for men. It seems that previously to 7 and 8 Wm. III. minors were frequently permitted to sit in the House.
    "By Section 7 of that Act it was, however, enacted that no person should be capable of being elected in that or any future Parliament if he was not of the age of twenty-one years, and if he presumed to sit or vote that he should be liable to the same penalties as a person sitting or voting without having been elected. Since the passing of that Act, minors have, however, sat in the House, namely, Charles James Fox, who sat for Midhurst before he was twenty years of age, and Lord John Russell for Tavistock before he was of age."
    There is something about Ireland which I will not read. It is evidently plain from that that the Act which says that no person shall be capable of being elected unless he is of the age of twenty-one years has been violated, and that men under twenty-one have sat in this House. Surely some age-limit should be laid down, even if my Noble Friend is not prepared to accept thirty years. I cannot see how, on his own logic, he can refuse to accept thirty. I disagree with his interruption when he said that he is not learned in the law. He still is learned in the law, and I am quite certain that if he were arguing my case before a judge he would argue it with such force that the judge would be compelled to accept his proposal. I hope that I have convinced him that he is wrong.
    Lord R. CECIL: I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment. The argument put forward by my hon. Friend who moved it was that since we fixed the age of thirty as the age at which women can vote, therefore we ought to adopt the same age for their sitting in Parliament. I am afraid I do not agree with that either as a proposition of constitutional law or as really resting on the true facts of what has happened in this matter. So far as constitutional law is concerned, nothing is clearer than that the present condition of the English law is that it is not a necessary qualification for Members of Parliament that they should have the right to vote. Therefore, as a matter of constitutional law, there is nothing in that point so far as I can see.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I gather that the point of the Noble Lord's argument is that a certain man may not be qualified to vote because he may not have the occupational franchise or the residential franchise, but that he is qualified to vote on account of age. There is no disqualification for voting on account of age, but the point is that in the case of women there is a special disqualification upon the point of age and not on the point as to whether they have property or are otherwise qualified.
    Lord R. CECIL: The general proposition is quite true, that it is a principle of the Constitution that anyone can sit in this Parliament who has not a vote for a Member of Parliament. As to this particular disqualification, everybody knows quite well why the age of thirty years was fixed as the age at which women could vote. It had nothing to do with their supposed capacity or incapacity between the ages of twenty-one and thirty-one. That limit was adopted in order to meet the objection to the extension of the franchise without some limit of the number of women voters. That is perfectly notorious, and there is no secret about it. That is the reason why the age limit of thirty was introduced, in order to avoid extending the franchise to a very large number of women, for fear they might be in a majority in the electorate of this country. It was for that reason only, and it had nothing to do with their qualifications at all. No one would seriously suggest that a woman of twenty-five is less capable of giving a vote than a woman of thirty-five. The only question is whether the reason which applied to the limit of the number of voters applies also to Members of the House of Commons. You have merely to state it to see the answer. The object of this Bill, if it is approved at all, must be approved because it throws open a larger choice to the electors of the country. It enables them to choose, if they think right, women who are not disqualified by other legal disqualifications for membership of this House. Therefore, with all respect, I do not think there is anything in that point. Then it is said that if you do not put in some limit of age, a woman of eighteen might be elected. My right hon. Friend opposite (Sir F. Banbury) went on to point out that in fact men of eighteen or nineteen years of age have been elected, and he quoted the well-known instances of
    2192
    Charles James Fox—not a very conclusive condemnation of the system, after all—and of Lord John Russell, neither of whom were wholly undistinguished Members of this House. But, as a matter of fact, you have a legislative enactment which the right hon. Baronet read out, and which I freely admit I had forgotten. I thought the disqualification rested entirely on the common law. He points out that there is a legislative enactment, saying that no person under twenty-one shall be elected. You cannot do more than that. If you put it into this Bill you could not make it any stronger. There it is, it exists, and the Legislature has enacted that disqualification. This Bill provides that there shall not be a disqualification on account of sex. It leaves all the other disqualifications exactly as they were. Therefore it seems to be quite clear that no woman under twenty-one years of age will be entitled to be elected. I hope I have dealt with the arguments put forward in this case. To my mind it would be quite illogical and absurd to limit the choice of the electors to women over the age of thirty, if they are to be allowed to choose them at all. The right hon. Baronet was quite inaccurate in saying that I rested the case for this change on the ground that since women had got the vote, therefore they ought to be elected, in the sense that only those women who had the vote ought to be elected. What I said was that since you had swept away the disqualification of sex in the matter of the electors, there was no ground for maintaining it in the matter of Members of Parliament. That is true. I still think that is a sound proposition. For these reasons I am sorry to say I cannot accept the Amendment.
    Mr. HOLT: I am very glad the Noble Lord has taken up the line he has done. A more unreasonable proposal than that before the Committee I have never listened to. There is quite as strong an argument as any for rejecting the proposal, namely, that when you allow a person to become an elector, every person who has that qualification becomes an elector by right, but when you consider the qualification of persons to be elected, that is not the case. They are not elected as a right; they have still to obtain the assent of a very large number of people. It might well be that persons between twenty-one and thirty would not be fit to exercise the franchise, because it might be thought that the vast majority

    2193
    of them were unfit to be electors; yet at the same time it is quite conceivable that the persons the electors would select would be quite fit to sit in this House. There is no logical argument whatever in suggesting that the qualification to vote, which is a matter of right, and the qualification to be elected, ought to be the same. One is a question of what you do of your own free will; the other is a question of whether a large body of, say, some 30,000 or 40,000 of your fellow-citizens select you for a particular situation. I am glad the Government are standing for the principle that it is the electors and not Members of this House who are to decide who can and who cannot come here.
    7 0 P.M.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Will my Noble Friend guarantee, supposing this Amendment is rejected and this Bill becomes law, that there will not be a demand to reduce the age qualification for voting from thirty to twenty-one? He nods at that. He will not do that. It was perhaps a rather impossible question to put to him, for he may not have sufficient influence to prevent women doing this thing. But will he oppose any such proposal?
    Lord R. CECIL: When such a proposal comes forward I shall deal with it upon its merits, as I am sure the right hon. Baronet will do.
    Sir C. HENRY: Does not my Noble Friend think that if he admits the Amendment to qualify a woman for a seat in Parliament below the age of thirty it will precipitate a movement that she shall be allowed to vote at the age of twenty-one?
    Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: I venture to appeal to my hon. Friend not to press this somewhat ungallant self-denying Amendment. It is not reasonable that we should deprive the women of the satisfaction of sitting at any age. A man may do so, and why should women not have the same qualification? I rather admire the stoical way in which the Noble Lord took the strong cross-examination directed at him by the hon. Baronet. I have no doubt he is fully supplied with the information which was asked for and I assume it will be forthcoming at the appropriate time. I hope the hon. Baronet will not press this disqualification, seeing that men are not subject to it.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. HOLT: I beg, to move, after the word "woman" ["A woman"], to insert the words, "other than a woman holding in her own right a peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain or the United Kingdom."
    I want really to discover how the law is going to stand when this Bill has been passed. This is really rather a good example of the inconvenience of having followed the Noble Lord's plan of introducing a single Bill dealing with the Membership of both Houses of Parliament. I would like to ask the Noble Lord to tell me whether it requires an Act of Parliament to enable women to sit in another place or whether anything more is necessary than a Resolution passed in that other place? It is rather important we should know when we are considering what we are going to do as regards the Membership of this House.
    Sir C. HENRY: Is my hon. Friend moving an Amendment?
    Mr. HOLT: Yes; the Amendment on the Order Paper. What I want to know is, what will be the position if this Bill passes as it stands?-How will it affect ladies who hold peerages in their own right?
    Sir C. HENRY: Does not my Amendment come before that of my hon. Friend?
    The CHAIRMAN: No.
    Mr. HOLT: It appears to me there is some danger under this Bill of making these Peeresses eligible to sit in both Houses of Parliament, and I think we ought now to make it quite plan that Peeresses in their own right shall not, by this Act, become eligible for Membership of this House.
    Lord R. CECIL: I do not quite understand on what ground the hon. Member puts this disqualification of women unless it is that they have a seat in another place. I agree that no person should be entitled to sit in both Houses of Parliament. That, indeed, is a principle which is generally admitted, but I think it would not be right to exclude women from this House, unless it is quite certain that they are eligible for the other House. I hope the hon. Member will not press his Amendment. If in the course of the passage of this Bill changes are made which will include these women in the other House, some Amendment will then become necessary.
    Mr. HOLT: I want to prevent not only the possibility of one person sitting in both Houses of Parliament, but of any person exercising the option to do so. Take the case of a lady holding a Scottish Peerage. Is there anything whatever to prevent such a lady being a candidate for this House? Her position is rather different from that of an English Peer. The English Peer by constitutional custom can never sit in this House. I understand the Scottish Peer is only prevented sitting here by Statute. The Irish Peer is in a different position. I understand there are no Irish Peeresses—[An HON. MEMBER: "There are two!"]—and, therefore, it is practically impossible for the question to be raised in the case of Ireland. I imagine it would not necessarily follow that the statutory instruction with regard to Scottish Peers sitting here would apply to Peeresses. I therefore think the effect of passing this Bill as it stands would probably be that Scottish Peeresses would become eligible for English and Irish constituencies.
    Lord R. CECIL: An Irish Peer now can be elected for this House. They are eligible for membership of it. Lord Palmerston's case is an instance in point.
    Mr. HOLT: I believe we have an example at the present time, but we shall be identifying ourselves with an extraordinary anomaly. A Scottish Peeress might be elected to this House, whereas a Scottish Peer could not be. It seems to me that this is a point which ought to be cleared up. It is quite possible the matter might become the subject of legal proceedings. Whatever may be the decision of another place, surely it would be better here to make it absolutely clear so that there can be no doubt whatever! I submit to the Noble Lord it would be well to make it clear that ladies holding Peerages in their own right should not be free to come here. Let us lay it down one way or the other and not leave the point in a state of absolute obscurity and unsettlement.
    Sir E. POLLOCK: I think this point really needs a little more consideration. I understand my hon. Friend wishes to get rid of the possibility of ladies being elected to this House at their own choice. How does the matter stand? If I am correct—and I speak subject to correction—a lady who holds a Peerage of the United Kingdom, whilst she may not be able to sit in the House of Lords, is prevented absolutely being elected to this House because
    2196
    she is for all practical purposes a Peer of the realm and the disability which applies to Peers applies equally to her. Then we come to the Scottish Peers. Their case is provided for by the Act of Union. This is not merely a statutory disability imposed by some Act of Parliament, but it depends on the Act of Union, and under the Act of Union a certain number of Scottish Peers, and only a certain number, can be elected to sit in the House of Lords. If a lady holds a Scottish Peerage she is a Peer, she would have her chance and right of election as a representative Peer along with other Scottish Peers; but unless she secures election in that way she would not be able to take her seat. Is she to be under the disability to sit in this House? Then we come to the case of the Irish Peers. That also depends on the Act of Union with Ireland. If a lady holds an Irish Peerage she would have first to secure election as one of the representative Irish Peers before being able to take her seat in the House of Lords, but if she does not secure election, then it is possible that her disability as a Peeress would disappear, and she would be able to submit herself for election to this House. That being so, does the hon. Member wish to lay down that in no case shall an Irish Peeress be allowed to be elected to this House so long as she has not been elected as a representative Peer for Ireland? I should have thought that my hon. Friend was possessed of too liberal tendencies to wish to place the lady under such a disability. I understand there are, in fact, two Irish Peerages which pass in the female line. Is it suggested that ladies holding those Peerages should be placed under this disability? I repeat this matter needs more consideration, because many statutes require to be looked into before the point can be decided.
    Mr. HOLT: If I were sure the law is precisely what the hon. and learned Gentleman has stated I should be quite satisfied, but I do not think his view of the law is precisely the same as that of the Noble Lord, who seems to think that my Amendment is not a good one, and that these ladies ought to be allowed to be elected to this House. In view of the exposition of the law we have had I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    The CHAIRMAN: We come now to a series of Amendments which are intended to raise a question with regard to the

    2197
    other House. I think it will be much more convenient, and in better form, if the Amendment is moved at the end of the words of the existing Clause. The hon. Baronet comes nearest to the right form as I suggest that he should move to add at the end of the Clause, the words "or for receiving a writ of summons to attend and sit and vote in the House of Lords."
    Sir C. HENRY: I beg to move, at the end, to add the words
    "or for receiving a writ of summons to attend and sit and vote in the House of Lords."
    I am somewhat surprised that my Noble Friend, who is not lacking in audacity, should bring in this what might be called half measure. Why he has confined his Parliamentary (Qualification of Women) Bill entirely to Members of the House of Commons I am at loss to understand, and I think that is the view of a good many Members of the House. If women are not to be disqualified by sex or marriage from being elected or sitting and voting as Members of the Commons House of Parliament, I should like to know what reason he can adduce why they should not receive a writ of summons to attend and sit and vote in the House of Lords. I am certain he does not imagine that life in the House of Lords is more strenuous than life in the House of Commons. Does he imagine that it would be a greater hardship for a woman to get a summons to sit in the House of Lords than it is for her to go through a contested election? Surely that cannot be the reason. As my Noble Friend has always been a champion of the other House, surely, if he considers that it is advisable and that this House would be improved by women becoming Members of it, he will not deprive the House of Lords, for which he has the greatest respect and which has been most useful to him in times gone past, of the privilege of having women Members. But it goes even further than that. Peeresses in their own right will be placed in my opinion in a very embarrassing position. Take the case of Viscountess Rhondda who has recently become in her own right a Viscountess of the United Kingdom. Is she to be deprived, because adequate provisions have not been made in this measure, of the opportunity of sitting in the House of Lords. It raises, to a certain extent, the point raised by my hon. Friend (Mr. Holt). Viscountess Rhondda, who would be qualified to become a Member of
    2198
    Parliament if any lady was, from her experience in business and other matters, according to this Bill would not be qualified to sit in the House of Lords, and I ask the Noble Lord whether she would be entitled to become a Member of this House?
    If this Bill is passed and you confine it to the Commons House of Parliament, not only will it be placing a certain number of women at a great disadvantage but you will be depriving the House of Lords of the advantage which the Noble Lord wishes to confer on this House. The Noble Lord understands the other House as well, and better perhaps, than any other Member of this House. Naturally he should do so from his past associations. It may be that while in favour of the Amendment he has hesitated to put it forward in his Bill because he is somewhat doubtful of the reception it will meet with in the House of Lords. I quite agree that the House of Lords cannot reject this Bill, although they will not like it. It is a logical conclusion of the franchise, and the Second Reading was passed unanimously, but I think the Noble Lord will agree with me that if the Amendment is inserted the Bill may not have the smooth passage he would desire in the other place. That is a matter to which I do not think we should pay much attention. Are women more unqualified to sit in the House of Lords than in the House of Commons? That is the issue we have to face. I shall be very interested to know why the Noble Lord has not inserted this provision in the Bill. It has been decided that women shall be qualified to sit in the House of Commons; and there can be no possible plausible argument brought forward why they should not have the same privilege when they are Peeresses in their own right from sitting in the House of Lords. Therefore, I hope my Noble Friend will take his courage in both hands, accept the Amendment and make his Bill a complete Bill.
    Mr. RENDALL: I think I may have discovered the Noble Lord's reason for not putting the Amendment in the Bill. It is that he thought it would come much better from the House of Commons than from himself, and consequently, if the Committee is allowed a free vote on the question I do not think there can be much doubt that it will decide that what is good for us is also good for the other House. I trust, therefore, that as Women

    2199
    Suffrage has been dealt with in the past without putting on the Government Whips, the Noble Lord may be able to leave this Amendment to be dealt with in the same manner. If he does that I think the House of Lords will pay respect to it, and will probably treat themselves as they find we have treated ourselves here. Perfect equality demands an Amendment of this kind. I would certainly not lose the Bill for the sake of the Amendment—that is the last thing in the world I would desire—but I cannot think we should do that. The Amendment will be considered in the Lords, it will get there with all the weight of an almost unanimous decision of the House of Commons in its favour, and if the Lords decide to get rid of it, I do not think that will affect the safety of the Bill. Consequently, I think the Committee ought to put the Amendment in and leave it to the Lords to take it out if they think fit.
    Lord R. CECIL: I approach this Amendment with the greatest sympathy for the general point of view which has prompted its proposal. There is something very attractive about saying there is no reason in the world why women should not sit in the House of Lords as well as in the House of Commons, and primâ facie I should myself agree to that as a general proposition. But when you come to look at it closely it is not quite the same thing. As far as the House of Commons is concerned, what you are doing is to say that any woman who secures the suffrage of her fellow-citizens in the constituency shall not be excluded by her sex from the House of Commons. You are opening the door wider to the choice of the electorate. If you make it apply to the House of Lords you are doing rather a different thing. You are there placing, by the operation of the Bill, a certain number of women in that House. I am told there are about twenty or thirty Peeresses in their own right. They would thereupon, by the passage of this Bill, be made members of the Legislature. That is a different proposition. It may be an equally good one, but it is different from removing the disqualification to be elected by the electors of this country. It seems to me a kind of proposition which might arouse a great deal of opposition in another place. The hon. Baronet (Sir C. Henry) did not think it necessary to conceal the fact that that was his main reason for putting it forward.
    Sir C. HENRY: No!
    Lord R. CECIL: One of his reasons for putting it forward. It is rather important that the Committee should recognise that the hon. Baronet should have moved the Amendment having in view, to put it in the mildest way possible, that if he can secure its insertion it may imperil the chances of the Bill in another place.
    Sir C. HENRY: I think the Noble Lord—
    Lord R. CECIL: The hon. Baronet need not interrupt about that. The Committee heard him. What I rather feel about it is that when you are going to make what would really be a considerable change in the composition of the other House they have a right to say they ought to be the people to do it. It would be a very natural thing for any of us, if we happened to be members of it, to say ourselves. Peers are very much like everyone else, and I suppose they would say it, and if they said it, one must not conceal from oneself the fact that there is a very large body of opinion in that House which has always been very doubtful about the desirability of giving women voters political power. It is not possible that the two currents would coalesce and induce the other House to refuse to pass the Bill? On the other hand, what do we risk who are in favour of the change, as I am myself? If we put the Amendment in and there is a majority in the other House against it, they may reject it altogether, but they would at the very least strike it out, and I am quite sure this House would not be prepared to risk the fate of the Bill on the question whether they would insist on the Amendment. Therefore, if there is a majority against it in the other House, we may not succeed in carrying the Bill at all. If, on the other hand, there is a majority in its favour, there is no doubt whatever that the proposition would be put forward in the other House and it would be inserted in the Bill. Therefore, it seems to me, looking at it merely from the point of view of a friend of the Bill—
    Sir F. BANBURY: Expediency.
    Lord R. CECIL: Politics is very largely a question of expediency. Looking at it from the point of view of a friend of the Bill, it seems to me that if you insert this Amendment you do not materially increase or very seriously increase the

    2201
    chance of achieving the purpose of the Amendment, but you do increase the risk of the success of the Bill. Under these circumstances, after giving very careful and, I think, perfectly impartial consideration to the matter during the period which has elapsed since the Bill was read a second time, I strongly advise the House not to accept the Amendment.
    Colonel GREIG: I would like to ask my hon. Friends not to press this Amendment, for a reason which has not been adduced, but which, I think, will commend itself to them. If I am not mistaken, they are both Members who in normal times would have been in favour of very drastic remedies being applied to the constitution of the Second Chamber. Is it wise at this time to attempt to tinker with its constitution? It is far better to leave the other House to make such proposals as they may think fit, undisturbed by any suggestion on our part, and then judge of those proposals when their lordships have dealt with them. If this Amendment were carried, it would be construed, and would be used, without the slightest doubt, as sanctioning the extention of the hereditary principle in the Legislature—the right to legislate on the ground of heredity. On all these grounds, and having regard to the fact that the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment entertain much wider views in regard to the Second Chamber, it would be much better, from the point of reform, to leave the Bill as it stands.
    Sir W. DICKINSON: As one who spoke in favour of our inserting this proposal, I think it only right to say that I have been very much impressed by the argument just adduced by the Noble Lord. I think it really is conclusive; and, speaking personally, I should be quite prepared to leave it to the House of Lords to insert it themselves, as I hope they will do. I hope there will be no Division in this House. If we prefer not to state our view that it ought to be put in, I hope we shall not state our view that it ought not to be put in. Therefore, I would ask my hon. Friend to withdraw the Motion.
    Sir C. HENRY: My hon. Friend (Colonel Greig) thinks that this Amendment would be an extension of the hereditary principle of the House of Lords. I do not agree with that. These Peeresses who would go to the House of Lords would not go in an hereditary
    2202
    character, because they are Peeresses in their own right. Therefore, I think the hon. Member will agree with me that that point of his argument does not carry much weight. Like him, I am strongly in favour of a reform of the Second Chamber. I think I am right in my deduction that the Noble Lord, in the interests of his Bill, thinks it better not to insert this Amendment. He thinks it is quite possible that he might lose his Bill if the Amendment is inserted. Personally, I should not be afraid if it is withdrawn; I will say that quite frankly. However, under the circumstances, and as I do not seem to get much support, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 2 (Short Title) ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Bill reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY WAR PENSIONS BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  NAVAL AND MILITARY WAR PENSIONS BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Administrative Expenses of Committees.)
    (1) The administrative expenses of any local or joint committee (including the expenses of any sub-committee thereof), to an amount approved by the Minister shall, instead of being defrayed in manner provided by Section one of the Naval and Military War Pensions, etc. (Administrative Expenses) Act, 1917 (hereinafter referred to as "the Administrative Expenses Act"), be as from the first day of April, nineteen hundred and nineteen, defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament.
    (2) Every local committee and every joint committee shall submit for the approval of the Minister an estimate of the administrative expenses proposed to be incurred by the committee for any prescribed period, and may from time to time submit to him supplementary estimates.
    The Minister shall consider all estimates submitted to him for his approval under this Section, and shall, if and so far as he considers any such estimate reasonable, approve the estimate.
    (3) For the purposes of the provisions of this Section the administrative expenses of a local or joint committee shall include travelling expenses and compensation for loss of remunerative time in the case of members of the committee or any sub-committee thereof calculated in accordance with Regulations made by the Minister subject to the approval of the Treasury.
    Mr. PENNEFATHER: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words
    "But the council of any county or borough or urban district for whose area a local committee has been established may, with the consent of the Local Government Board or the Secretary for Scotland, as the case may be, make such payments as they think fit to supplement the amount approved by the Minister towards the administrative expenses of any such local committee, district committee, or sub-committee, and any such supplementary payments may be made out of any fund or rate out of which the expenses of the council making the rate are payable."
    This first Amendment which stands in my name is one about which I believe there is some misapprehension. Some idea seems to exist that it is framed in a spirit of hostility towards the Pensions Ministry. That is not the case. It is an entirely friendly Amendment. The misapprehension also is that this Amendment has something to do with the scale of pensions. It has not; it has merely to do with the administration expenses of the local committees. It has for its sole object the enabling of local committees to raise themselves to a higher degree of efficiency even if that entails some expenditure over and above the maximum allowed by the Ministry of Pensions. It is quite possible that in certain cases the Ministry of Pensions, for reasons which may be perfectly sound from the general point of view, may not see its way to allow to certain local committees grants on a higher scale than the scale allowed to other local committees, yet it may be in the interests of the full efficiency of certain committees, notably in our great cities, that extra expenditure shall be undertaken. If this extra expenditure is undertaken over and above the estimate accepted by the Ministry of Pensions, then the individual members of the committee will be personally responsible for any items which may be disallowed. The only other course is for local committees to be allowed to obtain if they can the consent of the county council, the city council, or other local authority which has funds, to the spending of a certain amount over and beyond the estimates accepted by the Ministry of Pensions and to be recouped for that expenditure out of the local funds. Anybody who knows how jealously local authorities guard their local funds knows that it is in the highest degree improbable that local authorities would grant these sums to cover extra expenditure unless there were
    2204
    good and valid local reasons for it, even although the Pensions Ministry dealing with the broad general principle might not have allowed it. The local authority would, of course, be acting, in granting any such sum, in the interest of or for the convenience of local residents. Assuming that the local authority saw fit to offer to defray these extra expenses which the local war pensions committee desire, a further formality would have to be gone through—I think it would be merely a formality in most cases—and that is the local authority would have to obtain the consent of the Local Government Board. There, again, I believe there is a little misunderstanding. Some hon. Members seem to think that that procedure might involve conflict between the Ministry of Pensions and the Local Government Board. I submit that nothing of the kind would occur. If there was any dispute or argument, it would be dispute and argument between the local authority which was finding the money and the Local Government Board. There is really no reason why the Local Government Board and the Pensions Ministry should ever come into contact over the matter, much less have anything between them which might cause friction.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen): I am very anxious that we should, as far as possible, come to an agreement on the main features of this Bill. The Ministry, as I promised when I spoke on the Second Reading, has held conferences with some of the Gentlemen who take a particular interest in pensions, and we have agreed to a certain number of Amendments. I do not say at the moment that there has been any sort of bargain and that no other Amendments have to be moved, but I think as an evidence of the intentions of the Ministry it is only necessary to look at the Order Paper and see the very large number of Amendments the Ministry have put down in order to carry out the views expressed to them by various critics. I cannot accept this Amendment. It would enable the local committees, if they so desired after they had submitted their estimates to us, and after we had approved of the same, to bring forward a supplementary estimate and to submit it not to us, but to the council of the borough or district in which the committee was situated, and if they could persude the council to pass the

