Sitting of 21 November 1918

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    BACON.
    Colonel Sir F. HALLasked the Food Controller what is the wholesale price of imported smoked bellies of bacon and of best smoked English sides?
    Mr. PARKER (Lord of the Treasury): I am sending the hon. and gallant Member the information for which he asks.
    The following is the information referred to:
    The wholesale price of

    (1) Imported American cut bellies, pale dried or smoked, is now 171s. per cwt.,

    (2) Imported English cut bellies, pale dried or smoked, is now 228s. per cwt., and

    (3) English sides, pale dried or smoked, is now 199s. 6d. per cwt.

    LYMM PURE SALT.
    Colonel W. THORNEasked the Food Controller if he is aware that the price of Lymm pure salt has been increased from 27s. per ton to 38s. 6d. per ton; if he can give any reasons for the increase in the charge; and whether he intends to take any action in the matter?
    Mr. PARKER: The Food Controller is aware that there has been a considerable increase in the price of salt. He has instructed the Costings Branch of the Ministry to ascertain the reasons for this increase and to report upon the advisability of fixing prices.

    SUGAR.
    Colonel THORNEasked the Food Controller whether there is any possibility
    3456
    of some sugar being imported so as to supply the people with an extra amount over and above that which is now being allowed?
    Mr. PARKER: The answer is in the affirmative. Every effort is being made by the Royal Commission on the Sugar Supply to obtain larger imports of sugar. But as these depend upon the availability of shipping tonnage for this purpose, and can only be shipped from distant sources of supply, it is feared that no substantial increase can be looked for in the immediate future.
    Mr. T. WILSON: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the firms which are manufacturing articles of food which approximate to the manufacture of jam will have an increased supply of sugar?
    Mr. PARKER: I am afraid I cannot answer that question, but I will convey it to my right hon. Friend.

    SCOTTISH CATTLE.
    Mr. WATTS (by Private Notice)asked the Food Controller whether, under the orders of his Department, hundreds of prime Scottish cattle are being killed weekly and sent south into England while the Scottish people are being fed on bad beef, mostly cows of the worst description, and whether the butchers' trade in Glasgow threatens to strike on this account?
    Mr. PARKER: London has always been supplied with a considerable amount of meat from Scotland. The amount imported recently is actually less than the amount imported in normal times or at this time last year.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Are they getting their share of the cows?
    Mr. PARKER: There is no justification for the statement that the Scottish people are being fed on bad beef. The meat supplied in Scotland is of the same quality as is usually forthcoming at this season. As to the last part of the question, the Food Controller has no information.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is England given an equal share of the cows?
    Mr. PARKER: Yes.

  WINE (PRICES).
  Colonel THORNEasked the Food Controller whether his attention has been drawn to the prices being charged for bottles of wine; and if he intends taking any action in the matter?
  Mr. PARKER: The answer is in the affirmative. It has not hitherto been considered advisable to fix maximum prices for wine, in view of the difficulty of standardisation and the enforcement of any objective test, but the question is now under review.
  Mr. KING: Is this a new departure, seeing that early in the history of the Food Ministry wine was not considered a food at all, and was left entirely alone?

  WAR WORKERS (EMPLOYMENT).
  Colonel THORNEasked the Minister of Munitions how many men and women are now under notice to leave their employment at the various shipyards, munition factories, and controlled firms; whether any efforts are being made to find them work elsewhere; and if the Government are considering the advisability of getting the men and women to work until after Christmas with the full rate of pay?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY Of LABOUR (Mr. Bridgeman): No precise information can be given in reply to the first part of my hon. Friend's question. Every effort is being made to ensure that early notification is given to the Employment Exchanges both of impending discharges and of openings for employment. The Government are also removing, wherever possible, the restrictions on the use of materials and on manufacture, with a view to promoting the revival of the normal industry of the country. In reply to the last part of the question, I may say that my right hon. Friend has issued instructions that, except in extreme cases, contracts are not to be cancelled abruptly, and that full consideration is to be given to the position of the workpeople involved. In many forms of munition work, however, such as the filling of various kinds of ammunition, the manufacture of explosives, and the early processes in the manufacture of shells and small arms ammunition, I understand it would be quite impossible to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion that work should continue until after Christmas.
  Mr. T. WILSON: Has the Department considered the advisability of working either shorter hours or for five days per week, so as to give employment to the people likely to be discharged?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Yes, that is being considered.
  Sir J. D. REES: Is it not proposed in the larger factories where very large numbers are employed to give those employed some work where they now are?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Yes, where it is possible to do so. It may require alteration and new plant before it is possible to do so, but every effort will be made.

  MINE-SWEEPERS.

