Sitting of 15 November 1918

Preamble
The House met at Twelve of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Ipswich Dock Bill [Lords],
To be read the third time upon Monday next.
Cowdenbeath Water Order Confirmation Bill,
Considered; read the third time, and passed.

STREET ACCIDENTS CAUSED BY VEHICLES (METROPOLIS).
Address for "Return showing the number of Accidents resulting in death or personal injury known to the police to have been caused by Vehicles in streets, roads, or public places in the Metropolitan Police District and the City of London during the nine months ended the 30th day of September, 1918 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 44, of Session 1918)."—[Mr. Brace.]
NAVY AND ARMY (PAY, NON-EFFECTIVE PAY, AND ALLOWANCES).
Copy presented of List of Exceptions to the Regulations as to Pay, Non-effective Pay, and Allowances sanctioned during the period 15th February, 1917, to 31st March, 1918 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
BOARD OF EDUCATION.
Copy presented of the Annual Report for 1917 of the Chief Medical Officer of the Board of Education [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION FOR IRELAND.
Copy presented of Minutes of Evidence and Index to the Report of the Departmental Committee on the fixing of Charges for scutching Flax and Tow [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  NAVAL STORE OFFICERS.
  Major Sir BERTRAM FALLEasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he can make any statement as regards the pay and emoluments of the naval store officers and of any changes or prospect of changes as regards them?
  Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): I regret I am not able to make a statement.
  Sir B. FALLE: Is my hon. Friend aware that this matter has been before the Treasury since November, and that these men, through whose hands hundreds of thousands of pounds pass; commence at 28s., and 36s. is the maximum wage?

  TURKEY (MAILS).
  Mr. BLISSasked the Postmaster-General if, in view of the long isolation of British subjects in Turkey, he will grant facilities for the sending of mails to Constantinople and Smyrna at the earliest possible moment, especially with a view to reaching British subjects in those towns; and if he will give public notice as to the addressing of such letters and parcels to such places?
  The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Pease): My right hon. Friend is in communication with the Departments concerned with the reopening of communication with Turkey, and a public announcement will be made as soon as arrangements can be made for resuming the postal service?
  Mr. BLISS: May I request that special attention will be paid to this matter? Many British subjects have been interned there since the beginning of the War without being able to communicate with their friends.
  Mr. PEASE: I am aware of the importance of the matter.
  Captain CARR-GOMMasked the Pensions Minister if he has received an application for a gratuity in lieu of a pension from Lieutenant George Elliott, Royal Air Force, who enlisted in October, 1915, in the Royal Garrison Artillery, 137th Heavy Battery, was severely wounded,

  3097
  and discharged on 25th December, 1918; and, if so, can he say what decision has been arrived at?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The decision arrived at is that the application cannot be granted. The grant of a lump sum in lieu of pension is only given in exceptional circumstances and for the purpose of assisting the applicant to emigrate.
  Captain CARR-GOMM: Are not these circumstances exceptional in my hon. Friend's view?
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: No; I do not think so. The man is still serving in the Army. We cannot consider emigration so long as he is in the Service.

  GENERAL ELECTION.

    POSTAL PACKETS.
    Mr. D. WHITEasked the Postmaster-General whether, in exercising the right of free postage conferred by Section 33 of the Representation of the People Act, 1918, a candidate is entitled, besides setting out on the envelope the name and address of the addressee and the words "Election Communication," to add "with his compliments," or words to that effect?
    Mr. PEASE: The re is no objection to an addition of this kind, provided it is confined to the left-hand half of the envelope.
    Mr. WATTasked the Postmaster-General whether, if, in addition to the free postage to which a candidate is entitled under Section 33 of the Representation of the People Act, 1918, a candidate sends out a second postage containing a printed or mechanically-reproduced letter with a polling card indicating to the particular voter his or her number on the register and polling place, these enclosures may be sent by open ½d. post or whether the postal rate will be 1½d.?
    Mr. PEASE: A polling card printed in ordinary characters with blanks for the voter's number and polling place is transmissible at the printed paper rate of ½d. for 1 oz. if sent in an unsealed packet. Cards accompanied by communications, printed in imitation of typewriting or reproduced from a typewritten original, are also transmissible at the
    3098
    printed paper rate if handed in specially at a post office as explained at page 12 of the "Post Office Guide," and if the communications contain no blanks to be filled up.
    Mr. D. WHITE: Does the same observation apply to facsimile handwriting?
    Mr. PEASE: That is such an important matter to so many hon. Members that I must have notice of that question.

    UNIONIST MEETING (PRIME MINISTER'S LETTER).
    Mr. DILLONasked the Prime Minister whether he has any objection to the publication of the letter addressed by him to the Unionist meeting on Tuesday last?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): The answer is in the negative. It will probably be given to the Press at a meeting which will be held to-morrow.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (OFFICE ACCOMMODATION).
  Captain CARR-GOMMasked the First Commissioner of Works how many applications for increased office accommodation are now awaiting the sanction of the Cabinet Committee on Accommodation; which Ministries are so applying; and, in view of the Armistice, will he say what policy the Committee are adopting with regard to these and all further applications?
  The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir Alfred Mond): Seven; from the Admiralty, Ministry of Munitions, Ministry of Pensions, Ministry of Labour, Colonial Office, Board of Trade, and the Allied Maritime Council. The policy to be adopted in regard to outstanding and future demands for accommodation is now under submission to the War Cabinet, but in view of the considerable amount of additional space required in connection with schemes for demobilisation and the issue of pensions, it may be necessary for me to consider the acquisition of fresh premises, should the surrender in the immediate future of existing accommodation in the occupation of Government Departments not be sufficient to meet the demand. Such steps, however, will only be taken with the greatest reluctance and where no other course is possible.
  Mr. WATT: Are we to take it that demobilisation and peace are actually to bring about greater office accommodation on the part of the Government than in war-time?
  Sir A. MOND: My hon. Friend must remember that we have not yet finished the War. We have only got an Armistice. Demobilisation requires a staff of its own, and it is possible that a larger amount of accommodation may be required than at present. I will do my best to make it as small as possible.
  Captain CARR-GOMM: Will there be any saving in the London area owing to the decentralisation of Departments?
  Sir A. MOND: No.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    MEAT.
    Sir ARTHUR SHIRLEY BENNasked the Food Controller whether, seeing that there is at the moment a large supply of home-killed meat and large arrivals of frozen meat are expected, he will, under the circumstances, consider the advisability of giving the public for the time being an increased meat ration, which would be beneficial and enable the people to get into a better position to face any meat shortage that may occur?
    The MINISTER of FOOD (Mr. Clynes): Any increase in the meat ration now might involve a serious meat shortage in the early months of 1919. It is, moreover, necessary for us, in common with our Allies, to bear in mind the obligation of meeting in some measure the urgent requirements of the starving countries of Europe. It would, therefore, be undesirable by separate action to encourage increased consumption at the present time.
    Sir A. SHIRLEY BENN: Is it not a fact that a great deal of meat is being wasted at present through not being killed?
    Mr. CLYNES: I am not aware of any wastage of that kind.

    FAT CATTLE (SALTING).
    Sir A. SHIRLEY BENNasked the Food Controller if he has considered the advisability of killing and salting down in the old-fashioned way a number of the
    3100
    fat cattle now waiting their turn to be slaughtered and losing daily in weight and condition?
    Mr. CLYNES: The measure suggested in the question has already been adopted, though the quantity of beef salted has been limited by the difficulty of securing the necessary casks and the additional slaughtermen required.

    COLD STORAGE.
    Sir A. SHIRLEY BENNasked the Food Controller if there is sufficient cold storage for the quantity of frozen meat expected to arrive in the immediate future in this country?
    Mr. CLYNES: Although the measures taken to accumulate supplies of imported meat for use in the early months of 1919, when supplies of home produced meat will have fallen off, will probably tax the cold storage accommodation of this country to its utmost capacity, there is no reason to anticipate that this accommodation will prove inadequate.
    Mr. JOHN SPEARasked the Food Controller if, seeing there is every autumn a surplus of fat cattle over current requirements, he will take steps to maintain the lately established accommodation for chilling and freezing meat permanently in order to deal with such surplus?
    Mr. CLYNES: The answer is in the affirmative.

    FRUIT.
    Sir GEORGE TOULMINasked the Food Controller whether the high price of fruit has been brought to his notice; and whether he can arrange for a resumption of the importation of American fruit at an early date?
    Mr. CLYNES: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I am arranging to secure the importation of apples from the United States and Canada at an early date, and to control the price.
    Mr. WATT: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is the limitation of quantity that leads to higher prices, and could he not have some relation between quantity and price?
    Mr. CLYNES: The limitation of quantity finds its basis in the shipping shortage, but we are now able to afford ships for the purpose, as stated in the question.

  DEFENCE OF THE REALM ACT.

    IRISH PRISONERS.
    Mr. DILLONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland when he proposes to release the Irish prisoners now held under administrative order under the Defence of the Realm Act?
    Mr. KINGasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, as a result of the Armistice, any relaxation has been or will now, be made in the censorship in Ireland, and especially whether reports of public meetings and addresses may be printed without submission to the censor?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Shortt): I have nothing to add at present to the reply which I gave to the question of the hon. Member for East Mayo on Wednesday last.

    CENSORSHIP.
    Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMSasked the Prime Minister whether the Defence of the Realm Act and the regulations made thereunder will be suspended or repealed before the General Election?
    Sir WILLOUGHBY DICKINSONasked whether His Majesty's Government will withdraw the Press censorship before notice of the General Election is given; and, if not, when will the expression of opinions be freed from the present restrictions?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The question of the modification of the Press censorship is now under consideration, and an announcement will be made at an early date. As regards the second part of the question, if my right hon. Friend the Member for North St. Pancras refers to the Defence of the Realm Regulations he will find that there is no restriction on the mere expression of opinion.
    Sir W. DICKINSON: Is there any restriction on the expression of opinion as printed in circulars?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I think that is rather a technical question, but what I have said is correct. There is no objection to the expression of opinion by circular.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether Regulation 27 will be suspended during the General Election?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: No, I cannot say.
    An HON. MEMBER: Seeing that this matter will be liable to debate on the third Order of the Day, will the right hon. Gentleman be able to make a statement then?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: A Committee is now sitting dealing with this whole question, and I cannot as yet give the result of their deliberations.

  ARMY OFFICERS (PROMOTION).
  Colonel YATEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War under what warrant, rule, or regulation lieutenant-colonels on the reserve of officers are declared to be ineligible for promotion to the rank of colonel?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): Article 64 of the Royal Warrant for Pay, Promotion, etc., provides for the selection of lieutenant-colonels for promotion to the substantive rank of colonel. This Article is not applicable to officers on the reserve of officers.
  Colonel YATE: Can they not be selected for promotion equally with other officers in other branches of the Service?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I understand that this question has been gone into very fully, and that is the conclusion come to. I will make other inquiries and see what can be done.

  DEVON ROYAL ENGINEERS.
  Sir A. SHIRLEY BENNasked the Under-Secretary for War whether he is aware that the headquarters, Devon Royal Engineers, has been closed and the regimental funds ordered to be disposed of; whether it is intended to abolish this county unit and why; and whether, in view of a statement made that so far from abolishing Territorials it was intended to strengthen them, of the admirable record of this regiment, and of the strong feeling that will be caused in the county if this corps is abolished, he is prepared to make any statement on the subject?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I regret I can made no statement on this subject at present. It was decided as a war measure to break up this unit but the position of all such Territorial units will be most carefully considered when we are able to

  3103
  come to a decision as to the composition of the Army which it will be necessary to maintain after the War.
  Sir A. SHIRLEY BENN: Will no steps be taken until a decision is come to on the general subject?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I will look into this question when I go back to the War Office to-day.

  WELSH CHURCH ACT, 1914.
  Mr. L. WILLIAMSasked (1) the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the fact that the Welsh Church Act, 1914, should come into operation at the conclusion of the War after an Order in Council has been made to that effect, that the price of tithe will go up from £109 to £123 next year, and that the Tithe Bill will injuriously affect the financial position of the Welsh county councils, he will advise an Order in Council that the Welsh Church Act should come into operation this year; and
  (2) the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is prepared to make a statement as to the reopening of the financial Clauses of the Welsh Church Act, 1914?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not yet in a position to make any statement on this subject.

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    CONDITIONAL EXEMPTIONS.
    Mr. E. HARVEYasked the Prime Minister whether he can state, in view of the decision of the Government to suspend all calling-up notices and to instruct tribunals to suspend the hearing of appeals, what is the position of men now holding conditional exemptions from military service; and, in particular, whether obligations imposed by tribunals upon men to serve as volunteers or special constables, or to observe certain specific conditions as to their civil employment, still continue; and, if so, for how long?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. S. Walsh): I have been asked to answer this question. I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given yesterday to the hon. Member for North Somerset. A Press notice to the same effect has been published in to-day's papers.
    Mr. HARVEY: Will the Regulation referred to be laid upon the Table of the House; and, if the House is not sitting, will it be published at the earliest possible moment?
    Mr. WALSH: We will certainly take all possible means of bringing this before the effective notice of all concerned. I cannot say more.

  POLITICAL PRISONERS (AMNESTY).
  Mr. E. HARVEYasked whether the conclusion of the Armistice will be made the occasion of an amnesty to political prisoners?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I can add nothing to the previous answers on this subject.
  Mr. HARVEY: Cannot the Government, which has been so successful in combining opposites, combine justice with mercy?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: We have tried to do that all through the War.

  ANTHRACITE COAL.
  Mr. HUGH EDWARDS (by Private Notice)asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that the collieries in the Neath and Dowlais Valleys in South Wales are only working part-time each week, on account of the continued lack of the necessary transport, and of the further fact that there is an increasing demand for anthracite coal, he can now see his way to avail himself of the opportunity afforded by the change in the military situation to provide these valleys with increased facilities for transport, and so secure for the miners full working time each week henceforth?
  Colonel SANDERS (Treasurer of the Household): The position in which the anthracite collieries are placed is mainly due to lack of shipping tonnage. No transport restriction has been placed upon anthracite for inland consumption, the limiting factor being the view held by consumers that this fuel is not suitable for general purposes. For some time past the Coal Mines Department have been carrying on a campaign with a view to encouraging the greater use of anthracite mixed with other coal.