    2205
    estimate the council would have to refer to the Local Government Board. In that way they would get a sort of supplementary estimate passed by another Government Department over and above what we had authorised. I submit that if any estimate for which we have given sanction proves to be insufficient, the proper course for the Committee to take is to do what is provided for in the next words of the Bill, namely "from time to time submit supplementary estimates." That being so, I maintain that they should submit their supplementary estimates to us, and not endeavour to get a provisional amount from another source. These administration expenses are either on a proper scale or they are not. If they are on a proper scale they will be approved by us. If they go outside what is reasonable and proper, they ought not to be allowed. On the point as to whether there would be trouble between one Government Department and another, I suggest that it would be most inconvenient and most unprecedented to approach one Government Department and then another in the way suggested. We do not think that is proper. If it is a question of meeting any special local requirements; if, for example, it is desired to pay an extra large salary in order to retain the services of a particular man who is regarded as essential to the work, we should certainly take that into consideration, and we should not lay down any hard-and-fast rule, but we cannot admit the principle of going for further funds to another Government Department. We must stand by the principle of the Bill, which is, that the whole cost of the administration should be paid by the State and that the Ministry of Pensions should be the judge as to whether the proposed scales are reasonable or not.
    Mr. PENNEFATHER: I am much obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend for his conciliatory statement, but I still think there is a little misunderstanding. It is quite true that a local committee may submit a supplementary estimate in case the original estimate be too small, but it can only be submitted for approval, and may be either approved or disapproved. I do not suppose for one moment that my hon. and gallant Friend would lay down the principle that every estimate, supplementary or otherwise, submitted by the local war pensions committee should be accepted by the Ministry of Pensions. Therefore we are face to face with this,
    2206
    that it is quite probable that a local war pensions committee may submit an estimate or supplementary estimate in excess of what the Ministry of Pensions considers reasonable. It is only in cases like that where a local war pensions committee could with any reasonableness approach the local authority and ask them for a Grant to enable them to carry out the scheme up to the high standard of the locality, and it is to guard against that particular contingency that this Amendment is deliberately offered. This Amendment is not altogether mine. It has been agreed to and pressed by the conference of local committees which met at Birmingham recently, comprising all the largest and most important local committees in Great Britain, and as it comes from such an important body I do ask my hon. and gallant Friend if he cannot reconsider the matter, particularly if words could be inserted to make it clear that the danger which he suggests would be avoided. I do not suggest for a moment that, if the Ministry of Pensions say that there is a line of action to which they distinctly object and which they will not authorise, the pensions committee could, as suggested, go by a side-wind to another Government Department and defeat the Pensions Ministry. But if the Pensions Ministry say, "We approve of the principle which you are endeavouring to carry out, but we cannot for certain reasons give you all the money you want to carry out that particular thing of which we approve," then surely it would be possible for the Pensions Ministry to adopt some such course as that suggested in the Amendment. I would, therefore, ask the hon. and gallant Member whether he would not accept this Amendment with the insertion of some such words after "but" as "unless the Pensions Ministry object," or "with the consent of the Pensions Ministry." There would be nothing unreasonable in that.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. HOGGE: I beg to move, in Subsection (3), after the word "time" ["remunerative time"], to insert the words
    "and reasonable day and night subsistence allowances."
    The Clause provides that the administrative expenses of local committees shall include travelling expenses and compensation for loss of remunerative time." This is a small Amendment in some respects, but it involves a fairly large principle. It

    2207
    does not affect committees in urban localities, but it certainly does in the county areas. If a man has to devote, as men are invited to devote by the Ministry, time for the purposes of this committee, and are to have travelling expenses, you require to enlarge the words so as to cover the whole of the monetary loss. Those local war pensions committees are made up of representative bodies, among whom are trade unionists. The principle has already been accepted with regard to a great many of them, and I invite the hon. and gallant Gentleman in charge of the Bill to make his words inclusive, so that if the Ministry really do desire that type of man for the committee, there will be no monetary loss entailed on him.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I cannot see my way to accept this Amendment As my right hon. Friend has rightly said, we already provide travelling expenses and compensation for loss of remunerative time, but it is a very unusual thing to provide also subsistence allowances. I am informed—I am not bringing any general charge against the local war pensions committees—that there is a danger in the case of some committees, if this general charge for subsistence is allowed, that it may lead to unnecessary delay of journeys in order to secure allowances. But I realise that there is a real difficulty and that there is hardship in certain cases, and we have been in communication with the Treasury on the subject, and I think without any general provision like this being put into the Bill we shall be able, by the arrangements which we have made with the Treasury, to pay subsistence allowance in the case where owing to great distance and so forth it is really necessary for members to stop over the night. In those circumstances I do not think it necessary to insert the words in the Bill. We are aware of the difficulty and think we can make administrative arrangements to meet any real case of hardship.
    Mr. HOGGE: If my hon. and gallant Friend assures me of that I will withdraw my Amendment. What was in my mind was this, I remember quite distinctly that I was asked to do a bit of work for the Government, and because I was asked to do that work I was offered a pound a day subsistence allowance. It does not cost me at any time a pound a day to live, and it seems extraordinary that in the average case a pound a day subsistence allowance
    2208
    should be given to Members of this House and other people while on Government business, while you may not get the man you want to do this work because you do not make a subsistence allowance. But as my hon. and gallant Friend says that he has made arrangements with the Treasury to cover this, I will withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir H. HARRIS: I beg to move, at the end, to add the words
    "and may include travelling expenses of persons not members of the committee, or any subcommittee where the Ministry is satisfied that such persons have special experience of the work and give their services regularly."
    The Bill provides that administrative expenses shall include travelling expenses and compensation for loss of remunerative time in the case of members of the committee or any sub-committee thereof. My Amendment proposes that administrative expenses shall include travelling expenses of persons not members of the committee or any sub-committee where the Ministry is satisfied that such persons have special experience of the work and give their services regularly. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept this Amendment, in order, at any rate, to give the Ministry the power of allowing expenses of this kind if he desires to do so. It will relieve what is a very serious and difficult position, in London, at any rate. There is a large number of voluntary workers who attend the local offices on two, three, four, or even more days a week. They interview applicants, advise them as to their rights, act as visitors, and so on. Many of them have been working since the beginning of the War and have gained a very large experience, and are in very close touch with the families of soldiers, and it would be a very serious matter if we lost their services. If they are members of committees or sub-committees, they can receive travelling expenses and compensation for loss of remunerative time, but if they are not members of a committee or sub-committee they can receive nothing. So that one gets this rather unjust position, that a person who only attends a committee for an hour or so a week gets travelling expenses, but people who give days to work in the local office cannot even get their travelling expenses. Many of these voluntary workers would not accept any expenses, but it so happens that now we have a considerable number

    2209
    of people who are feeling the pinch of the War who are put to considerable out-of-pocket expenses by having to go to different parts of London in doing this work, and while they desire to continue to make a free gift of their services to the public, they do ask whether this small concession should not be made. All I ask is that my hon. Friend should take power to do something in that direction if he considers it desirable. He would certainly save money by it. It would be quite impossible to replace many of these persons by officers, either paid or unpaid, because they will not have experience in the work.
    8.0 P.M.
    Colonel ASHLEY: I am not in favour of this Amendment. The hon. Member who moved it may have reasons which he has not given why it should be accepted, but the reasons which he has given are not sufficient. I think that probably the member of a committee or sub-committee who is appointed either by the local authority or is co-opted ought to have his expenses paid, or it may be legitimate that an individual who represents an organisation like that of soldiers or who has some status of that sort should have his expenses paid. But I do protest, in the name of economy—a word which is very seldom heard in these days—that there must be some limit to the payment of expenses out of public funds to all and sundry who give what is called voluntary work. Voluntary work, I understand, to mean work given for which no remuneration is received. I admit that the person who gets no expenses does work which is voluntary in that sense, but I do think that we ought in the public interest to limit the expenses to people who are connected with a committee or represent a large body of people concerned in the work. If we are going to decide that, we should be making a raid on the public purse, which I do not think would be justified.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I am very pleased to find that there is somebody here who still preaches economy. It is not very often that we hear that done in the House at the present time. In reply to my hon. Friend, the Chairman of the London War Pensions Committee, I need hardly tell him that nobody appreciates more than I do the work which is done by a great army of voluntary workers, and especially in London, where it is very difficult to get voluntary workers on the spot,
    2210
    and where very often it is necessary to have public-spirited people who will go where their services are needed. But I would like to point out that at the present moment, in addition to the members of the committees, any voluntary worker can receive travelling expenses when really engaged on the business of the committee. That is to say, if they visit, for instance, a discharged man, or if they go to look after a case of separation allowance, or, while they are actually doing the work of the committee, their expenses are paid. Therefore I think the Amendment merely amounts to this: That it is a request that travelling expenses to and from home should be paid. I do not think that that is a proposition to accept. These people in a very public-spirited manner offer their services, which are understood to include getting from home and going back. May I point out also that no official is allowed to charge expenses to and from his home? It is true that these people are not salaried, but are voluntary workers. But inasmuch as their expenses are now paid when actually on the business of the committee, I do not think we can extend the matter, and therefore I am afraid we cannot accept the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. PENNEFATHER: I beg to move at the end, to insert
    "(4) A war pensions committee may pass as general expenses incurred by them in the execution of their duties any sum not exceeding ten pounds in any one year as a subscription to the funds of any association of war pensions committees which may be formed and whose objects are approved by the Pensions Minister as well as any reasonable expenses of the attendances of representatives, not exceeding in any case four, at meetings of such associations on a scale to be approved by the Pensions Minister."
    This is a very simple Amendment, which follows very closely upon a similar Clause in connection with the Insurance Act. I think it has been found very beneficial to large numbers of people who take an interest in the administration of the Insurance Act, that they should be able to form a joint association and to attend meetings, and there to exchange experience and views, and in many cases to obtain hints as to how administration could be carried out, not only effectively, but economically. The hon. and gallant Member opposite (Colonel Ashley) is, I gather, impressed with the question of economy, and I suggest that the formation of an association of this kind would

    2211
    lead to economy, It is really a small proposal that war pensions committees may be enabled to form an association, and that any committee may subscribe thereto a sum not exceeding £10 in any one year, and may defray the expenses of not more than four representatives at the meetings of such an association.
    Sir G. TOULMIN: I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will give favourable consideration to this Amendment. He will himself know how expenses are allowed in connection with municipal corporations and other bodies when they are meeting together in association. That has been found to be very useful for the purposes of administration. I would point out that in this case the association to which the subscription is to be paid must be one whose objects are approved of by the Pensions Ministry, so that the Ministry will be able to control the kind of association, and it will not simply mean handing out a sum of £10. The limitation on the number of people who may attend is also reasonable, and would form quite a sufficient check on the amount expended.
    Sir C. NICHOLSON: What is asked in this Amendment is something on the same lines of what has happened in connection with Poor Law associations, and it is suggested that war pensions committees should be in the position to contribute to an association of their own. I think that would do a great deal to coordinate the work and make it similar all over the country. If you allow committees to go about on their own, you are not likely to have that co-ordination which might be brought about by an exchange of views. I can testify to the amount of good done by the Poor Law associations.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: The Minister of Pensions is not averse to such a claim, whereby members of local committees could meet together in conference and discuss matters of common interest. As a matter of fact, it has been the practice of my right hon. Friend and myself on many occasions to go to various large centres in the country and call conferences of war pensions committees. I held, too, quite recently one in Edinburgh and one in Inverness, and similar conferences were held in various parts of England. But I am not sure that we can agree to the proposal made in this Amendment, and
    2212
    I do not think that my hon. Friend who moved it quite realises what would happen. He suggests that there should be four representatives of each war pensions committee. There are 325 war pensions committees, and, multiplying by four, that would give you 1,300 representatives. Then probably such an association would hold a number of meetings each year, and that would mean bringing the representatives from very long distances—from Scotland and from Ireland—to some large centre like London or Manchester. I think that would not be a satisfactory arrangement, and I do not think we would be justified in incurring any such expenditure. I do not think it is quite true, as my hon. Friend who moved said, that this proposal is based on what was done in the Insurance Act. What was done in that Act was that the Insurance Commissioners were empowered to appoint an advisory committee, which they did. I would, therefore, suggest to my hon. Friend that we should deal with the question somehow like this: If he were good enough to withdraw his Amendment I should be quite prepared, at the same place, to move an Amendment providing that the Minister of Pensions shall, as soon as may be after the passing of this Act, appoint an advisory committee, consisting of representatives of local committees, to advise and assist him in regard to any matters the administration of which is vested in him, and any expense incurred by the representatives of local committees in attending the meetings of such a committee shall be defrayed out of the administrative expenses of the Ministry. We should be quite willing to accept a proposal in that form. I think an advisory committee such as that would be useful both in enabling the representatives of local committees to meet and also enabling us at the Ministry to profit by their advice and views. I do not think we can accept the proposal in its present form. It would give us far too large a body and would be far too expensive, and generally would not carry out the objects we have in mind.
    Sir R. ADKINS: I imagine there would be no opposition to the institution by the Ministry of an advisory committee. Such a body is useful at the Board of Education and elsewhere. But that is not at all the same thing as that which is suggested by this Amendment. What is aimed at by this Amendment is the authorisation of the

    2213
    payment of reasonable expenses for forming an association of a kind analogous to the Association of Poor Law Authorities, or the Association of Corporations, or the County Councils Association, or the Territorial Associations. One knows by practical experience that they are useful bodies, and although they do make a demand on the time of the persons who attend, yet in the long run they conduce to economy by clarifying the issues and by finding out what are national and what are merely local interests, and in many ways they contribute to the effective working of the local bodies of the country. What I understand hon. Members to ask in this case is to have power, to have the same sort of mutual conference and combination on the part of these committees acting from themselves and by themselves. That is quite a different thing from an advisory committee, which in itself would be a very good thing. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary will see that his suggestion is a really different matter. It may be that the words of this Amendment are too wide. No one wants to be going to London or Manchester too frequently, but there ought to be some facilities given, so that this detailed work throughout the country may be properly co-ordinated by the deliberations of a conference or association.
    Mr. HOGGE: I support the objection to the creation of a special ad hoc committee for this reason. The Association of Municipal Associations and also the County Councils Association have been referred to, but after all the local war pensions committee in both county and borough areas is primarily a committee of the county or borough authority. I presume my hon. Friend opposite really has in his mind the provision of expenses to make it possible for this body to meet.
    Mr. PENNEFATHER: It is mentioned in the Amendment.
    Mr. HOGGE: I take it he is more concerned with the provision of the funds to enable the body to meet than he is with the machinery by which it shall. I take it that so long as the bodies do meet and discuss the business he wants, he does not very much mind how it is done, and therefore if the contribution is made through the Association of Municipal Corporations or the County Councils Association, that would meet the case. But I do not rise to discuss that so much as a suggestion of
    2214
    my hon. and gallant Friend about the Advisory Committee. I hope that he will not move that without putting it on the Paper, but that he will leave it to the Report stage rather than take it to-night on a manuscript Amendment, as he has suggested, for this reason, that while an Advisory Committee for the purpose of assisting the Ministry of Pensions is in essence a very admirable suggestion, I do not agree that that Advisory Committee should be entirely drawn from the members of the local war pensions committees. There are other bodies which will occur to most Members in the House to-night—and I am sorry there are so few Members present when we are discussing a matter so vital to so large a population in this country. This House has got in the habit of leaving these matters to a very few Members. Those, at any rate, who are here will have in their minds at the moment that various other bodies could with great propriety be agreed to by the Ministry of Pensions so far as these advisory problems are concerned. I have in my mind, for instance, that at the Ministry of Food you have an Advisory Committee composed not only of the retailers and wholesalers, but the consumers, and, obviously, if you are going to have an Advisory Committee, the Ministry of Pensions will not only want representatives of people who administer those pensions, but also representatives of the people to whom they are administered, and I am sure we would desire to see representative men chosen from representative organisations—of which there are at least three large ones in this country—on that committee, as well as the people who administer the pensions. If my hon. and gallant Friend cannot accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend opposite, at any rate he will not, I trust, press his Amendment to-day, but will put it down for the Report stage, so that we can, if necessary, put Amendments to it on the Paper.
    Sir G. TOULMIN: I do not think the expenses of such a committee would have to be met by a municipal corporation. They would be the expenses of the committee, and the expenses of the committee have to come, not from the corporation, but must come from the Pensions Ministry. I do not know whether the Minister would consider it right for the Pensions Committee to put in their Estimates such an expense as this. This

    2215
    particular point has been pressed upon me both by provincial and by London members. One of them said to me the other day, "We do not know what other committees are doing," and I notice in the Bill, what I take to be the desire of the Ministry to do by means of their officers, and that is to secure a certain similarity and equality of administration, and I think that equality of administration would be very greatly assisted if members from various parts were permitted to meet in such an association as this. I cannot accept the proposal of the Minister, which I should like to consider quite apart from this Amendment. I cannot admit it at all as an alternative. The hon. Member himself mentioned the number of committees that there are, and said there would be too many to send representatives to an association. But how big is his advisory committee going to be, and how few will be the committees that will have any number upon it? What we desire to secure is that once a year some members of these committees may meet together and gradually be educated upon these points. If the Minister would like this Amendment drawn in a different way, leaving the sums which might be spent entirely to the discretion of the Minister, I would not object to that, or if he would like the number of four reduced; but I hope what he has said is not to be considered quite final in regard to rejecting absolutely this Amendment.
    Mr. PENNEFATHER: I think the proposal made by my hon. and gallant Friend with regard to an advisory committee may be an excellent proposal in itself, but I am afraid I cannot regard it as a substitution for this. It may be supplementary, but that is a matter for my hon. and gallant Friend to consider. Then I think my hon. and gallant Friend has made a mistake in his calculations when he took the number of local war pensions committees in the country and multiplied them by four, and suggested that that would be the number of representatives who would be attending, because the words of the Amendment are: "not exceeding in any case four." It obviously implies that where the committee was a small committee, the number would be much less than four. In some cases it might only be one, in others two, in other cases three, and it would only, perhaps, be in the case of a very large committee, where they would have eighty
    2216
    members, that four representatives would be sent. Therefore, my hon. and gallant Friend's calculation is really not actuarially correct. As my hon. Friend says, there would be no objection in this Amendment to alter it so as to safeguard against any abuse. Then the scale of expenses as suggested in the Amendment is to be approved by the Pensions Minister. That gives him adequate power to making economical arrangements. I think my hon. and gallant Friend must have been looking at some other Insurance Act than the one to which I referred, because I can assure him that at the meeting of the representatives of the local war pensions committees which met in Birmingham, I had handed in, on notepaper of an insurance committee, the exact words extracted from one of the Insurance Acts which related to an insurance committee association, and I have taken it word for word from that, only altering the necessary words by putting in a war pensions committee instead of an insurance committee and making alterations of that kind. Otherwise it is word for word what appeared in the passage submitted to me. I am very sorry indeed to differ very strongly from my hon. and gallant Friend, but this has been very carefully considered by a number of experts. The names against this Amendment show that the men who have backed it are men who really have some knowledge of the subject, and, in view of the backing which this has in this House and in the country, I am afraid that if my hon. and gallant Friend cannot see his way to accept the Amendment at all in that spirit we shall have to go to a Division.
    Colonel ASHLEY: The discussion which we have had brings out a direct conflict of opinion between what, I think, is the opinion of most Members of the House and of the Ministry. The proposal contained in this Amendment seems to me to be eminently reasonable. Some of the details might be susceptible of alteration, but what it seeks to do is to enable the local pensions committee to charge expenses up to £10 a year, as a sort of subscription, in order that they may form their own association, meet together once or twice a year at a convenient centre, talk over their business, and thereby run their local pensions committee more economically and more efficiently. As has been pointed out, that is done by the County Councils Association, the Territorial

    2217
    Forces Association, and other public bodies, to the great benefit of the public service. That is what the Amendment seeks to do, and it seems to be a very reasonable Amendment. What does my hon. and gallant Friend, representing the Ministry, say? He says, "Oh, no, we cannot agree to that, but we will agree to a committee being set up, by the Ministry of Pensions, mark you, who shall nominate the representatives, and they shall then come together and advise us what ought to be done." That is exactly what I do not want. I do not want the pensions committees or their representatives to be nominated by a Government Department and therefore to be under their control, and practically to be appointed and dismissed by them. I want these pensions committees to be able to assemble together, as and when they will, talk over their mutual business, and try and help each other. That is the difference between the two opinions, and I shall certainly support my hon. Friend in his Amendment.
    Mr. TOOTILL: I think I am speaking the mind of the Labour party in general when I say that the principle embodied in this Amendment is one that would be universally approved, because it gives the idea of a purely democratic representation of the feelings of the community. I feel sure if the hon. and gallant Gentleman who is now in charge of the Bill would accept this Amendment, he would be doing a very great service to the feelings and opinions of the country in general. I know that these representative conferences of bodies of men can speak with authority on these matters, and the consensus of organised opinion that is involved in the matters put before the Pensions Minister certainly ought to have considerable weight, as being authentative, and fully representative of the general opinion of the whole body throughout the country. I think in that case it ought to be accepted by the Ministry that this represents the feeling of the whole country on the general principle involved in a matter of this kind. I do feel that it is so moderate, so considered, so fair, so essentially equitable, that it ought to be accepted by the representative of the Government. I earnestly appeal to him to consider this in all its bearings, and to say, "Well, this is a
    2218
    fair proposition, which is put forward in a most moderate and appealing sense, and I therefore ought to accept it."
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I take it as evident that there is a very considerable volume of opinion in the House, coming from different quarters in favour of some such association. Although I do not disguise the fact that we should have preferred the original plan, I am quite willing to endeavour to meet this general consensus of opinion, especially if it will give satisfaction to the great local authorities and to our local committees. Anything that tends to their efficiency, of course, is exactly what we seek, and if they think by coming together and discussing matters, and so forth, that they will be able to improve each other, especially the good committees bringing up the bad ones, the Pensions Ministry can only hope this will be so. I do not think I can accept the Amendment exactly in the form in which it stands, for some of the reasons I have already given, but if my hon. Friend will withdraw it at the present stage I will undertake to put down, after consultation with them, an Amendment based on its principles.
    Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: The Committee will welcome the announcement which the hon. and gallant Member just made as to his acceptance of the Amendment in practically similar terms to that on the Paper. I only rise to point out, as was said by the hon. Member for the Kirkdale Division, that in the Insurance Acts we have got an almost exact precedent for this particular Clause. I understand he took the words from the provisions of the last amending Act. I had the honour of moving an Amendment in Committee dealing with this matter which lead to the constitution of an association of insurance committees, which has done splendid work throughout the whole country. It has been a standing example of what can be done by such committees coming together and discussing the difficulties amongst themselves. We all welcome the fact that that is also appreciated by the hon. and gallant Gentleman in charge of the measure, and that he is prepared to meet us on this point. I hope he will secure, in any Amendment which he accepts, the representation direct of the committee themselves, appointed by their own members, to the association in question.
    Mr. PENNEFATHER: In view of what my hon. and gallant Friend has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Power of Minister with Respect to Framing of Schemes, Appointment, Suspension, etc., of Committees.)
    (1) For the purpose of securing the proper exercise and performance in any area of the powers and duties assigned to local committees by the Naval and Military War Pensions, Etc., Act, 1915 (hereinafter referred to as "the principal Act") the Minister may by Order do any of the following things—

    (a) require the council of any county or borough or urban district to take into consideration any recommendation with respect to the amendment or modification of any scheme regulating the constitution of a committee, and in particular (without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision), require the council of a county to take into consideration any recommendation with respect to the division of the county into districts and the appointment of sub-committees for the districts, and to frame a supplemental scheme to be approved by him for giving effect to the recommendation:

    (b) require a local committee or a district committee to appoint sub-committees for any special purposes, or for any special parts of their area:

    (c) require two or more local committees to appoint a joint committee, and determine the powers and duties which are to be delegated to any joint committee:

    (d) after consultation with the local committees concerned, dissolve any joint committee or any sub-committee:

    (e) after consultation with the local authorities of the areas in question, provide, by the amalgamation of existing committees or otherwise, for the establishment of a single committee to act for any two or more of the areas for which committees are required to be or may be established under the principal Act, or for an area consisting of any such area or areas and any part of any such area or areas:

    (f) exercise the power of appointing members of any committee in the case of failure by the council of any county, borough, or district, or by any other body or person, to exercise the power:

    (g) where he is satisfied, after holding a public local inquiry, that any committee has been negligent in the exercise of its power, or has made default in the performance of its duties, under the principal Act, suspend the committee for such time as may be specified in the Order from the exercise of its functions or from the exercise of such of its functions as are specified in the Order, or declare that the existing members of the committee have vacated their office:

    (h) where he is satisfied that any member of a committee is habitually absent from
    2220
    meetings of the committee, or is obstructive, or is otherwise not discharging his duties as such member in a satisfactory manner, declare that the member has vacated his office.