    ADMIRALTY TRIBUTE.
    Colonel THORNEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that the Humber mine-sweepers accounted for 3,000 enemy mines during the War; if he is aware that the Humber authorities have supplied 800 trawlers and 10,000 men to the mine-sweeping services; and if the Government intend to give any recognition to the men working on the trawlers?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): I am glad my hon. Friend has put this question. His description of the contribution of the fishing folk of the Humber to the safety of the realm during the War does not overstate the fact. And the House and the country will be fully prepared to hear that the other coast bases have a record of devoted and gallant service of an equally splendid character. That they have made very heavy sacrifices in the discharge of their extremely arduous and dangerous task is evidenced by the fact that over a thousand officers and men have lost their lives on mine-fields while mine-sweeping. My hon. and gallant Friend heard, as we all did, with deep satisfaction the gracious words in which His Majesty the King expressed appreciation of the mine-sweepers on Tuesday. Those words found an echo in the hearts of all of us. It will be the duty and privilege of the Admiralty to consider in due course the appropriate form in which to recognise the invaluable services of the minesweepers.

  AFFORESTATION.
  Colonel THORNEasked the Prime Minister whether the Government have any intention of promoting a scheme for State tree-planting as proposed by the Afforestation Royal Commission some years back; and if he intends taking any action in the matter?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): The Government have given general approval to the Report of the Reconstruction Committee on Afforestation, which is later in date than the Report of the Royal Commission to which the hon. Member refers, and have set up an interim authority for the purpose of initiating schemes of afforestation.
  Mr. WATT: Is it to be a central interim authority or will the nationalities be treated separately?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think my hon. Friend need ask that question, as I heard him discussing it at some length the other night.
  Mr. PRICE: In view of the high price of timber, which is being bought at an increase of 300 per cent., is it proposed to impose any obligation on the proprietors to plant trees?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot answer that without notice and an examination of the question.
  Mr. T. WILSON: As I understand the Government is going to adopt the recommendation of the Reconstruction Subcommittee as to afforestation, and as many questions affecting the welfare and interests of working men are concerned, will there be any labour representation on the Committee?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not remember the constitution of the Committee, and I cannot say offhand.
  Mr. T. WILSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries on the matter?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes.
  Sir J. BOYTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman impose any obligations on German supplies of timber, of which they must have a large quantity?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Subjects which are matters for the Peace Conference cannot be answered now, and I am afraid I must give the same answer to this question.

  PRISONERS OF WAR IN GERMANY.
  Mr. PETO (by Private Notice)asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the recent communication by wireless from the German Government advising British prisoners of war to remain at work; whether his attention has been called to Mr. Justice Younger's Committee's Report upon the labour conditions in the coal and salt mines in Germany, and in view of this, whether he can say what steps are being taken to reach and provide transport and the necessary food and clothing for British prisoners of war in remote camps in the interior of Germany, and also particularly those employed in the coal and salt mines?
  Colonel THORNEasked the Prime Minister if his attention has been drawn to Mr. Justice Younger's Report on British prisoners of war in German coal and salt mines and of the manner in which prisoners of war have been treated; and whether any efforts are being made to have these men sent home at once?
  Mr. J. HOPE (Lord of the Treasury): The first part of the question of my hon. Friend (Mr. Peto) is really covered by the answer of the Leader of the House yesterday. The very serious attention of His Majesty's Government has been given to the matter referred to in Mr. Justice Younger's Report, and the House will remember the terms of the ultimatum addressed to the German Government on the subject before the Armistice was proposed. His Majesty's Government intend, by every means in their power, to procure the early release and repatriation of all British prisoners of war, and to secure that no British prisoner, pending release, should be employed in a mine against his will.
  Mr. PETO: Has the hon. Gentleman considered the advisability of demanding from the German Government transit facilities for an Inter-Allied Mission under the Red Cross, with powers to visit all these places immediately, with the necessary supplies, and demand the evacuation of our prisoners on the spot and their immediate transport to their own country?
  Mr. T. WILSON: If Germany does not comply with the request of the Government, will they consider that this is a breach of the conditions of the Armistice?
  Mr. HOPE: I do not think my hon. Friend was here yesterday. I think, if he will read the answer given by the Leader of the House on that subject, it will be found quite satisfactory. As regards the other question, instructions have been given to General Headquarters in France to do everything possible in the sense my hon. Friend suggests.
  Mr. J. HENDERSON: Will the hon. Gentleman say what is happening to prisoners in Switzerland?
  Mr. HOPE: They are being got out as soon as possible.
  Mr. HENDERSON: What does the hon. Gentleman mean by that?
  Mr. HOPE: "As soon as possible" means, as soon as the French authorities can provide transit.
  Mr. PETO: Will my hon. Friend have the suggestion I have made transmitted to Spa at the earliest possible moment?
  Mr. HOPE: My right hon. Friend says that that will be done.
  Mr. COTTON: Have all the prisoners in Turkish hands been handed over?
  Mr. HOPE: No, I am afraid they have not all been handed over yet. Exactly how many I could not say. Some of them have arrived at Otranto.
  Mr. COTTON: Will the hon. Gentleman not make an announcement in the Press as to the numbers handed over, as there is a great deal of anxiety about the prisoners in Turkish hands?
  Mr. HOPE: I understand that has already been arranged for by the authorities at the War Office from day to day. It is almost impossible to say at any one minute how many have passed through enemy hands; they come by all sorts of routes and means.
  Sir J. AINSWORTH: I had hoped to ask a supplementary question, but someone else has been before me, with regard to the treatment of our prisoners incarcerated in Germany. I should like now to ask if it is not considered highly desirable, in view of what our prisoners have to spend to keep alive, that the War Office
  3462
  should at once appoint an official to go abroad directly, inspect all these prison camps, and see what has become of the prisoners that were there?