  BILL PRESENTED.
    WAGES (TEMPORARY REGULATION) BILL,—
    "for prescribing minimum rates of wages during a limited period and for repealing certain provisions of the Munitions of War Acts," presented by Mr. George Roberts; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 119.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the remaining stages of the Constabulary and Police (Ireland—No. 2) Bill may be taken immediately after the Bill has been reported from the Committee, notwithstanding the practice of the House relating to the interval between the various stages of such a Bill."—[Mr. Shortt.]
  Mr. BRADY: Before the House agrees to that Motion, I should like to say that there are many Members above and below the Gangway who will be anxious to know from the Chief Secretary whether he has had an opportunity in the interval of communicating with the Treasury?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That would more properly come on the Committee stage of the Bill.
  Mr. DILLON: Are we not entitled to point out the extreme inconvenience and unusual character of the Motion on the Paper which we are now asked to pass in respect to a very important Bill which ought to have been introduced at an earlier stage, so that we might have an opportunity of addresseing all-important matters to the Chief Secretary during the later stages of the Bill?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The remaining stages of the Bill, according to this Motion, are to be taken to-day instead of Monday. That is all that this Motion means. The merits of the Bill can hardly be discussed upon that. When we get into Committee on the Bill there will be ample opportunity to discuss the merits of the Bill, or again on the Report stage, or again on the Third Reading stage.
  Mr. BRADY: Would it not be open for us to discuss all these matters on the question of urgency in bringing this Motion on to-day, because the right hon. Gentleman has Monday and Tuesday at his disposal for the purpose of passing the remaining stages of this Bill, assuming that he gets his Committee stage to-day? If he has not already communicated to the Treasury the views expressed by hon. Members of all shades of opinion from Ireland on this question last night, it would enable him
  3120
  to do so if he would agree to postpone the Third Reading until Monday. I do not see what great necessity there is for getting all the remaining stages of this Bill to-day. I should have thought the Committee stage to-day would have advanced the matter sufficiently, and he could get the Third Reading, which should not take very long, on Monday.
  Mr. SPEAKER: It would be necessary in that case to have the Report stage on Monday and the Third Reading on Tuesday.
  Mr. BRADY: A Motion in similar terms to the one now on the Paper could be placed on the Paper in respect of the Third Reading on Monday.
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Shortt): I hope that the House will now agree to this Resolution. It is very important that this Bill should be passed at the earliest possible moment. I am very anxious that the Bill should not be dropped. There can be no reason why this Resolution should not be passed. If in the course of debate it appears to be necessary to postpone the Third Reading until Monday, that can always be done.
  Captain CRAIG: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us now the result of his interview with the Treasury?
  Mr. DILLON: With regard to this Bill there is an all-important point in dispute. On one side are all the representatives of Ireland without a single exception, and on the other side are the Chief Secretary and the Treasury. This attempt to rush the Bill through all its stages to-day looks very much as if they want to close off discussion. It is our duty to keep the matter open as long as we see any hope of getting what is undoubtedly justice for a body of men in a defenceless position. The right hon. Gentleman can get the Committee stage to-day, the Report stage on Monday, and the Third Reading on Tuesday, as the House is going to sit until Wednesday. There is no question of a long discussion, as it cannot last more than half an hour or an hour on each stage. We are bound to stand upon our rights and to continue the discussion as to whether we cannot leave the door open for the Chief Secretary to see the Treasury and endeavour to get this measure of justice done.
  Mr. MOONEY: Is it not a fact that under the ordinary Rules of the House an ordinary Bill can be taken through all its stages if there is unanimity, but that a Bill founded on a Money Resolution, as a matter of practice, cannot be taken if any Member of the House objects? And in view of the fact that all the Members from Ireland have been urging on the Treasury that they should adopt a certain course, and have been trying to get an answer from the right hon. Gentleman as to what the Treasury have done, they object to this proposal until they have got an answer. The point is that according to the practice of the House, as I understand it, we cannot possibly take all the stages of a Bill founded on a Money Resolution.
  Mr. SPEAKER: You cannot take any two stages of a Bill founded upon a Resolution of the House on the same day. If no Motion accelerating the Bill is passed by the House, it means that to-day we shall discuss the Committee stage, that there will be the Report stage on Monday, and that the Third Reading will be taken on Tuesday. What will happen to the Bill after that, heaven only knows!
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): May I point out that this matter is not so simple as the speech of the hon. Member for East Mayo would indicate. If this were the only Bill, it is quite likely that this course might not be necessary, but, with his experience of the House, the hon. Member knows that there is great danger at the last moment of the Session of Bills being dropped. All we ask at this stage is that it should be optional, if the House so agrees, to take all stages to-day. Of course if, in the course of the discussion, there is any evidence that any advantage would be gained by postponing the Third Reading, that would be carefully considered. But I may point out that it does not settle the question because all the Members from Ireland are agreed.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment.
  To be read the third time upon Monday next.

  CONSTABULARY AND POLICE (IRELAND—No. 2) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir DONALD MACLEAN, Deputy-Chairman, in the Chair.]
  Clause 1 (Alteration of Mates of Fay in Certain Banks of the Royal Irish Constabulary and Dublin Metropolitan Police) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  CONSTABULARY AND POLICE (IRELAND—No. 2) BILL.

    Clause 2.—(Extension of Power to Grant Pensions to Widows of Constables.)
    (1) Where a man to whom this Section applies, that is to say:

    (a) a constable who was serving in either of the said police forces on the first day of September, nineteen hundred and eighteen;

    (b) a constable of either of the said police forces who, having been called out as a reservist, or having entered or re-entered, enlisted or re-enlisted in any of His Majesty's naval, military, or air forces for the purposes of the present War, was on the said first day of September serving in any such force;

    (c) a constable who, having joined either of the said police forces after the said first day of September, has completed five years' service,

    dies, or has, on or after the said first day of September, died, whilst serving in the police force or in any of His Majesty's naval, military, or air forces for the purposes of the present War, or whilst in receipt of a pension from the police authority, or in consequence of any disease or injury on account of which he retired from the police force, the police authority may, if they think fife, grant to his widow (being a woman whom he married before he retired from the police force and in accordance with the Regulations of the force) a pension not exceeding twenty-six pounds a year, or if the constable's annual pay in the police force was more than two hundred and sixty pounds, not exceeding one-tenth of the amount of such pay yearly.
    Amendment made: In Sub-section (1), leave out the words "may, if they think fit," and insert instead thereof the word "shall."—[Mr. Shortt.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 3.—(Further Provisions as to Pensions to Widows of Constables.)
    (1) Paragraph (9) of the Second Schedule to the Constabulary and Police (Ireland) Act, 1883, in its application to a pension payable under Section four of that Act to the widow of a constable who has died on or after the first day of September, nineteen hundred and eighteen, or dies after the passing of this Act, shall have effect as if "twenty-six pounds" were substituted for "ten pounds."
    Mr. BRADY: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "on or after the first day of September, nineteen hundred and eighteen," and to insert instead thereof the words "previous to the passing of this Act."
    This raises the general question of bringing within the ambition of the measure existing pensioners and the widows of exising pensioners. The Chief Secretary knows the views which are held very strongly on these benches and on the benches above the Gangway as to this proposal, and I hope he will see his way to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. SHORTT: I regret that I cannot see my way to accept the Amendment which is clearly part of the subject which has been discussed both on the Money Resolution and on the Second Reading. The question is not one which relates only to Irelaind, but is one which really covers the whole of the United Kingdom, and a very large number of different classes of pensioners. It involves very large interests both in this country and in Ireland, and if one claim is granted all must be granted. The cost involved would be exceedingly great, and it cannot be done in a Bill such as this. The proposal jeopardises the Bill. No doubt it deals with a number of deserving persons whose case has been pleaded, but it is quite impossible that such a proposal could be introduced in this Bill. The whole question was before the authorities and considered in connection with the English Bill, and it is impossible for me in this Bill to do something for Ireland different from that which is being done in the case of England. In this matter the Irish pensioners are being treated in exactly the same way as the English pensioners of all classes are being treated. The passing of this proposal would inevitably involve the postponement of the Bill and the subsequent Clauses until all corresponding English questions had been settled. I do not want the Bill jeopardised. It is of the greatest importance to thousands of men who are waiting for this deserved increase of pay. The other question must stand or fall with all the corresponding English interests in English Bills, and therefore I cannot accept the Amendment.
    Captain CRAIG: The right hon. Gentleman does not deny the justice of the demand, and I do not think his arguments have any very great weight. He relies
    3124
    principally on the argument that if he accepts this Amendment the same principle would have to be applied all round. I venture to differ from him. There have been many occasions on which English individuals have received increases of pay and pensions, while similar increases have not necessarily been granted to corresponding individuals in Ireland. I do not think it is a good answer against this proposal to simply say that it would necessitate further expenditure. The position of affairs is this: A widow whose husband happened to have died on a certain date is in an infinitely better position than a widow whose husband happened to die some little time earlier. That is not fair, and if hon. Members below the Gangway push the matter to a Division I shall certainly support them.
    Mr. HOLT: I was very pleased to note the line taken by the Chief Secretary in this matter. I think when the Government makes a stand against the perpetual claim on the part of all sorts of people to put their hands in the public purse, that independent Members ought to express by word of mouth their support of the Government. Apparently people have now got the general impression that you could make everybody happy by handing over public funds to them. [An Hon. Member: "So you could!"] So you could, but only for a short time until we began to discover that the State had become bankrupt. These persons have no real claim what-even to get an increase in their pay. A pension, as I understand the matter, is not a gratuity or charitable donation, but payment for services rendered or deferred pay, and is part of the contract of service. If you increase pensions you do so not as a consideration for services to be rendered, but simply out of goodwill, and you are really making an eleemosynary donation to the person concerned. I venture to say that it is entirely wrong to revise pensions after the service is over, and I think it is very wrong indeed, having regard to the very serious position in which the nation is, to try and raid the Exchequer for everybody, especially on the eve of a General Election.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 45; Noes, 15.

    Division No. 94.]

    AYES.

    [12.44 p.m.

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

    Ganzonl, Francis J. C.

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Anderson, G. K. (Canterbury)

    Gibbs, Col. George Abraham

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. John

    Newman, Sir Robert (Exeter)

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Harmood-Banner, Sir J. S.

    Nicholson, Sir Chas. N. (Doncaster}

    Barrie, C. C.

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Pulley, C. T.

    Benn, Sir Arthur S. (Plymouth)

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Rees, G. C. (Carnarvon, Arfon)

    Bigland, Alfred

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

    Samuels, Arthur W. (Dublin U.)

    Blair, Reginald

    Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire)

    Shaw, Hon. Alexander

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith-

    Jodrell, Neville Paul

    Shortt, Edward

    Brace, Rt. Hon. William

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, E.)

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancashire, Ince.)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

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

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Winfrey, Sir R.

    Fell, Sir Arthur

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

    Fleming, Sir John (Aberdeen, S.)

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

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Colonel Sanders and Mr. Pratt.

    Foster, Philip Staveley

    Maden, Sir John Henry

    NOES.

    Bentinck, Lord Henry

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Hazleton, Richard

    Williams, Llewelyn

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    King, Joseph

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Crooks, Rt. Hon. William

    Lindsay, William Arthur

    Dillon, John

    Mooney, John J.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Boland and Mr. Boyle

    Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir James B.

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 4 (Allowances to Widows of County Inspectors or District Inspectors) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 5.—(Alteration of Enactments Relating to Pensions and Allowances and Gratuities.)
    (1) In calculating the amount of the weekly allowance that may be granted under Section one of the Irish Police (Naval and Military Service) Act, 1915, in respect of a married member of the Royal Irish Constabulary or Dublin Metropolitan Police who, being a Reservist, has been called out, or, not being a Reservist, has joined His Majesty's naval or military forces for the purposes of the present War, the weekly amount which that member was receiving from police funds at the time of his being so called out or joining shall, as from the first day of September nineteen hundred and eighteen, be computed as if the rates of pay authorised by this Act had been in force at that time, and as if any war bonus granted to the police force had then been payable, and the amount of any such weekly allowance may be altered so as to give effect to this provision.
    (2) In the application of Sub-section (2) of Section three of the Act of 1914 to any pension, allowance or gratuity granted after the first day of September nineteen hundred and eighteen, any reference to any Schedule to the Act of 1914 shall be construed as a reference to the corresponding Schedule to this Act, and any reference to the commencement of that Act shall be construed as a reference to the first day of September nineteen hundred and eighteen, but nothing in that Sub-section as so applied shall affect the operation of Section two of the Police (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1915.
    (3) Section four of the Constabulary (Ireland) Act, 1908, which authorises pensions to be granted in certain circumstances to constables of the Royal Irish Constabulary, shall, with the substitution of the chief commissioner of the Dublin Metropolitan Police for the inspector-general, apply as respects constables of the last-men-
    3126
    tioned force in like manner as it applies as respects constables of the Royal Irish Constabulary.
    Mr. BRADY: I beg to move, at the end, to add the words
    "Notwithstanding anything in this Act contained, all existing pensioners and widows of pensioners of both the Royal Irish Constabulary and Dublin Metropolitan Police shall be entitled to all and every increased pensions, gratuities, and allowances granted to members of both police forces by this Act."
    This, again, raises what we regard as the main question of the pensions to existing pensioners of both forces. I do not like to detain the Committee because their case has been so frequently put on the earlier stages of this Bill, but in view of the fact that we all went home last night—happily, I am entitled to speak at this moment for hon. Members above the Gangway as well as for those on these benches—in the confident hope that the Chief Secretary would communicate this universal view of Irish Members to the Treasury, and would come down here this afternoon and tell us that these poor old pensioners—because many of them are very old men—would be included. Assuming even it did involve a considerable additional charge on the Treasury—I have heard it stated it would be something like £120,000 per annum—it could not possibly remain at that figure for any lengthy time. In a very short time the maximum sum involved would be considerably reduced, and ultimately would entirely disappear. This is the last opportunity that we shall have of appealing to the right hon. Gentleman. We know his sympathies are with

    3127
    us, and he has told representatives of both forces who have been here as a deputation that he is very anxious—I do not wish to exaggerate his position in this matter, but certainly, speaking for myself, I came to the conclusion that we have the sympathy of the right hon. Gentleman, and that the Treasury alone blocked the way. I do hope, therefore, that he will now tell us that the pensioners of both forces will be included in this Bill.
    Mr. SHORTT: This is really exactly on the same footing as the last Amendment. The objections to it are exactly the same. The difficulties in the way are exactly the same. As the hon. Gentleman himself has said the case has been put before in Debate, and it has been explained before that the Government do not see their way to grant this request, or to accept this Amendment. I regret that anything I said or did last night should have raised any undue hopes in my hon. Friend's breast, for if I did that by what I did say, goodness only knows what hopes might have been raised in his breast if I really had put forward any hope! We have said all along that it was quite impossible to accept the Amendment. I do not therefore think I could possibly have led anyone to believe anything to the contrary last night, or that the Government were likely to alter their minds between last night and to-day. Every object, every difficulty existing in respect to the last Amendment exists also in respect to this. For that and other reasons which I have expressed before, I regret that I am unable to accept this Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause ordered to, stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 6 (Reckoning of Service in Naval, Military, and Air Forces), 7 (Amendment of 37 and 38 Vict. c. 80, s. 5), 8 (Interpretation) and 9 (Short Title and Amendment), and First and Second Schedules ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Bill reported; as amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.