    (2) Any Order made under this Section may contain such suplemental and consequential provisions (including modifications and amendments of the principal Act or any Act amending that Act) as the Minister considers necessary for the purpose of giving full effect to the Order, and in particular in the case of an Order providing for the suspension of a committee may contain provisions for authorising any person to exercise in the place of the committee, while it is so suspended or pending the appointment of a new committee, the functions of the committee or such of those functions as are specified in the Order or for the appointment of new members of the committee, as the case may be.
    (3) If in any case where the Minister has made an Order under this Section any council, committee, or other body, does not within such time, not being less than one month, as may be specified in the Order, comply with the requirements of the Order, the Minister may himself exercise in the place of the defaulting council, committee, or body the powers vested in the council, committee, or body in relation to the matter with respect to which it has made default.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1, a), to leave out the words "take into consideration" ["district to take into consideration"], and to insert instead thereof the words
    "frame a supplemental scheme to be approved by him for giving effect to."
    This Amendment is purely drafting, and it has to be taken into conjunction with the other Amendments which I shall move in the subsequent lines of this paragraph. The reason why we wish to leave out these words is simply this: That by a later Amendment at the end of this paragraph it is proposed by my right hon. Friend to insert these words: "The Minister shall not make an order under any of the first five paragraphs of this Sub-section except after consultation with the councils or committees concerned." It is therefore quite unnecessary that we should have it in the Clause, as it is now, that the councils should take into consideration any recommendation that we make, because we are going to consult them in the first instance.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made:
    In paragraph (a), leave out the words, "require the council of a county to take into consideration," and insert instead thereof the words, "as respects the council of a county for giving effect to."
    Leave out the words "and to frame a supplemental scheme to be approved by him for giving effect to the recommendation."
    In paragraph (b), leave out the words, "or a district committee."
    Leave out the words "for any special purposes or."
    Leave out paragraph (d).
    In paragraph (e), leave out the words "after consultation with the local authorities of the areas in question."—[Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen.]
    Mr. HOGGE: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out paragraph (h).
    If hon. Members will look at the Paper they will see that there are various other Amendments to this particular paragraph. I am not sure that the best way of raising the matter is on my own Amendment. Perhaps, however, quite briefly, I may say that in this paragraph the Ministry of Pensions are taking power to which they are not entitled, and in which they may find themselves very quickly in conflict with the municipal and county authorities. Because the House will remember that the local war pensions committees are actually created by the various urban and district councils of this country. Take, for instance, our big city councils. They appoint the local war pensions committee, and not only so, but they have the right to appoint the great majority of members on the committee. Supposing they wish to continue members which the Ministry think ought not to be continued. It seems to me that the Ministry is inviting trouble which the Ministry might save itself. After the War the municipal authorities will revert to their old custom of electing a third of their number yearly, and therefore the work of the pensions committee will come under review. Any member of the committee who has not done his duty will have to answer for it to the electors. I think the Ministry of Pensions need not invite trouble of this sort. I imagine the hon. and gallant Gentleman on the Front Bench will agree with me that the Ministry already has enough—
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Hear, hear!
    Mr. HOGGE: I put it to him that once the soldiers and sailors of this country are demobilised and begin to take an interest in the work of the local war pensions committees
    2222
    in our municipalities and counties, they will take good care that the people elected attend to the work.
    Colonel ASHLEY: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I am rather in a difficult position in regard to this Amendment. From the point of view of England, Scotland, and Wales I am in agreement with my hon. Friend who moved to leave out this paragraph. Broadly speaking, I am perfectly satisfied that the local war pensions committees in these three countries, England, Scotland, and Wales, will carry out their duties satisfactorily, and do not require a measure of power to be given into the hands of the Ministry to enable the Ministry, without any inquiry, though after consultation, as I see in an Amendment put down by the Ministry, to get rid of a person who is
    "habitually absent from meetings of the committee, or is obstructive, or is otherwise not discharging his duties as such member in a satisfactory manner."
    That is all right. But there is another part of the United Kingdom—Ireland. There, undoubtedly, unless the Ministry is given some power more than they have at present to deal with the local war pensions committees, the discharged soldier will not get the justice to which he is entitled by law. Does the Committee know that within the last week or two—and I believe it is so still—the secretary of the war pensions committee in Dublin was the head of the Sinn Feiners, and head of the Anti-Conscription Committee formed in that city? I put it to hon. Members, How can discharged men in Dublin hope to get justice and their rights if the secretary of the local pensions committee holds views which, I understand, the gentleman to whom I referred does hold, and without fear of contradiction? Therefore, while I quite agree with my hon. Friend that in respect to Great Britain we should not give such large and unrestricted powers into the hands of the Ministry sitting in Whitehall, yet I do earnestly press upon hon. Members that they must not, in giving a decision, forget what is going on in Ireland every day, nor forget the position of the ex-soldier in that country. The position of the ex-soldier in many parts of Ireland is deplorable. He has gone at the risk of offending those about him, and of offending large sections of the population. He has enlisted to fight for our cause. He has estranged his friends. He is cut by his relations. When he

    2223
    comes back he is treated as a pariah in his own district. Nobody will speak to him or give him employment. Unless some such Clause as this is put in on behalf of the Ministry of Pensions, so far as Ireland is concerned, he will not get the pension to which the House of Commons says he is entitled. What I desire the Parliamentary Secretary in his reply to bear in mind is not only the efficient, just, and patriotic committees in Great Britain, but also the other committees in some parts of Ireland—not all—who are not doing justice to the ex-soldier and who do require some stringent action to make them do justice.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh that what we are legislating for is what have been termed the inefficient and bad committees. If all the committees were as good as the majority in the great cities in Great Britain there would be no necessity at all for this Bill. I hope my hon. Friend will not press his Amendment, because it is proposed to alter paragraph (h) as it stands in the Bill. If hon. Members will look at the Notice Paper, they will notice certain Amendments which, I think, will make the paragraph a perfectly proper and workable one. We propose to leave out the words so strongly objected to in the third and fourth lines, "or is obstructive, or is otherwise not discharging his duties as such member in a satisfactory manner," and insert words to the following effect:
    "Where a committee represent to him—"
    that is, the Pensions Minister—
    "that it is desirable with a view to securing the efficient discharge of the committee's functions that some member of the committee should cease to be a member."
    If a committee represents that there is a person on their body who is not doing his work properly, and who is defeating the real work, he may, after he has received and considered the recommendation of the committee, declare that that member has vacated his office. I think if the two Amendments which I have suggested are accepted, the objection to paragraph (h) will disappear. There is in practically all such schemes a provision that where a man absents himself from his duties for six months his place is vacant; and surely we want, in a case of district committees or sub-committees, some power whereby we can get rid of the man who will not
    2224
    attend. The fact that some individual is put on the committee because he is an important man in the neighbourhood, and never comes near the place, but simply prevents someone else coming on, he is an absolute nuisance. I hope my hon. Friend will not press his Amendment, but will allow me to move the Amendments of which I have given notice.
    Mr. HOGGE: Of course, I shall be glad to expedite business, and I will not press my Amendment. The point I wish to emphasise is with regard to the other members of the committee; and I think the Ministry of Pensions will find themselves in great trouble if they get into conflict with the members of the municipalities and the county councils, who are put on the committees by law. The case of the co-opted member is a different one. The City Council in Edinburgh, for instance, is not going to take the Minister of Pensions' dicta with regard to the attendance of its members on one of those committees. I agree that often people are co-opted who never take part in the work, and I say, clear them out as much as you like. I do, however, suggest that if my hon. and gallant Friend wants to make a distinction, I shall be satisfied if he will look into the matter between now and the Report stage, and then, perhaps, he will be able to find words which will draw a distinction between the members from representative bodies and those who are co-opted.
    Sir H. HARRIS: I am quite prepared to accept this proposal with the Amendment suggested. I would point out, however, that in many schemes a provision is made for members of sub-committees as well as of committees to vacate their seats if they are absent for six months. The difficulty often is that members of the municipal authorities who become members of the sub-committees do not attend at all, and I think the Ministry of Pensions will have to use this power with very great discretion.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: I would like to suggest that it would be much better if we put in a time limit forfeiting the seat for non-attendance after being absent from a certain number of meetings.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: May I point out to the hon. Member why we cannot do that? If we put in a time limit a man may just turn up at one meeting

    2225
    and stop a few minutes and then stay away, whereas if we carry my suggestion then we are the judges in the matter.
    Major DAVIES: I think the Ministry of Pensions would be well advised to put the onus of getting rid of people who did not attend on the committee itself, and I think that would be achieved if after the word "satisfied" were added the words "on the recommendation of the committee." I am afraid this proposal will cause a great deal of unnecessary friction between the Ministry and these committees, and I think my suggestion would prevent the right hon. Gentleman from coming into collision with the representatives of these various bodies. I suggest to the hon. and gallant Member that some such words as I have indicated would meet the situation.
    Mr. T. WILSON: I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not adopt the suggestion which has just been made, for he can rest satisfied that in ninety-nine cases out of 100 the committee will not recommend that anybody should be removed, and particularly the people we want to see removed from the committee, such as some man or woman of social standing whose object is to show that he or she is doing some work in connection with the administration of the Pensions Act and yet never attends at all. For these reasons I hope the Committee will not listen to the suggestion that has been made. I am also sorry that the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) suggested that this should be applied only to co-opted members. I hope it will apply also to members selected by the municipal authorities, because my experience is that they are the worst attenders. We want men and women on these committees who take a deep interest in the question of pensions, and I do hope that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not accept the suggestion which has been made by the last speaker.
    Sir G. TOULMIN: I think the Ministry should hear a few words which have been sent to me with regard to this and the previous Sub-section by an influential member of the committee in the borough which I represent. He says,
    "We have got to remember that the Minister will always be responsible to Parliament, and will not be likely to do anything very absurd."
    I could not imagine the Minister recklessly turning out any councillor for Edinburgh
    2226
    with the hon. Member for East Edinburgh in the House. I think it is a great pity that this Clause was introduced in this form, because I believe it has caused more trouble, by leading to misunderstanding in this Bill, than any other Clause. As it is now drawn I think the Committee might very well accept it.
    Colonel Sir J. HOPE: This proposal is to be extended to members of district committees who are habitually absent. The Amendment as it appears on the Paper only refers to members of local committees.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: If the hon. and gallant Member will look at the Definition Clause he will see that the expression "committee" is defined as including a sub-committee, and the expression "sub-committee" includes a district committee.
    Amendment negatived.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I beg to move, in Sub-setion (1, h), to leave out the words,
    "is obstructive, or is otherwise not discharging his duties as such member in a satisfactory manner,"
    and to insert instead thereof the words,
    "where a committee represent to him that it is desirable with a view to securing the efficient discharge of the committee's functions that some member of the committee should cease to be a member."
    Colonel ASHLEY: I have had no answer from the Minister on the point I raised with regard to Ireland, and this seems a very appropriate moment to press my point. We asked that we should only turn out a member where the committee think it is desirable that this member should cease to belong to the committee. That is where it breaks down as regards many bodies in Ireland, because the vast majority of the members of the local war pensions committees are, if not hostile, quite indifferent to the welfare of the soldier, and therefore you will not get from these committees the expression of sympathy which you would get from the committees in Great Britain, and also from many of the committees, I am glad to say, in other parts of the United Kingdom. It is notorious that there are whole districts in Ireland where the local committees do not do their duty by the discharged men, and, therefore, if you put upon those committees who are not doing their duty the sole initiative of starting

    2227
    the idea that any individual member of the committee ought to be got rid of, you will get no result from it. The only thing I can say is that there must be some power given to the Ministry to enable them to deal with the situation which undoubtedly exists in some parts of Ireland. I would ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman if he has made special inquiries with regard to certain parts of Ireland. It will be seen how detrimental to recruiting it is that these discharged men do not get their rights. Therefore, I must ask, on this Amendment, for some information as to how he proposes to deal with the problem of the discharged soldiers' pensions and allowances in some parts of Ireland?
    Sir H. HARRIS: I should like to point out that the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Ashley) does not seem to have read paragraph (g), which specially provides that where the Minister is satisfied, after holding a public local inquiry, that any committee has been negligent in the exercise of its powers, or has made default in the performance of its duties, under the principal Act, he shall have very drastic powers to act.
    Colonel ASHLEY: What does it say?
    Sir H. HARRIS: He may
    "suspend the committee for such time as may be specified in the Order from the exercise of its functions or from the exercise of such of its functions as are specified in the Order, or declare that the existing members of the committee have vacated their office."
    I think it is under that that the Minister has to act. He may suspend the committee or declare that existing members of the committee have vacated office. That, I think, is the power.
    9.0 P.M.
    Mr. HOGGE: I do not like this attack upon Ireland by my hon. and gallant Friend above the Gangway (Colonel Ashley). I understand his position to be this: That there are in Ireland local war pensions committees which are garrisoned by, as my hon. and gallant Friend said, in one case, Sinn Feiners. I think he said that in one case the secretary of the war pensions committee was a Sinn Feiner, and that the discharged soldiers were afraid they would not get what they were entitled to through these local committees. I have been in Ireland quite recently and I have been in touch with the discharged soldiers in Ireland in three of the biggest
    2228
    centres—in Belfast, Dublin, and Cork—and in only one case did I find there was any difficulty and that was in the case of Cork.
    I would like to point out that however much my hon and gallant Friend may dislike Sinn Feiners—however much any of us may dislike them—after all the public bodies in Ireland are created as the public bodies in this country are created, and so long as they carry out their functions it does not matter whether the man who is in an official position is a Sinn Feiner or anybody else, and the whole thing with which this House is concerned is that the Minister of Pensions, or the hon. and gallant Gentleman who is in charge tonight, is prepared to guarantee to the House and to the nation efficient administration in Ireland. It does not matter in whose hands it is. That is what I want to make clear. We do not want to east any aspersions on any of the committees. I would not mind at all if every secretary was a Sinn Feiner so long as the secretary of the local war pensions committee in any Irish town or county administered what there is to administer to the discharged soldier. If the Ministry of Pensions guarantees the administration, it does not matter what is the channel. Therefore I regret that my hon. and gallant Friend should raise this question and in this way, and suggest on this Clause in paragraph (h) that it is necessary in accepting the Amendment of the Ministry of Pensions that certain exceptions should be made in the case of Ireland.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I am very much obliged to my hon. Friend (Mr. Hogge) for what he has just said. We as a Pensions Ministry are not prepared to draw any invidious distinctions between between different parts of the United Kingdom. It is quite true there are some bad local committees in Ireland, and there are also some very good committees, and there are some very bad local committees even in Great Britain. What we are prepared to do is to take such steps as will enable us to deal with all committees as they should be dealt with. We do not rely exclusively on this paragraph (h). It is quite true you may have a bad committee in Ireland or anywhere else, and it may come to this, that the committee as a whole are not doing their duty, in which case, as the Member for Paddington (Sir H. Harris) said, we should have recourse to Sub-section (g), which means that after a public local inquiry we can suspend the

    2229
    committee, and by further powers, as we see lower down, appoint other people to carry on their work. In other cases we must rely on paragraph (h). I agree with nay hon. Friend (Mr. Hogge) that we are seeking in this Bill to take some steps that will guarantee efficient administration in any part of Great Britain or Ireland, or any other part of the United Kingdom, and it is quite impossible for us to insert any particular special Clause for dealing with Ireland or any other part of the Kingdom.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Farther Amendment made: At the end of Sub-section (1), insert the words,
    "The Minister shall not make an Order under any of the first five paragraphs of this Sub-section except after consultation with the councils or committees concerned."—[Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen.]
    Mr. HOGGE: I beg to move, after paragraph (h), to insert the words.
    "(i) require local committees to appoint discharged men on all district and sub-committees"
    From time to time one hears that the clerk of a local war pensions committee says that the provision in the Act requiring the appointment of discharged sailors or soldiers or the widows of men killed in the War only applies to the main committees. My hon. and gallant Friend has sufficient experience of the discharged men to appreciate that they are of some use to the committees, but the use that has been made of them could be enlarged. I hope, therefore, he will be willing to agree, wherever sub-committees are set up to deal with questions affecting discharged sailors and soldiers, that men who themselves are discharged sailors or soldiers should be appointed upon them. For instance, it seems to me absolutely essential that a discharged man should he upon a sub-committee appointed to deal with the question of employment. I want, therefore, to make it imperative upon local war pensions committees to see that discharged men are represented upon all sub-committees.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I do not think this Amendment is necessary. It would do nothing more than re-enact the provision of the Act of last year which requires a certain number of discharged men—not less than two—and not less than one woman who is a pensioner, or the widow of a soldier who has been killed should be appointed upon the committee.
    2230
    As a matter of fact that Act has been generally availed of and in the great majority of cases discharged men have been appointed upon local war pensions committees and their sub-committees. There are very few committees who have failed to do that. If my hon. Friend will look again at paragraph (f) he will see that in cases where there is failure on the part of the council of any county, borough or district, or on the part of any other body or person, to exercise that power, we may exercise the power to appoint members. We therefore have power alrady ourselves to appoint dischargd men where the committee fails to do so, and we fully intend to act upon that principle. I would like to say that we are quite satisfied that the intention that we had in passing that Act was thoroughly justified and that committees grow in efficiency and knowledge by the presence of a certain number of discharged men.
    Mr. RENDALL: I should like to reinforce the appeal made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge). It is quite true that the pensions committees have done what the hon. and gallant Gentleman has said, but the point is that although a pensions committee may be doing its work very well it may yet fail to appoint discharged men upon the committee and its sub-committees. It may be very difficult for the Pensions Minister to try and enforce that provision or desire or wish upon a pensions committee when the general work of the committee is thoroughly satisfactory, though at the same time there may be great local dissatisfaction because no discharged men are upon these sub-committees. It is a small point, and it would be very easy for the Government to grant the concession. It could not possibly do any harm. It would be a direction having the force of law, and if that direction were given in the Bill it would have an enormous influence in enabling discharged men to serve—and serve usefully—upon these committees and sub-committees.
    Sir M. BARLOW: I would appeal to the hon. and gallant Gentleman to consider this Amendment favourably. Probably in its present form it is rather too wide. It is often very necessary to have a special sub-committee to visit a hospital or something of that kind consisting of one or two people—
    Mr. HOGGE: I do not mean such committees.
    Sir M. BARLOW: And it would be a nuisance if, when appointing three people to do a particular job, the clerk came and said, "This is not right; we have not got a discharged soldier upon the committee." There are very few occasions upon which a discharged man would not be put upon any properly constituted committee, but it might be a nuisance if when appointing small sub-committees you had always to consider appointing a discharged soldier. On the other hand, I do think that we should ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman to meet us so far as the district committees are concerned and to say that on such committees it is essential that discharged soldiers should be appointed. The hon. and gallant Gentleman tells us that, in fact, two things have happened. First of all, there is the statutory obligation to appoint discharged soldiers upon the committees themselves—no one denies that—and, secondly, there is the fact that in practice discharged soldiers are placed upon practically every sub-committee. I would like to carry the statutory obligation rather further than it goes at present without unduly hampering the administration of the committee. I would suggest, as a reasonable compromise that he should give us compulsion with regard to the district committees which deal with areas. When you are dealing with a whole area, it is right that you should have the district committee representing the same kind of composition as the bigger committee. I would therefore suggest, as a means of getting on, that, if the Ministry agree, the hon. Member for East Edinburgh should accept the offer of compulsory direction to appoint with regard to district committees and should give it up with regard to all sub-committees. I do not think you could discriminate between the different sub-committees, but if the direction were given with regard to the district committees I believe it would be followed with regard to all important subcommittees.
    Sir W. RUTHERFORD: I want to say one word in support of this suggestion. These committees, of course, will have to deal with a vast number of discharged men and their dependants, and in practice it is found in almost every case that where you put upon administrative bodies representatives of the people who might complain of anything in connection with their conduct you are very much more likely to have no complaint. If there were anything
    2232
    objectionable, there would be some reasonable opportunity of it being put right, because there would be a representative there who would be able to explain what the difficulty was. At all events in a modified form, such as that suggested by the hon. Baronet (Sir M. Barlow), it would be very desirable that the Government should, if they could see their way to meet us to that extent, accept the Amendment if my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh agrees to the omission of the words "and sub-."
    Sir E. POLLOCK: I desire to point out, in support of the acceptance of this Amendment, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman in charge of the Bill has a little overlooked the difference between the proposed Amendment and the powers he can exercise under paragraph (f). Paragraph (f) gives the Minister the power of appointing the members of a committee in the case of failure by the council to exercise the power to appoint. It is quite one thing for the central authority to impose its will and to exercise the central power of appointing to a committee; it is quite another thing to require the local committee, really by a sort of hint given to them, themselves to carry this out. In one case the Minister exercises the power and appoints; in the other case he insists upon the local committee exercising their choice locally as to the person they will appoint. The difference is that in one case the appointment is made centrally under suggestion, and in the other locally under command. On that ground I think this Amendment would be a useful power to add to the Bill.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I would point out that I am entirely in agreement with the proposal that discharged men should be on the committees. In fact, my right hon. Friend brought in a Bill entirely for that purpose.
    Sir M. BARLOW: And sub-committees?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Yes, and sub-committees.
    Mr. HOGGE: That is subcommittees of the main committees.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Wait a moment. The point is that this particular Amendment adds absolutely nothing to what we have got already. I have here

    2233
    the Act passed last Session. Under that Act every local committee and every district committee is bound to have a certain number of discharged men upon it. Not only so, but every sub-committee for an area—this touches the point of the area dealt with by the hon. Baronet the Member for South Salford (Sir M. Barlow)—must appoint two discharged men at least. Not only that, but with regard to the power to compel these appointments to be made, in addition to what I mentioned just now, we have taken the power under paragraph (f). The Act of last year says,
    "If the local committee or committees fail to make the appointment within such time, not being less than one month, as the Minister of Pensions may allow, the Minister may himself make the appointment."
    Therefore we have absolute power.
    Mr. HOGGE: That is for the two men and the one woman for the main committee.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: No; I beg my hon. Friend's pardon. It says:—
    "Where any such sub-committee or any joint committee—"
    Mr. HOGGE: Of a district?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: No!
    Mr. HOGGE: Of an area?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Yes, I agree, of an area. The Act says there must be discharged men on local war pensions committee, the district committee, or a sub-committee for an area. I understand the hon. Baronet the Member for South Salford is supporting the Amendment but wishes to omit special sub-committees appointed for some particular purpose. There is the difference between the hon. Member for East Edinburgh and other Members of the Committee. So far as I am concerned and so far as the Ministry are concerned, we feel that there is a very strong case for putting discharged men upon a local committee, a district committee and a sub-committee of an area, but if it is to be on every sub-committee I could not accept it. It is really impracticable. In my own borough the other day they appointed a very small sub-committee to reorganise the office. It consisted of three persons. As a matter of fact, one of those was a discharged man. To insist that there must be at least two discharged men upon every sub-committee, which may consist
    2234
    of only three or four persons, is really impracticable. It is agreed that we have all the powers that we really want. Therefore, my hon. Friend's Amendment adds nothing to the present powers.
    Sir G. TOULMIN: I would ask the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill whether he can state if it is a fact that under paragraph (b) they can now require a local committee to appoint a sub-committee not for an area, but for any special parts of the area?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: My hon. Friend will remember that we have got the words,
    "for any special purposes."
    Sir G. TOULMIN: Quite so, but you are there taking power to require the local committee to appoint sub committees not merely for the area, but for any special parts of the area, and it appears to me that the words in the principal Act, which were read, do hot insist upon the discharged men being upon those subcommittees. I would suggest that this Amendment might be passed in this form:
    "require local committees to appoint discharged men on all district and sub-committees appointed under this Section."
    That would include those appointed under paragraph (b).
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: The words of paragraph (f) are for any part of the area. The words of paragraph (b) are
    "for any special parts of their area."
    I should say that "part" included special part.
    Mr. HOGGE: I am afraid we have come to an Amendment on which we must differ and take a Division, although we have been getting along very well so far. I quite agree that under the Act, with which we are all familiar, it is possible to put two discharged men and one woman, who may be the widow of a sailor or soldier killed in the War, on every local war pension committee, on every district committee, and on what my hon. and gallant Friend calls every area committee, but he will agree with me when I say there is probably no committee in the whole of the country which has appointed more than the two men and the one woman, whereas the phraseology of the Act of Parliament is
    "two at least."

    2235
    Hon. Members will remember that I moved an Amendment in this House, and tried to press it to a Division in which I pointed out that in that form the average committee would put on two men and two men only, and one woman and one woman only. That has been the practice in our committees. The hon. Baronet the Member for South Salford (Sir M. Barlow) has suggested—I think it is a fair criticism—that it would not be fair to ask that every sub-committee—be gave us the example of a sub-committee visiting a hospital—should have to appoint two discharged men before they sent the sub-committee to see the hospital. Of course, I do not wish to push my Amendment so meticulously as that. I can assure the Committee that I am talking of that of which I know. After all, the borough committees are the most important committees in the country. Let us be quite frank about it. The borough committees are those which deal with the largest number of discharged men. When you begin to create the sub-committees of that committee, such, for instance, as the employment sub-committee of a local war pensions committee, it is not provided that discharged men should be upon that subcommittee. The Act of Parliament is satisfied in the letter so long as there are two men and one woman on the main committee. I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend that there is not a thick wall of difference between us, but I think he will agree with my contention. If the word "district" annoys him, I will take it out, but I am going to press the Amendment to a Division. I want authority from the Ministry of Pensions to compel these local war pensions committees to interpret their powers much more liberally. The House of Commons passed an Act which stated that at least two men and one woman should serve on these committees, which usually consist of twenty-one members, and yet the general practice has been to keep down to the minimum point the number of discharged soldiers appointed to serve. In our opinion there should be a great many more discharged men on these committees. When the men are demobilised they will, perhaps, take matters into their own hands and secure for themselves a larger share of representation. In the meantime, many questions of vital interest to discharged men, and their dependants are being dealt with on sub-committees on which no discharged
    2236
    men are serving. I only want to get proper words inserted; I am not tied down to my own particular form of words. What we are doing now is endeavouring to secure a good workable Bill, and, so far, we have done very well. I want to give the Minister of Pensions some authority especially in regard to local war pensions committees, to see that when sub-committees are appointed dealing with questions vitally affecting discharged men, discharged men shall be elected to serve upon them. So long as we can secure that end I do not care what words are adopted; but, if necessary, I shall press my own words to a Division.
    Mr. RENDALL: Might we not add to the Amendment the words, "exceeding three"? This may not sound a very practicable proposition, I admit.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: There may be only three members on the committee.
    Mr. RENDALL: I am anxious to throw on the committee the burden of putting discharged soldiers on these sub-committees. One great gain that will ensue from this Amendment is that it will ensure their being on pension committees more than the minimum number of discharged men. As long as the minimum number is only two, as long as it will practically be the number of discharged soldiers and sailors elected to serve on the committee. But the Amendment will compel that there shall be discharged soldiers on all sub-committees, and it will therefore be necessary for the pensions committee to include more than the minimum number of discharged men. That seems to be the point which underlies this Amendment. If you can compel there being on pensions committees a sufficient number of discharged soldiers or sailors to have available one or more for each subcommittee, you will have done something valuable to secure popular support for the work of the Pensions Minister. This provision will be good, therefore, for the Pensions Minister, because it will help to gain public confidence for that Department. I hope, therefore, the Amendment will be accepted.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: But this Amendment will not have the effect suggested. It has nothing to do with the numbers on the committee. It simply

    2237
    insists on putting discharged soldiers on all sub-committees, and I gather from what fell from the hon. Member for East Edinburgh that he himself would not press his proposal to that extent. I suggest that all the power desired is contained in previous Acts and in this Bill, and it is perfectly unnecessary to add these words. Nothing is to be gained by doing so.
    Colonel ASHLEY: I think we need not fight about the precise words. What we all have in our minds is the desire that on the war pensions committees discharged men should have more say. We are all in sympathy with that idea. We are rather disappointed that the local pensions committees, in using their powers under the Bill, have not appointed more than the minimum number of discharged men upon the committees, and that they have rather made the statutory number the maximum number. What we should make up our minds to do is to see whether in this Bill or on the Report stage we cannot introduce words which will secure an increase of the minimum, and ensure that en the committees in our big towns and districts discharged men and their dependants shall be adequately represented. That is what I think the Committee wants, and I would suggest to the hon. Member for East Edinburgh that if he can get from the Minister an assurance that some words shall be put down which will secure that object, he might well withdraw the Amendment.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Let me say at once, I do not think there is any real difference between us, and if this Amendment is withdrawn at this stage I will consult with the hon. Member as to the possibility of introducing words which will secure his object.
    Mr. HOGGE: I will accept that certainly, and will ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir G. TOULMIN: I beg to move, to leave out Sub-section (2)
    I will only formally move it in order that the Minister may explain the Subsection. As originally drawn it had rather a peculiar appearance. It gave the Minister power to make modifications and Amendments of the principal Act or any amending Acts. He accepted several Amendments which the Committee considered
    2238
    satisfactory, and I think the explanation he gave to the Committee might with advantage be given to the House.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: This is really a very innocent Sub-section. Although it may look rather alarming, yet if hon. Members will read it carefully, they will see that all we ask is, power to make such modifications in the principal Act as are necessary to carry out previous Clauses. Unless we have the power to do that, everything we have already passed in this Bill will be nugatory. When we come to the proper place I shall move to leave out the words, "As the Minister considers," so that the Bill will run, "Any Amendment of the principal Act or any Act amending the Act as are necessary." That will take away any discretion from the Minister or any chance he may have of acting in an arbitrary fashion. It leaves the Courts to decide what alterations of the previous Act are necessary really to carry into force the provisions already passed. If we do not have this protection it will be impossible for us to take any action.
    Sir E. POLLOCK: I think probably the Clause on which this proposal is founded is contained in the Insurance Act and was placed there in order to enable certain consequential Amendments to be made. I remember the original form of that Section, and this certainly looks as if it had been drawn by the draftsman from the Section which exists in the National Insurance Act. Therefore it is not a new matter. It is something which we have done before, and which has been proved necessary in order to avoid complications and possibly stultification of a portion of the Act by reason of some passage in previous Acts which may have been overlooked.
    Sir W. RUTHERFORD: At the first glance this looks like a most arbitrary power. It seems to give authority to the Minister—which we understand is now to be withdrawn—not only to upset the principal Act, but actually to make modifications in any amending Act, which, of course, might be an Act passed next year, and it would be a most extraordinary thing for us to pass a Clause now enabling anyone to set aside not only some Act which we have already passed, but some Act that we might pass next year. Although nay hon. and learned Friend has pointed out that there is a similar Clause

    2239
    in the National Insurance Act, when I saw this Clause I thought it was carrying the thing to a bureaucratic point that I had never seen before and hardly dreamt was possible to be entertained by the House of Commons. I should be very much surprised if there is a Clause actually the same as this in the National Insurance Act, and though it is proposed to leave out "Minister considers," and put in "as may be necessary for the purpose," yet after all this is a power to make an Order which is vested in the Minister, notwithstanding the Amendment which the Government is about to propose, and if the Minister is to be at liberty to make an Order which is going to upset any provision of this Act in order to carry out what he, for the time being, chooses to consider is the right way to carry out some part of the administration, I really think we have come to a point where the Committee ought to protest. We ought to insist upon our own will being carried out, and the Act being fairly explicit as to how that is to be done, or else we ought to know what powers the Minister really is going to allocate to himself.
    Sir H. HARRIS: After having gone into the matter with some care I think this Sub-section is necessary, and, I understand, any Order made under the Clause would have to lie on the Table of the House. Therefore I think there are ample safeguards.
    Amendment negatived.
    Further Amendment made; Leave out the words "the Minister considers," and insert instead thereof the words "may be."—[Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen.]
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I beg to move, at the end of the Sub-section, to add the words,
    "Where an Order made under this Section contains provisions modifying or amending any statutory enactment the Order shall be laid before each House of Parliament forthwith, and if either of those Houses within the next subsequent twenty-one days on which that House has sat next after the Order is laid before it presents an Address to His Majesty against any of the modifications or amendments, His Majesty in Council may annul the Order so far as it relates to the modifications or amendments against which the Address is presented, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under the Order."
    The Amendment amounts to this, that any modification of the Act must be laid
    2240
    upon the Table of both Houses of Parliament for twenty-one days and during that period it will be open to any Member of either House to move that the modifications may be disagreed with, in which case they will not be carried out. It seems to me that is a complete safeguard. We have not the slightest desire to act in any arbitrary spirit, but merely to obtain such powers as are necessary.
    Mr. HOGGE: Why twenty-one days?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: We think twenty-one days a reasonable period. I see some hon. Members wish to make it forty. We are accused of being guilty of terrible delay, and by no one more than the hon. Member (Mr. Hogge), and he is now suggesting an addition.
    Mr. HOGGE: My name is not to that Amendment.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: It is not a matter of really great importance but I think twenty-one days is a reasonable period, considering that we should have to postpone our machinery for three weeks longer if the Committee insisted on it lying on the Table for forty days.
    Sir G. TOULMIN: The forty days are suggested, because this will refer to the suspension of committees and other matters of that kind, and some of these committees only have monthly meetings, and if the period is only twenty-one days it might be between the sittings of the committee. It was thought to be of some advantage that the period should be extended.
    Sir E. POLLOCK: I have found the Section in the Insurance Act to which I referred. I observe that twenty-one days is the time limit in that Act. It may be interesting, therefore, to know that for similar sanction we have already adopted a period of twenty-one days.
    Sir M. BARLOW: On the Second Reading an undertaking was given by and on behalf of the Pensions Ministry that they would meet the Parliamentary Pensions Bureau and discuss points at issue and criticisms made in this House with regard to the Bill. We of the Parliamentary Pensions Bureau have been treated entirely in the spirit in which the offer was made to the House, and we desire to place on record that the Ministry has met us in the most reasonable way in regard

    2241
    to many Amendments, and I think we have been of some material assistance with regard to getting differences adjusted. The Ministry has put down here an Amendment which has gone a long way to meet us, but we still think twenty-one days is a somewhat short period. We do not suggest it merely on our own Motion, but because it has been put to us strongly from various parts of the country that it will not give time to certain committees, who do not meet very often, perhaps not so often as they ought to, under certain circumstances which it is easy to imagine, to put their views before the House. I would ask my hon. Friend whether he cannot meet us on this point. I do not think it will involve the very serious delay which he suggests. The making of an order is not a thing which will happen constantly. It will only happen under very considerable stress, and after very considerable discussion, and possibly friction. If the Ministry has found it necessary to make an Order, which is the highest prerogative it can exercise under the Bill, it will only be as the result of a good deal of trouble, Parliamentary discussion and difficulty, which has to be solved. If that has all gone before, I do not think it is unreasonable to give the House and the country and the committees concerned forty days within which to make their views known if they do not like the Order. I appeal to my hon. Friend to give way on this point.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: It is not really twenty-one days. It is twenty-one days on which either House has sat. That means seven or eight weeks at the very least. If you insist on forty days, it will be something like three or four months. Therefore, I really think the point is met when you consider that it is the number of days on which the House sits.
    Amendment agreed to.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir D. Maclean): There are a great many manuscript Amendments put in, and it is rather difficult to say where they should be inserted.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. HOGGE: I want to ask, in regard to Sub-section (1, g), why has the Parliamentary Secretary given up that power?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: We give it up because we were told we were very arbitrary people, and wished to interfere in all sorts of things. One of the things that was particularly objected to was this Sub-section. As things stand now a joint committee can only be formed by the various committees agreeing together to form one, and they can also agree together to dissolve it without further action on our part. Therefore, I do not think the Sub-section matters very much. We were told that it seemed unnecessary in the Bill, and, therefore, we omitted it.
    Question put, and agreed to,

    CLAUSE 3.—(Power of Minister to Appoint Additional Members of Committees.)
    Notwithstanding anything in the principal Act or in any scheme made under that Act, the Minister may appoint such persons as he thinks fit to be additional members of a committee, so, however, that the additional members appointed by the Minister shall not at any time exceed one-fourth of the total number of the members (including additional members) of the committee.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Sir Montague Barlow.
    Sir W. RUTHERFORD: I should like, before the hon. Member moves his Amendment, to move, after the word "not" ["shall not"], to insert the words "be officials of the Ministry and shall not."
    Mr. HOGGE: That Amendment is already on the Paper in the name of another hon. Member (Sir M. Barlow).
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It seems like attempting to take another Member's Amendment.
    Sir W. RUTHERFORD: I beg to assure you I had no such intention.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am not saying that that is so, but it would have that effect.
    Sir MONTAGUE BARLOW: I beg to move to leave out the words "one-fourth of the total number of the members (including additional members) of the committee," and to insert instead thereof the words "three not being officials of the Ministry."
    Of course, I acquit my hon. Friend (Sir W. Rutherford) of any intention of the kind suggested. Clause 3 is one of the most important Clauses of the Bill. The Ministry of Pensions attach a good deal of importance to it, and the local authorities attach a good deal of importance to

    2243
    its deletion. Therefore, we are rather at a dichotomy. [HON. MEMBERS: "Translate!"] I will translate if hon. Members desire. We are rather in a difficulty. The trouble is that the local authorities say, "It is not fair to us when we are doing good work to force upon us a representation of people of whom we know nothing or may know nothing, and who may at times—because four is rather a large proportion—possibly outvote us" Bearing in mind the constitution of these local war pensions committees, it must be remembered that they are constituted by the council of the local authority, the provision under earlier Acts being that they must be constituted with at least a majority of the council concerned.
    It was put to us strongly by representatives from such local authorities as Birmingham, Edinburgh, and Glasgow, that if you have a local war pensions committee constituted with only a bare majority of the council and one-fourth added by the Ministry, you might easily have to be nominees, the myrmidons of the Ministry outvoting on any chance occasion the representatives of the council. They did not think that that was a fair position. On the other hand one has to remember—and I wish to meet the Ministry in all fairness—the Ministry says, "The State providing through our channels the whole of the pensions, and they are going to provide the administration expenses. Is it reasonable that the Ministry should not have some representation on that committee?" I want to be perfectly fair as between these two conflicting views. How are we to deal with the situation? The good pensions committees say "we are doing our work well. The Ministry want this Clause not for the good committees but for the bad committees." I would suggest that if they have a really bad committee it is not very much good reinforcing the committee from a new quarter. What they have to rely upon is their power under the renumbered Sub-section (g), that is to say if the committee is hopeless, they have to issue an Order and take over the power themselves. The committees are roughly nine-tenths good and perhaps one-tenth bad. It is no good legislating for the tenth bad committee because, if you legislate for them too rigorously, you will upset the nine-tenths who are working well. That is what the nine-tenths are afraid of. Not only are they afraid of the quarter that is going to be enforced upon
    2244
    them, but they are afraid that that quarter may contain that dangerous person, the Government official.
    We have considered this very carefully in the Parliamentary Pensions Bureau, and most of us have felt that there is a good deal of force in what the Ministry say, and also that there is a good deal of force in what the local authorities say, and what I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary is that in order to meet the good pensions committees, and in order not to alarm them unnecessarily he should meet us by restricting the number and accepting the position that in that number of nominees of the Ministry there shall be no officials. If he is prepared to do that I think he will secure a substantial point, which is that he desires to be able to deal with the committees especially in cases where the committees are not of a very representative character. It is conceivable that you might have committees where, for instance, a great number or a large majority of the committee were representatives of one interest. The whole number or the larger proportion might represent labour or the whole number or the larger proportion might represent capital. Neither of these things is desirable. If you have a committee of the kind it is desirable that the Ministry should have power to correct it, but if the Ministry accept the suggestion that the number should be limited to three and that none of the three should be officials, then they will secure what they want—a representation on the committee, to see that the thing is substantially in order, and on the other hand the good local committees working well throughout the country will be relieved of any fear that they are going to be coerced or dragooned by any large proportion, such as one-fourth, and that proportion consisting possibly of a number of officials.
    Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I will not stand in the way of my hon. Friend in any compromise which he may offer, but my position is one of entire irreconcilability. These are the instructions which I have received from my people in the city which I have the honour to represent. I think that I have some right to be heard on this question, because I do not think that there is a city in the United Kingdom with a more extraordinary record of generosity in regard to every form of war charity than the city of Liverpool, especially in reference to all purposes for relieving those who

    2245
    have suffered by the War. The present Lord Mayor has done, and is doing, splendid things. So did his predecessor, and the gentleman who preceded him, who is at present in the House. Two of these three gentlemen do not represent anything like the same political views as myself, but they have a perfectly wonderful record in this department. The committee of my own particular race in Liverpool, who have sent to the War a large number of men, many of whom I am sorry to say have died, have also done their share in all these war charities. In face of that we have some right to complain that in any way whatever the authority of our municipal bodies should be questioned or diluted. For that reason I must take up an attitude of complete irreconcilability, save in so far as it is modified by any compromise which my hon. Friend presses upon me. Further, in Liverpool we have as severe and as chronic a training in dealing with questions of relief as any city in the kingdom. We have constantly victims of shipwrecks from hideous tragedies like the "Lusitania." We have men there, who really are astonishing as well as edifying by the extraordinary care and extraordinary and largely quiet skill with which they have been able to deal with all these questions. I have heard men go into details of the family life, not merely of the child, but of the father, grandfather, grandmother, and other dependants in a way which showed an extraordinary grasp and an extraordinary civic spirit in looking after the poor and distressed of their city. I think that I am bound by local patriotism in connection with the city with which I am associated politically to say that on behalf of the city of Liverpool.
    10.0 P.M.
    I understand that the attitude which the city took up, and which in the end, they compelled the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the previous administration, much against his will, to accept is the position of the great municipal authorities of the country. I was not present the other night at the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackfriars (Mr. Barnes), a member of the War Cabinet, but I understand that he excited what I may call thunderous cheers by his denunciation of the principle of centralisation. I do not know whether the cheers were meant as a welcome to a declaration which was not expected from that particular quarter, or because it was in marked contrast with other declarations
    2246
    from persons on these Benches. I need not say that I am in favour of local self-government in the fullest sense. This body in Liverpool is the creation of our municipal council there. I object to any interference with these rights of our great self-governing cities. The Government already has power to get rid entirely of incompetent or unwilling or grudging or inefficient pensions committees. They should be satisfied with that power and not try to delete these committees which are appointed under the supervision and with the knowledge of our great local governing bodies.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I quite realise that there is a great deal of feeling about this particular Clause, but I ask the Committee to allow me to say one or two words as to why we consider it important in some form or other to possess the powers proposed by this Clause. I yield to no man, not even to my hon. Friend opposite, in my admiration for local self-government, and I realise that the great majority of the local war pensions committees are doing excellent work. I have personal knowledge of the Liverpool Committee, and I think that they are signally efficient and; look after their men and dependants exceedingly well. But when we talk about local self-government the case of pensions administration is unlike any other. In the case of ordinary local self-government the greater part of the money expended by the local authority comes out of local rates. In the case of pensions, under this Bill, nothing will come out of local rates. The grants made in the shape of allowances, etc., by the local war pensions committees are all paid by the State. They amount to no less than £5,500,000 per year, and in addition to that administrative expenses, which at present are paid to the extent of two-thirds by the State and one-third out of local rates, will, under this Bill, be paid for entirely out of local rates. Therefore, if in the case of local war pensions committees we claim some modification, not a very large modification, of the system of local self-government, I think that we are justified in doing so having regard to the fact that we find the whole amount of the money.
    We have ample precedent for what we propose to do in the National Health Insurance Act. Under that Act a certain number of members of insurance committees are appointed by the Insurance Commissioners. Then, again, up to the

    2247
    Local Government Act of 1894 the local Government Board always appointed a certain number of local boards of guardians. At the present moment the Local Government Board nominate a certain proportion of that very large and important body in London, the Metropolitan Asylums Board. What are we asking the Committee to do in a matter of this sort where the Grants are paid entirely by the State and where now we propose to pay the whole of the administrative expenses? We ask that we should have some representation on the local committees. I do not think that is an extravagant claim. I think it is a perfectly proper claim. Town councils and county councils have got a very large representation. They have the right to nominate a majority of every local committee, although they are finding none of the money.
    All we are asking under the Clause as it stands is to nominate not a majority, but one-fourth of the local committees. While I hope that the Committee will recognise the reasonableness of our general principle, I do not want to force the exact proposals of the Bill down the throats of the Committee, if they think we are going too far. But may I just put in one word of caution? We do not propose in the Bill to appoint 25 per cent. of all committees. The proposal simply gives the Minister power to appoint up to 25 per cent. where he pleases, and I can say from what I know of the mind of the Minister that it is highly improbable that in places like Liverpool and a great many other big centres that he will appoint anybody. On the Second Reading I mentioned the case of a committee which only met once a month. It had a membership of thirty and a quorum of seven, and on the last occasion, when it should have had a meeting, it could not get a quorum, with the result that all the business which affected the welfare of discharged soldiers and their dependants was postponed for a full month. As a matter of fact, I happen to know that particular area, and I am aware that there are persons there who would be willing and anxious to serve on that committee, but they cannot get on it because there are no vacancies, as the people who do not attend block the way. We say if we had the right to nominate a certain number of persons we should, at all events, guarantee the attendance of a quorum.
    2248
    What I propose is this: I submit that we have a strong case for the right to nominate in places where we think it is necessary to do so. I assure the Committee that we do not wish to act in any arbitrary manner. We have put down an Amendment that in making these nominations we should have regard to the desirability of preserving the representative character of the committee. My hon. Friend proposes, first of all, that we should limit our nominations to three; and, secondly, that none of the three should be officials. My hon. Friend, and apparently some others, are very afraid that we are going to nominate officials who would be, so to speak, spies on the committee. I can assure hon. Members that we have no such intention. We must have local people. The only officials we have got locally are inspectors, and we should not dream of nominating inspectors to serve on committees which they would be inspecting. I do not know any other official we could put on, and I can assure the Committee there is not the slightest intention on our part to nominate officials. Therefore, I do not think it is in the least necessary to put words in to prevent us, as I repeat that we have no intention of doing so. I come to the other point as to the number to be nominated. Three is what I may call a flat rate; but I think a flat rate is very unsuitable, and for this reason: Some of the committees consist of about eighty members, and in those cases three would be too few; while in other instances, with a small membership, three would probably be too many. Possibly we have gone too far in proposing 25 per cent., and I would suggest to leave out 25 per cent. and to insert 10 per cent. Considering that we are paying the entire expenses, amounting to five and a half millions a year, and administrative expenses amounting to four hundred thousand pounds, I think it is only fair that we should have the power to have a representation of 10 per cent. only in where we want them, and not generally.
    Sir M. BARLOW: I think the suggestion of 10 per cent. is reasonable, but I would like to urge the acceptance of the provision that they should not be officials.
    Sir G. TOULMIN: I agree that we should accept the suggestion of the Parliamentary Secretary as to 10 per cent. My instructions are uncompromising, and I am asked to see that if possible the Section should

    2249
    be struck out altogether, but after the declaration of policy, which the Minister has made, and his indication that there are certain committees for whom such a proposal would be for the benefit of the men, who are in all our minds when we are thinking of the work of these committees, I do not think one should be uncompromising in opposition. I take it for granted that the Ministry will not want to appoint these extra members unless there is some necessity to do so.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Certainly.
    Sir G. TOULMIN: And that there is no deep-laid scheme of undermining these committees. One is very much averse to anything looking like the setting up of a bureaucracy to work this scheme. At present there is a good deal of local interest in it, and I think that should be preserved, to the uttermost. I believe it would be best preserved if the local committees have considerable responsibility left to them, and if they do not mean officials to be appointed. Under those circumstances, if the Minister assures us that he must have this power, I will not oppose.
    Mr. HOHLER: The Ministry speak of the money they expend, but in my view, that is nothing to do with the matter. The whole argument seems to be confined to one particular case. That is the only argument I have heard, and I think non-attendance could be dealt with by disqualification, and by the election of other people. Unless there is some further justification for the proposals they are making, I shall certainly vote for this Amendment.
    Colonel Sir H. GREENWOOD: In reference to this Clause, I am in full accord with what has been said by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool. Mine is an attitude of irreconcilability to the whole Clause, and I was very glad to hear the hon. Member for the Scotland Division bringing his persuasive eloquence in support of the municipal sovereignty of our local self-governing bodies. Here is the point of principle involved in this Clause. The local area is entitled to the local body it elects: if it is a bad body, and there is a bad committee emerging from that body, the Minister has already taken powers to deal with it, as a body negligent in the exercise of its powers. The argument of the hon. and gallant Gentleman in charge of the Bill,
    2250
    that because the Minister finds all the money he should therefore have 10 per cent. of the local committee, is an argument that falls to the ground, because the very essence of a Pensions Bill is that the pension must be found by the State. There is no case in the history of the world where military and naval pensions are paid by local bodies, and to suggest that that is an argument for nominating persons outside the locally elected body is, to my mind, beside the mark. We have, in support of the deletion of this Clause, the unanimous approval of the mayors of all the large cities of the United Kingdom, men who are responsible for the administration of the pensions in our largest local areas. They resent it as a reflection upon their capacity and even upon their honesty, and I must support the attitude of the mayors. If you have a good committee, admittedly you do not need to nominate any 10 per cent. or a quorum; if you have a bad committee, you have special powers to deal with that, because it is a bad committee. All these conditions are set up with the object of administering fairly the Pensions Act in the interests of discharged soldiers and sailors, and I am one of those who believe that in this matter locally elected bodies are more likely to be in most intimate and sympathetic touch with the discharged sailor and soldier, for whom this legislation is now being passed, than ladies and gentlemen nominated by the Minister of Pensions, persons who may fancy themselves too good to go through the chastening ordeal of a municipal election, but who wish to be nominated by the Minister. I submit to the hon. and gallant Gentleman in charge of the Bill that such a nomination would at once make a cleavage in the local pensions committee, and those who are the appointed persons by the locally elected body will naturally be not of the best, but on antagonistic terms to the non-elected body nominated by the Ministry of Pensions. This is a Clause which the municipalities themselves do not want. It is a reflection on them as it stands, either with a fourth or a tenth. I for one would like to go into the Lobby and support its deletion.
    Sir A. SHIRLEY BENN: I should like to support the attitude taken up by my hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division. I am confident that every member of the Committee would be

    2251
    pleased if my hon. and gallant Friend in charge of the Bill had the duty of making the nominations, and would be certain that everything would be satisfactory. But we do not know who wlil have the power in future, and I sincerely hope it will be left to the local people to decide what shall be done and that no members will be nominated by the central body. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Blackfriars Division (Mr. Barnes) stated a few days ago that the more he saw of bureaucracy the less he liked it, and I personally am thoroughly opposed to bureaucracy. On that line I shall support the deletion of Clause 3 if a vote is taken.
    Sir E. POLLOCK: I understood the hon. Member for the Scotland Division to say he was not irreconcilable if a fair compromise were adopted, and as he is always so reasonable and so willing to agree on all points, I am sure that was what he intended to say, if he did not say it. But the offer that is made to us is one that certainly goes a very long way to meet the objections, and I cannot help feeling that if some Members, who have what they called their instructions, had been acquainted with the fact that the Clause was only to deal with the possibility of the Ministry appointing up to 10 per cent., the instructions might have been somewhat modified. But may I ask the Committee to look at this from a somewhat different point of view? I have not been very long in the House of Commons, but I have certainly heard it affirmed over and over again that in a case where you are dealing with public money, the House of Commons has always insisted that there should be the possibility of some sort of control over it. That is not to say, as the hon. Member opposite has suggested, that thereby an insult is intended to local bodies, or there is any reflection upon their capacity, or anything of that sort. It has usually been affirmed in this House that when you are dealing with public money you ought, as a principle of our whole system of government, to insist upon some sort of control being exercised, or being capable of being exercised, over that money. What is the proposition here? It is not a proposal that in all cases there shall be an appointment made by the Minister—not at all. He only takes power, if he thinks fit, to appoint an additional member of the committee, and we have got the undertaking
    2252
    from the hon. and gallant Member in charge of the Bill that this shall only be 10 per cent.
    To some extent we have referred for precedents to the Insurance Act, and I observe that there the Insurance Commissioners reserve the power of appointing what must have amounted to about 10 per cent., and that in cases where the amount of money which was provided by the public authority was very much smaller than the representation which was asked for, practically a large bulk of the money was provided by the persons who were insured persons and employers, and so on, and therefore the amount of public money which was dealt with there was comparatively small, and the representation asked was very much the same. Is this a matter on which we ought to hold irreconcilable principles? Is it not a case of adhering to the old principle of the House of Commons that there should be some control over large sums of money? Is it not a perfectly fair thing to say that in some cases it may be wise, it may be prudent, it may be right, to give a discretion to the Minister in charge to appoint a member or additional members, and that, if he does find it necessary, it is a power he ought to exercise in the public interest and on public grounds. On the other hand, he does not insist that he shall exercise it. It is not mandatory in any way. It is only a discretionary power. When we are asked to delete this Clause altogether we should pause and say, Are we perfectly satisfied that in no case will it be right to give a discretion to a Minister to appoint some more representatives in a case where he finds some sort of control would be useful to the committee? Reference has been made—I suppose we can all refer—to many localities where committees are doing excellent work. Additional members would not, I suppose, be appointed in those cases. At the same time, have we got sufficient knowledge of the facts of all cases to be able to exclude the possibility of some committees where assistance and advice might be useful? Under all these circumstances the House of Commons would not be acting in accordance with tradition and wisely, and which in many Acts have been embodied, in giving this sort of discretion into the power of the Minister, who would exercise it inside proper safeguards, subject, always subject to the criticism of this House if he exercises it unwisely, for Members could always call attention to the arbitrary or

    2253
    improper use of the discretion. On these grounds I venture to say that we might reconcile our opinions and come to an agreement as suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend.
    Mr. HOGGE: I have an Amendment on the Order Paper to leave out Clause 3, and I propose, subsequently, to move it. In any case, what I intended to say was that whenever the Ministry nominates any man on that Committee he is in a different category at once from the man appointed by the civic authorities. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Sunderland pointed out there are a great many people who want to do public work without going through the apprenticeship of election to that work. We may get a great number of busybodies on these committees who are not responsible to anybody, and who are responsible for no criticism of what public bodies do as are properly elected members. So far as I am concerned, there is only one reason for which I would agree with the nomination by the Minister of the extra four on this committee—and members may bear in mind that this number may be as many as seven on some committees—and certainly it will be usually five or six—and that is, if the committee failed to do what it should to put into operation the Act we have passed, making that extra 25 per cent. up of discharged men, there would be no doubt then about their attending and doing the work. That is the only reason why this should be done.
    Sir J. HOPE: I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will adhere to his proposal. It seems to me that he has made a very reasonable concession in asking to appoint 10 per cent. only. There may be good cause for a certain number of members to be appointed. The alternative in regard to the case of the local committee which is not doing the work would seem to be for the Ministry to suspend the whole committee. I would point out that many local committees have been appointed and some of them are not entirely satisfactory. It is very difficult to remove and alter them now. I think the best way to improve them is by levelling them with members who know something about pensions. The whole procedure and the Regulations are very complicated, and there are many local committees where there are no members who understand the Regulations and the procedure, and the soldiers and sailors suffer. The only alternative is either suspension or else to leave the local committee
    2254
    entirely in the hands of the paid official. The Pensions Minister has promised not to appoint officials and if we refuse to allow him to appoint members with knowledge of the Regulations, what happens? The whole procedure lies in the hands of the secretary. On all committees knowledge is power, and if there is nobody but the secretary who understands the Regulations he will have the power and the result will be that the soldiers and sailors will suffer. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will adhere to his proposal to take power to appoint up to 10 per cent.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: I think the last speech we have heard very clearly answers the strongest arguments which have been put forward in defence of this proposal. It has been argued that this power would only be used in a certain number of cases, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken said that these pensions committees are so ignorant that they do not know the Act, and you must send experienced men from the centre to load up these committees with these bureaucrats.
    Sir J. HOPE: I said there were certain indifferent committees which required levelling. With regard to sending down officials, the Parliamentary Secretary has promised that the Ministry would not send officials, but men who had special knowledge.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: With regard to dealing with incompetent committees, or those who will not do their work, we have already passed a Clause which gives the Ministry of Pensions power to deal with that phase of the question and this is another issue entirely. This is the co-operative principle which we are now being asked to add to the Bill, and I am strongly opposed to that principle. I have seen that principle brought into force in a good many in-stances, and I have also seen it abolished. The hon. and gallant Gentleman in charge of the Bill went back a long period for an illustration in favour of these men being added by the Minister, for he went back to 1894.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I went back to the Insurance Act.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that in 1894 there used to be nominated guardians. I remember when Lord Wolverhampton, who was the