  TERMINATION OF THE WAR BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The MINISTER of RECONSTRUCTION (Dr. Addison): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  3128
  1.0 P.M.
  This Bill is rendered necessary from the fact that in the various Bills which have been passed during the War a great number of phrases are used of varying kinds—I believe thirty in number—which refer to "the cessation of hostilities," "the termination of the War," and so on. The matter was examined in great detail by an important Committee presided over by Mr. Justice Atkin, and they made recommendations on the subject, which were submitted to a Select Committee of this House. That Select Committee has presented an interim Report, and the substance of the recommendations of it are embodied in the Bill before us. It is necessary, so far as possible, that some definite date should be fixed, because the matter really affects the termination of a very large number of emergency Acts passed during the War, and uncertainty is to be avoided in the interests of all. The Bill suggested by Mr. Justice Atkin's Committee has been modified in one respect owing to the state of affairs in Europe. As the recommendations of the Committee stood the principle suggested was that the date of the termination of the War should be on the date of the ratification of peace. That was clearly a practical and definite suggestion. Owing, however, to the state of affairs in Europe at present, it is quite conceivable that there may be difficulties in saying what is the date, for you may have treaties with different States. It is quite possible that there may be treaties concluded at different times with some of the new States which have arisen. These are difficulties, and it is these emergencies which we are endeavouring to provide against in the Bill. It will be observed that in one of the paragraphs of Clause 1 it is provided that certain specified powers shall, if it is considered expedient,
  "cease before the date so fixed as aforesaid, and His Majesty in Council may fix some earlier date for the termination of those powers."
  This is necessary because it is quite clear that in some of the Acts passed the phrases "cessation of hostilities," and so forth, mean that it is clearly desirable that the power should cease before the ratification of the peace treaty. In most of the emergency measures at the present time the powers are exercised by Government Departments, or their officers, under the Defence of the Realm Regulations. They can be revoked by Order in Council. The proposal here extends this power over the emergency Statutes, so that if we find it

  3129
  possible to dispense with exceptional powers before the date of the ratification of the treaties we should be able to do so. I am sure everybody will be in agreement, in respect to these purely war powers, that we should dispense with them, if possible, before the date of the ratification of peace Then the point I have mentioned in respect to the different Powers or States that may arise is covered by the provisions of Subsection (2) of Clause 1. This states:
  "The date so declared shall be fixed with regard to, and shall not be later than, the date of the exchange or deposit of ratifications of the treaty or treaties of peace, or such later date, if any, as may be fixed by the treaty or treaties.…"
  There may be possibly a number of treaties. It is clearly desirable that power should be taken to revoke or to bring to an end an Act which imposes disabilities, where you have concluded a treaty with a rising Power before, perhaps, the ratification of treaties with other Powers. Because some of these Acts and Orders impose disabilities on subjects of enemy States, on British subjects, and so forth, and it is quite clear it would be desirable in everyone's interests where there may be a multiplicity of treaties that power should be taken to declare the termination of the War in respect of a particular belligerent. It has also been provided that His Majesty in Council may similarly declare what date is to be treated as the date of the termination of war between His Majesty and any particular State, because of the States with which we entered as belligerents some will probably have ceased to exist. It will be difficult to say exactly what is Austria-Hungary, and it is necessary to declare in the case of a separate treaty with the Czechoslovaks or any other new nation what is the termination of the War with that particular belligerent. The general proposal is to carry out the recommendations of the Select Committee or Mr. Justice Atkin's Committee and make the termination of the War the date of the ratification of the peace treaty, making such modifications as may be necessary in view of the fact that there may be a number of peace treaties with Powers that have arisen or emerged into independence since the commencement of the War; and generally also that we should have power where it is desirable to declare a date for the termination of various emergency Statutes earlier than the ratification of the peace treaty.
  Mr. HOLT: I think, in spite of the right hon. Gentleman's explanation, that this is a most unsatisfactory Bill, and I must say that the way in which this matter has been treated is really a scandal. This Bill is being hurried through in the last two days of the life of Parliament, and yet we are dealing with a matter of the greatest possible importance to the liberties of our fellow subjects. I really do not think that there should have been this tremendous hurry about the Bill and that we should be forced to rush the matter through at the last moment, instead of being allowed reasonable time for consideration in Parliament. Just look at this Bill. It really is another example of what is so objectionable—legislation by Order in Council. We should have had a proper Schedule setting up the Acts which are terminated, how long one Act is to be extended, and how long another is to be extended, and Parliament should have been invited to express its opinion as to the continuance of particular Acts and the discontinuance of others. The Government themselves recognise, by the second paragraph of the first Sub-section of Clause 1, that it is desirable that different Acts of Parliament should be terminated on different dates. But why is Parliament not to be consulted? Why are the people of this country not to be allowed to express an opinion as to which Acts ought to be discontinued at once and which should be continued for a longer period? There is no reason except that the Government want an election in December. Because, forsooth, they want to play an electioneering game and terminate the life of the present Parliament, and for no earthly reason except that Parliament is deprived of an opportunity of expressing its own opinion as to what is to be done to the continuance of special war measures.
  Look at some of the Acts which come to an end with this War. Perhaps the Act likely to affect the largest number of people is the Military Service Act, which comes to end, I think, with the present War. We are not to be allowed to discuss in Parliament at what stage the obligation to serve compulsorily in the Army is to be discontinued. Apparently the Government do not intend to let us discuss that if they can help it. Another Act in everybody's mind is the Defence of the Realm Act, which we are apparently not to be allowed to discuss. Yet surely anybody can see that these two important Acts are Acts which might easily be discontinued

  3131
  on totally different dates. The necessity for keeping soldiers in the field may exist, when it is perfectly unnecessary to have any regulations about freedom of speech and freedom of printing, and yet we here are not to be allowed to discuss these things. I want to ask the Government, if I may do so, to explain what force the Defence of the Realm Act would have? As I understand it, the Defence of the Realm Act stipulates that they may issue Regulations for securing the public safety or the defence of the realm. All the Regulations have to be for those two purposes. Now, if we have an Armistice carried out on the terms that have been announced to us, and that we are openly told will make it absolutely impossible for the enemy to renew hostilities, how can it be said that Regulations are made for public safety or defence of the realm? On the face of it that would be untrue, because it would be publicly known that the realm was not in any danger. So far as I can read it, and a learned Friend in this House—a very learned Friend—tells me my construction is correct, directly you have secured an Armistice, then, although the Act does not come to an end, the power to make Regulations is suspended. Surely these are points we ought to be allowed to discuss! It is the Commons of England, surely, who are to decide and not the Government!
  The right hon. Gentleman has not told us a single word as to the policy of the Government. We have not been told how they propose to exercise these powers. We have had no kind of assurance what Acts are going to be discontinued or even the general character of the Regulations they propose to discontinue. Of course, the Defence of the Realm Act is dealing with an immense multiplicity of subjects. We have not only this question of the publication of news, but this objectionable Regulation on venereal disease, which everybody knows is very much objected to, and the whole of the Regulations, many of them ultra vires, dealing with the fixing of prices and controlling of supplies. These are matters which go to the very root of the common life of the people of this country. Why are we not to discuss them in this House before the General Election? I will give another instance of the sort of matter which is being dealt with under the Defence of the Realm Act, and we do not know in the least how the Government propose to continue after
  3132
  they have got this measure. There are those bodies limited in the charges they are able to make which are authorised by the Defence of the Realm Act to levy charges above their statutory powers in order to pay the wages the Government has compelled them to pay. The Government are bringing in a Bill—they have brought in a Bill—to compel those wages to be paid. What are they going to do with the powers they have got under the Defence of the Realm Act by which they are authorising people to make charges which were not lawful? This greatly affects the commercial community because it strikes at the financial stability of bodies like the Port of London Authority, the Clyde Trustees, and) people of that sort. The Government comes forward and says, "Give us a Bill to do what we like—to discontinue the Regulations at any moment we please." It is all very unsatisfactory, and I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman intends to do at a later stage of these proceedings. I suppose he will try to get all stages to-day?
  Dr. ADDISON: No.
  Mr. HOLT: The Committee?
  Dr. ADDISON: No.
  Mr. HOLT: Well, that is all right. It at least gives us an opportunity for putting down Amendments. There is another question, and that is when the termination of the War comes about for private contracts. That also might have been a subject of legislation at the same time. I do not know that we can very well object to this Bill passing and it is probably better than no Bill at all, but I think we ought to protest against the manner in which the Government have treated this important subject, and we ought to object altogether to this proposal even now, when the worst of the hostilities are over, because it proposes that the ruling of our own destinies should be taken out of our hands and handed over to the Government.
  Mr. DENMAN: I cannot agree with the arguments which are put forward by the last speaker. The phrase "termination of the War" can only mean the ratification of peace, and this Bill gives the Government power to relieve us of our fetters earlier than would otherwise be the case. In the course of the War this House has deliberately decided that Acts shall have validity until the end of the War, and without this Bill they will

  3133
  certainly go on longer. As one who desires very strongly that the liberties of the country shall be restored as soon as possibly consistently with the public welfare, I welcome the provision this Bill provides for the earlier termination of the Acts than would otherwise be the case. There is one point to which I wish to raise an objection. It is, perhaps, rather a Committee point, but I should like to give the right hon. Gentleman notice of it. It is all very well to fix the date when the War shall be deemed to have stopped, but this Bill does more. A great many of these emergency Bills relate not only to the period of the War, but to a fixed period after the War: sometimes it is six months, and even twelve months. In those cases Parliament deliberately said that the conditions which prevailed during the War were likely to prevail afterwards, and they extended those powers for a given period after the end of the War. Clause 1 gives the Government power not only to anticipate what would normally be the end of the War, but it gives them a further power. Let me give an example. The Munitions of War Act provides that Part I. of this Act shall continue to apply for a period of twelve months after the conclusion of the present War to certain industries. Part I. of that Act sets up the machinery by which the Board of Trade intervened in cases of dispute. Therefore we clearly decided that those provisions were to last for a year after the end of the War. Is it right that we should now give the Government power by a mere Order, in response, perhaps, to pressure, to override the deliberate decision of this House, and to say that those provisions shall have no validity beyond such a date as they may fix, even before the War has ended? I think this point can be met by making an alteration by the inserting instead of the words "termination of those powers" the words "on the termination of the War." I make this suggestion for the right hon. Gentleman's consideration.
  Mr. BIGLAND: This Bill provides that "His Majesty in Council may declare what date is to be treated as the date of the termination of the present War." I wish to say a few words about the trade situation and particularly the trade of merchants and importers from foreign ports into this country. A Bill was introduced earlier in the Session called the Imports and Exports (Temporary Control) Bill, and in that measure it was provided
  3134
  in one of the Clauses that the continuation of all the Orders in Council under the Defence of the Realm Act were to be handed over to the President of the Board of Trade, and that he would be at liberty to put his pen through any portion of those Orders, and say that the time has arrived when they are no longer necessary. The difficulty now is that the different Orders in Council, all being based on the Defence of the Realm Act, the right hon. Gentleman cannot possibly declare that the Defence of the Realm Act is cancelled without cancelling all those Orders in Council. The position the Government will be placed in is this: The Food Controller may say, "You can on no account cancel the Defence of the Realm Act, because if you do all my powers are cancelled and the feeding of the nation would go into chaos." The other section of the business community may demand that a number of those Orders shall be immediately cancelled, because they are preventing British merchants from taking their due place in the business world.
  Let me give an instance in my own case. I appeared before the Controller in reference to an article called resin, and I asked for permission to send a cable ordering a quantity of resin from abroad, but I was refused this permission, because the Order in Council provides that no English merchant may make provision for future stocks and requirements by purchasing in foreign markets. Naturally, we want these Orders in Council, which curtail the action of merchants by cable, rescinded, because we cannot even send a cable to our agents abroad to inquire about certain matters. It seems to me that we must have some starting point from which Orders in Council are going to be cancelled, and how it is to be arranged it is difficult to say when a Bill is introduced suddenly like this. Surely our great chambers of commerce and other bodies of merchants and traders interested in business all over the world should have an opportunity of expressing an opinion as to how this point might be overcome! Neutral countries, finding that there are only limited stocks of certain raw materials in different parts of the world, will immediately purchase, and yet we are not permitted to send even a cable. We are restricted and bound, and in many cases are not even allowed to make inquiries of people, or to ask for a quotation. We are bound so absolutely under certain