    2255
    President of the Local Government Board at that time, brought in his measure which was popular, because it abolished the nominated guardian. You must go back to that Bill and find some other things. You might say it would be a good thing if the members of these committees bad a rate qualification, but that was abolished in 1894. The hon. and gallant Gentleman also took, as an instance, the Metropolitan Asylums Board, not at all a popular body, and it never has been. I could turn up the records of the Debate in 1888, when Mr. Ritchie, who had charge of the County Government Bill, said that while he could not accept an Amendment to turn that into a popular body, he gave his opinion that it ought to be turned into a popular body, and not directly elected, by having nominated members upon it. I say distinctly that we must not let this thing go out of our hands without a struggle. There is no need why 10 per cent. of these people should be nominated by the Ministry. It is a great deal better if those persons who want to take part in public life have to go through the ordeal of an election. It gives them a lot of information which they did not possess previously. The education acquired by candidates for this House or for a county council is enormous. They start very ignorant of the wants of the people, but when they have had to pass a few elections, and have been heckled by electors, they are much more efficient for the public life that they desire. I therefore intend to support my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh in deleting the Clause.
    Sir R. NEWMAN: I would like to point out that we have co-opted members upon boards of guardians at the present time. They were not abolished in 1894. I am not quite sure that it would not be advantageous to have a few co-opted Members upon all bodies. We know perfectly well that the Ministry have power to abolish the whole of the committee, but it would be a very strong step to take. I can conceive one committee being very parsimonious, and another being far more liberal-minded, and that it would be a good thing if the Ministry had the power to nominate a few members for the locality. I can speak now with a good many years' experience of local bodies, and I have always found that one of the chief complaints against the co-opted member is that he is too extravagant and spends too much money. The great complaint
    2256
    with regard to the education committees, for instance, has been, "We do not want so many co-opted members. They come in and they spend the ratepayers' money without having to go to the ratepayer to get elected." It is my experience that some of the most enlightened members are those who have been co-opted and not elected. I would point out that there are people who would find great difficulty in getting on to any local body unless they were co-opted. They do not care to mix up with the strong political life of the neighbourhood—they are non-political—and we know that, rightly or wrongly, it is extremely difficult in some localities for anybody to get elected upon a public body unless nominated by one political party or another. I know many cases where some of the most useful members are men who have taken a keen interest in social matters but who are non-political and who simply sit upon the county council or local authority, simply because they are nominated. I therefore suggest that it is by no means certain that we should find the members nominated by the Ministry of Pensions the most parsimonious upon the committee.
    Sir H. HARRIS: Before the Amendment is put, I should like to say a word. I am, perhaps, as much interested in this question as any member of the Committee, as I am chairman of a big local committee. The whole difficulty about this Clause is the very same difficulty that affects the whole Bill—the Ministry have asked for a great deal too much. It must be borne in mind that at present we are not dealing with a new proposal. We are now dealing with existing local committees appointed under an Act of Parliament. Under that Act of Parliament the municipal authorities have the right of appointing the majority of the members. Clearly, if the Ministry are to have the right of adding one-fourth, they entirely destroy the power which the municipal authorities now have. It is a power that might be abused. Now that my hon. Friend has proposed to limit it to the comparatively small number of three, personally I do not see very much objection. The London scheme was arranged the other day, and if it were suggested that the Ministry should nominate two or three, I personally should have raised no objection. I am only speaking my own opinion. Therefore I should be quite content if my hon. Friend accepts the Amendment. I should,

    2257
    however, like to have it made clear that it is not intended to appoint any officials. If my hon. Friend would meet me on that, I shall be glad to support him.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I hope the Committee will now come to a decision upon this Amendment. Since we started the discussion on the Bill we have tried very hard to meet the Committee. We have accepted a great many Amendments. The spirit we have endeavoured to show is that we wish hon. Members to settle these things so far as possible. But there are certain principles we must maintain. We claim that the Ministry should have the right—we do not say they shall always exercise it—to nominate in certain cases. We cannot define the cases; therefore the right must be general. I would like to make it perfectly clear, first of all, that we shall not do it in the great majority of cases, because there is no necessity. Secondly, we only ask for 10 per cent. rather than a flat rate of three, because the committees vary so much in size. In some cases three would be too many; in other cases three would be too few. We therefore ask for 10 per cent. Thirdly, we are quite prepared to put in words to bar out the officials and to make it perfectly clear that we cannot appoint officials. With these revisions, I hope the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) will recognise I have brought forward a fair compromise and that the committee will allow us to get the Clause. After all, if we are finding the whole of the money it is only right that we should be able to appoint the. 10 per cent.
    Mr. ROWNTREE: May I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman in charge of the Bill whether further power is required than he has under paragraph (f) of Clause 2? [HON. MEMBERS: "He has already explained that."]
    Sir M. BARLOW: In view of what has been said by the representative of the Ministry, may I say that we took the average size of a committee as being thirty, and thought that the best way was to suggest three. I am quite willing to accept the suggestion of 10 per cent. instead of 3. I am glad that the Parliamentary Secretary can accept the suggestion as to the exclusion of the officials. On these grounds I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I beg to move, after the word "not" ["Minister shall not"], to insert the words "be officials of the Ministry nor." Later on I shall move to leave out the words "one-fourth," and to insert the words "ten per cent."
    Mr. HOGGE: I object to this strongly. I have been waiting to raise this, and the only way in which to get a satisfactory decision is on the omission of this Clause. But I will take a Division straight away, because we are not getting any "for-rarder." I oppose entirely the idea of the Ministry of Pensions nominating anybody to act on these committees. They are popularly elected bodies as far as they can be under this Bill. The Ministry has appointed a system of inspectors—many of them well paid—in order to keep the administration of the committee up to scratch. The representative nature of the committees is already assured because they are elected by members of the municipal bodies who have to submit themselves for election each year and to allow the Ministry of Pensions or any Government Department to say they will have a certain percentage of the representation simply means adding to the committee men who will be looked upon as officials of the Ministry and who will be regarded as servants of the Ministry and expected to answer questions and supply information regarding the innumerable Circulars sent out by the Department. It is for the Ministry to see that the bodies do their work well. If they fail in that then the local people in the district will get rid of them. The Ministry will have its inspectors and will be able to bring before Parliament any matters that need to be discussed. As it is nearly Eleven o'clock I will divide at once. I hope the House will hesitate twice before it gives the Ministry a power which it does not need and which it cannot really carry out, because the work it already has to do is not well done—and with the best intentions of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the position is likely to become worse when demobilisation begins. What it should do is to tune up the administration and leave the question of representation to the local bodies.
    Colonel ASHLEY: The real question we have to consider is, are these big county and local bodies fit or not to carry out the duties imposed on them? It is really beside the point for the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Department

    2259
    to say that because the Department finds the money through the taxpayer it ought to have representation on the committees. If he said he must have more than 50 per cent. of the representatives, I could understand his argument, but there is nothing solid behind his argument, because he will not have any control over finance, and all he can do is to put members on who will be spies on those who are popularly elected. I ask him, for the sake of smooth working, to give up this 10 per cent., which is no use, and to rely upon the common sense of the elected people. In the past it has worked well. I appeal to the Government to trust the people. If they do not do that I shall have to vote against them.
    Sir G. TOULMIN: The question before the Committee is to insert, "not being officials." I suggest that my hon. Friend should take the Division on the question of the tenth.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I beg to move to leave out the words, "one-fourth" ["shall not at any time exceed one-fourth"], and to insert instead thereof the words, "ten per cent."
    Mr. HOGGE: We will take the Division on this. The point is whether we are going to have this Clause or not. We cannot have a Division if we do not have it on this. I hope the Committee will knock the Clause out by knocking out the 10 per cent., and get rid altogether of the nominated element.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I think the opposition to this is based upon a complete misconception. My hon. Friend (Mr. Hogge) spoke just now about the representative character of the local committees and made a very strong point about local self-government. The hon. and gallant Member for Sunderland (Sir H. Greenwood) took precisely the same line. There is a very considerable misconception.
    These local committees are not local self-governing bodies in the sense that they are democratically elected. They are not elected by any body of electors of which I know. It is quite true that the majority are appointed by the local authority. It is quite true the local committee may appoint a majority on the committee, but they need not even be members of the local council. The local council can appoint anybody it pleases. There are a great many other bodies who appoint. For instance, the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association appoint members on the local committees. This association is in no sense a local body; it is not a democratic body. It is simply allowed 10 appoint for the reason that before the local committees were established the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association had done exceedingly good work in looking after soldiers and their dependants at a time when the State did not undertake that duty. Then there are labour organisations—trades councils. I have great respect for trades councils, but I really do not think that trades councils are representative bodies. They are not democratic bodies.
    Mr. HOGGE: I beg to move, "That the Question be now put." Ministers do not talk out Bills.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I have not the slightest intention of talking it out. The only people who have no representation on the local committees are the Pensions Ministry, who provide the funds. I think it is only reasonable having regard to that fact—and I think it is most important—that we should have the right of 10 per cent. representation.
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put and negatived.
    Question put, "That the words 'ten per cent.' be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 64; Noes, 37.

    Division No. 90.]

    AYES.

    [10.59 p.m.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Gilmour, Lieut.-Col. John

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Carnegie, Lieut.-Col. D. G.

    Hancock, John George

    Anderson, G. K. (Canterbury)

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Harris, Sir Henry P. (Paddington, S.)

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Colvin, Col. Richard Beale

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Barlow, Sir Montagu (Salford, South)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Barnett, Captain R. W.

    Dalrymple, Hon. H. H.

    Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Fell, Sir Arthur

    Higham, John Sharp

    Barra, Sir Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Bird, Alfred

    Gibbs, Col. George Abraham

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

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Gastrell, Lieut.-Col. Sir W. Houghton

    Jodrell, Neville Paul

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

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

    Stewart, Gershom

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, W.)

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

    Pratt, J. W.

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Pryce-Jones, Col. Sir E.

    Walker, Colonel William Hall

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Rees, G. C. (Carnarvonshire, Arfon)

    Weston, J. W.

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James Ian

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbigh)

    Wheler, Major Granville C. H.

    Mallalieu, Frederick William

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

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Mount, William Arthur

    Samuels, Arthur W.

    Wood, Sir John (Stalybridge)

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Shortt, Edward

    Newman, Sir Robert (Exeter)

    Somervell, William Henry

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Stanier, Captain Sir Beville

    Dudley Ward and Colonel Sanders.

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    NOES.

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Harbison, T. J. S.

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Hearn, Michael Louis

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Hickman, Brig.-Gen. Thomas E.

    Parrott, Sir James Edward

    Byrne, Alfred

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Cotton, H. E. A.

    Keating, Matthew

    Reddy, Michael

    Dillon, John

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Rowlands, James

    Donnelly, Patrick

    King, Joseph

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Doris William

    Lundon, Thomas

    Sutton, John E.

    Duffy, William

    McGhee, Richard

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Esmonde, Captain J. (Tipperary, N.)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Ffrench, Peter

    Maden, Sir John Henry

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

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

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Greenwood, Sir Hamar (Sunderland)

    Meux, Hon. Sir Hedworth

    Colonel. Ashley and Mr. Hogge.

    Hackett, John

    It being after Eleven of the clock, and objection being taken to further Proceeding, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  NAVY AND ARMY EXPENDITURE. 1916–17.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir D. MACLEAN in the Chair.]
  Mr. KING: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"
  Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): If the hon. Member will look at this Resolution, he will see that it is an annual one, containing no new matter, and is merely for the purpose of rectifying the transfer of Appropriations. They are set forth in detail in the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, and have been examined by the Public Accounts Committee, and were confirmed by this House before the Appropriation Bill was introduced. There is nothing that has not been examined, and under these circumstances, as it is a formal Resolution, I hope that he will withdraw his objection.
  Mr. KING: I object.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  CONSTABULARY AND POLICE (IRELAND) [MONEY.]
  Committee to consider of authorising further provision, out of moneys provided by Parliament, for the pay of members of the Royal Irish Constabulary and Dublin Metropolitan Police, and for pensions, allowances, and gratuities to members of those forces, their widows and children"—King's Recommendation Signified—Tomorrow.—[Mr. Shortt.]
  The remaining Orders were read and postponed.
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 13th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."

  WOMEN DOCTORS AND SURGEONS.
  Mr. ACLAND: I wish to raise a very simple matter, and that very briefly. Women surgeons and doctors are employed in charge of military hospitals and other establishments. They are employed at the big hospital, that many of us know so well, in Endell Street, and in many places abroad, such as Malta, Salonika, and Egypt. They are given certain Army ranks, but they have been refused the rank itself, and that has caused a difficulty which some of us here want to have put right. The duties of these women doctors and surgeons are partly professional and partly administrative and

  2263
  disciplinary, and in the latter category comes their duty as actually being in command of troops, in command of military personnel, of whom large numbers are continually passing through their hands in hospitals and other places. Now the fact that they have positions of very high authority but have no rank with which to support those positions gives rise to difficulty. These difficulties were found to exist at an earlier stage of the War, when civilian male medical practitioners were engaged in military hospitals,
  2264
  and it was then found absolutely necessary to give the civilian male practitioners Army rank in order that they might do the work they had to do. But the difficulty still remains in regard to the women. The sort of thing that happens at the present is this—
  Notice taken that forty Members were not present; House counted, and forty Members not being present—
  The House was adjourned, without Question put, at Fourteen minutes after Eleven o'clock, till To-morrow.

WAR.
  GENERAL ELECTION.
    PARLIAMENTARY REGISTER.
    PARLIAMENTARY REGISTER.
    ABSENT VOTERS (ELECTION ADDRESSES).
    ABSENT VOTERS (ELECTION ADDRESSES).
    AIR RAID DAMAGE (COST OF REPAIRS).
    AIR RAID DAMAGE (COST OF REPAIRS).
    PRISONERS OF WAR (TREATMENT).
    PRISONERS OF WAR (TREATMENT).
    MINISTRY OF INFORMATION.
    MINISTRY OF INFORMATION.
  FOOD SUPPLIES.
    CATTLE SALES.
    CATTLE SALES.
    Cows (PETERSFIELD MARKET).
    Cows (PETERSFIELD MARKET).
    CATTLE MARKET CHARGES.
    CATTLE MARKET CHARGES.
  IRELAND.
    PRISONS AND BORSTAL INSTITUTIONS (NURSES).
    PRISONS AND BORSTAL INSTITUTIONS (NURSES).
    ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
    ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
    DUBLIN METROPOLITAN POLICE.
    DUBLIN METROPOLITAN POLICE.
    FUEL AND LIGHTING ORDER.
    FUEL AND LIGHTING ORDER.
    MARYBOROUGH LUNATIC ASYLUM (SUPERANNUATED OFFICERS).
    MARYBOROUGH LUNATIC ASYLUM (SUPERANNUATED OFFICERS).
    ROYAL NAVAL DIVISION (PRIVATE'S ACCOUNT).
    ROYAL NAVAL DIVISION (PRIVATE'S ACCOUNT).
    MILFORD HAVEN BOOM DEFENCE.
    MILFORD HAVEN BOOM DEFENCE.
  MILITARY SERVICE.
    ROYAL ENGINEERS (RE-ENGAGEMENT).
    ROYAL ENGINEERS (RE-ENGAGEMENT).
    MEN DISCHARGED "SURPLUS TO MILITARY REQUIREMENTS."
    MEN DISCHARGED "SURPLUS TO MILITARY REQUIREMENTS."
    CASES UNDER INQUIRY.
    CASES UNDER INQUIRY.
    SOLDIER'S ACCOUNT.
    SOLDIER'S ACCOUNT.
    MEN OVER FORTY-FIVE.
    MEN OVER FORTY-FIVE.
    SOUTH WALKS BORDERERS (PRIVATE A. STEPHENS).
    SOUTH WALKS BORDERERS (PRIVATE A. STEPHENS).
    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
    RUSSIAN SUBJECT.
    RUSSIAN SUBJECT.
    POST OFFICE CLERK (PAY).
    POST OFFICE CLERK (PAY).
    AGRICULTURAL COMPANIES.
    AGRICULTURAL COMPANIES.
  MESOPOTAMIA.
    HOSPITALS (SUPPLIES).
    HOSPITALS (SUPPLIES).
    PETROL.
    PETROL.
    SOLDIERS' LEAVE.
    SOLDIERS' LEAVE.
    ARMY OFFICERS (PAY).
    ARMY OFFICERS (PAY).
    NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
    NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
    NATIONAL RESERVE BOUNTY.
    NATIONAL RESERVE BOUNTY.
  MUNITIONS.
    ALUMINIUM COMPANY, LLUGY.
    ALUMINIUM COMPANY, LLUGY.
    POLICE PENSIONERS (WAR BONUS).
    POLICE PENSIONERS (WAR BONUS).
    TURKISH EMPIRE.
    TURKISH EMPIRE.
    LIGHTING RESTRICTIONS.
    LIGHTING RESTRICTIONS.
    Elementary Education (Grant, 1919–20).
    Elementary Education (Grant, 1919–20).
    New Scotland Yard (Chief Constables).
    New Scotland Yard (Chief Constables).
    Prisons and Borstal Institutions (Nurses).
    Prisons and Borstal Institutions (Nurses).
    Local Government Board (Scientific Investigations and Medical Research).
    Local Government Board (Scientific Investigations and Medical Research).
    Taunton Post Office (Sunday Duty).
    Taunton Post Office (Sunday Duty).
    River Aire (Flood).
    River Aire (Flood).
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
    APPROVED SOCIETIES (VALUATION).
    APPROVED SOCIETIES (VALUATION).
Preamble
Viscount CANTERBURY—Sat first in Parliament on the death of his cousin.

PUBLIC HOUSE IMPROVEMENT BILL. [H.L.]
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to the sale by retail of exciseable liquors.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Lamington.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

LONDON UNITED TRAMWAYS BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

PETROLEUM (PRODUCTION) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
LORD ELPHINSTONE: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee upon this Bill; and in doing so I wish to take advantage of this opportunity to reply to the very grave charges that were made by the Duke of Northumberland a fortnight ago against the conduct and the good faith of the Ministry of Munitions, against certain officials of that Ministry, and, incidentally, against the firm of Messrs. Pearson in their dealings with the Ministry. Unfortunately, my Lords, no notice was given by the noble Duke either that he was going to make an attack, or as to what points specifically he was going to raise, and so it was perfectly impossible for me at the time to reply; but the noble Earl who leads the House intimated that a full reply would be given when the Bill went into Committee. This, my Lords, I propose to do now, and I will be as brief as I can.
Coming to the actual charges made by the noble Duke against the Ministry, he said first of all that they had used their powers to retard and hamper instead of hastening the production of petroleum. I would like to ask what evidence the noble Duke brought in support of that
1050
charge. Your Lordships will remember that he read a somewhat lengthy extract from the letter of Mr. Cunningham Craig, a geologist, who was for a time, but no longer is, attached to the Petroleum Research Department. In that and other letters written by Mr. Cunningham Craig charges were made, somewhat broadcast, as to obstruction and wilful and deliberate discouragement of effort by the Ministry of Munitions. My Lords, I would like to ask you to judge of the value of that evidence. Your Lordships will remember that it was pointed out at the time by the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, that those letters from Mr. Cunningham Craig had not in reality the smallest bearing upon the subject under discussion. None of those letters, my Lords, referred to boring for petroleum at all, but to the production of oil by distillation from Cannel coal and other kindred products, and I should like to supplement what was then said by the noble Marquess by adding that all these letters from Mr. Cunningham Craig formed the subject of an inquiry by a special Committee, which was presided over by Lord Crewe. The Report of that Committee has been printed and has been laid on the Table of both Houses. This is what Lord Crewe's Committee say about Mr. Cunningham Craig's report, upon which the Ministry of Munitions steadfastly refused to act—which I think the noble Duke calls obstruction. Lord Crewe's Committee said—
"The scheme of carbonisation of Cannel coal and kindred substances recommended in the Petroleum Research Department Report was not a practicable one, and the Ministry of Munitions was justified in declining to embark on it."
Therefore, my Lords, not only had these letters quoted by the noble Duke in support of his charges nothing to do with the subject under discussion, which is boring for oil, but in addition to that all the complaints in those letters had been carefully investigated by an impartial tribunal and declared by that tribunal to be totally baseless. I feel that the noble Duke cannot probably have been fully aware of these facts, because it does seem to me that his position, far from being strengthened, cannot but be weakened in regard to his charges as a whole against the Ministry.
The next charge was that the Ministry had not safeguarded the interests of those concerned in the production of oil, but had used their powers in a manner the

1051
reverse of impartial, and had not hesitated to adopt a course designed to squeeze out—that was the noble Duke's phrase—other firms, such as the Darcy Company. This was developed later by the accusation that the Government were creating a monopoly for the benefit of a private firm, and this I will come to in a moment. The noble Duke alleged that had it not been for this conduct on the part of the Ministry the Darcy Company could have got to work long ago and could have been producing oil for some time past as they had all the machinery and staff necessary for the purpose. I should like to take the last point first. The noble Duke says that the Darcy Company had all the machinery ready more than a year ago at a time when Messrs. Pearson were not so equipped. Having read the correspondence myself, I find a letter written by the Ministry of Munitions on March 27 last to the Darcy Company, asking them what plant they actually had at the moment, and, if they had no plant, what amount would be required. The company replied on the following day, March 26, "The plant is not in our possession." They added, however, that with certain priority facilities it could be procured. I feel it extremely difficult to reconcile this admission made by the company itself at the end of March last with the noble Duke's confident assertion that they had the whole of the plant ready a year ago and could have got to work. It subsequently transpired that they would require a very large amount of steel, including, I think, 172 tons of casings. I cannot say whether they have the plant to-day or not, but in due course a priority certificate was issued to them; but I do not think it is necessary for me to remind the House of the enormous difficulty which surrounds the whole question of priority certificates. Many very urgent and important applications have to be refused simply owing to the fact that there is in certain raw materials a great shortage, and as regards skilled labour there is an ever-increasing shortage. However as I say, the fact remains that at the end of March the company themselves say that they had not got the plant.
Now I come to what the noble Duke terms the persistent squeezing out of this and other firms. It sounds a formidable charge, and one pictures to oneself innumerable applications for licences ruthlessly refused by the Ministry of Munitions,
1052
but I think it may interest your Lordships, and possibly surprise you, when I say that up to date we have received only six applications altogether for licences for boring. Four of these came from the Darcy Company, one from another firm, and the sixth from another firm.
While I am on the subject of licences I think I might take the opportunity to remove what I cannot help feeling is a misconception that exists in the minds of some. The Ministry of Munitions is advised on all these matters by a standing Geological Advisory Committee, which was constituted by Mr. Long's Petroleum Executive. The Ministry of Munitions does not arrogate to itself full technical knowledge, and in all these matters it relies on the advice of the standing Geological Committee. That Committee consists of Dr. Strahan, who is head of the Geological Survey; Dr. W. Gibson, who is also a member of that body; Professor Boulton, of Birmingham University; Professor Watts, of the Imperial College of Science of London; and Professor Sir John Cadman, who is Director of the Petroleum Executive. I should like to make it clear that all geological matters connected with drilling for oil are submitted to this Committee, who have done most excellent work. No steps are taken by the Ministry of Munitions without the scheme having been first approved by this Geological Committee, and therefore all applications are in the first instance referred to them.
Of these six applications, which are all we have received, two were rejected by his Geological Advisory Committee as being geologically unsound. Of the remaining four, two were for small areas forming portions of larger areas already marked out for Government drilling, and those of your Lordships who are conversant with the science of drilling for oil will realise that to have allowed two or more applicants to go in for competitive boring in the same area could only have resulted in each trying to cut the other's throat, and, in consequence, in the waste of oil. That leaves two applications unaccounted for. One was received from the Darcy Company, which has been accepted by the Geological Advisory Committee, with the proviso, however, that as it cannot be regarded as a very promising area it should be considered a post-war proposition and no high priorities for material should be recommended for it at this

1053
moment. In this the Darcy Company concurred, and I find a letter in which they say they agree that the prospect of finding oil is not very hopeful. However, should they wish for a licence on these terms they can have it. The sixth application is from a firm called the Coal and Iron Development Syndicate, and a draft of the proposed licence has been submitted to them and is now being considered by the firm. Should they wish it, it is at their disposal. I am sorry to be so long, but this is the record of the licences which have been asked for at the Ministry of Munitions and how they have been dealt with. I venture to think that it does not bear out the noble Duke's accusation that other firms were consistently squeezed out in favour of Messrs. Pearson. The only applications refused were refused either on geological grounds or because, if granted, they would have resulted in competitive boring in the same area, and that is I think the one thing on which we are all agreed in this matter—that it must in no circumstances be allowed in view of the disastrous experiences that other countries, such as America, have had.
Now I come to the charge that a monopoly is being created in favour of Messrs. Pearson. It has never been pointed out to me exactly wherein this danger lies, and I cannot help feeling that one is arguing not on concrete facts as they exist to-day, but really in the dark, on fears as to what may possibly occur in the future. For instance, I am not quite clear if the idea as regards this charge is that a monopoly is being created by the appointment of Messrs. Pearson as agents for the Government, under the Agreement, or whether the idea is that after the Agreement has expired this firm will inevitably be in a privileged position, owing to its presence on the spot and thanks to the experience gained during the life of the Agreement. One thing I can say with absolute confidence, and that is that I am quite sure that Messrs. Pearson, from a purely selfish point of view, would have been in a very much better position to-day if this Agreement were not in existence, and if they were working on their own account with their own money and reaping the benefits for themselves. I feel that really the position is this. Had it not been for this Agreement, it would have been possible for Messrs. Pearson to create for themselves a position which would have resulted in their having a
1054
virtual monopoly; and for this reason—they were the only firm who had carried out any research work on an extended scale in this country, which means that they have four years start of their rivals. Had they been working for themselves they could hove got control of all the most likely areas for themselves, and if oil were discovered I think there is no doubt that they would have made probably a very large fortune. That is not the position to-day.
What are the facts that we are dealing with under this Agreement? Messrs. Pearson are working on behalf of the Government without any remuneration whatever. They cannot make a single penny out of that Agreement. Is that a monopoly in favour of this firm? It is not a monopoly that many people would like. As your Lordships will see from the Agreement, they have voluntarily placed at the disposal of the Government, free of any charge so to speak, their own services and experience, the services of an expert staff, and, what is of even greater value than all that, the knowledge that they have accumulated in the four years of research work which they have carried out in this country. The whole of the plant used by them is the property of the Government. I need hardly add, I suppose, that the proceeds, if any, belong to the Government. In these circumstances it seems to me that, if there is any monopoly at all in the Agreement, it is a monopoly not in favour of Messrs. Pearson but in favour of the Government.
The noble Duke asked why this firm was selected. I shall be glad to tell him. They were selected because they were the only firm in the country (for the reasons that have given) who were in a position to make the offer that was in fact made, and because, in the opinion of the Government, it was an offer so advantageous to the country that it would have been wrong to have refused it. I really doubt whether the noble Duke is prepared to say that this offer should have been refused. I suppose, my Lords, if one fears any semblance of a monopoly it might possible to argue that whenever you ask a firm to carry out any work for you, such as to build docks, to construct railways or anything else, you are to that extent creating a monopoly in favour of that firm. I do not think for a moment that is what the noble Duke meant, and I cannot believe that he, or any one

1055
else, is prepared to say that in order to avoid even the suspicion of creating a monopoly or a most favoured position for any firm the Government ought to have refused this offer, and to have employed other firms in place of, or as well as, Messrs. Pearson, even though, in the opinion of the Government, those other firms were not in such a good position to carry out the work for them owing to their having less plant, less experience, and certainly less, if not no, research work to their credit. After all, my Lords, the Government in this matter are responsible to the country for what we used to consider before the war a very large sum of money—a million pounds. And I maintain that it was not only their right, but it was their absolute duty, to select those people to carry out the work for them who, in their opinion, were the best qualified to do so. So the Agreement, my Lords, was made with Messrs. Pearson, as Government agents. Copies of that Agreement have been laid on the Table, and your Lordships are, no doubt, thoroughly conversant with it by now.
Your Lordships will see that, in spite of what I might call the suspicion which has been cast over it, all it amounts to is this: that Messrs. Pearson work as Government agents without any remuneration whatever, so long as the Agreement lasts, merely stipulating that they shall thereby not be in any worse position afterwards than any other firm as regards making leases or applying for or of getting licences, should eventually licences be granted to develop this industry. I have seen this paragraph in the Agreement referred to as proof positive of the nefarious designs both of the Government and of the firm of Messrs. Pearson. But surely, my Lords, nobody is prepared to say that, having made the offer that Messrs. Pearson made, not only were they not to receive one penny remuneration for the whole of their work carried out under the Agreement, but that they were to be absolutely penalised for doing so by having refused to them the same rights which were open to all their competitors in that industry; that while they were working for nothing for the Government they were to stand aside and watch other firms applying for, and possibly getting, licences to work the oil which they, Messrs. Pearson, had been the means of discovering. I cannot believe that this really could be argued.
1056
The noble Duke may say this is all very well as regards the Agreement; granted they are going to get nothing out of it during the Agreement; but what about afterwards? Will this firm not be in a privileged position owing to their being on the spot and owing to the knowledge that they have gained of these areas at Government expense? In support of this argument I believe it is contended that the fifteen areas which are now definitely set aside for Government drilling must necessarily cover the whole of the resources of this country, should such oil resources exist. I think this must be a very exaggerated view, fifteen areas out of the whole of Great Britain; it is perfectly true, my Lords, that Messrs. Pearson think that these are the best areas in the country, but that is not the opinion of all the other oil experts in the country. And the only evidence, so far, is really evidence against Messrs. Pearson's contention being right that these areas are the best, if not the only ones, because out of these six applications received, four were for areas quite outside and apart from the areas that have been set apart for Government drilling. Therefore, my Lords, that means that the opinion generally of the oil experts in this country is two to one against those areas being either the best or the only ones. Under this Agreement there is no undertaking, either given or implied, in any way to treat Messrs. Pearson in any privileged way as against other firms when the Agreement expires. The whole of the information gained by them during their operations under the Agreement belong not to Messrs. Pearson; it belongs to the Government, for whom they are working. This Agreement provides, though, that they are to make full reports on all matters to the Government, and this information will be at the disposal of whoever carries on the work afterwards.
I ought, perhaps, to refer for a moment to the Amendments to this Bill which have been put down to-day, as they refer to this point. In the last Amendment standing in the name of the noble Duke it is provided that the records of the petroleum got are to be kept for every separate borehole, and that those records are open to the inspection of every person interested in the land. That, my Lords, is an Amendment which, when the noble Duke moves it, I have no intention of opposing; and therefore I presume it will find its place

1057
in the Bill. Then there is an Amendment standing in my name that "any person entitled to sink a shaft or borehole for the purpose of searching for or getting petroleum shall, before commencing to sink the same, give notice in writing of his intention to the Director of the Geological Survey." And then it goes on to say that a journal shall be kept of the portions or fragments, and the Director of the Geological Survey is allowed to have free access to any such shaft or borehole, and to inspect all specimens and the journals of such shafts, and so on. And as your Lordships are aware, all the information collected by the Geological Survey is open to inspection by any member of the public, while certain portions of it, those which they consider of great national interest, are published.
I have endeavoured to show that the whole of the information that is going to be collected by Messrs. Pearson is not their property, but the property of the Government, and owing to the way the Agreement is drawn and the Amendments that are down, that information will be at the disposal of other would-be licensees. But further than this, I would like to say that it really is absolutely impossible to predict to-day how the Government of the day and Parliament may decide that this industry, if proved, is to be carried on. There will be different ways open to them. For instance they might, when the Agreement expires, conceivably elect to carry on the industry themselves. In that case what happens? Messrs. Pearson simply drop out, and having made, as your Lordships will admit, nothing under the Agreement, they will make nothing afterwards. All that they will have will be the satisfaction of feeling that they have been the means of initiating and developing an industry of, we will hope, immense value to the country. Or again, it might be decided by the Government of the day to offer licences by tender or otherwise. Then, as I said, the knowledge acquired by the Government agents is available for all the tenderers. I would like to say now that there is not only no intention of creating a monopoly in favour of this or any other firm, but I submit that there is no evidence that a monopoly must result. Parliament will, after all, always have the deciding voice, and will be in a position to ensure that fair play is done. Under the Bill all licences granted are to be laid on the Table of both Houses as and
1058
when granted, so that Parliament really will be able to keep control.
Now I come to what I think can only be regarded as the most serious charge by far brought forward by the noble Duke, and that is his charge that certain officials of the Ministry of Munitions, and incidentally Messrs. Pearson, used information which they could only have obtained from Government sources. This is a repetition of the charge made by the Darcy Company in a letter written to the Ministry of Munitions on October 7 in which they alleged that a report by Mr. Cunningham Craig on the Butterly Company's property, given confidentially to Sir John Cadman, had been, passed on to Messrs. Pearson, and that the latter were making use of it to bore for petroleum. I wish at once to give a most emphatic denial, on behalf both of the officials of the Ministry of Munitions and of the firm of Messrs. Pearson, to that. I am informed that Messrs. Pearson located this particular area as far back as January 1916, and, if it were required, they are in a position to prove this definitely before any impartial tribunal. I do not think that they claim any wonderful perspicacity in selecting this area, for the Director of Geological Survey informs me that it is one of the most obvious places in the Midlands, and I have no doubt that it was the obviousness of this particular site that led Mr. Cunningham Craig to select the same area at a later date. As a matter of fact, the site in question which was asked for by the Darcy Company is only a very small portion of the larger area which Messrs. Pearson had investigated previously as a whole.
I must say that I am exceedingly sorry that the noble Duke should have lent the great weight of his authority to this grave charge, and should have formulated it without, I venture to say, bringing forward any evidence at all in its support. The charge against the officials of the Ministry of Munitions is one which involves a breach of the Official Secrets Act, and as against Messrs. Pearson, of conduct which no honest or reputable firm could be guilty of; and I think a charge of that sort ought only to have been brought forward after the most careful investigation and after the most conclusive evidence. As far as I can see, far from that, it seems to have been brought forward by the noble Duke on what is, after all ex parte statement by Messrs. Darcy without any opportunity having been given

1059
to the officials concerned to rebut the gravest charge that can be brought against officials of the Government. I sincerely hope, before this debate closes, that the noble Duke may find an opportunity, and may see his way, unreservedly to withdraw the charge that he made a fortnight ago without, I venture to say, any evidence at all in its support. I apologise for the length of time that I have occupied, but I conceived it to be my duty, and I thought that probably your Lordships would wish me, to make as full and frank a reply as I possibly could to the very grave charges brought forward by the noble Duke, and I hope that I have done this to the satisfaction of your Lordships.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Elphinstone.)
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just spoken made certain statements regarding the charges which I brought against the Government, and before the House goes into Committee I should like to make, very shortly, a reply to his statements. First, as regards the criticisms which the noble Lord has made on account of my quoting Mr. Cunningham Craig. The noble Lord appears to imagine that I based my charges on what Mr. Cunningham Craig said. That was not the case at all. I only quoted Mr. Cunningham Craig as showing the state of disorder and confusion which appears to prevail in the Petroleum and Oil Production Department. It is true that Mr. Cunningham Craig was referring only to the distillation of oil from cannel coal, but what he said did not seem to me to be wholly beside the point in showing that the state of things which was prevailing in that Department with regard to that question also prevailed in regard to other questions. But I did not base my charges on anything Mr. Cunningham Craig said, and that is really of comparatively little importance.
I will deal with the noble Lord's statements one by one. The noble Lord said that the Darcy Company was given, as I understand, full opportunities for obtaining priority certificates to bore for oil in this country, and that the Government did not delay the production of oil by refusing certificates to the Darcy Company. He also said that the Darcy Company stated in March last that they had no machinery at that time
1060
in their possession. The facts of the case are as follows. The Darcy Company applied in September, 1917 for machinery for boring for oil. They could have got all the machinery they wanted from the Oil Well Engineering Company. That Company had at that time sufficient machinery to start work at once; but they could, in any case, have obtained the whole of the plant necessary by January of this year. The noble Lord said that he does not understand how the Darcy Company's statement that they had no machinery in March is compatible with what I said. The explanation is perfectly simple. It is that the Government refused Messrs. Darcy a certificate on December 31, and naturally they had no machinery in March, as is not at all surprising, but they could have started work, I believe, in September of last year. At any rate they could have had all the plant necessary nine months ago—in January of this year—and it seems to me quite incontestable that the Government, by refusing them priority certificates, have deliberately delayed the production of petroleum for certainly nine months.
The noble Lord objects to the phrase which I used that other firms were being deliberately squeezed out. The Darcy Company started applying last September for certificates, and have been applying off and on ever since, and they have never been allowed these certificates. They were informed in August that it was impossible to grant any certificate which would be likely to be satisfactory to any company that wished to work petroleum. In view of this statement it seems to me that the Darcy Company have certainly been squeezed out, and, as none of these other applications have been granted, that the other firms also have been squeezed out, while Messrs. Pearson have been given an opportunity to transfer the whole of their machinery from America. The noble Lord says that Messrs. Pearson are the only company which has carried out the work on an extended scale in this country; and he further asserts that they are in every way the best qualified company for the boring of petroleum. I think that statement is probably open to the gravest doubt. In the first place, I should like to know very much more about this work which Messrs. Pearson are supposed to have carried out. The noble Lord, I think, admitted—at any rate it is a fact—that in the case of the Butterly Company, to which the noble Lord referred, no geologist employed by

1061
Messrs. Pearson ever visited that particular property.
With regard to this work which they carried out, I quite admit that Messrs. Pearson have probably been investigating oil areas in this country longer than any other firm, but from some of the language which has been used by the noble Lord, and also by the Press, one would imagine that a whole host of geologists were being employed by Messrs. Pearson to roam all over the country and carry out the most exhaustive enquiries. The position I believe is that any one of us can go to the Geological Survey Office and examine the records in that office, and, providing we have the previous expert knowledge, we shall know exactly where all the oil areas in this country are. But before you go down and actually start work in any particular area, there is certain information which you can only obtain on the spot; and it does not appear that Messrs. Pearson could have carried out this work on the spot in a great many cases, and the greater part of these enquiries which they are said to have conducted have, so far as I know—I am open to correction—been carried out in the office of the Geological Survey.
Messrs. Pearson have nothing like the qualifications of the Darcy Company for drilling for oil. The Darcy Company have probably drilled at least ten wells to Messrs. Pearson's one; they have carried out work in every part of the world under every sort of condition; and they have infinitely more experience than Messrs. Pearson. The noble Lord says "Why did I ask why this firm was selected"? I think it is a very pertinent inquiry. This firm, Messrs. Pearson, were not ready to start work when the Darcy Company were ready to start work, and they had not the knowledge which the Darcy Company possessed. The noble Lord tries to raise our sympathy for Messrs. Pearson by suggesting that surely in undertaking this work the Government was bound to protect them. The Government was certainly bound to protect them, and it has protected them to such an extent that it has come to an agreement with Messrs. Pearson by which there are no less than thirty areas in this country on which Messrs. Pearson have the exclusive right to drill for oil.
LORD ELPHINSTONE: As Government agents.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: As Government agents, not as a private firm. The noble Lord suggests, I suppose, that as soon as this Agreement has fallen through—he has in fact suggested it in his speech—Messrs. Pearson will drop out. I think not. It seems to me very unlikely, because the Government has placed no less than one million pounds at the disposal of this firm, and the Agreement continues until this million pounds is expended. I believe it is a fact that all preliminary work which is necessary to find oil in these areas can be done for a much less expenditure than one million pounds; therefore, it appears to follow that when this Agreement comes to an end, if it ever does, Messrs. Pearson will be in possession of all the oil areas in this country; they will be free to make their own terms with landowners; they will be the people in possession, and no other firm will have the slightest prospect of competing with them. The noble Lord says that he does not see where the monopoly comes in. If that is not a monopoly I do not quite know what is. The only way in which he can prevent Messrs. Pearson obtaining a monopoly is by the Government keeping the monopoly for themselves. It is, I suppose, possible for the Government to refuse to grant Messrs. Pearson licences after this war, in which case Messrs. Pearson would remain sole agents and would not obtain any profit out of this transaction. But from all that has happened, the circumstances would seem to suggest that the monopoly will in fact be for the benefit of Messrs. Pearson and not for the Government; otherwise it is difficult to see why Messrs. Pearson should have been accorded such extraordinary favour; and we are told in no measured terms the Government owes an extraordinary debt of gratitude to Messrs. Pearson for their generosity and patriotism. It seems to follow from the action taken by the Government that Messrs. Pearson must receive some quid pro quo.
I now come to the charge which the noble Lord has said was very grave, in that he accuses me of accusing Government officials of imparting information to Messrs. Pearson which they had received in the strictest confidence. I think he has not understood exactly what I meant by that charge. I did not mean that there had been any leakage in the ordinary sense of the word. I did not mean that any particular official of officials of the Ministry of Munitions had for any dishonourable motive imparted

1063
confidential information to Messrs. Pearson. That is not the point. If I have said anything which would lead to such a conclusion, I can only say that I am very sorry and that I withdraw it. I do not know whether one can withdraw a charge which one has not consciously made; at any rate, I did not make it at all; and so far as that is concerned I can assure the noble Lord that anything I say does not involve any reflection upon the officials of the Ministry of Munitions.
But what are the facts? The Government invited all firms to make their own arrangements with landowners last January, and the Government said that providing landowners did not ask for a royalty no difficulty would be made about granting licences, either to these firms who wished to work landowners' land or to the landowners themselves to bore for petroleum on their own account. That was the distinct invitation made last January to Sir Arthur Churchman, whose official title, I think, is Controller to the Mineral Oils Department. The Darcy Company naturally acted on that invitation and applied for licences and tried to make their own terms with the landlords. Mr. Kellaway has informed us that the policy embodied in the Pearson Agreement had been agreed to and had been settled, as long ago as last March, although the Agreement was not actually signed till the 10th of September. It is somewhat surprising to find, in view of the fact that that policy was all settled, that the Government never informed these firms whom it had invited to bore for petroleum and make their own arrangements, that their labours were likely to be wasted; they never mentioned a word of the Agreement which they had made with Messrs. Pearson, and they not only allowed them to carry on these investigations at considerable expense to themselves, but they even induced those firms to give them the geological evidence which they had collected; and that was going on up till September, all that evidence being used for the benefit of Messrs. Pearson. It must be used for the benefit of Messrs. Pearson; they are the sole agents of the Government. The noble Lord appears to imagine that this is some reflection upon the Ministry of Munitions. It is not. It is a reflection upon the Government. The Ministry of Munitions is bound to give them the information. But with regard to the Butterly Company's case, the noble Lord says—at least I think I understood
1064
him to say—that Messrs. Pearson had carried out all the investigations regarding the whole of this area, and that in fixing upon this particular property to bore upon he was acting on his own information and not utilising information which the Darcy Company had obtained. Whether he was or not, the fact remains that he must have had in his possession the information which the Darcy Company had obtained. There is a point which the noble Lord has not explained—namely, that Messrs. Pearson submitted to the Butterly Company a facsimile map, a map which was an exact facsimile of the map which the Darcy Company had prepared for themselves when they were going to bore on the property. The fact that it was a facsimile is of course nothing, because all these maps are the ordinary geological survey maps, but the exact spot which the Darcy Company had selected to bore on had been selected by Messrs. Pearson. I do not say that the noble Lord has not got a perfectly satisfactory explanation of that fact, and it would not involve any reflection on the Ministry of Munitions if Messrs. Pearson had obtained that map which the Darcy Company had prepared. It would be a very grave charge against the Government—a charge of breach of faith and nothing less.
It may be noted also that the Government, while inviting these firms which have obtained all this geological evidence to give their evidence, is refusing to divulge the areas on which Messrs. Pearson intend to bore. There is a good deal more in this matter which I could say, as I have been carrying out very full inquiries, but there are other noble Lords who could also throw considerable light on the matter.
The three charges which I have made are: (1) That the Government are establishing a monopoly for a private firm; (2) that they have deliberately delayed the production of petroleum, and that the working could have been begun nine months ago; and (3) that the action which the Government have adopted, the policy which they have been pursuing, amounts to nothing less than a breach of faith. In view of these circumstances I think your Lordships' House would be failing in its duty if it allowed the Bill which is now before the House to pass before a very searching and exhaustive inquiry has been carried out into the whole of the circumstances which have induced the Petroleum Executive—

1065
for they are the people concerned: the noble Lord talks about the Government, but the whole of this business has been handed over to the Petroleum Executive—into the circumstances which have induced the Petroleum Executive to carry out the policy which is embodied in this very undesirable Agreement with Messrs. Pearson.
VISCOUNT COWDRAY: My LORDS, I thought the noble Lord in charge of the Bill explained the position fully and admirably, and after his explanation I must, admit that I am disappointed and surprised that the noble Duke adheres to many of the mis-statements (because mis-statements they are) that he made to this House on the Second Reading. The position as far as I am concerned is very simple. My firm has devoted three and a half years to a careful study of the oil prospects in this country. That study has been made by probably the finest oil experts in the world. They found such geological indications of oil from the public geological maps of this country that they were surprised that other geologists had made no search for oil in face of the evidence that existed. But it turned out that there was a belief among geologists that crude oil did not exist in this country. The oil indications in the shape of bitumen or in the shape of dark viscous oils that were found in some of the mines were believed to be the result of the distillation of coal. That theory had been accepted as a fundamental position for very many years. My geologists said, "Well here are the geological conditions; of those there can be no question. We must bring to our aid chemistry, and see whether those indications of oil that we see throughout the country really betray the presence of crude oil or are the products of the distillation of coal." We fortunately have in our employ a chemist who has made a study of oil and its sources, and he was able to prove chemically that when the evidences of the existence of oil in many places in the country were subjected to chemical analysis they were found to be products of crude petroleum.
We, naturally, having made this discovery—because discovery it is—expected in due course to have a commercial advantage from it. We commenced three and a-half years ago to make leases with some of the great landowners. The negotiations were slow, and before any of them were completed we were asked by the Admiralty, whom we had kept advised confidentially
1066
of our belief that oil existed in this country, to commence drilling at once, If you remember, in June of last year the shipping position was very critical; we were losing tonnage at an alarming rate through the German submarines. The Admiralty became very nervous about the supply of oil, and they asked me at once to begin to drill. I have had within the last eighteen years some experience in the oil world. The noble Duke speaks of the Darcy Company's experience as if it were unique. When I tell him that for twelve years in succession we spent £1,000,000 a year in connection with petroleum he will realise that unless we have thrown our money away, which fortunately the results show that we have not done, we must have learnt a great deal about this very interesting subject.
Our knowledge of the subject taught us that to allow drilling over small areas without any control meant disaster in a country of this kind. We have to remember that, compared with America, England is a very small country, and the probabilities are that our oil resources will be correspondingly small. Thirty years ago the total production of oil in America was only four million tons a year. To-day it is a little over ten times that quantity, and the American Government is very disturbed because it believes that in another twenty-seven years the oil in the United States will be exhausted. Knowing this, when I was asked by the Admiralty to commence drilling on small areas, without there being any control as to the methods of drilling, I declined. I thought I would rather have the odium attached to me of declining to proceed with drilling at a time when admittedly it was necessary, than ruin an industry which in my opinion is vital to the interests of this country.
What happens from promiscuous, uncontrolled drilling? I have seen in the United States, on an areas the size of this Chamber, two or three rings each competing and trying to extract the maximum quantity of oil from the reservoir below, simply through their having that small ownership, on which they have put two or three rings. Of course the result is that the surrounding owners naturally begin to put holes down themselves to protect their own interests, and this goes on, drilling against time, putting four or five wells down and sometimes more where one would do. To get the oil from the ground to the maximum extent possible

1067
it is necessary to conserve the gas pressures. It is the gas which forces the oil from the strata, or the caverns, wherever it may be, to the well. It is not the natural flow of the oil to the well that brings any great production. If you once lose the gas pressure you lose half or even three-quarters of the oil in the ground; and how can you conserve the gas pressure when you have indiscriminate, uncontrolled drilling—five or seven or even ten wells where one would do and each exhausting the gas? Again, another danger is that you may flood the oil lands. If you admit water from the upper strata into the oil deposits you send your oil heaven knows where. It is lost.
Knowing these things, I declined to drill unless the Government protected the industry by legislation. By "protected" I mean controlled it—regulated the number of wells that should be put down and the method in which they should be put down. Of course, this was quite contrary to my interests and my policy. I had hoped to secure leases over the oil areas. I had expected a Rockefeller fortune. The needs of the country demanded that I should make the sacrifice, and without a second's hesitation I offered the whole of my knowledge and help to the Government, provided the Government did what I believed it was essential they should do—namely, look after the industry. The Agreement is the result. Under that Agreement we give all the knowledge we possess. We give all the services we can, because we give the services of our geologists and of my colleagues and office. We give the knowledge we have, the discovery which we have made, and every effort that we can make. And what do we get? We get accusation in this House, as if I were not giving something not making one of the handsomest presents man ever made to his country, but as if I were trying in some way or other, by some scheming, to get some personal advantage. The contrary is the case. Under that Agreement it is impossible for me to get one cent out of the Government. It is impossible for me to have any monopoly. There is no monopoly so far as we are concerned. We are agents of and working for the Government. Our information is theirs, and when we have finished we have to make our bow. We expect to get thanks, because we believe we shall produce oil. We are certain, in fact, that we shall produce oil, but the uncertainty is as to the quantity that we shall produce. About our producing oil there is no doubt, and at
1068
the finish when we have produced oil we hope that some of these unworthy thoughts that have been expressed will give place to an appreciation of what we have done.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, had I had any idea that the noble Lord who has just addressed the House was about to speak I would not have endeavoured to rise before, and I still more regret having endeavoured to rise because I think his speech has given us most valuable information. I think the House is indebted both to the noble Duke who raised this question and to the noble Lord who has just spoken, because this is really a Second Reading debate but a Second Reading debate taken on the Motion to go into Committee, when we have far more knowledge of what the real motive and nature of this Bill is than ever before. There has obviously been a great deal of misapprehension as to what was the attitude of the Government in this matter, and I think it has been made perfectly distinct by the noble Lord who has just spoken what the difficulty is. There is a general idea floating about that if there is petroleum and you can find out where it is, then anybody can go and bore for it. Even in the correspondence which is available to your Lordships it appears that the result of that procedure in the United States has been that experts begin to fear that in twenty-nine years from now the whole of the supplies in the United States will be exhausted; and the noble Lord who has just spoken has made it I think quite clear what is the consequence of indiscriminate boring. He has told your Lordships that he had the Admiralty behind him at a time when there was a general desire to supply a national necessity somehow, and it was only his own forbearance which led him to abstain from the opportunity afforded of putting great pecuniary benefit into his own pocket, rather than run the risk of getting supplies most uneconomically and exhausting the resources.
The noble Duke raised the point of what appeared to be a monopoly to Messrs. Pearson, and no doubt in this country we are all very suspicious of anything which looks like a monopoly. Why was the matter given to Messrs. Pearson by the Agreement of September last? The noble Lord who made the Motion to go into Committee, and Lord Cowdray himself, have made the reason I think perfectly clear. It was realised, perhaps not as early as it should have been but in time,

1069
that the process of indiscriminate drilling in this country was a disastrous process, and that in the national interests if we were to get the benefit of the national resources drilling must be placed under control and regulated by considerations which were not only geological but chemical, because the sources of the oil, as now known, have to be taken into account. Under these circumstances the Government did what was just the right thing. They bring in a Bill to regulate this, and nothing more than this. It is to regulate the control of operations for boring for petroleum.
There were first fifteen areas which I think were suggested by Messrs. Pearson, but which are now likely to become thirty in consequence of other investigations, and the Bill says that nobody is to bore in those areas or elsewhere without a licence which is not to be given until all the considerations which are necessary for the regulation of control in the national interest are taken into account. What does the Agreement do? It has nothing to do with the Bill, though it is naturally connected with it. It makes Messrs. Pearson the agents of the Government for the purposes of that boring. Why? I have no doubt that the Darcy Company have been most successful in boring for petroleum elsewhere, but Messrs. Pearson have made an exhaustive study of this subject in this country, and not only have they done so but they have got the plant and machinery ready, which no other firm has at this moment.
If Messrs. Pearson had chosen to use the opportunities which they had when the Admiralty were behind them, no doubt they could have made a great deal of money, but the noble Lord has shown why they did not. It is a sheer case of acting in the public interests, to point out that indiscriminate boring is a bad thing, and that even for themselves they did not wish to have the power of indiscriminate boring. The purpose of the Bill is to regulate that power, and the purpose of the Agreement is to make investigations which are to be made on behalf of the Government. It cannot be too clearly borne in mind that under the Agreement Messrs. Pearson will be mere agents of the Government in making the boring. They do not receive any remuneration for doing so, but they receive their expenses out of the £1,000,000 which it is proposed to employ. I think the essence of the conclusion that results from
1070
the noble Duke's speech is that it is clear that somebody ought to have been appointed to do this work. It had either to be Messrs. Pearson or Messrs. Darcy. We cannot judge here. The Government must take the responsibility for judging; but I can only say, after hearing the speech which the noble Viscount has made, that I, for my part, am satisfied that his firm, from the point of view, not of his own interests—it is not a question of his own interests that comes in—but of the nation's interests, was probably as likely a source as any other to get the result aimed at by this Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, we are placed in some difficulty in regard to this Bill, but before I say anything in reference to it I should like to disclaim any desire to make any charges against anybody. I am sure the House listened to the speech of the noble Lord below the gangway with sympathy. The noble Viscount, Lord Cowdray, spoke very well, and I think he showed your Lordships that he was acting a purely disinterested part and had no desire to do anything but what was right in the interests of the country. By all means, let us give everybody full credit for good faith; but the history of this Bill has been rather a remarkable one, and that is what makes it especially difficult for your Lordships to deal with it. It was not discussed at all in the House of Commons. It was a Bill which went through, as many Bills have done, without discussion, and therefore it comes to your Lordships to be discussed practically for the first time.
There is another very remarkable circumstance in reference to it—that when this Bill was first talked of, and this subject was first raised, we treated it as an urgent war question. It belonged to that class of Bill, of which your Lordships have dealt with a great many during the last four years, which were put forward on patriotic grounds and were treated in that spirit by your Lordships. Bill after Bill was often neither carefully nor closely scanned. Indeed, we have often given very little discussion and consideration to them, because we always felt that what was necessary for war purposes must be passed, and must be passed without delay. Of course, circumstances have altered. It is the fault of nobody. We are deeply thankful that they should have altered. But circumstances have profoundly altered, and it is absolutely certain that no result can come