  3135
  parts of the Defence of the Realm Act, especially in regard to products which are in war looked upon as military products, and which in many cases during the War have been military necessities, but which in times of peace are only used for ordinary manufactures, that I would put it to my right hon. Friend that it would be advisable, if possible, to create a power by which Orders in Council under the Defence of the Realm Act may be cancelled at an earlier date than the declaration of peace.
  Dr. ADDISON: That is exactly what we do.
  Mr. BIGLAND: I am very glad if it is so, but my first reading of the Bill is that until this one date is fixed the Defence of the Realm Act will not cease to operate. I am certain the pressure from the Ministry of Food will be so great that it will be impossible to cancel the whole of the Defence of the Realm Act. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain how the Minister of Food can continue his action if he does not take it under the Defence of the Realm Act? If that Act is not cancelled by the Declaration of an Order in Council, I do not see how it is possible by any subsidiary Clauses in this Bill to give power to the Government to cancel orders of the nature which they think should be immediately terminated. I have no doubt that in the further discussion of the Bill we shall get a little more light thrown upon this point. We have only had an opportunity to hurriedly examine the measure, and we have had no chance of talking it over with men whose judgment on these points we value highly. I have no doubt whatever that this House will give the Bill a Second Beading, but I hope at the same time that in Committee we shall find it possible to amend and improve it.
  Sir J. JARDINE: I agree with the last speaker that we ought to give this Bill a Second Reading. It has been rather hurriedly sprung upon us, and the views of the financial and mercantile world will be required to be considered by those in charge of the measure. Some of the great financial and trading corporations will desire to put in a clause that after a certain period—say three years—after the signing of peace with Germany debenture holdings may be converted into ordinary shares. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that the Government have in view
  3136
  the possibility that instead of making peace with great Powers such as Germany and Austria were they may have to conclude a number of different peace articles with the Republics into which those Empires have been split. In these circumstances power should be given to announce a date on which these financial transactions will be allowed, and I would be glad if this Bill in Committee can be so amended as to deal with that particular point.
  Mr. SHERWELL: In the early months of the War we rushed War Emergency Bills through this House at an unprecedented rate, and at that time I raised a question as to what was to be the date of the termination of the operations of these measures. The then Attorney-General on behalf of the Government gave a pledge that a solution would be found by the fixing of a statutory date. I am sure the view of the House will be that a result of that kind is very desirable, and in my view the commercial and social interests of this country would consider it immeasurably preferable to have such a method of dealing with this question. The seriousness of the matter is, I think, the greater because, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill to-day, the Minister of Reconstruction gave the House no sort of even a shadowy kind of indication as to the date or series of dates present in the mind of the Government. They have not given us the least indication when the country may look for a discontinuance of the operations on various measures, some of which press very harshly indeed upon the legitimate liberties and freedom of action of our people. The right hon. Gentleman said—I have no doubt with all sincerity—that no one would desire to continue in force these war measures, and particularly war restrictions, an hour longer than was absolutely necessary. The House must remember that after more than four years' experience the continuance of these particular powers and restrictions may be a matter of very great convenience to the Departments and Ministers concerned, and I am bound to say that at this time of day after four years actual experience I am not prepared to accept the expression of a benevolent thought such as that as a sufficient guarantee for the restoration of the vital liberties and freedom of the people of this country. I wonder whether the right hon.

  3137
  Gentleman and his colleagues have considered the probable effect upon a very large section of public opinion in this country of measures of this kind. The right hon. Gentleman must know that there is at the present time in this country a vast amount of passionate feeling, and reasonably so, against the continuance of arbitrary restrictions, the raison d'être of which must have disappeared with the signing of the Armistice. Are the Government quite sure that the effect of this measure on public opinion, interpreted or misinterpreted as the case may be in the course of a General Election, will be negligible? Are they really unconscious of its possible mischievious and even disastrous effects on an inflamed public opinion? I would give the fullest possible support to any organised protest at the coming election against the maintenance of the restrictions under the Defence of the Realm Act, and the refusal of the Government to name a specific date for their termination. If there be an organised move in the country in connection with the General Election to demand that the Government shall fix a specific date, will it not be difficult for Ministerial candidates to withstand the pressure brought to bear on them? I would counsel the Government, in their own interests, to reassure public opinion concerning the speedy termination of some of these resented measures. My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Holt) referred to certain individual measures, amongst them the Military Service Acts. I am satisfied that if the Government are playing for safety at an unprecedentedly critical period in European history they will find it wise to reassure the country as to the speedy termination of the powers enforced under that Act. I am rather alarmed when I observe the complacent attitude which powerful organs of the public Press, Ministers, and the average citizen are taking to-day towards the revolutionary spirit and feeling which are covering so wide an area in Europe. Are the Government so fully satisfied in their own minds that there is no danger in this country from that same movement? I believe that we are immeasurably nearer that danger in our social and national life than anyone at the present moment imagines.
  Mr. BIGLAND: You ought to be ashamed to say it!
  Mr. SHERWELL: I do not understand either the philosophy or the objection of the hon. Member. When I state frankly my view of what is taking place in Europe, and when I ask the Government to take measures to reassure the country so that there may be no danger of an outbreak of that spirit here, I am performing a patriotic duty, and I am not saying anything to which the hon. Gentleman is entitled to shout "shame."
  Mr. BIGLAND: I understood the hon. Member to say that the spirit of Bolshevism was nearer than any of us thought in this country.
  Mr. SHERWELL: I said that I was amazed at the complacent view which was taken, that the danger which is making itself manifest on the Continent of Europe is not a practical danger in this country. I am so alive to the way in which this spirit spreads and so conscious of the lessons of history and experience that I beseech the Government to give reassurance to the country where it can give reassurance, and so prevent an unnecessary and calamitous outbreak of the same spirit here. I maintain that in giving that warning I am uttering the truest patriotism. There is the danger, and it is because I apprehend the danger that I make my appeal to the Government on the floor of the House to-day. The right hon. Gentleman practically assumed that the provisions of this measure are almost tantamount to the recommendations of Mr. Justice Atkin's Committee. The right hon. Gentleman frankly recognised that the recommendation was that the date for the termination of the War should be synonymous with the exchange or deposit of the ratifications of the treaty of peace, but he said there was a practical difficulty in adopting that recommendation literally, because probably the exchange of ratifications might vary with different nations and different people. That is no obstacle to fixing a specific date. You can fix a specific date with a special provision in your Bill, giving you power to anticipate it if circumstances warrant the anticipation. It is because I feel that the country is so tired of these blind powers given to an Executive and so tired of legislation by reference to Orders—they have suffered all the hardships and restrictions entailed in this form of procedure up to now- that they would be suspicious of a Bill framed in terms such as these that I

  3139
  would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman and to the Government between now and the Committee stage to reconsider the matter, and to discover whether it is not possible to give greater and more specific reassurance concerning such matters as freedom of speech, freedom of literature and publication—matters of which a great deal will be heard in the country in the coming weeks—than is contained in the Bill.
  Sir R. COOPER: The value of this Bill depends entirely upon how it is going to be administered. I would not quibble as to how the provisions are going to be carried out if only the industrial people of this country could feel that the right hon. Gentleman as Minister of Reconstruction and the Government will seriously take the earliest possible step in their power to free the industries and trades of the country from the Regulations which hitherto have obviously been so necessary. The administration of this Bill affects the whole problem of Reconstruction. It affects very closely the danger, whatever that danger may be, of industrial difficulties, and if, as the hon. Member for Huddersfield mentioned, there be any danger of a revolutionary nature in the country, the administration of this Bill will have a very great effect upon what may happen. I know that my right hon. Friend appreciates that fact, but I want him to realise that it is vital that the business men of the country should know at the earliest possible date when they are going to be freed from one or the other of the many Regulations that they have had to obey. I have direct knowledge of the fact that orders for some machinery went last Saturday to the United States, although the Americans have never had them before, because they are not tied as our people are tied by permits and regulations of different kinds. Manufacturers in countries like the United States are much freer at the present moment than the manufacturers of this country; and it is obvious that the people throughout the world—in this case it was Japan—will place all their urgent and valuable orders in such countries as are free, and that we shall lose them. Of course, that is obviously exceedingly important. Many business men fear very seriously what they describe as the danger of bureaucracy. We have necessarily had very large de-
  3140
  partments at work where individuals and officials have had a great deal of power and influence, and we want to feel that if there is any tendency on their part to raise obstacles, or to retain their working power longer than necessary, the Minister of Reconstruction will keep a very keen eye on the main chance of reconstruction and will get freedom for manufacturers, in spite of any departmental or official opposition with which he may be confronted. There is a great deal of anxiety on this matter, and it is desirable to make it clear to the right hon. Gentleman and those connected with him that it is vital to the immediate interests of this country that the Government should free every industry at the earliest possible moment.
  Sir WILLOUGHBY DICKINSON: We are indebted to the hon. Member for the Hexham Division (Mr. Holt) for having raised this Debate, and I agree with him and the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sherwell) as to the seriousness of the position. There is no doubt that by this Bill we are withdrawing from the elected representatives of the country enormous powers and handing them over to the King and Council. I fail to see why it is necessary to anticipate the views of the new Parliament by bringing in this measure before the Dissolution. We have various Acts most stringently affecting the liberty of the subject, and it seems to me that it would have been more reasonable to have allowed the newly-elected Parliament to decide when these stringent Regulations should be suspended rather than the Parliament now going out of office. I desire to ask one question which has not yet been referred to in this Debate. I am most anxious to know what the latest date is? The House will observe that the date which is to be declared is referred to in Sub-section (1) as follows:
  "His Majesty in Council may declare what date is to be treated as the date of the termination of the present War."
  Sub-section (2) says:
  "The date so declared shall be fixed with regard to, and shad not be later than, the date of the exchange of deposit of ratifications of the treaty or treaties of peace, or such later date, if any, as may be fixed by the treaty or treaties as the date of the termination of war."
  It does not necessarily follow that the date of the ratification of the treaties is going to be the latest date. His Majesty in Council has an option. If in the treaties there is any mention of a later date, that will take the place of the date

  3141
  of ratification. It is important that we should really know what that means, because, first of all, who will decide that question in the treaties? I do not know what proposals the Government mean to bring forward with regard to the deciding of the treaties of peace. Is this House going to know the terms of such a treaty? Quite apart from the general importance of that question, it seems to me that if we are going to allow His Majesty to insert in the treaties a provision which will still further extend the disabilities that affect the people of this country beyond the date of the ratification—I presume there is some idea of doing it, otherwise it would hardly have been put into this Sub-section—we are really withdrawing from the representatives of people a very important function. I do not know whether the Government have considered this. I hope that before the Bill reaches the Committee stage we shall really know what is proposed to be done with regard to this particular point. It is absurd to say that the date shall not be later than the date of the deposit of the ratifications, and then to take away half the value of that by saying that if in the treaty which may be made with any particular country or particular people the date is altered, then there is no limit at all. So far as I can see, there would be no limit at all. Of course, the limit will depend upon the terms of the treaties. I hope the Government will pay attention to this particular point.
  Sir E. POLLOCK: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman one question. Is it intended under Clause 1 of this Bill that successive and various Orders in Council shall be made, or is it the intention that there shall be only one Order in Council? If a number of Orders in Council are to be made dealing with specific Acts, or Orders in Council, or Proclamations, I can well understand that the power taken in Sub-section (2) would be really innocuous. But if it is intended, as on its face the Bill would appear to declare, that one comprehensive Order in Council is to be made, I can see some difficulty about the right hon. Gentleman securing the passage of Sub-section (2). I should have thought that the intention was that a number of Orders in Council were to be made. If the right hon. Gentleman will make that abundantly plain, I think he would remove most of the grounds of the criticisms that have been put forward. Obviously the critics could
  3142
  fairly say that an Order in Council should probably be made before the treaty of peace is made or signed and exchanged. Then the difficulty is raised that by the mere treaty of peace those persons who were responsible for it would be able to legislate by the extension of a certain number of Acts of Parliament. I do not believe that this House or the Ministry has any intention of giving that authority to those persons who are considering the treaty of peace. As the Bill stands, suggesting one magnificent Order in Council which is to be operative for all Acts of Parliament, Orders in Council and Proclamations, there is ground for that opinion. If the right hon. Gentleman would make it plain that he intends to issue a number of Orders in Council and, perhaps, to issue some Orders in Council as soon as we have passed this Bill, a great difficulty would be removed. Then we should have confidence that the matters dealt with under the Defence of the Realm Act and Proclamations would be removed in the course of a very few weeks. Others might have to continue for a certain time in regard to certain matters which would be of an international nature, such as the treatment of aliens and the protection of our shores from invasion by some of our enemies. They might properly be left over as matters to be dealt with by the treaty of peace, because it is at that moment we shall be able to impose our will on our enemies, and it would be an unfortunate thing if legislative effect were not given immediately to enforce what is right upon those who are our enemies. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give an answer upon this point.
  Mr. T. WILSON: I am quite certain that the great mass of the working people of this country will be disappointed if this Bill passes as it is now. If the right hon. Gentleman had been at the Central Hall yesterday, he would have heard a strong demand for the immediate repeal of Regulations made under the Defence of the Realm Act. I am satisfied that while the working classes of the country have accepted the restrictions put upon their liberty and the interference with their freedom of speech and what not, yet if those Regulations are continued very much longer we shall have such industrial unrest in the country that the Government will have to pass another Act of Parliament for meeting the wishes of these people or for suppressing the action they