1071
from the patriotic endeavours either of the noble Lord, or of the Darcy Company or any other company, which will affect in the least degree the fortunes of the present war. I suppose that on the most favourable consideration—I speak in the presence of a great expert—no oil can come from the investigations of the noble Lord and subsequent developments under many months, perhaps years. I do not know, but many months.
VISCOUNT COWDRAY: Say six months.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Well, we have every hope that the war will be practically over before that. Therefore, it has no bearing whatever on the war. It does not mean that it is an unimportant matter—far from it—but it ceases to be one of those matters of vital urgency with which we have had to deal as war measures throughout these desperate four years. Consequently, we look at this subject as we used to look at subjects before the war, with a certain amount of freedom from war urgency. That is the first consideration.
Then, I ought to say one other word in order to show in what spirit your Lordships may consider this bill. I understand from the noble Lord who opened the proceedings this afternoon that upon the Amendments considerable concessions are to be made to the wishes of my noble friend the Duke of Northumberland. If that is so, we may look upon the interests of the landowners, in so far as your Lordships consider them, as more or less dealt with. It is no longer a question of the landowners, and any action which is taken in this House will have no reference specially to them. The question is a different one. It is not a question between the landowners and the people. It is not a question of war urgency, but it is a question whether it is in the interests of this country that anything in the nature of a monopoly should grow up. That is the only issue. At this moment I am not disputing the question of the Bill itself. Probably the Bill, or something of the same nature, may ultimately have to be passed in order to prevent the indiscriminate boring of which the noble Lord has spoken. That may very likely be true. But the question really is whether this Bill, as it stands, and taken with the Agreement which has been laid upon the Table of your Lordships' House, does amount to a monopoly, or anything in the nature of a monopoly, and, if so, whether it is wise to
1072
proceed with the granting of such a monopoly without very careful consideration. That is the only point, without any charge. The noble Lord is perfectly entitled to have a monopoly, if he can get it.
VISCOUNT COWDRAY: There is none whatever; there cannot possibly be.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That is what I am going to discuss for a moment. The noble Viscount may be perfectly right, I daresay he is right. I speak under correction, for I hope your Lordships will not think I lay claim to any special knowledge on this subject, but I understand that what this grants to Messrs. Pearson is a right to prospect, bore, and develop not more than thirty drilling areas. I am told that there are certainly not thirty areas in this country, so that what this amounts to is that a right is granted to Messrs. Pearson to prospect, bore, and develop all the oil areas of this country. That may be a good policy, or it may not, but, prima facie, it does seem to amount to something in the nature of a monopoly. No doubt the fact that an investigation takes place, and that primary development takes place, does not of necessity carry with it that Messrs. Pearson will be afterwards entrusted with the right to carry out development as a commercial undertaking. It does not follow, as my noble friend the noble Duke behind me has said. The Government might elect to develop oil on their own account. If that is the case, that is a very big matter of policy. That, again, seems to be a very important decision to take this afternoon as an alternative. But I should think many of your Lordships would very much doubt whether it was wise for His Majesty's Government to undertake the oil business of this country. I should rather question whether that would recommend itself to Parliament.
Then is it possible that Messrs. Pearson having patriotically come forward, and having bored and developed all the oil areas in this country, will afterwards give place to some other contractor? Is that likely? I must say that, on the face of it, it seems to be rather an improbable contingency. I hope the noble Lord will understand that this is no charge against him; there is no charge against him whatever. He will have placed the services of his experts at the command of the country, and they will have done all they can patrio-

1073
tically to discover what are the oil capacities of all these regions. But at the end of it, is it likely that the country will say to Messrs. Pearson, "Good morning, we are very much obliged to you; we are going to give these oil areas which you have developed to others; we are going to hand them over to the Persian Oil Company," or some other company? I do not think it is in the least likely.
I noticed that my noble friend opposite spoke, as you would expect him to speak, of treating everybody fairly, and of course the obvious equity of the position would be that, having taken this tremendously patriotic gift from Messrs. Pearson of digging these wells, that they would be entrusted with the further development of them. Therefore I must say that, on the face of it, unless the Government undertook the oil business of this country themselves, I cannot escape from the conclusion that what we shall do by this Bill, taken with the Agreement, is to grant a monopoly. And is it wise? That is the question. I feel that a Bill which is brought forward as an urgent war measure and has ceased to be an urgent war measure, a Bill which has not been discussed in the House of Commons at all and which seems to involve such very formidable consequences, ought not to be lightly accepted by your Lordships' House.
I very much regret that upon the last occasion when this matter was under the consideration of the House, when my noble friend the noble Duke spoke on the Second Reading and afterwards moved that this Bill be referred to a Select Committee, that that course was not accepted by His Majesty's Government. It seemed to me to have been the very obvious course to take in a Bill of this kind, because the process of referring to a Select Committee—I mean a real Select Committee, not one of those shelving Select Committees with which we are very familiar—the effect of that would not have been necessarily hostile to the Bill, but would have been useful in examining these particular points which I have ventured, very imperfectly, to lay before your Lordships now.
It does seem to me that in these days we cannot be too careful in matters of this kind. We want not merely to avoid anything in the nature of undue favouritism in matters of commerce; we want to avoid even the suspicion of any undue favouritism. There is a tremendous feeling in the public mind that political society is undermined
1074
with all sorts of sinister influences of a pecuniary nature. I do not believe that is so, my Lords, but I believe there is a certain amount; and I am speaking of what is, in my own opinion, true. But I do not think it is anything like so much as popular imagination conceives. It seems to me it is of vast importance that we should do nothing to lead public opinion to think there is more in this than there is. If we could, only have had an examination before which the matter could have been sifted, it would have been better. How can it be sifted here? How can we try across the floor of your Lordships' House all these little difficult issues as to what amounts to monopoly and what does not, and what the equity of treating the man in possession would be hereafter? If all those things could have been gone into, if the representative of the Darcy Company could have been heard in Committee, or any other evidence necessary, the whole thing might have been cleared up, and the noble Lord below the gangway might have shown that what was wanted was not only in the public interest but did not amount into a monopoly.
I think your Lordships would do well not to proceed with the Bill immediately; that, I suggest to the Government, is the right course. There is nothing going to be lost by a little delay now; it is not like it would have been when the war was an urgent matter. It is only a matter of a few weeks, at the outside. And I venture to think that the Government will do well not to press the matter at this moment. Surely it would be wiser, I put it to the Government, in order to avoid any question or suspicion, that we should have this thing carefully examined. If we only could have it carefully examined by a properly constituted tribunal, that would be effective. I noticed, for example, that my noble friend who opened the proceedings to-night said that Messrs. Pearson claimed to prove, before any impartial tribunal, that they were not unduly using of her people's information. By all means let them have the advantage of the acceptance of that claim. I suggest, therefore, to my noble friend who is now leading your Lordships' House that the proper course would be not to proceed with the Bill now, but to allow a proper investigation before we commit the country to a policy which may be wrong, and which will certainly give rise in the public mind to all sorts of misconceptions.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): My Lords, I cannot help feeling that my noble friend opposite has spoken under some misapprehension. He asks us to postpone the Bill; in other words, to do what your Lordships declined to do a fortnight ago, and refer the matter to a Select Committee rather than consider it in full Committee of the House. What is the object of Lord Salisbury in making that proposal? He disclaims the making of charges explicitly, and almost in the next sentence he says that there is an idea of suspicion that political society in this country is undermined, and that to avoid all questions of suspicion delay should now be incurred, and either that the Bill should be withdrawn or that some special inquiry should be made. That is what I call a misapprehension of the actual Parliamentary situation, and I will explain in a moment why I take that view.
Let me say at once that I am glad that Lord Salisbury disclaims charges in this connection. He asks us to give everybody full credit for good faith. I wish the noble Duke opposite had done so, because a sequence of charges have been made not only against Messrs. Pearson and Company, in whom I am neither interested nor concerned, but against the Ministry of Munitions which is responsible for this Bill—charges not merely of obstruction and incompetence, but of trickery and of collusion. So far as I am concerned I am perfectly impartial in the matter, not having known that there was a Petroleum Bill until it was presented two or three weeks ago. Frankly, I consider that the charges made a fortnight ago by the Duke of Northumberland break down completely under the reply of my noble friend beside me (Lord Elphinstone). I can only wish that he had gone a little further in withdrawing the charge of collusion explicitly made against the Ministry of Munitions.
On the point of procedure, to which Lord Salisbury attached much greater importance than to what was dealt with in earlier speeches, I wish to point out what I think is not quite clear to your Lordships. Lord Salisbury starts with the assumption that this Bill can have no bearing upon the war. I will not dogmatise on that point. Three years ago efforts were abandoned because people said that they could have no bearing upon the war. Three and a half years ago people refused to join
1076
the Army because they said they could see no chance of fighting. I hesitate to say that this Bill will have no bearing upon the war, though from the bottom of my heart I trust that Lord Salisbury is right. But we must not be leisurely in dealing with this problem in consequence. We have not hurried the matter unduly, as Lord Salisbury seemed to indicate.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not think I said that.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: The indication was that there is no very urgent need to deal with it now.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Hear, hear.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I must remind your Lordships that the Bill came here in August. We had the Second Reading a fortnight ago, and we are having an ample discussion to-day, and I do not think it is unduly hurrying it if we decline to accept the view that it should be still further hung up, especially from the point of view, in which I completely join issue with Lord Salisbury, who says that monopoly is the only issue. This Bill does not make a monopoly. It does nothing except prevent Tom, Dick, and Harry from boring for oil in a restricted area. I listened with interest to the speech of the noble Lord below the gangway, who explained how undesirable such a course was; and I think that Lord Haldane, who is interested in the scientific side of it, has also referred to that particular point. The only object of this Bill is to prevent indiscriminate boring; and the necessity for the Bill, if indiscriminate boring be conceded by your Lordships to be undesirable, lies in the fact that if, as Lord Salisbury says, the war is now coming to an end the powers of the Government to prevent this wholesale, indiscriminate boring come to an end with the end of the war; that is to say, that the powers exercised under the Defence of the Realm Regulations, which last for the war and a few months afterwards, come to an end then, and this Bill must take the place of the Defence of the Realm Regulations. I think in fact that everybody who has spoken has said that it is undesirable that indiscriminate boring should take place. Either Lord Salisbury, or the Agreement, says that Messrs. Pearson have the right to deal with thirty areas, and Lord Salisbury contends that there are not more than thirty.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am advised that there are many fewer than thirty.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I wonder how Lord Salisbury knows.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Of course, I have not been to see.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: This is a matter upon which all the experts are divided, but whether the number be thirty more or less, my point is that it is not prejudged by this Bill. There is to be a Bill after this Bill. That is the point, and Lord Salisbury says "Is it likely Messrs. Pearson will be displaced?" I do not know. That will be for Parliament to settle. There is to be a subsequent Bill, and Parliament or the responsible Minister of the day must take that into account. I therefore submit to your Lordships that no case is made out for postponing this Bill, although I dare say a very strong case may be made for the closest scrutiny of the Bill that must follow. Personally I am not afraid of monopoly. If there be a monopoly, it is a monopoly in favour of the Government. This Bill, however, does not touch that point. It deals with a matter which, quite apart from the war and the production of oil for motive purposes—what did the noble Lord say?
LORD BUCKMASTER: I merely said that the Bill is unlimited in duration, and is not confined to the period of the war.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: That is quite right, and it is rightly unlimited. The Bill is only to put restrictions on boring for petroleum. That ought to have been the law long ago, and I hope that it will continue to be the law after the war.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: That is what I said, and I think I was correct.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I understood the noble Earl to say that the Bill would end with the war.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: No, I said that the powers exercised by the Government to prevent indiscriminate boring are derived from the Defence of the Realm Regulations, and that those powers end with the war or a few months afterwards. This Bill, therefore, was necessary
1078
to replace and invest in the Government powers derived from Statute. I submit that to your Lordships' consideration, and I ask you also to bear in mind, what was not very clear, that the variety of questions about which discussion has taken place to-day must necessarily be the subject of subsequent legislation.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I am not quite sure that my noble friend who has just sat down did complete justice to the argument that was put forward from the bench opposite by Lord Salisbury. I understood Lord Salisbury's main point to be this, that some further inquiry, particularly in regard to the terms of the Government contract with Messrs. Pearson, was desirable in order to allay the great cloud of suspicion which has grown up round this business. It is no use dissembling the fact that a great cloud of suspicion has arisen in connection with this matter, and I think a not very unnatural suspicion. I admit readily that a great part of that suspicion was quite unfounded, and any feeling of that kind that I had myself has been very much dissipated by the frank statement of the noble Lord in charge of the Bill, and by what was said just now by Lord Cowdray himself, when he addressed your Lordships with a sincerity which must have been obvious to all of those who listened to him. In the first place I agree with my noble friend Lord Salisbury, when he asks the House to bear in mind that in no circumstances can this really be described as a war measure. No one believes for a moment that out of this Bill you will get a teacup full of oil before the war comes to an end; and therefore there is no occasion for the shortcuts and the rough-and-ready methods to which we have become very much habituated during the last three or four years. There are really two separate questions before the House. There is the Bill which we are asked to read a second time, and the contract between the Government and Lord Cowdray. The Bill itself seems to me to be an innocuous Bill, and I think its objects are perfectly legitimate. The objects are twofold—(1) to promote the development of a very important and probably much neglected industry; and (2) to prevent that industry being exploited in a wasteful and improvident manner. There is no doubt whatever in regard to the importance of the second of those objects. What was said by Lord Cowdray, speaking

1079
with a thorough knowledge of the subject, must have carried conviction to every one—that it is necessary to do something to prevent indiscriminate boring and a reckless use of such resources as may be discovered under the soil of the country. It is also, I think, quite clear that these precautions are specially necessary when you deal with a mineral product like petroleum, which I need not say stands upon an entirely different footing from stones, ores, or other substances brought from below the surface of the earth. The Bill seems to me to be very well designed for the purpose of preventing wasteful exploitation of the oil resources of the country. We can only prevent such exploitation by putting a Government Department in a position to take measures of precaution You must do that; that is done by this Bill.
But, my Lords, when you come to the effects of what is going to be done upon the future of the development of the oil industry, I confess I am more doubtful, because it looks to me as if this Bill, with the contract which accompanies it, would not only prevent indiscriminate competition, but might have the effect of preventing competition altogether, which is a very different matter. The suggestion that this is a monopoly has been indignantly repudiated; and I certainly would not dream of suggesting that there is any idea of a monopoly in the more odious sense of the word. On the other hand, I am bound to say that when one comes to look at the terms of this contract it is difficult to resist the conclusion that it will yield something which in effect, and looked at as the ordinary uninformed person will look at it, will amount to a sort of monopoly. I hope I shall be contradicted if I am mistaken as to the facts. I am, of course, putting entirely on one side the idea that Messrs. Darcy or other competitors were squeezed out, or anything of that kind. I am quite satisfied by what my noble friend Lord Elphinstone told us upon that point. But is it not the case that although Messrs. Pearson have undertaken this great work, as they put it, without remuneration, fee, or recompense, it gives them an exclusive right in virtually the whole of the areas within which there is any likelihood of discovering mineral oils? Does it not give them one million pounds of public money with which to carry on these operations? And, finally, I would like to ask, as it gives them the right not only to drill for oil but also to
1080
get the oil, whether it does not give them, so long as they hold the field, the right of possessing and converting to their own profit any oil which may result from their operations. If that is the position, and if as one of the results of the firm being put in that position it has come to pass that no competitors have come forward who have been able to take up rival schemes, then I say it does look to me as if the effect of what was going to be done would be to create something that in effect is a kind of monopoly. That is how it strikes me. I should have thought that His Majesty's Government would not have been very sorry to have the matter looked into, but that is, of course, for them to judge; and if they are content to leave the question as it stands, I think we on our side must be content with having called attention to the matter, and I, for one, do not desire to press the objection further.
LORD MORRIS: My Lords, I should like to say one or two words in relation to the question before the Chair. I do not agree with those who endeavour to make out any case that this Bill or this contract creates a monopoly of the class so correctly described by the noble Marquess who has just spoken—namely, an odious monopoly; and I think that if there was any danger of that, this House would be well engaged in safeguarding the public from any such enactment. But I think any one who will read the Bill and the contract will see that none of the dangers exist in the contract or in the Bill which generally attach to the class of monopolies so pertinently and correctly described by the noble Marquess who has just spoken.
The present suggestion comes from Lord Salisbury for a postponement of the Bill. Anything that he says in this House must have weight, and with me always has very considerable weight. But I think on the present occasion that I am not over-stating it when I say that we have had this Bill now before this House for nearly three or four months, and ample opportunity has been afforded for any one to make any public or private inquiries in relation to it. It has been stated here this afternoon that it cannot possibly affect the war in the ordinary sense; in other words, that the wra will be over, that Peace will be signed probably before a cup of oil is successfully brought from the bowels of the earth. I agree with that. The war is now prac-

1081
tically over, and if the German Emperor not was the finished highwayman that he is the war would have been over days ago. I suppose he is the only man in the world to-night who does not know that the war is over, and all the fighting that is now going on is nothing short of wilful murder for which he is responsible, and notice should be served on him from that standpoint. But the point I want to make is that, although it is not likely that oil can be recovered to affect the carrying on of the war, a war is going to take place after this war. That is the industrial war—a war in which England will have to take a very important part, in which oil will be a vital factor, and you cannot get that oil too quickly.
The noble Viscount, Lord Haldane, pointed out that a great many of the objectionable features or rumours in connection with this contract had been removed by the speech of Lord Cowdray. I agree, and I think it is a matter of regret that at the very introduction of this Bill all this information which we now possess was not frankly stated, so that the House could have discussed the Bill from the first with the fullest information. There is no mineral operation, especially from the national stand-point, requiring such special knowledge as the discovery of oil. I know a little about it, because out in Newfoundland for the last twenty-five or thirty years oil-boring operations have been going on, and I am quite satisfied that if the work had been undertaken scientifically at the start, undertaken in the way that Lord Cowdray has pointed out, we should have had to-day a very large supply of oil, whereas we are still only taking out a few barrels. I saw a well ten years ago where 1,000 barrels of the very finest petroleum was taken out, but through mismanagement and unscientific boring—boring wells here, there, and everywhere—up till to-day nothing of a commercial character has been effected.
For that reason, whilst I strongly oppose any attempt at creating a monopoly in this country, I shall favour any method that will enable industrial England to get as quickly as possible the advantages which, from the point of view of national competition, would accrue to her by the possession of that great motive power, an oil supply.
I listened with a great deal of interest to the speech of the noble Duke, and I appreciate the high motives which actuated
1082
him in taking up the opposition to this, measure, but I never knew any great undertaking like this to be launched without suspicions being immediately aroused, and without the idea being industriously put about that the country was being given away. Here no monopoly is created in the ordinary sense of the word, and I think the Law Officers of the Crown, if called upon, would very easily be able to set that feeling at rest. If this contract were cancelled even after the passing of this Bill, and even though the contract was entered upon, and work performed, I am quite satisfied it would be very easy to get a legal opinion that would not be questioned that the measure of damages for breach of contract would be a mere fleabite compared with the advantages that the discovery of oil would be to industrial England.
It is on those large grounds, which do not depend in any way on the signing of peace to-morrow, or a month, or six months hence—it is on the ground of the importance of oil to this country in view of the great war that we shall very shortly have to face (the war of international competition and of competition arising out of new conditions), that I think the Bill should be proceeded with, and, if there is any serious doubt, then a legal opinion ought to be obtained to set at rest the fears that have been suggested during the debate.
THE EARL OF STAIR: My Lords, I wish to give the House a small piece of information which will be my reason for supporting a postponement of this Bill, or at any rate the Agreement with Messrs. Pearson. I should like to tell the House my own private connection with the matter. Some months ago I was approached by Messrs. Pearson with a statement that they had been asked by the Government to investigate the oil possibilities of the country, and had come to agreements with proprietors of lands where there was a prospect of the oil being developed, that the oil was urgently needed by country, and so on. I was perfectly ready to do all I could to help the country to get any oil that was available, and would not put any trouble in the way. The reason does not exist to the same extent now, because nobody thinks there is any prospect of getting oil in this country during the war. However, I was then quite favourably disposed to come to some sort of agreement with Messrs. Pearson until I began to make inquiries. I found that Messrs. Pearson were offering me a royalty

1083
of a certain amount; I found they were offering my next-door neighbour a royalty on a different scale, and the very next day I saw in the paper articles or letters signed by Lord Cowdray pointing out the iniquity of anybody being allowed to have royalties at all. I leave it to the House to judge whether that is straight dealing or not. It was not the impression conveyed to me.
I thought that if the oil were to be got I would rather deal with some other firm who were doing the same thing. I found there was a firm, the Darcy Company, in which the Government, or rather the country, is, I believe the largest shareholder. I thought they were more reliable people, and along with sundry of my neighbours came to an agreement to work, and came to an agreement with the Darcy Company, subject to their being granted a licence by the Government. Yesterday, or the day before, I was informed by the Darcy Company that the Government had refused them a licence because Messrs. Pearson were the sole people who had the right to deal with me, mine being one of the areas handed over to them.
It seems to me that I and other proprietors of land so to be handed over, or so investigated by Messrs. Pearson, were at least entitled to some sort of inkling from the Government that these things were being done, and that we should not have been allowed to go to the expense of making agreements with other companies, and of starting all the necessary legal formalities, without any hint that our valuable agricultural land was going to be converted into oil land. It is treatment of that kind which gives rise to the extraordinary suspicions which have got all round the country, and which the papers have been full of lately, as to the reasons why a certain firm gets the sole right of dealing with a big industry like this. I shall certainly support anything that leads to further inquiry.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I think every distinction is to be drawn in this case between the terms of the Bill and the terms of the Agreement. As regards the terms of the Bill I do not propose to offer any criticism at all. The effect of it is that no one who does not hold a licence under this Act for that purpose shall search or bore for or get petroleum within the United Kingdom. Of course, that applies to the
1084
owners of land as well as to everyone else, but I am assuming that it is necessary in order to prevent indiscriminate boring to have a provision of that kind. Now I must say, having read the Agreement very carefully, and having listened to the discussions which have taken place, that it does appear to me that there is a very strong argument in favour of saying that it does confer a monopoly on the firm of Messrs. Pearson. I need hardly say, after what Lord Cowdray has stated—and I am sure we all listened to him with great interest—that I am not making any accusation against anyone. I think that is quite the wrong way to approach a question of this kind.
I merely deal with the Agreement as I find it, and as it stands. This is how it appears to me. These are the words. Messrs. Pearson are called the Petroleum Development Managers, and the power which is conferred upon them as Petroleum Development Managers is to have—
"Full control of, and to supervise on behalf of the Minister, the entire prospecting, boring, and development in this connection of not more than thirty drilling areas—"
Of course, I do not suggest that the so-called monopoly extends beyond the thirty drilling areas, but whether the noble Marquess is right that there are less than thirty, or not, the thirty drilling areas must be a very large proportion of the area capable of oil boring development in a country of this size. Then the Agreement proceeds—
"(hereinafter called 'the said drilling areas') of which said drilling areas particulars of fifteen areas have been handed in confidence by the Petroleum Development Managers to the Right Honourable Walter Long, M.P., to be handed by him to the Minister on the passing of the legislation necessary to protect the oil fields against indiscriminate drilling."
These fifteen areas are said to be in Messrs. Pearson's opinion the best areas in the kingdom for laying down oil wells and developing oil production, and so far as I gather it is merely a question of saying that the Agreement makes what I should call a monopoly. A monopoly may be good or bad. For instance, a patent monopoly is a very good thing because it encourages invention. Whether you call a monopoly good or bad, I cannot regard the words in this Agreement as having any other effect than conferring a monopoly as regards prospecting, boring, and development in connection with the thirty drilling area, including the fifteen best areas for oil production.
VISCOUNT COWDRAY: For how long?
LORD PARMOOR: As I understand the Agreement, it operates until the million pounds have been expended. How long that will be I do not know, but until that sum has been expended—it does not matter for the purposes of my argument whether it is a short or a long time—there is a monopoly in this sense, that no other person can be licensed to bore in the thirty drilling areas, fifteen of which are selected by Messrs. Pearson as the best areas for oil production in this country. I should have thought that that was a monopoly. I do not want to bandy words with the noble Lord, who made an admirable speech, but I should have called it a privilege and a privileged monopoly. Whether it ought to be granted as a matter of policy I am not saying for a moment. Then it goes on to say that as regards various matters under the Agreement Messrs. Pearson are not only to be agents but are to be solo agents; that is to say, during the period for which this Agreement runs not only have Messrs. Pearson themselves what I call a monopoly, but no other agent of any kind, as I understand the Agreement, can be employed during that period. Therefore you have the strongest ground for saying there is a monopoly both on the positive and the negative side. You are to have the sole right and no one else is to have any right.
I am not intending to attack Lord Cowdray in any way. I quite agree that this is not an Agreement in perpetuity. It would be almost impossible to suppose that any Government Department would enter into an Agreement in perpetuity on matters of this sort, but it is an Agreement which will last for a considerable period—during the whole expenditure of the sum of £1,000,000. That must be a large sum even in the expenditure of oil fields, and, as I understand it, at the moment only one of these oil fields is being developed. If that is so—
VISCOUNT COWDRAY: No, it is not so.
LORD PARMOOR: Whatever the expenditure may be, during the period over which it is incurred the monopoly lasts.
VISCOUNT COWDRAY: There are ten distinct drills.
LORD PARMOOR: There may be ten distinct drills, but I am stating how the Agreement stands upon the face of it. Although the Agreement does give for a period of time what must be admitted to be a privileged monopoly, I dare say it may be an excellent matter of policy that having regard to Messrs. Pearson's qualifications such a monopoly should be given, but surely an Agreement of this kind ought to be much more carefully considered. I am not now dealing with the Bill, but with what is being done under the Bill. The Bill gives the Government Department power to grant licences, and the Agreement deprives them of that power, except in regard to a particular firm, for a long period of time. That is the effect of the Agreement. Under these circumstances, should an Agreement be made, having regard to what is the obvious purpose of the Bill not to give a monopoly to one firm but to prevent indiscriminate boring? I do not at all desire to say a word about any individual allegation, or any matter of that sort, but it does appear to me that when we look at the Agreement it not only suggests, but gives within the time I have mentioned, what is really a privileged monopoly. On that ground I should think it deserved further consideration.
VISCOUNT COWDRAY: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, would he kindly explain how this monopoly that is being given to us is going to be of any personal benefit? For a monopoly to be of any value it must have a personal value.
LORD PARMOOR: You can give a monopoly of course to a man who does not want to get a financial advantage out of it. The monopoly is given as against the State. You deprive the State of having its oil fields developed except through one firm. I should be the last person to suggest that Viscount Cowdray was influenced by the advantages to be obtained. That is another matter altogether. I hope he will not suffer pecuniarily from his patriotic and public conduct in a matter of this kind. That is quite a different question altogether. This is a much larger subject than that. I should not trouble to address your Lordships if it were merely a question of whether Messrs. Pearson derived a pecuniary benefit or not. The point is whether the Department who are given the power to grant licences are to deprive

1087
themselves of that power, except as regards a particular firm, for what must be a considerable period of time. It appears to me that that is not an advantage as regards public policy.
LORD ELPHINSTONE: I would like to point out to the noble and learned Lord that Messrs. Pearson, acting as Government agents in these areas, do not have any licences. There is no licence to bore. They are not boring as—
LORD PARMOOR: They have a monopoly of boring ground, and you cannot grant a licence while this is in operation.
LORD ELPHINSTONE: What I tried to point out was that if there is any monopoly, it is a monopoly in favour of the Government. The mistake which many of your Lordships make is to regard Messrs. Pearson as an individual firm acting on their own, whereas they are not. It is the Government who have these fifteen areas reserved for the purpose, and instead of doing their own drilling they employ the firm which, in their opinion, is the best they could have to do it. That is Messrs. Pearson. It is not a monopoly in any shape or form in favour of Messrs. Pearson.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, it is the last remark of the noble Lord which tempts me to ask him a few further questions about the matter which appears to be very obscure. There are two things which are quite distinct. There is this Bill which is to prevent indiscriminate boring as to which I think everyone is agreed. It is perfectly plain that to permit our oil fields to be developed by uncontrolled and reckless competition will destroy the very thing which, in the national interest, it is of the utmost importance to safeguard. But there is added to that this Agreement for the exploration of certain numbered areas, which in the Agreement are contemplated as extending to thirty, and which, I understand from the noble Lord, have already been allocated at thirty.
What puzzles me a little is this—What are the rights that the Government possess over these areas? I understand them to be rights that they enjoy by virtue of the Defence of the Realm Act. Now the Defence of the Realm Act, of course, is an emergency measure passed under the necessities of war, which, on the face of it, only continues while the war lasts. No one
1088
can assign a limit of time within which this war will end, but there are indications that make us all hope that it may end quickly, and when it ends the powers under that Statute end too. Now, as I understand it, the Government cannot acquire, under that Act, land for purposes that are not connected with the war, and I do not imagine that they have acquired, under that Statute, the absolute ownership of these areas on which the boring is to take place. I know nothing about it. No one can know but the Ministry of Munitions.
I assume that they have acquired rights to bore, that they have entered on the land under that Statute, without having fixed any price which they are to pay for the rights they are going to exercise, and that they have left for subsequent assessment payment for the damage they will cause to the land. Well and good. When the war is over, what are they going to do then? So far as I know, the only powers they will possess with regard to that land will be powers under the Land Acquisition Act, which gives them undoubtedly considerable powers of acquiring property which has been used for the purposes of the war while the War is going on. Is it within the contemplation of the Government to purchase the whole of these areas, and become the owners of these oil fields? If not, what will happen when this Agreement has been worked out and the agency of Messrs. Pearson has terminated? If the rights of the Government do not extend beyond the period of the Agreement the opportunities that will then be enjoyed will be enjoyed by the people who have got the rights of working this oil, subject, of course, to the Government being able to take away the opportunity of exercising those rights by refusing licences under the provisions of this Bill.
It is these considerations that lead me to think that there is great weight in the request that has been made by the noble Marquess behind me that this matter should be further explored in order that we may really know what it is to which we are committing the Government of this country by the passage of this measure. I might add that, though I listened, as I am certain every one did, with the greatest interest—and if I may say so personally the greatest admiration—to the clear speech in which the noble Lord opened the debate this afternoon, there were one or two things connected with it, which

1089
puzzled me greatly. He explained why it was that some of the applications for licences have been refused. It seems to me that the only ground upon which these licences ought to be refused is that they would be prejudicial to the oil interests of this country. There cannot be any other reason, surely.
I cannot think of any other reason; but, in truth, the noble Lord told us that four had been turned down because the geological experts came to the conclusion, as I understood it, that they could not be properly worked, and that there was no oil there. Surely, that is a matter for the person who applies for the licence. If that is the reason, why should you stop enterprise? If a man wants to bore, and he is going to bore at his own cost, and is going to lose his own money, what concern is it of the Government? Why should they interfere? I must say that that statement, which I may have misapprehended, seemed to me to indicate the exercise of paternal care on the part of the Government which was not at all in the national interest, and, although I have done my very best to understand the position which the Bill and the Agreement together constitute, I cannot feel that I have properly grappled with the whole of the situation. I do think that more time ought to be granted for the further consideration of this matter, and I cannot see that such an arrangement can now place us in any jeopardy, seeing that this matter must have ceased to be a matter of war urgency and have come into the wider sphere of general national importance.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD FINLAY): My Lords, I agree with what has been said by several of the noble Lord who addressed the House, that the Bill and the Agreement are separate; they are not identical. I think we have been rather mixing them up. The effect of the Bill, as the noble and learned Lord below the gangway very clearly pointed out, is simply to put a stop to indiscriminate boring. The provision as to this, every one can understand. You rely on the gas to get the oil expelled, and if the surface becomes like a sieve, permeated with a number of holes, the pressure is diminished, and you do not get the oil in the same way. That has been the experience in America, and it might emerge here. That is the object of the Bill—to stop indiscriminate boring.
1090
It has been said that there is no emergency about this because the war is about to end. I devoutly hope that it is. At the same time, I think it would be a mortal mistake if we were to relax any precautions which otherwise would be prudent in reliance upon a very speedy end to the war; we ought to go on taking reasonable precautions in order to deal with the case of our expectations being falsified. But more than this, in the event of the war ending this Bill would be more needed by far because at present you have powers, under the Defence of the Realm Regulations, to restrain boring. The Regulation provides that boring may be effected by persons licensed, and by no others. That Regulation remains in force only during the war. The war comes suddenly to an end—let us hope at a very early date—and then, if you have not this Bill passed into law, you have no power to check indiscriminate boring. I venture to criticise the argument in favour of treating this as a matter of no emergency in these two respects—in the first place, I think it very rash to speculate, as it were, on the certainty that the war will end almost at once; in the second place, when the war does end you will want this measure, and want it more than ever.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: But without the Agreement.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am speaking of the Bill, and I think the Bill and the Agreement have been too much mixed together. The other observation I wish to make relates to the Agreement. If the Agreement creates a monopoly in the manner in which the noble and learned Lord was disposed to think it did, it creates a very odd sort of position. I do not think my noble friend sufficiently realised that all that Messrs. Pearson are to do under this Agreement is to act as agents for the Government. In the preamble, which my noble and learned friend referred to, he will see that the words occur—I will read the first three lines only, just below the middle of the first page of the Agreement—"and whereas it is considered advisable with a view to obtaining the benefits of the knowledge acquired by the Petroleum Development Managers, and also in order to secure their experienced services, to entrust to them, on behalf of the Minister, such prospecting and dvelopment work as petroleum development, and to ask them to take, subject as is hereinafter provided, full control

1091
of, and to supervise on behalf of the Minister, the entire prospecting, boring and development in this connection of not more than thirty drilling areas." You would not call that a monopoly.
And then the first Clause of the operative part of the Agreement says—
"The Petroleum Development Managers, at the request of the Minister, agree to act as the agents of the Government in and about the matters referred to in this Contract, and shall make full reports to the Minister in such manner and at such times as the Minister may from time to time determine in relation all the said matters, and shall not at any time unnecessarily disclose any information relating therefrom to any other person without the previous consent in writing of the Minister."
That is a very odd sort of monopoly. As regards the oil that they get by their testing and development, that oil, as I read in this Agreement, inasmuch as it is got by them as agents of the Government, will not be theirs, but will be the property of the Government. That is how I read the Agreement.
LORD PARMOOR: Might I ask the Lord Chancellor one question, because his answer to that will probably satisfy me? While the Agreement is in force, does he think a licence could be granted to other persons than Messrs. Pearson as regards these thirty areas?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: While the Agreement continues in force the Government have agreed with Messrs. Pearson that they shall have the opportunity of developing these areas. That is the monopoly, but it is a monopoly of an extraordinary kind; it is merely giving him the exclusive agency. He does not dig on his own affairs, he digs on account of the Government; he is to report to the Government. And I do not think there will be any disappointment about this. The oil that he gets would not belong to them—that is to say to Messrs. Pearson—but would belong to the Government. Well, my Lords, if that is so, surely it takes away the argument which was put forward by my noble and learned friend below the gangway as to the creation of a monopoly in that respect.
Now, there is another part of the Agreement to which I should like to call attention as showing how care has been taken to prevent Messrs. Pearson from acquiring any right in respect of their getting land or
1092
anything of that kind while this Agreement is going on. It is a recital early in the Agreement—I think the fourth recital—
"Whereas such negotiations have not been conducted by them as representing the Government in any way, and whilst nothing in this Agreement is to prejudice any rights the Petroleum Development Managers may have as ordinary traders to obtain leases of land from private owners, it is understood between the parties that the Petroleum Development Managers waive any moral or other claim to compensation in connection with such negotiations and leases."
It has been pointed out by more than one speaker, notably by the noble Lord who opened this debate, that the Government have reserved to themselves full powers of dealing with Messrs. Pearson in connection with such matters, and there is an express waiver even of any moral right to compensate them on behalf of Messrs Pearson, if the Government should exclude them. In these circumstances, my Lords, I do put it that it is not correct to speak of this Bill as creating a monopoly in respect of the agency, and that the renunciation of any claim, morally or otherwise, by Messrs. Pearson in case of the Government exerting the rights which undoubtedly they may have, prevents the Agreement from being regarded as in any way creating a monopoly.
In these circumstances I put it to your Lordships that it would be a mistake to postpone this Bill until a number of vague allegations have been inquired into. I think that it was admitted by more than one speaker in the course of this debate that these allegations have to a great extent been dispelled by the course of the debate and by what has been said by those who have taken part in it with full knowledge of the circumstances. Surely it would be a very great pity to go into an inquiry on these matters, which, after all, have very little to do with the Bill, the object of which is to stop indiscriminate boring, and I would respectfully ask your Lordships not to take a course which might end in the complete loss of this Bill.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, what is in dispute, and keenly in dispute, is—What is the real effect of the Agreement and the Bill taken together?" We shall never properly probe that in Committee in this House. I cannot admit that this Bill has any reference to war conditions at all, and if the war happily comes to an end, as we all think it will before long, and

1093
the Defence of the Realm Act is going to be abrogated, there will be no difficulty whatever in passing through Parliament a Bill to prevent indiscriminate boring, with this advantage (which we have not got now) that we should then know what the real effect of the Bill and the Agreement taken together is. I move the adjournment of the debate.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned (The Earl of Selborne.)
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: May I suggest to your Lordships that a decision should be come to and that we should settle whether the House is to go into Committee or not. Surely that is a more reasonable course. We had a fairly good discussion on the Second Reading of the Bill, and we have had more than a Second Reading discussion this evening, because it has extended a good deal wider. I submit that the most suitable course would be to take a decision on the Motion already made that the House resolve itself into Committee.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: With all respect to my noble friend, we cannot take that view. It is impossible to avoid coming to the conclusion that the Bill and the Agreement are intimately bound up. Moreover, very important questions affecting the Bill itself have been put to the Government, and have not been answered. I refer to those put by my noble friend who sits behind me, and by Lord Buckmaster, as to the policy that the Government intend
to pursue if the Bill pass into law. These matters have not been dealt with. I do not blame the Government for not being able to answer them, but it is clear that we ought to have a little more time.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: The Agreement is signed, sealed, and delivered, and with their executive authority the Government have made Messrs. Pearson their agents to explore. That has been done and is over. The Bill does not give validity to the Agreement. If the Bill does not pass, the only consequence will be that Messrs. Pearson will be in a position to make any boring contracts that they like.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: No.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: Yes, indeed; nobody can stop them.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The Agreement turns on the passing of the Bill.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: The Agreement does not turn on the passing of the Bill. That is the mistake which the noble Marquess has fallen into. The Agreement is signed, sealed and delivered, and is operative to-day, and if you do not pass the Bill the position of Messrs. Pearson under it will be stronger than if the Bill passed.
On Question, whether the debate should be now adjourned?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 26; Not-Contents, 39.

CONTENTS.

Argyll, D.

Armaghdale, L.

Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)

Northumberland, D. [Teller.]

Avebury, L.

Parmoor, L.

Balfour, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Beresford of Metemmeh, L.

Saye and Sele, L.

Salisbury, M.

Buckmaster, L.

Strachie, L.

Ancaster, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Stuart of Wortley, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Sydenham, L.

Lambourne, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L. [Teller.]

Grey, E.

Lamington, L.

Selborne, E.

Muir Mackenzie, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Finlay, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Devonport, V.

Emmott, L.

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

Falkland, V.

Faringdon, L.

Haldane, V.

Harris, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Knollys, V.

Hylton, L.

Peel, V.

Newton, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Annesley, L.

Pontypridd, L.

Kimberley, E.

Bledisloe, L.

Ranksborough, L.

Lucan, E.

Blyth, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Stanhope, E.

Burnham, L.

Shandon, L.

Strafford, E.

Carmichael, L.

Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]

Cawley, L.

Southwark, L.

Farquhar, V. (L. Steward.)

Clinton, L.

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

Colebrooke, L.

Tenterden, L.

Cowdray, V.

Elphinstone, L.

Weir, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.
On Question, Motion to go into Committee agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to
Clause 2:
Powers of Minister of Munitions.
2.—(1) The Minister of Munitions on behalf of His Majesty may grant licences conferring authority to search and bore for and get petroleum to such persons and upon such terms and conditions as the Minister of Munitions may think fit:
Provided that nothing in this Act shall be construed as conferring on any person any right to enter on or interfere with land for the purpose of searching or boring for or getting petroleum which he does not enjoy apart from this Act.
(2) Where any such licence is granted a copy thereof shall be laid before Parliament as soon as may be after the grant thereof.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND moved, at the end of subsection (1), to add "or shall prejudice, diminish, or interfere with the legal rights of any owner of land or of mineral rights in respect of petroleum gotten through or from land of which he is the owner or in respect of which he is possessed of mineral rights." The noble Duke said: The object of this clause, about which it is not necessary to say much, is this. As the Bill stands it merely safeguards Messrs. Pearson—the persons who are sole agents for drilling for petroleum—against all competition. It also deals with conditions after the war, and it must be remembered also that the Government is able, under the Acquisition of Land Act, to enter on and acquire land after the war for the purpose of boring for petroleum. I think, in any measure which is so partial as is this Bill at the present moment, that there should be some clause safeguarding the rights of landowners and others interested in land, and it is with that object that this Amendment is being moved.
LORD ELPHINSTONE: I have always maintained that nothing in this Bill does prejudice or affect the rights of landowners. These are questions that have to be decided afterwards, and, that being so, I have no quarrel with the spirit of the noble Duke's Amendment, and if he will see his way to accept a slight verbal
1096
alteration I will not oppose it. The reason I ask for this slight verbal alteration is that in his Amendment he rather asserts that there are rights. What the Government say is, "We do not know. We leave this question to be decided after the war." Therefore, if he will say "or shall prejudice or affect the rights, if any, of any person interested in any land in respect of petroleum gotten through or from land in which he is so interested," I will not oppose that Amendment.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: The words will not in any way alter the sense of the Amendment, and there is no reason why I should not accept them.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 19, after ("Act") insert ("or shall prejudice or affect the rights if any of any person interested in any land in respect of petroleum gotten through or from land in which he is so interested."—(The Duke of Northumberland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3:
Powers to inspect plans of mines.
3. For the purpose of ascertaining the geological conformation and the position, direction and dip of strata, any officer of the Minister of Munitions shall have the same rights as to the production and examination of plans and sections kept at a mine in pursuance of section twenty of the Coal Mines Act, 1911, or section nineteen of the Metalliferous Mines Act, 1872, as are by those Acts conferred on inspectors, and those sections shall apply accordingly.
LORD ELPHINSTONE: The first Amendment to this clause has been framed to meet the criticism that was expressed on the Second Reading of the Bill, chiefly by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Haldane. It was also referred to by the noble Duke, the Duke of Northumberland. I trust that in the form in which I now move it that it meets with the views of those noble Lords. The first part of my Amendment transfers the powers respecting mining plans, &c., from the Ministry of Munitions to the Geological Survey. This inspection alone is not sufficient for geological purposes. It is right to find out where workings are, or are to be, so as to prevent bore holes being put in places where they would impede the working of coal mines. The Amendment gives the Geological Survey the right to acquire all geological information that can be got from the bore holes. That was in accordance

1097
with the recommendation of the noble and learned Viscount's Committee and I hope that it will meet the point of his very helpful criticism on Second Reading.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, lines 23 and 24, leave out ("the geological conformation and the position, direction and dip of strata") and insert ("on behalf of the Minister of Munitions the position of the workings, actual and prospective, of any mines or abandoned mines through or near which it is proposed to sink any shaft or borehole for the purpose of searching for or getting petroleum").—(Lord Elphinstone.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I am quite satisfied with the Amendment as the Government have moved it. A little later probably we shall put in the words "Minister of Research" or "Department of Research" instead of the words there now. Although that Department exists, and is a valuable and important one, it is not sufficiently familiar to the public perhaps to justify the Government referring to it any Bills. I am therefore quite content to take the reference to the Director of Geological Survey who, as a matter of fact, will presently be transferred to the Research Department.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ELPHINSTONE: The succeeding Amendments are consequential.
Amendments moved—
Page 1, line 25, leave out ("of the Minister of Munitions") and insert ("appointed by the Director of the Geological Survey").
Page 2, lines 1 and 2, leave out ("at a mine")
Page 2, line 2, after ("twenty") insert ("or twenty-one")
Page 2, line 3, after ("section") insert ("fourteen or")
Page 2, line 5, at end insert as a new subsection:
"(2) Any person entitled to sink a shaft or borehole for the purpose of searching for or getting petroleum shall before commencing to sink the same give notice in writing of his intention to th Director of the Geological Survey and shall keep a journal of any such shaft or borehole, and shall retain for a period of not less than six months such specimens of the strata passed through as may have been obtained in the course of the sinking thereof, either as cores or fragments, and shall allow the Director of the Geological Survey or any officer appointed by him to have free access to any such shaft or borehole whilst in process of being sunk, and to inspect all specimens so obtained and kept and the journals of such shafts and boreholes, and if any person fails to comply with any obligation imposed on him by this provision he shall on summary conviction be liable to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds."—(Lord Elphinstone.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: I am not moving my Amendment to omit Clause 3.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND moved a new clause. The noble Duke said: This clause is to give compensation. I quite admit there are strong arguments against making an exception in the case of boring for petroleum. No satisfactory compensation was given under the Defence of the Realm Act except where there had been a substantial loss. But, of course, the Defence of the Realm Act will come to an end very soon and the Government can after the war act under the Acquisition of Land Act. That Act contains a clause which provides for compensation, but it does not provide for any compensation for loss of amenities. I think, that, in view of that, there is a very strong case for this clause to provide compensation in the special cases which are affected by boring for petroleum. It is quite true it will be making a new departure, but there is some precedent for it in the Corn Production Act which was passed by this House. I believe the Government feel somewhat strongly about this clause. They feel strongly against making any exception in the case of boring for petroleum, but I hope, in view of the fact that the position is somewhat exceptional, that the noble Lord will see his way to accept this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Insert the following new clause:
"Compensation.
"Compensation shall be paid by any person acting on behalf of His Majesty or by a licensee under this Act to any persons owning or interested in any land, for any damage sustained by them through surface damage, subsidence, flooding, destruction of vegetation or loss of amenity caused by or arising out of the exercise by any such person or licensee of the powers conferred by this Act, and the proof of such damage and the amount of such compensation shall in default of agreement be determined by arbitration."—(The Duke of Northumberland.)
LORD ELPHINSTTONE: I do not think that the adoption of this Amendment will really achieve what the noble Duke has in view as regards compensation. A compensation clause in a Bill surely is a clause showing that compensation is payable if any loss or damage is occasioned by the action of that Bill, but it is not under this

1099
Bill that petroleum is going to be worked, so that a compensation clause really would be entirely meaningless. The place for a compensation clause will be in the Bill which the Government will have to introduce to regulate the whole carrying on of this industry. Then those questions of compensation and royalty and those other intricate questions in doubt to-day will have to be decided. Till then any action taken is taken under the Defence of the Realm Act and under the Acquisition of Land Act. In both those Bills compensation clauses are provided. So that really a compensation Clause in this Bill is rather out of place.
I gather from what the noble Duke said that he is dissatisfied with this compensation clause under the existing Defence of the Realm Act and the Acquisition of Land Act, but, as regards that, I can only say that, even if it were possible, I do not know whether it could be said to be justifiable to attempt to remove from the jurisdiction of those Acts the oil interest alone, when every other interest in the country has to abide by them. The noble Duke referred to the Corn Production Act, but I think, as far as my memory serves me, the two cases are entirely different. In the case of corn production the Defence of the Realm Act came to an end before the end of the war, and as it was felt desirable to continue the regulations they were continued, but on the understanding that they were to receive special treatment in the way of compensation as a sort of quid pro quo. I think that is the right interpretation. In this case it is quite different.
The noble Duke seems to have made up his mind that the compensation payable under the Defence of the Realm Regulations is bound to be inadequate. I really am not in a position to argue with him on that point, because I would not venture to predict how the Losses Commission to whom this question will have to be referred will deal with it when it comes before them. They have, as the noble Duke knows, to compensate for any loss sustained by the subject owing to action by the Government, and in this matter the Government place themselves within the jurisdiction of the Losses Commission in the same way that the individual does. Then, under the Acquisition of Land Act the compensation clauses, I remember very well, were very thoroughly discussed in this House, and they were considerably amended, and I certainly recollect that when that Act
1100
passed all noble Lords in this House seemed to be satisfied with the compensation clauses, as amended by this House. I hope that, for the reasons I have given, the noble Duke will not press this Amendment, as I am afraid I could not accept it.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I hope your Lordships will give your attention to this matter, because, as I understand it, it really is a very serious point. I do not think that my noble friend has in the least disposed of it by his arguments. He tells us that compensation is payable under the Defence of the Realm Act. Certainly it is, and anybody can make his case good before that tribunal. But the whole intention of this Bill is based on the fact that the Defence of the Realm Act will not be in operation. Therefore we have to deal with the time when the Act has ceased to be in operation. "Oh," says my noble friend, "then you have got the Bill for taking land under compulsory power." In the first place, when that Bill was framed nobody thought of oil; and, in the second place, suppose those powers are not exercised, and the land is not taken, and yet there have been borings, and very great loss of amenity. You cannot bore and leave things exactly as they were before, and yet that is wholly unprovided for. But my noble friend's Amendment does provide for it. I should like to hear what the Government say to that.
LORD ELPHINSTONE: I am sorry I did not make the position clear. Under the Bill which we are discussing to-day no work can go on. I suppose we are at one about that. It is not a Bill to regulate the oil industry; no work can be done under this Bill.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: But under the Defence of the Realm Act drilling will take place immediately.
LORD ELPHINSTONE: And compensation will take place.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Yes, but when the Defence of the Realm Act ceases the drilling will have taken place.
LORD ELPHINSTONE: It would come under the Acquisition of Land Act.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: But supposing they do not take advantage of that?
LORD ELPHINSTONE: Surely it is hardly likely that they will begin operations and spend a considerable sum of money——
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Let us just follow this out. Under the Defence of the Realm Act boring takes place—we will say in Chatsworth Park. That boring is unsuccessful. The Defence of the Realm Act comes to an end. The boring stops. The Government say we do not want Chatsworth Park. Yet Chatsworth Park has been largely spoilt. There is no compensation in the Bill. My noble friend has not answered that point.
VISCOUNT COWDRAY: Would not the oil belong to Chatsworth Park?
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Suppose there is none?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Earl will see that this Bill provides as follows, line 16, page 1:—
"Provided that nothing in this Act shall be construed as conferring on any person any right to enter on or interfere with land for the purpose of searching or boring for or getting petroleum which he does not enjoy apart from this Act."
You would want the compensation clauses if the Bill purported to confer the right to interfere with land, a right which was not enjoyed before. As regards what my noble friend has said about the Acquisition of Land Act I should have thought that for the purposes of compensation, in respect of anything done before, the Act would remain in force, but I have not looked up the point. I will look into it before the next stage of the Bill and will give my noble friend a more definite answer.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: If the Lord Chancellor will be good enough to look into it I should not advise the noble Duke to press the Amendment to a division. But I do think that there has been no answer at all to the point I have made.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: May I ask a question, and that is as to whether collieries may also be damaged? Some people fear that under this Bill or under licences collieries may be affected or very seriously damaged. I do not know whether there is anything in that. Perhaps that is a point which might be considered at the same time.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: I beg to move a new clause which provides for a record being kept, and I do not think that anybody can possibly have any objection to it. Obviously it is desirable that such a record should be kept. A point has been raised as to whether the landowner is or is not entitled to the petroleum. Whether that is so or not, or whether the Crown is entitled to the petroleum, it is equally desirable that a record should be kept of all the oil in the country and the amount being produced, and if it should be proved that it belongs to the Crown the Crown can then decide what is to be done with it. It might well happen that Parliament might decide that any profits which accrue should belong to the particular locality from which the oil comes. From every point of view I think it is desirable that this new clause should be inserted.
Amendment moved—
Insert the following new clause:
"Records of petroleum gotten.
".—(1) Any person acting on behalf of His Majesty or holding a licence under this Act who gets petroleum shall keep and furnish to the Minister of Munitions a record of any petroleum gotten by him and made available for use, distinguishing the amount gotten from each separate borehole, and if any such person fails so to keep and furnish any such record, or knowingly furnishes a record which is false in any material particular he shall be liable on summary Conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds.
"(2) The records so furnished to the Minister of Munitions in respect of any particular borehole shall be open to inspection by any person interested in land in the neighbourhood of the borehole."—(The Duke of Northumberland.)
LORD ELPHINSTONE: I am very glad to accept the new clause.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.

BURGHS GAS SUPPLY (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
[From Minutes of November 5.]

GAS AND WATER PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.

LOANS (INCUMBENTS OF BENEFICES) AMENDMENT BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:
Gas Light and Coke Company.
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

LONDONDERRY AND LOUGH SWILLY RAILWAY BILL.
Reported, with an Amendment.
LANCASTER CORPORATION BILL.
SOUTH SUBURBAN GAS BILL.
COMMERCIAL GAS BILL.
Reported, with Amendments.

PORTSEA ISLAND GAS BILL.
Reported, without amendment.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before eight o'clock.