  3143
  have taken. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sherwell) has suggested that the Government ought to consider fixing in this Bill a definite date, with power to anticipate the repeal of Regulations which the state of affairs at any given moment would justify them in repealing. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman and the Government that the form in which a Bill of this kind would meet with the approval and support of the working classes of the country would be to make it quite clear that some of these obnoxious Regulations are to be repealed at the earliest possible moment.
  Dr. ADDISON: Those Regulations can be repealed at any time.
  Mr. WILSON: I do not think it is a definite date. Therefore I hope that between now and the Committee stage the right hon. Gentleman will give consideration to the suggestion that has been made. We do not want any more industrial unrest in the country than we have now. I am quite satisfied that the position is serious enough, without giving those who perhaps are irresponsible any more reason for pressing their arguments, policy, and views upon the country. I seriously warn the right hon. Gentleman and the Government that if they do not follow the course suggested they will have great difficulty in dealing with the industrial situation in this country. I therefore hope they will give consideration to the points raised.
  Sir R. NEWMAN: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that this Bill is being passed for the purpose of restoring the personal liberty and freedom of the Press sooner than would be the case if it were not passed? If that is so, and we can get an undertaking from the right hon. Gentleman to that effect, it would help him to get the Bill through. It is not only the working classes who want the restoration of freedom of speech and freedom of the subject. We all want it. Therefore if the right hon. Gentleman can assure us that this Bill is intended as a preliminary to at once restoring liberties that have been taken from us by the necessities of the War, I feel it would be one of the most popular Bills the Government have ever brought forward.
  Dr. ADDISON: The remarks of the right hon. Member for St. Pancras (Sir W. Dickinson) are of a technical character,
  3144
  and those of the hon. Members for Huddersfield (Mr. Sherwell) and my hon. Friend below the Gangway (Mr. T. Wilson) have caused me no little puzzle. They ate suggesting seriously that when we have to deal with the complexity of business with which we are confronted, having to deal with the cessation of the operations of various Regulations and Statutes, covering within their cycle thirty-eight closely printed pages, the House of Commons is to discuss each one of these questions and decide when these things shall come to an end in order that we may expedite the discontinuance! Because we knew perfectly well that you cannot deal with all this mass of legislation individually which we had collected together, and on which, as hon. Members know, high judicial advice has been taken, and in order to carry the House with us and meet the wishes of the House, we remitted it specifically to a Select Committee of this House, and have introduced this Bill to give effect to the recommendations of that Committee. What do they recommend? They say:
  "Because we feel the adoption of some definite principle by which the date of the termination of war can be determined is necessary in order to enable us usefully to consider the second part of our terms of reference."
  What is the second part of their terms of reference? The first part was that they were appointed to take into consideration the Report of Mr. Justice Atkin's Committee and matters connected therewith and report what provision should be made by Parliament for defining the words "the end of the War." They recommend that we should pass a Bill on these lines in order that they may get to the second part. This is the second part—
  "and other similar phrases occurring in war emergency statutes and extending in whole or in part, or shortening, the period of operation of several emergency Statutes and Regulations made thereunder."
  2.0 P.M.
  "Or shortening." We have specifically given the different papers and points raised by different Departments on this large mass occupying this long document in order to put before the Select Committee the whole case in respect of the different Regulations and emergency statutes and the Select Committee advise us, having looked at it, that the first step necessary is to pass a Bill of this kind so that they will have a definite date to guide them. Hon. Members are anxious to restore the liberty of the subject. So am I. But they say before you do that

  3145
  you are to go through each one of these things individually and state in different Acts what you are going to do. A more impossible and unbusinesslike suggestion it is impossible to imagine. If you want to promote dissatisfaction in the mercantile community, that is the way to do it. We are seeking the power as explained by the hon. Member behind (Sir R. Newman), for whose intervention I am most grateful, so it shall be possible to deal with specific matters promptly, and he desired that an assurance should be given. Now let me reply to the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Holt) who proposes this impossible and dilatory method. What have we done? The Armistice was declared on Monday. On Tuesday we released a considerable number of things, and we have released more every day since then, and at the Standing Council on Priority, which is composed almost exclusively of merchants, traders and business men, and is sitting daily with the sole purpose of getting rid of any embarrassing regulations which may be in restraint of the development of trade, we have released various commodities, and they were released in every case within a few hours of their recommendations. I am content that we should be judged on our record since Tuesday morning last as to whether we intend to continue embarrassing Orders any longer than the state of affairs compels. We have already released a great many things, and I am just as anxious as the hon. Member for Hexham that we should get rid of these embarrassing restrictions as fast as we can, and all I have to say is the way he proposes would mean that the House would be in constant session for the whole of next year. He understands Parliamentary procedure as well as I do.
  Mr. HOLT: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us when the Committee is going to report on the second part of its reference?
  Dr. ADDISON: I do not know. But we shall expedite matters if the Committee has not reported. If we obtain power to declare for an earlier date it will be all in the direction the hon. Member wants, and I am still very puzzled to find out on what grounds he bases his objection, because we are doing the very thing he wants us to do, namely, to expedite the abrogation of a number of these embarrassing recommendations. The hon Mem-
  3146
  ber for Huddersfield and the hon. Member for St. Pancras wanted to be reassurred on various points. I am afraid I cannot reassure them on particular details, and I do not think it can fairly be expected of me, but our general desire is to get released as soon as we can consistent with the national interest. We have already shown our good faith in the last three days in that respect, and with respect to the abrogation of the Military Service Act, and so we shall do. The hon. Member for Huddersfield suggested that we were guilty of sloth, although as he is well aware the Orders under the Ministry Service Act were suspended on Tuesday morning. I believe telegraphic notices were sent out, and the operation of calling up, at any rate, ceased at that time. I shall not be expected to go through a long catalogue of things. Our desire is to obtain power to get rid of these embarrassing restrictions as soon as we can. We can get that power in anticipation of a date mentioned in this Bill, and I think in so doing we are serving the very thing which hon. Members, with me, so anxiously desire.
  Mr. SHERWELL: Is it proposed to modify or abolish the censorship before the General Election?
  Dr. ADDISON: I do not know anything about those Regulations. I must ask for notice. I have not the faintest idea what they are.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a second time, and committed to Committee of Whole House for Monday next.—[Dr. Addison.]

  MINISTRY OF LABOUR (REQUISITIONING OF PREMISES) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. G. Roberts): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  This is a temporary measure to enable the Commissioner of Works to take possession of premises on behalf of the Ministry of Labour by an extension of the powers of the Defence of the Realm Act, under which the possession of lands and the buildings thereon can be taken to meet war emergencies. We are advised that they cannot be taken for purely peace purposes such as demobilisation, and it

  3147
  has been necessary to come to Parliament direct for the purpose. It is therefore proposed that under the Defence of the Realm Act Regulations may be made by Order in Council enabling the Commissioner of Works to take premises for the purpose of Employment Exchanges and other purposes of the Ministry of Labour. The powers given by the Bill will, of course, come to an end at the same time as the other Defence of the Realm Regulations. The Committee, on termination of war legislation, was of opinion that the power to issue Regulatons under the Defence of the Realm Acts only existed during the continuance of the present War. The effect of the Bill will be to give this temporary power so long as this state lasts. Any person whose premises have been taken will, during the operation of the Orders, be entitled to compensation for direct loss or damage assessed by the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission.
  The first object of the Bill is to enable the Ministry to secure premises for Employment Exchanges. The present staff of the Employment Exchanges is approximately 6,000, and the Exchanges ordinarily deal with some 4,250,000 workpeople. It is anticipated that during the demobilisation period the Exchanges will have to deal with some 14,000,000 persons, and practically the whole of the working classes will be brought within the unemployment benefit scheme. It will be necessary, therefore, to make a corresponding increase in the staff of the Employment Exchanges, and it is anticipated that it may at least have to be trebled. It is obvious that the present accommodation is totally inadequate for this purpose, and moreover the need is instant and urgent and the possibility of obtaining premises at present engaged by other Government offices cannot therefore be taken into account. The necessary premises will, wherever possible, be acquired by agreement, and the compulsory powers will only be used as a final resource. We have already been promised the use of town halls and other public buildings, and our present view is that we shall require to use these powers very slightly; but there are certain congested districts in which we have been unable to secure buildings by agreement, and I am sure everyone will acknowledge that nothing must stand in the way of the task of demobilisation being carried through as speedily and as smoothly as possible.
  3148
  The second object of the mil is to enable the Ministry to take premises for other purposes. These other purposes are mainly the provision of offices and accommodation for the staff of the Appointments Department of the Ministry. The Appointments Department has been established to deal with the resettlement in civil life of officers and other ranks of like standing and education, and similar persons who have left their work or business to undertake war work. It is intended to provide advice and assistance where necessary with a view to resettling these persons in civil life. The country is divided up into a number of separate local districts, each of which will have a head office with a staff of about 100 persons. Several branch offices will also be required in each district. I think I can rely on the general concurrence of the House that we ought to have these powers.
  Mr. T. WILSON: I have no objection whatever to the powers my right hon. Friend is asking for, but I should like him to say how many buildings he proposes to take and how many centres it is proposed to take over to establish new Labour Exchanges. At present there is an enormous number of Labour Exchanges throughout the country, and some may be taken while others are not. I should also like him to say whether it is proposed that the Office of Works shall take over any premises occupied by other Government Departments now which will become vacant at an early date. I ask that in the interest of economy, because some of these Departments—the Food Control offices and the National Service offices—are already furnished, and would suit the purpose admirably. It would be extremely unwise on my right hon. Friend's part to take fresh buildings for Labour Exchanges purposes when there are already offices fitted up at the expense of the nation which would suit his purpose equally well.
  Mr. SHERWELL: I do not rise with any hostile intention against the Bill, but it is rather a significant commentary upon the discussion that has taken place on the previous Bill, for which the main argument was that it was really designed to shorten the period of the continuance of the powers now held under Defence of the Realm Act, that we should be immediately confronted with a measure for further extending the existing powers, for this is a proposal in effect to extend the powers now granted

  3149
  to the Government under the Defence of the Realm Acts. It is only a matter of months since a Committee of this House was asked to vote to the Labour Ministry a large sum of money for the purpose of providing additional premises for Employment Exchanges. Are we to understand that this is a power additional to those conferred by that grant of money? I indicated at the time that the sum asked for was a very considerable one, and we were asked to vote it without any indication of the purposes for which it was to be used. The Minister of Labour assured me then that it was to be used for the purpose of acquiring and enlarging existing Employment Exchanges. I take it this is an application for a power over and above that very considerable extension of accommodation which was granted only some weeks ago. I was very much impressed by the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that because a large number of additional classes of the population are to be brought within the ambit of the responsibility of these Departments—quite properly so—a corresponding increase of accommodation and staff was required. It does not necessarily follow—and the conduct of all large businesses is evidence of this—that because you have a vast extension of your clients therefore you require a corresponding extension of staff or premises, and, having regard to the perfect recklessness which Government Departments have hitherto displayed in the acquisition of public buildings and the multiplication of staffs before they have taken anything like a proper review of the scope of their work, I hope we are not to have, in reference to this measure, a repetition of that very unfortunate and extravagant experience. The work on which the right hon. Gentleman is engaged is work of profound importance, with which every hon. Member will be in entire and sympathetic agreement, but since we have had so many lessons of perfectly indefensible and reckless extravagance in our recent past I hope he will not construe the fact of the passing of the Second Reading of this Bill as giving him a blank cheque for such extensions of staff and such further requisitions of premises as he may be advised or may think are proper in connection with the work of his Department. He told us that the compensation to be given where premises were compulsorily acquired was to be compensation as determined by the War Losses Commission. He must be perfectly aware that in the past a
  3150
  considerable amount of injustice has been done in cases where Government Departments have compulsorily acquired premises under the Defence of the Realm Act and have refused to acknowledge any obligation for the rent of those premises. That may be permissible—I doubt if it is—but it is conceivable that it is permissible in time of war. But there can be no justification for action of that kind on the part of an executive Department in time of peace. The Government, now that the restraint of patriotism is relaxed, may find themselves in legal difficulty. The right hon. Gentleman may or may not be aware that at any rate other members of the Government are aware of, or are being made aware, that the Government has no legal power to-day to requisition property at anything less than its value in the market at the moment of requisition. An owner of property that has been requisitioned under conditions such as that has only to proceed by petition of right to upset the Government's terms at once, and I counsel the right hon. Gentleman to have security for his own position and to see that procedure as regards compensation for premises compulsorily acquired does not leave him open to the embarrassment of proceedings. Individuals who have for patriotic reasons refused to proceed against the Government while the War was raging are not in the same position now and the same sort of restraint will not obtain now as in the past.
  Mr. ROBERTS: My hon. Friend directs attention to the fact that two months ago powers were taken for the extension of the Employment Exchanges, but I would point out that owing to war conditions it has been absolutely impossible to carry out that scheme and to erect new buildings or to make any considerable alterations, and the emergency of demobilisation has come upon us much more rapidly than we contemplated at that time. Therefore, the proposals in this Bill are not really additional to the plans which we then submitted to the House, but are really emergency substitutes for those plans. I can assure my hon. Friend that I am fully conscious of the desirability of administering my Department as economically as possible, and I hope that is the policy I have consistently pursued; but he will realise that in this emergency it may not be possible to carry things on so strictly businesslike as if we had time to gradually create a staff and in course of time to

  3151
  perfect it. There is a very heavy responsibility thrown very suddenly on the Department, and it must be enormously extended in order to deal with the problem. I have listened to the observations of my hon. Friend with respect to the question of finance, and I appreciate the spirit in which he has spoken, and certainly it will be my business to see that money is not wasted and that it shall not be expended unnecessarily in any shape or form. It is the urgency of the problem which requires that we should ask the House to give these powers. In regard to compensation I am aware that the procedure and practice of the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission have not given universal satisfaction, but I believe that an improvement has taken place of late, and that much of the dissatisfaction that at one time ensued from that practice has been removed. I recognise that justice ought to be done, and that a Government Department ought not to act arbitrarily against the interests of anyone.
  My hon. Friend (Mr. Tyson Wilson) asked me if I could state the number of premises that it might be necessary to requisition. It is not possible for me to do that. He said we have Employment Exchanges in nearly every large town throughout the country. That is quite true, but he will realise that if we are to deal satisfactorily with the large numbers of men who will be released, first of all the civil war workers and then the Armies, we shall need more accommodation than is provided by the ordinary Employment Exchanges, because those buildings are designed to deal with the ordinary amount of movement of employment. Here we shall have to deal with an unprecedented movement of labour, and it is requisite that we should have larger premises temporarily. I think it would be a very sorry sight if the civil war workers, and certainly the soldiers, were unable to get into the premises and had to stand in the street in queues wailing to be attended to. I am sure everybody will agree that the powers we ask are reasonable. Whether they are put in proper form or not is always a debatable point, but the power to acquire sufficient accommodation for our purposes is one which will carry the general assent of the House. My hon. Friend (Mr. Tyson Wilson) asked me whether we would not be better advised to take over the premises now in possession of the Government
  3152
  authorities? Of course, if there are suitable premises now in the occupation of other Government Departments of which they have no use, or even a declining use, we should certainly avail ourselves of those premises. I can assure hon. Members that I will endeavour to administer these powers as economically as possible and to do the work with a minimum amount of staff and accommodation.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.—Mr G. Roberts.

  BASTARDY LAWS AMENDMENT ACT (1872) AMENDMENT BILL.
  As amended, considered.
  BASTARDY LAWS AMENDMENT ACT (1872) AMENDMENT BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Increase of Maximum Payment under Affiliation Orders.)
    (1) Section four of the Bastardy Laws Amendment Act, 1872 (which provides for the making of an Order on the putative father for the maintenance, etc., of a bastard child), shall have effect as though "ten shillings a week" were therein substituted for "five shillings a week."
    (2) Where an order under the said Section four for the payment of a weekly sum is in force at the date of the commencement of this Act, either the Court which made the order or a Court of summary jurisdiction for the place where the person who is entitled under the order to receive the payment resides may, on the application of the person so entitled, by order vary the existing order by increasing the amount payable thereunder to such a sum not exceeding ten shillings a week as the Court, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, thinks proper.
    In the foregoing provision the expression "the person who is entitled under the order to receive the payment" does not include the collecting officer of the court to whom or any officer of the Court or other person through whom the payment under the Order is to be made.
    Amendment made: In Sub-section (1), after the word "effect," insert the words
    "as well for the purpose of pending applications as for the purpose of future applications."
    Sir R. NEWMAN: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2), to insert the words
    "Any Order made under the Bastardy Laws Amendment Act, 1872, or this Act may be varied at any time either by the Court of Summary Jurisdiction which made the order or by a Court of Summary Jurisdiction for the place where the person who is entitled under the order to receive the payment resides."
    I move this Amendment because the late Home Secretary said he would consider it. Possibly the hon. Gentleman in charge

    3153
    of the Bill will deal with it now. It really means giving applicants an opportunity of having the case heard in the district in which he resides. It is an important matter, because sometimes a mother may change her place of abode, and if she happens to go some distance away she gets out of touch with the local bench, and there is a difficulty also sometimes in procuring witnesses who may be necessary perhaps to prove the financial position. It seems to be more reasonable that the question of the variation of the Order should be decided entirely by the bench where the applicant lives. You can hardly place before this Amendment the objection that the matter will not come before the same bench again, because very rarely have you the same bench dealing with the fresh applications. As the law stands at present, it will come before a bench in the same neighbourhood, but the magistrates who decided the case in the first instance probably will not be sitting when it is brought forward for review. Therefore, as there is a change of magistrates in any event there is no objection to the application being made to magistrates in the district where the applicant lives.
    Mr. KING: I second the Amendment with very great pleasure. It covers ground familiar to all who are acquainted with this subject. I only hope that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Brace) whom we are very glad to see here, in place of his recent chief who introduced the Bill, will accept the Amendment.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Brace): The Amendment means very much more than what my hon. Friends says it does. He proposes also to amend the Bastardy Acts, which is a very much more important matter than the small Bill now before the House. This Bill is a simple proposition to give an opportunity for advancing the money from a maximum of 5s. to a maximum of 10s. if the Court so desire. There is the power which my hon. Friend has in his mind existing under the present law, and therefore there is no necessity to put into the present Bill a repetition of the law as it at present stands. For that reason I must resist the Amendment which is quite unnecessary.
    Sir R. NEWMAN: I understand that by the law at present those applications must now be made before the same Bench. My
    3154
    proposal was that they should be made before the bench where the applicant resides.
    Mr. BRACE: That would be quite unfair. This Amendment stands in two Departments. The one proposes that the woman should have the same right which she has now. The second is that she should have the right to make the application before a Court in the neighbourhood in which she resides. That would be quite unfair, because many circumstances have to be taken into consideration in reference to the increase of payments from 5s. to Vs. 6d. or 10s. That is a very narrow issue and could be done. But if there is an alteration in the payment, say, of 2s. 6d. or 3s. a week, to 5s., 6s., or 7s. a week, it would be quite unfair to allow another Court in a different neighbourhood, who would have no knowledge of the facts or circumstances of the case, when the order was made to make the inquiry. We, therefore, think it right that cases of the kind should be settled by the same Court, or a Court in the same petty sessional division. Those are the reasons why, after careful consideration with my advisers, we feel ourselves unable to accept the Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. BRACE: I beg to move, at the end, to add
    "(3) The collecting officer to whom payment under any existing order is to be made shall give to the person who is entitled under the order to receive the payment notice in writing of his or her right to apply under this Act to have the amount of the payment increased, and on the request in writing of that person may make in his name as such officer on behalf of that person an application under this Act for the variation of the order.
    Where an application is so made by a collecting officer, the liability of the person on whose behalf the application is made for all costs properly incurred in or about the application shall be the same as if the application had been made by that person."
    Mr. KING: This is an excellent Amendment. It grows out of the Amendment, which I moved in Committee, which the Home Secretary promised to consider. He has not only considered it, but he has greatly improved it. As I have complained of the inaction, or the mistaken action, of his Department, it gives me all the more pleasure to compliment it upon an excellent Amendment, which makes this Bill far more useful than I expected it would be. I am rather tired with myself for not having seen the point which is here

    3155
    introduced, namely, that every person who might benefit out of this is going to be informed, and that this Act is not going to be, and cannot be, a dead letter. I am surprised at myself that I did not realise this point, and I am very glad to have had the part which I have had in calling attention to the possibilities of the collecting officer under the Act and in bringing the matter before the Home Office in such a way that it makes sure that the Act is not going to be a dead letter in any individual case. On behalf of a great number of people who will never be able to thank anyone for the benefits arising out of this Act, I desire to express my gratitude to the Home Office, and especially to my right hon. Friend. The addition to the Bill makes it three or four times as valuable as it would otherwise be.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. KING: I beg to move, after the words last inserted, to add the words,
    "(3) Nothing in the last foregoing Sub-section shall take away or diminish any power to amend an order which might have been exercised if that Sub-section had not been enacted."
    This is a legal point. If proceedings were taken, say, on 20th December of this year and adjourned and the order not made until next year, I take it that such a case would not have the benefit of the Act, as the order was actually applied for before it became operative. I think the words are necessary, and they can certainly do no harm.
    Sir R. NEWMAN: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. BRACE: I am advised these words are wholly unnecessary and that it is not a good practice to insert unnecessary language in a Bill.
    Mr. KING: In withdrawing may I say I do not take responsibility, and if the words should be found to be necessary, it is not my fault.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
    Mr. KING: This is a really excellent Bill, and I hope it will not be the last which the right hon. Gentleman now responsible will have in connection with
    3156
    the question of illegitimacy. The Bill, while it does a great deal, only touches the fringe of the very great question which has been too long neglected, and I hope the Home Office will still remember there are many important questions in connection with the status of the illegitimate child and who is responsible.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.

  PETROLEUM PRODUCTION BILL.
  Lords Amendments considered.
  PETROLEUM PRODUCTION BILL.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Powers of Minister of Munitions.
    (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.
    Lords Amendment:
    After Sub-section (1), insert the words
    "or shall prejudice or affect the rights, if any, of any person interested in any land in respect of petroleum gotten through or from the land in which he is so interested."
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    Mr. DENMAN: May I ask whether this is an Amendment of real substance? My impression is, having examined it, that it is merely fulfilling the original intention of this House.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): I can give the hon. Member the assurance for which he asks. The Amendment does not go beyond the intention of this House, and simply makes it clear.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 3.—(Powers to Inspect Plans of Mines.)
    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.
    Lords Amendments:
    Leave out the words "the geological conformation and the position, direction and dip of strata," and insert instead thereof the words,
    "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."
    —Agreed to.
    Leave out the words "of the Minister of Munitions," and insert instead thereof the words
    "appointed by the Director of the Geological Survey."
    —Agreed to.
    Leave out the words "at a mine."—Agreed to.
    Leave out the word "Section" ["Section twenty"], and insert instead thereof the word "Sections."—Agreed to.
    After the word "twenty," insert the words "or twenty-one."—Agreed to.
    Leave out the word "Section" ["Section nineteen"], and insert instead thereof the words "Sections fourteen or."—Agreed to.
    At the end, insert
    "(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 the 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."
    —Agreed to.
    After Clause 1, insert,

    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.
    —Agreed to.

  SCHOOL TEACHERS (SUPER-ANNUATION) BILL.
  Lords Amendments considered.
  SCHOOL TEACHERS (SUPER-ANNUATION) BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Superannuation Allowances to Teachers.)
    (3) In the case of a woman teacher, who after ceasing in consequence of marriage to be employed in recognised service has subsequently returned to recognised service and satisfies the prescribed conditions, twenty years shall be substituted for thirty years as the qualifying period of service.
    Lords Amendment: In Sub-section (3), leave out the words "twenty years," and insert instead thereof the words
    "such number of years, not being less than twenty, as may be prescribed."
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    Mr. KING: We must not have an Education Bill coming back from the Lords with out some understanding or explanation. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what is the nature of these Amendments?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Lewis): The first four Amendments are merely of a drafting character. The last Amendment is a small Amendment of substance, but it is one with which I am sure the House will be readily-disposed to agree, and when we come to that Amendment I shall be very glad to explain it.
    Mr. E. HARVEY: May I express my regret that these Amendments are not available in the Vote Office, although there is one Amendment of substance?
    Mr. LEWIS: That is the Amendment to which I have referred. I shall be very glad to explain it.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 5.—(Re-employment of Teachers.)
    (1) If a teacher in receipt of an annual superannuation allowance is again employed as a teacher in recognised service, the allowance shall cease as from the date on which he becomes so employed, without prejudice, however, to the power of the Board under this Act to grant to him subsequently a fresh annual superannuation allowance.
    (4) If a teacher in receipt of an annual superannuation allowance is employed in any Government employment or in the employment (otherwise than as a teacher in a Grant-aided school) of a local education authority, then, if the salary and emoluments received by him in respect of the employment are not less than his salary at the date on which he ceased to be in recognised service, the superannuation allowance shall be suspended during the employment, and if they are less than that salary then only so much of the allowance shall be paid to him as with the salary and emoluments of the employment is equal to that salary.
    For the purposes of this Section the expression "Government employment" means any employment the remuneration of which is paid cut of the Consolidated Fund or out of moneys provided by Parliament.
    Lords Amendments:
    In Sub-section (1) after the word "employed," insert the words, "at whatever age."—Agreed to.
    In Sub-section (4), after the word "teacher" ["If a teacher"], insert the words "of any age."—Agreed to.
    In Sub-section [4) leave out the words "a Grant-aided school," and insert thereof the words "recognised service."
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    Mr. HARVEY: May we have an explanation of this Amendment?
    Mr. LEWIS: This is only a drafting Amendment, which has been necessitated by the fact that, in consequence of the Amendments made to the Bill, not all the recognised service is service in a Grant-aided school.
    Mr. HARVEY: I am entirely satisfied, and very glad that the improvement has been made.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Lords Amendment:
    After Clause 15, insert,

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Power of Governing Bodies to Comply with Conditions.)
    Notwithstanding any provision regulating the trusts or management of a school, the governing body of the school shall have power to fulfil any conditions which may be required to be fulfilled in order that service in that school may be recognised service for the purpose of this Act.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    Mr. HARVEY: Might we have an explanation?
    Mr. LEWIS: This is the small Amendment of substance to which I have referred. The object is to make it possible for schools which are regulated by trust deeds to do anything that is necessary to comply with the conditions of recognised service in spite of any provision to the contrary in their trust deeds. For example, it may be that the trust deeds of a school prescribe that the governing body shall be so constituted that no popular element of any kind can be introduced into it, and it is desirable that we should enable them to modify their trust deeds in order to introduce that element of public management which may possibly be a condition of the recognition of pensionable service. Now it would be possible for these schools to put themselves right under the Charitable Trusts Acts by amending their schemes, but, as the House is aware, that is a very lengthy, cumbersome, and an expensive process, and it is wholly unnecessary to put them to that trouble. This Amendment has been based on a precedent in Section 99 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, which is in almost identical terms, and enables managers of any elementary school, notwithstanding the provisions of their trust deeds, to fulfil the conditions required in order to obtain a Parliamentary Grant. There was another Act passed in 1903, the Education (London) Act, which enables governors of schools, notwithstanding their trust deeds, to add governors appointed by the local education authority, if such a condition is made a condition of a Grant by those authorities. I suggest that the Amendment has a reasonable object, and I trust the House will accept it.
    Mr. KING: I hope there is nothing subterranean or suspicious in this Clause. It looks all right, and I hope it is all right, but it is not at all desirable to have a new Clause—a really very effective Clause—without our having the text before us, and it is not at all necessary at this stage, as it could be put off till Monday. I shall not, however, oppose it, in view of the exigencies of the Session, and the good faith we have in Ministers—not in everything, but in this—which enables me to say I welcome the Clause.
    Question put, and agreed to.

  WAGES (TEMPORARY REGULATION) [EXPENSES].
  Resolved,
  "That this House will, upon Monday next, resolve itself into a Committee to consider of authorising the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of remuneration and expenses in connection with the Interim Court of Arbitration constituted under any Act of the present Session for prescribing minimum rates of wages during a limited period, and for repealing certain provisions of the Munitions of War Acts—[King's Recommendation to be signified].

  STREET ACCIDENTS CAUSED BY VEHICLES.
  Return presented relative thereto [Address 15th November; Mr. Brace]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 137.]
  The remaining Order was read, and postponed.
  Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir D. Maclean) adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3.
  Adjourned at Ten minutes before Three o'clock till Monday next.

GERMANY (BRITISH INTERESTS).
  BRITISH PROPERTY IN GERMANY.-
  BRITISH PROPERTY IN GERMANY.-
  GOLD PRODUCTION.
  GOLD PRODUCTION.
  TREASURY 5s. NOTES.
  TREASURY 5s. NOTES.
  AIR RAID INSURANCE.
  AIR RAID INSURANCE.
  CIVIL SERVANTS (SUPERANNUATION).
  CIVIL SERVANTS (SUPERANNUATION).
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  MAIZE.
  MAIZE.
  PORTER.
  PORTER.
  REGULATIONS (IRELAND).
  REGULATIONS (IRELAND).
  FOOD COMMITTEES (BAD DEBTS).
  FOOD COMMITTEES (BAD DEBTS).
  EMPTY HAMPERS.
  EMPTY HAMPERS.
  DEER.
  DEER.
  LAND PURCHASE (IRELAND).
  LAND PURCHASE (IRELAND).
  ROYAL DOCKYARDS (INVALIDED MEN'S DEPENDANTS).
  ROYAL DOCKYARDS (INVALIDED MEN'S DEPENDANTS).
  EAST AFRICAN CAMPAIGN.
  EAST AFRICAN CAMPAIGN.
  CENSORSHIP.
  CENSORSHIP.
MILITARY SERVICE.
  COUNTRY RECRUITS.
  COUNTRY RECRUITS.
  CADETS (SCHOLARSHIPS).
  CADETS (SCHOLARSHIPS).
PRISONERS OF WAR.
  REPATRIATION OF MEDICAL MEN.
  REPATRIATION OF MEDICAL MEN.
  KING'S LIVERPOOL REGIMENT (PRIVATE IRELAND).
  KING'S LIVERPOOL REGIMENT (PRIVATE IRELAND).
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  INCOME TAX (ARMY PENSIONERS).
  INCOME TAX (ARMY PENSIONERS).
  UNIVERSITY TEACHERS AND OFFICERS (PENSIONS).
  UNIVERSITY TEACHERS AND OFFICERS (PENSIONS).
  SUPERANNUATED TEACHERS.
  SUPERANNUATED TEACHERS.
GENERAL ELECTION.
  SOLDIERS' VOTES.
  SOLDIERS' VOTES.
  COAL SUPPLIES.
  COAL SUPPLIES.
  RETAIL TRADERS (DELIVERIES).
  RETAIL TRADERS (DELIVERIES).
Preamble
Viscount CHARLEMONT—Sat first in Parliament as an Irish Representative Peer.
NAVAL AND MILITARY WAR PENSIONS BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and to be printed.
POLICE PENSIONS BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and to be printed.
REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (AMENDMENT) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
BASTARDY LAWS AMENDMENT ACT (1872) AMENDMENT BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
CONSTABULARY AND POLICE (IRELAND) (No. 2) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
GAS PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment. Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bill read 3a with the Amendments, and passed.
GAS AND WATER PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment. Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bill read 3a with the Amendments, and passed.

PARLIAMENT (QUALIFICATION OF WOMEN) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Islington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Capacity of women to be members of Parliament.
1. 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.
LORD ROTHERHAM LORD ROTHERHAM had the following Amendment on the Paper—
Clause 1, page 1, line 7, after ("Parliament") insert ("nor shall Writs of Summons to the House of Lords be withheld from Peeresses in their own right").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, since my Amendment was put down the noble Viscount opposite, Viscount Haldane, has also tabled an Amendment with the same object but worded differently, and as I have no wish to compete with the noble Viscount in the drafting of Amendments. I do not propose to move the one standing in my name.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, my Amendment is to insert, after "Parliament," the words "or from receiving a Writ of Summons to the House of Lords or from sitting and voting in that House." I wish to say at once that I am quite aware that there will be more to be covered than my Amendment covers in order to make it perfect. Therefore, with your Lordships' consent, I propose to move just the initial word to raise the question of principle, because after the principle is settled we can easily, and on the spot if necessary, put in language which will cover all that requires to be dealt with.
When your Lordships consented to the Second Reading of this Bill you gave your assent to a general principle, and I think, if I may presume to say so, very properly. The nation has decided, and other nations have decided, and the whole tendency of the time is to put women on an equality with men as far as taking part in Parliamentary institutions is concerned. The principle of the country is to remove all sex disability so far as Parliament is concerned, whether as regards voting at elections or as regards being elected to the House of Commons, and leaving it to nature to add the rest. For many years when I was a member of the House of Commons, along with Viscount Grey of Falloden, who was also a member, we used to bring in

141
every year a Bill to this effect. In those days it never made much progress. But the principle was there, and the principle is just the principle of this Amendment. That being unmistakably the principle of the nation, the House of Commons, by an enormous majority, gave effect to it, and I do not see how they could have done otherwise.
Your Lordships having, on the Second Reading, given a general assent to the principle, all that remains is to pass it in a form that is not ragged but self-consistent, by extending what is proposed to be extended to the House of Commons to this House also—namely, the principle that sex should not be a disqualification from sitting and voting. That seems to me to be a principle so widely accepted that, coupled with the disposition of your Lordships not to oppose yourselves to anything upon which the nation has clearly pronounced by public opinion, I do not think it necessary to take up the time of the House at any length in arguing it, and I am content to leave it in the way I have put it. To my mind we should stultify ourselves and put ourselves in an altogether false position if we were to say, "Oh, we are quite ready to allow women to sit in the House of Commons, but we refuse to have them in the House of Lords." That would be a position which certainly would not help us when we come to the momentous question of what changes are to be made in this House in order to fit it to discharge the tremendously responsible duties which will devolve upon it presently.
Speaking for myself, I should be very sorry to see the situation such that at a General Election it should be said, "The House of Lords is not willing to give effect to a principle which has met with such general acceptance in every other quarter." I do not think your Lordships need be apprehensive of being flooded by Peeresses. As far as I am aware, there are very few indeed to whom this measure can apply if we pass it in the amended form which I am venturing to suggest. Whatever may be the case in the future when opinion may have developed, for the present I think your Lordships may rely upon nature and the habits of society to keep the advance within these bounds which a nation that always likes to proceed in an orderly fashion desires should be effective.
But the legal question is quite another one. It is a question of principle. It is
142
a question of repealing, as I think the country desires to do, that inrooted principle of the Common Law which forbids a woman to occupy a public office. That is a principle which has been deeply embedded in our Common Law and which has been gradually changed, and women have been recognised as the equal of men in respect of holding property and in almost every other respect except political rights. Now, it is obvious that the country desires to lay down the principle that in respect of political rights they should be equal also, and therefore I do not argue the question of principle any further.
When I come to the wording of my Amendment I think it goes a little differently from the Amendment of my noble friend opposite, who has been so good as to say he would prefer that it should be put in my own form. I am quite aware that it ought to be a little different in order to cover the case of Scottish Peeresses in their own right, who at present cannot vote at an election for Scottish Peers. I think there are very few of them to whom it would be open to do anything of the kind. But we want to provide for this in principle; and although I am not sure that there is any Irish Peeress at all in her own right, there may be in future—who knows?—and we ought to provide for that also.
There is another matter which ought to be provided for. The House of Commons, taking a more conservative view of the reality of the situation than obtains, and assuming that by the passing of the Bill in the form in which it was passing it all women would be entitled to vote for the House of Commons and not to sit elsewhere, the House of Commons put in a clause which would enable Peeresses in their own right to vote for the House of Commons as well as to enter that Chamber. I am all in favour of equality of sex. Therefore I am very much against giving a privilege to woman which does not belong to men, and I am not prepared to suggest that women should have the right to vote for the House of Commons and also to sit here unless I am to have that right myself. Therefore I would suggest that it would be well to repeal the section of the Representation of the People Act which made that change in the law—an alteration to which I am sure the other House would willingly assent. It is subsection (5) of Section 9 of the Representation of the People Act which was passed into law the

143
other day. These are Amendments about which I myself should be prepared to suggest words to the Government, but I do not doubt that they have thought about this, and have obtained better words with the aid of their technical advisers than I can draw up. I should presume that that is so, and I should prefer to move my Amendment simply in the form of adding to Clause 1, page 1, line 7, after "Parliament" the word "or," which would enable the most suitable words to be added after we have disposed of the question of principle.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 1, line 7, after ("Parliament.") insert ("or").—(Viscount Haldane.)
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (LORD ISLINGTON): My Lords, I regret that I cannot accept the Amendment, and in taking the course that I do—the reasons for which I shall give in the course of my remarks—I would like to say, by way of preface, that speaking for myself it is due to no hostility whatever to the actual proposal that is embodied in the Amendment—namely, that Peeresses in their own right should have the right to sit in the House of Lords. I sympathise with a great deal of what the noble Viscount said in regard to making as complete as possible the admission of women to both branches of the Constitution. It is not on those grounds that I venture to submit to your Lordships that you should hesitate before you accept this Amendment.
I will not this afternoon attempt to discuss the intrinsic merits of this proposal, or that aspect of the question embodied in the Amendment which would enable certain ladies to have a seat in this House, and therefore to be represented in the Imperial Parliament along with men. The reasons that I will ask the House to reject the Amendment are as follow. This particular proposal, I venture to say, goes beyond the actual scope and spirit of the Bill that we are now discussing. The inclusion in it of the grant to Peeresses of the right to sit in this House would be inappropriate to the sense and the spirit of this Bill, the object of which is to grant eligibility to women to be nominated for and elected by a constituency to the House of Commons.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: No.
LORD ISLINGTON: Therefore it gives a woman the chance, which has hitherto been denied to her, to sit in the House of Commons. That is a very different proposition from the proposal by the noble Viscount which gives a Peeress in her own right the right to sit and vote in the House of Lords. I submit, with all deference, that this proposal therefore goes beyond the scope and intention of the present Bill. It may be argued—it has already been argued by the noble Viscount—that the title of the Bill is sufficiently wide to embrace both cases; but, so far as I am aware—and of course, in these highly technical matters it is not necessary for me to tell your Lordships that I am not speaking my own opinion but am voicing, however inadequately, the opinion of high legal and constitutional authorities—no attempt in previous legislation has been made to deal simultaneously and in one Bill with a disqualification to sit and vote in the two Houses respectively.
I will venture, if I may, to give the reasons why this probably has been the case, and I will give in especial one or two that are peculiarly applicable to this Amendment, apart from the broad grounds which I have already mentioned—that there is a fundamental difference between the grant of a right to women to stand and be elected for the House of Commons and the grant to certain women of the right to sit in the House of Lords. I desire to point out to your Lordships that the constitutional principle affecting the right to sit in the two Houses is quite different, and that the machinery employed to effect that purpose is also quite different. As regards the House of Commons, as your Lordships are aware, it is sufficient to remove the Common Law disqualification. That removal has made the return and the election of women valid, and a candidate for Parliament in the other place does not have to possess even the same qualifications as a voter for a candidate for that House. On the other hand, if a Peeress is to sit in this House, a Writ of Summons must be issued to her by the Crown. It is necessary, therefore, to add something to the removal of the disqualification, showing the intention of Parliament that a Writ of Summons should so be issued.
At present there are twenty Peeresses in their own right. Nine of these Peeresses possess Baronies by Writ. In those cases, I am given to understand, it is by no means

145
certain that the removal of the sex disqualification would be sufficient to enable them to sit in this House. There are also eleven Peerages conferred by Letters Patent, and in those cases it is not deemed sufficient merely to remove the sex disqualification, the Letters Patent in each case granting the right to men to sit who succeed to Peerages but exclude women who so succeed. To enable those ladies to sit and vote it would be necessary, therefore, for your Lordships to supply the deficiency at present in the Letters Patent—an operation, I venture to say, beyond the scope of this Bill, which is really to amend the capacity of women to sit in Parliament, and I lay emphasis on the word "capacity." Again—and this has already been alluded to by the noble Viscounts—in addition to the twenty Peeresses that I have mentioned, there are four Scottish Peerages held by ladies in their own right. It will naturally follow, as the noble Viscount told your Lordships, that these ladies should be granted the right to vole at elections of Scottish Representative Peers. Therefore it would be necessary to amend the Statute regulating the election of Scottish Representative Peers—again an operation which would necessitate another Amendment, And one which I think goes beyond the scope of this Bill.
One more point I should like to make, which will show that another Amendment will be entailed in order to make the proposal complete and consistent. When women were given the vote at the beginning of this year the question arose whether Peeresses in their own right should be granted the right to vote for election to the House of Commons. As your Lordships are aware, a Peer who sits in this House has not that right. But as the Peeress was excluded from the House of Lords it was considered, when the Bill was under discussion, that it would be both fair and consistent to grant her a vote for the House of Commons. Here again, if the right to sit in this House is granted, an Amendment must be made subjecting those Peeresses to the same disabilities, in view of the privilege that is granted to them, that we suffer under as Peers.
I have endeavoured to show that this proposal of the noble Viscount is not quite such a simple matter as it looks, and that if this Amendment is carried it must inevitably entail other Amendments to overcome the discrepancies which would
146
thereby arise. I think this would be difficult at the present state of the session; and I emphasise once more that such an Amendment would be quite inappropriate to this Bill, with its present intention. I know well that certain of your Lordships are keenly anxious to see Peeresses in their own right admitted to the same privileges as your Lordships in this House, and, as I have already said, I sympathise in principle with that sentiment. I think I am right in saying that those who hold that view may be said to represent the advanced wing of those who desire to see all disqualifications of women removed in our Constitution. They may be regarded as the strongest supporters of the Bill in its present form, and I am sure that for a matter like this—which, important though it may be, is still quite subsidiary to the larger issues involved in the Bill—it would be very far from their minds to do anything at this late stage of the session to jeopardise the Bill.
I suggest, therefore, that in view of the difficulties, in view of the inevitable Amendments that would consequently have to be inserted, this proposal should now be withdrawn, and that, if it is desired to grant Peeresses in their own right the privilege to sit in this House, the object will be best effected, and will be effected also in accordance with proper precedent, by a separate Bill, dealing properly and adequately with the whole Constitutional machinery which will be thereby disturbed. In these circumstances I am afraid I cannot support this Amendment, and I hope that the few observations which I have made may have the result of inducing your Lordships to reject it.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Do I understand that my noble friend has been speaking on behalf of the Government?
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): Yes.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Then I think it is a very extraordinary thing, that in the House of Commons His Majesty's Government should leave this question entirely to the decision of the House, and that here they should take a very strong line against the proposal. I cannot imagine why the Government should suddenly have taken a hand in this matter at all, why they should treat this House on a wholly different principle from that

147
on which they treated the House of Commons. This is a change in which I have personally never taken any great interest. I should not have moved in this matter as regards the House of Commons any more than the House of Lords, but, as the House of Commons has dealt with this matter, I see no reason why your Lordships' House should not deal with it too, if you so think fit.
Let us take the main argument of my noble friend. He says that to deal with this question is beyond the scope and intention and spirit of this Bill, and that it would be wholly inappropriate. You may or may not think it wise to admit women to the House of Commons, or Peeresses in their own right to the House of Lords, but that particular concession is an absolutely impossible one to maintain before your Lordships. The title of the Bill, deliberately chosen, is "An Act to Amend the Law with respect to the Capacity of Women to sit in Parliament." If Parliament does not include the House of Lords, I have to learn what it does include. If this Bill had been meant only to deal with the House of Commons, it would have said so. The title of this Bill is quite deliberately drawn to cover both Houses of Parliament, and, so far as I am aware, your Lordships' House is still one of the Houses of Parliament. This very question was raised in the House of Commons, and an Amendment was moved. Was it ruled out of order as being beyond the scope or spirit of this Bill? Nothing of the kind. What took place was this. It was pointed out that perhaps it was not respectful of the House of Commons to deal with a matter that was fundamentally one for your Lordships. That was the reason why the Amendment was not pressed in the House of Commons. Therefore, whatever you may think of that suggestion, on which every conceivable stress was laid—it was put to us again and again from different aspects—the contention that this proposal is outside the scope of this Bill really will not hold water for one moment.
Then what is the next objection? That never in the Constitutional history of this country has a question of the removal of a disability been dealt with in the same Bill in respect to the House of Commons and the House of Lords. If no precedent has been set before, I think it is quite time a precedent was set. I cannot think that the foundations of the Constitution would
148
tumble about our ears if, for the first time, we did an ordinary, practical, and common sense piece of business.
The third objection was that there was a fundamental difference between the two Houses in this matter. That is a question of opinion. But if there is any difference between the two Houses in this matter, surely it is in favour of the admission of these Peeresses to the House of Lords. That women should sit in the House of Commons to fulfil the constitutional functions of a Member of Parliament is an entirely new idea in our Constitution. But Peeresses in their own right, although they have never sat in your Lordships' Chamber, have fulfilled a position in the State for many centuries. The mere fact of a woman being a Peeress in her own right proves that there was something which in the eyes of the law she could do. She has had a status—a very ancient status—such as no woman has ever had in relation to the House of Commons. She has continued in her person through the centuries the hereditary right of a man to sit in this Chamber. Therefore if there is any difference between the two, the difference is entirely in favour of the Peeress in her own right. And in what an extraordinary position we should be. A woman may sit on the Throne; a woman may sit in the House of Commons; but the one place where she is not to sit is in the House of Lords. I cannot understand on what grounds of reason opposition can be offered to this proposal if you are going to admit women into the House of Commons.
Then my noble friend gives a whole list of Amendments. He says, "Oh, but this is a very complicated and difficult business. It is not only a question of dealing with the nine Peeresses who hold Baronies by Writ—they can be dealt with quite simply in this Bill—but you have in addition the eleven Peeresses whose Letters Patent would have to be altered; you have the four Scottish Representative Peeresses; and you have the fact that Peeresses by the Franchise Bill have been given the vote for Members of Parliament." There is not one of these Amendments which cannot be put in to-day or tomorrow, and not one which the House of Commons would not accept. We are told that the Bill will be jeopardised by these Amendments being put in. That is not the fact. It may be wise or unwise to allow Peeresses to sit here. That is a

149
question on which we have our opinions. But to say that if you do it you will jeopardise the Bill is simply playing with your Lordships.
I come now to the last objection—namely, that by the Franchise Bill Peeresses have been given the vote. I very much hope that no amendment will be made in this Bill to take away that vote. We ourselves ought to have the vote, too. The amendment in the law which is required is that Peers should be allowed to vote for election to the House of Commons like anybody else, and then we should not be the only people exempted from that privilege except felons and lunatics, which, I believe, are the only two classes besides ourselves ineligible for the vote. But that is a separate question. I submit to your Lordships that, while it is perfectly fair to take a vote on the issue whether in your judgment it is or is not advisable to let Peeresses in their own right sit in your Lordships' House, none of the reasons that my noble friend has given—the inappropriateness of the occasion; the extraordinary difficulties of the Amendments—is an argument worthy of your Lordships' consideration.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: The only question before the House—and I wish to call attention to this—is the question of principle—
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: That is all.
VISCOUNT HALDANE:—which I understood was to be left to the House. The opposition of the Government I take to be directed to the form of the Bill rather than to the principle. I understood so, but it is necessary, I think, to make that clear; and I propose to suggest to your Lordships that it would be well to take the sense of the House on the question of principle.
Several NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: When the sense of the House has been taken on the question of principle, then the situation will be this. I am prepared to suggest—I have given some thought to this since I put down the Amendment, which I did in a hurry—words following the word "or,' which is the only word the subject of division—which words think will cover the cases. If the Government have better
150
words I should be glad to accept them. Or the Government may prefer to take another course; they may say, "We undertake and pledge ourselves to bring in a Bill early in the first session of the new Parliament." That would be a matter which would have great weight with us, if the Government would give a firm pledge upon the subject. But we have not yet reached that stage. The first and only question is the question of principle, and on that I propose to ask your Lordships to give the sense of the House.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD FINLAY): My Lords, I hope that the House will not adopt this Amendment. It is in a somewhat peculiar form, as it consists simply of adding the word "or." What is to be put in after "or" is to be revealed later. Now, the distinction between the seat of a woman in the House of Commons and the seat of a woman who happens to be a Peeress in her own right in this House, is surely very evident indeed. A Peeress in her own right acquires that dignity by descent from a man, or very often by the grant of a Peerage in the case of some distinguished man, who happens not to have a son, having remainder to a daughter. But where a woman desires to enter the House of Commons she must submit herself to the judgment of a constituency, and her title to sit there is derived from the votes of the constituency which has chosen to elect her. Surely that is a very broad and real distinction between the two cases.
As has been stated, there are, I think, twenty Peeresses in England in their own right—nine in the case of Baronies created by Writ, and eleven in the case of Baronies, or other Peerages, created by Patent. I will give a word or two of explanation about a Barony by Writ. A Barony by Writ followed the Writ issued to a particular person; if followed by sitting in the House it conferred a Peerage of Parliament. That is well settled law. And in the case of a Peerage by Writ followed by sitting in the House, it descended to heirs female as well as to heirs male. Many interesting questions have arisen in recent years with regard to cases where there have been several daughters and descendants from them; because when there were several daughters and no son the Peerage went into abeyance until the Crown designated to which of the daughters the Peerage was to go. That is the state of the law, and

151
that is how in the case of Peerages by Writ you have a certain number of very old Peeresses in their own right in the case of such Baronies. As had been said by the noble and learned Lord opposite, the women have never sat in this House at all. They have been Peeresses in their own right, but they have not sat. In the case of creation by Patent, where a Patent is granted to a man, you have two clauses. You have first the clause conferring the dignity of a Peerage—Baron So and So. Then, secondly, you have another and a distinct clause calling him to sit in Parliament. In the case of a Patent granted to a woman, either in the fist instance or by remainder, the second clause is invariably absent. There is no grant of the right of sitting in Parliament to a woman. The same thing applies where the Peerage to the woman is granted in remainder, on the Peerage granted, it may be, to her father or other near relative. It is only in the case of a grant originally to male issue that the grant expresses that there is to be a right to sit in Parliament.
Now with regard to this question of the grant to which my noble friend in charge of the Bill has referred, may I read to your Lordships a clause which I have no doubt is familiar to many of you from the ordinary form of Patent. I have here a draft form in blank of a grant of a Peerage. "We do by these presents advance, create, and prefer"—So and so—"to the state, degree, style, dignity, title, and honour of"—Baron So and so—"and for us, our heirs, and successors do appoint, give, and grant unto him the said … the name, state, degree, style, title, dignity, and honour of Baron … aforesaid: to have and to hold the said state, degree, style, title, dignity, and honour aforesaid to him and the heirs male of his body lawfully begotten and to be begotten." Then it goes on "… willingly and by these presents grant, for us and our heirs and successors, the said … and his heirs male to have, hold, and possess a seat, place, and voice in the Parliaments and public assemblies and councils of us, our heirs and successors within our United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland among other Barons as Baron of Parliament …" Then there is the second clause granting the right of sitting. That is invariably absent in the case of a Patent granted to a woman, whether directly in the first instance or by remainder. Parliament can, of course, do everything, and
152
Parliament conceivably might enact that whatever the grant was, if there were a Peeress in her own right she should be entitled to a Writ of Summons and qualified to sit in the House of Lords. That, however, would be a somewhat remarkable enactment. There have been cases of providing that a Writ of Summons shall be granted. For instance, in the case of Lords of Appeal, Life Peers, and in the case of the creation of Bishops, there is provision that they shall be entitled to a Writ of Summons.
To make this change effectual, you require, as my noble friend has pointed out, a very great deal more than is contained in this Amendment; and the first point to which I wish to address myself very shortly is the question whether such a change is desirable. Reform of the House of Lords of which we have heard a great deal of late years, has always proceeded on the line of requiring some qualification other than birth for a seat in this Assembly. Is it desirable to introduce a certain number of ladies—twenty ladies? There may be more, because in many cases there may be Baronies by Writ latent and obscured by the fact that there has been a creation by Patent afterwards. They might merge. There may be more, but I will say twenty. Is it desirable to go to the extent of altering the constitution of this House by saying that these ladies ipso facto shall be qualified to sit in the House and shall be deemed to have received a Writ of Summons; or rather to enact that the Crown is to issue a Writ of Summons to such ladies whatever the terms of the grant in the first instance were? I would in this connection remind your Lordships again of a clause in an Act which we passed the other day—the Representation of the People Act, Section 9, subsection (5)—which is in these terms:
"Any incapacity of a Peer to vote at an election arising from the status of the Peer, shall not extend to Peeresses in their own right."
My noble friend Lord Selborne says that he thinks Peers ought to have the vote. That, of course, is another matter, upon which at the present time I shall not express any opinion. It might be very desirable that Peers, if they so elect, might stand for the House of Commons, and, it they get elected, sit there at their choice. That is a very large alteration; and the alteration of giving Peers the vote would also be a large alteration. But we have

153
not anything of that kind, and I do not think we are in sight of having it. I say frankly I do not think it a desirable change to bring in these twenty ladies by enactment. In the second place I think it is pretty plain that no Amendment on the lines proposed by my noble and learned friend would meet the case. The Amendment, of which at present only the word "or" is moved, may, I suppose, be taken to be represented by the words which appear in the Paper. The alterations required would be of a somewhat, extensive character. The words on the Paper would not effect it, and it shows that the subject is not quite so simple. My noble and learned friend, with his very great experience and astuteness, has put down on the Paper an Amendment which on second thoughts he recognises will not meet the case—
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I should be well content to have that Amendment if there were nothing else to be had. It goes a little in the direction of liberality, but I am in favour of liberality.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I was going to suggest difficulties which I am afraid will prevent its being operative. Supoose it were enacted that nothing should prevent a woman from receiving a Writ of Sommons to the House of Lords or from sitting and voting in this House. Suppose a lady came and said, "I am a Peeress in my own right." The first thing the Crown Office would have to do would be to inquire what right she had to a Writ of Summons. She produces the Patent, but there is nothing there entitling her to sit in the House of Lords. It has been left out, I believe I am right in saying, in every case where a lady has received a Peerage under a Patent either directly or by way of remainder. In that case her title would be very incomplete. I do not believe the Crown Office would act. At the very
best the matter might form the subject of investigation by the Committee of Privileges and I see great difficulties. I will not prejudge such a case—it might conceivably arise—but there would certainly be great room for argument as to whether there was any right whatever on her part to a Writ.
This Amendment would remove the incapacity of the sex. But then the Crown Office might say, "Where is your grant?" and then when the Patent is produced—I am talking of the eleven Peeresses under Patent—it is found that there is no clause about sitting in Parliament. Of course, you may have an extensive alteration, by which you retrospectively deal with the grant—either acquire fresh grants, or say they shall be read as conferring the right to sit in the House, although the original grant was entirely silent upon the subject. That is a matter which certainly wants looking into, and I should suggest to my noble and learned friend that any Amendment on anything like the lines of that which he has put on the Paper would be quite insufficient. The matter, if it were ever seriously taken up, would in all probability have to be dealt with by a Committee to inquire into its effect on the privileges of the House, and the way to deal with those past grants which are entirely silent on the question of the right to sit in this House. On all these grounds I shall certainly vote against the Amendment—in the first place upon the merits, because I do not think the change is desirable; and in the second place because I think that anything on the lines that so far have been foreshadowed would be inadequate.
On Question, whether the word "or" shall be here inserted?—
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 14; Not-Contents, 33.

CONTENTS.

Chesterfield, E.

Haldane, V. [Teller.]

Emmott, L.

Russell, E.

St. Davids, V.

Muir Mackenzie, L.

Selborne, E.

Rotherham, L. [Teller.]

Somerleyton, L.

Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

Burnham, L.

Stuart of Wortley, L.

Churchill, V.

Colebrooke, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Canterbury, L. Abp.

Lucan, E.

Elphinstone, L.

Finlay, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Stanhope, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

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

Forester, L.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Gisborough, L. [Teller.]

Hylton, L.

Argyll, D.

Knollys, V.

Islington, L.

Peel, V.

Lamington, L.

Salisbury, M.

Oranmore and Browne, L.

Armaghdale, L. [Teller.]

Ranksborough, L.

Eldon, E.

Avebury, L.

Revelstoke, L.

Howe, E.

Barrymore, L.

Saltoun, L.

Jersey, E.

Cawley, L.

Shandon, L.

Lindsay, E.

Clinton, L.

Stanmore, L.

Dinevor, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment. Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bill read 3a, and passed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I rise to move that the House do adjourn until Monday next. Upon that day the Lord President of the Council will move that an humble Address be presented to His Majesty to congratulate His Majesty on the conclusion of the Armistice, and on the prospect of a victorious peace. On Tuesday it is suggested that the House should meet at 2 p.m. in order to wait upon His Majesty in the Royal Gallery. There will be two or three Bills of a Departmental character which we shall ask your Lordships to read a second time on Monday next—Bills dealing with pensions and pay of the Irish Police and the statutory notice under the Representation of the People (Amendment) Bill, as well as a measure dealing with the organisation of pensions and a Bill relating to bastardy. I shall move on Monday that Standing Order No. XXXIX
156
be suspended; and as it is now clear that the session will end three or four days after Monday, I think that I shall be justified in asking your Lordships to make that suspension last to the end of the session.
[From Minutes of November 14.]

BRENTFORD GAS BILL.
  SOUTH SHIELDS GAS BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
SMITH ESTATE BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
SOUTH METROPOLITAN GAS BILL.
  LONDON UNITED TRAMWAYS BILL.
  Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.

  GAS AND WATER PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.
  House adjourned at half-past five o'clock.