  SOLDIERS' LEAVE (HOME STATIONS).
  Captain CARR-GOMM (by Private Notice)asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether it is a fact that officers, warrant officers, non-commissioned officers and men at home stations outside London are not allowed to proceed to London when off duty; whether he will state the reason for placing the London area out of bounds; whether he will say if it is a temporary measure; and, if so, how long it is proposed to keep it in force?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): This was a temporary measure, and the embargo was removed on the 18th.

  GENERAL ELECTION.

    ABSENT VOTERS.
    Sir WILLOUGHBY DICKINSON: I would like to ask a point of Order with regard to a Private Notice question. I gave notice to the Postmaster General with regard to the very important matter of the apparent interception of a large number of letters sent to absent voters by post. Since handing the question to you, Mr. Speaker, I have received a note from the Postmaster-General saying he is unable to be in the House this afternoon. Am I at liberty to ask, notwithstanding that, as it is a matter of vital importance?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I have an answer to my right hon. Friend.
    Sir W. DICKINSON: Then I will ask the question, namely, whether he is aware that 7,000 letters sent by the Liberal candidate for North Paddington to the naval and military voters qualified to vote in that constituency were posted at Lanhill Road Post Office on 8th November, sealed, stamped, and properly directed to the addresses used by the mothers and wives of the voters; whether over 1,000 of these letters were returned on 20th November, stamped with the words "Undeliverable as addressed"; what is the reason why these

    3463
    letters were undeliverable; whether the letters were opened in the post; whether they have been submitted to the Censor, and whether the rest of the letters so posted are being delivered to soldiers and sailors for whom they were intended?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I made a mistake. I have another reply to the right hon. Gentleman dealing with the same subject, but not that particular point.
    Sir W. DICKINSON (by Private Notice)asked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he can now say whether the record offices have supplied the registration officers with the full list of addresses of Absent voters?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Yes, Sir; I am informed that the lists have now all been dispatched. My right hon. Friend, who raised this question yesterday, must, I think, have forgotten that the Proclamation does not take place until the 25th November, and that the only promise made, so far as I know, is that the information would be available within forty-eight hours of the Proclamation.
    Mr. T. WILSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman try to reconcile the contradiction of terms between the Local Government Board's Circular and the Post Office Circular? The Post Office Circular says that at the latest within two days of the Proclamation those communications must be addressed, whilst the Local Government Board Order or Regulation, practically speaking, gives within seven days of the election. It is going to cause confusion, and that means that many soldiers will not have a vote at all.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: So far as I am aware, the only promise made is that the list is to be available for candidates within forty-eight hours from the date of the Proclamation, 25th November.
    Sir F. LOWE: Will the information be available for candidates? Will the supplementary list be published, or in what way will it be made available?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The supplemental list will be published up to 29th November.
    Mr. COTTON: How long does the right hon. Gentleman imagine this supplemental list is going to take to print? How, with the present scarcity of labour, are returning officers going to hand over two lists of 8,000 persons to the various candidates?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I can only repeat what I have said, that all the lists have been dispatched, and we are now prepared to issue supplemental lists up to 29th November.
    Mr. T. WILSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult the Post Office with a view to getting the Post Office to have addresses and other matter in connection with the Election sent out at the earliest possible moment to the soldiers at the front?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Yes, certainly.
    Sir W. DICKINSON: Is it not the fact that the Post Office will not guarantee to deliver any of the addresses to the soldiers or sailors unless they are posted before next Wednesday?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: That is at least forty-eight hours after the Proclamation.
    Mr. T. WILSON: But the nominations take place on the 4th?
    Sir W. DICKINSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain, if the corrected lists are not yet delivered to the registration or returning officers, how it is possible to make use of the corrected list in time to comply with the regulations of the Post Office?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: All I know is that a Committee of the different Departments concerned has gone into this matter, and it is now in the hands of the Local Government Board, and I think that my right hon. Friend—
    Mr. PRINGLE: He is not a Member of this House.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: —will see to it.

  PRESIDENT WILSON.
  Mr. KING (by Private Notice)asked the Prime Minister whether President Wilson is going to attend the Peace Conference; whether he will visit this country; and whether he will be offered the hospitality of the nation?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: As regards the first part of the question, I must refer the hon. Member to the President's own statements on the subject. As regards the latter parts, I need not say that if President Wilson finds it possible to visit this country, as we greatly hope he may, he will be assured of a most cordial welcome and every hospitality will be offered to him.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  MINISTRY OF LABOUR (REQUISITIONING OF PREMISES) BILL.
  Lords Amendment to be considered forthwith.—[Mr. G. H. Roberts.]
  Lords Amendment considered accordingly, and agreed to.

  TERMINATION OF THE PRESENT WAR (DEFINITION) BILL.
  Lords Amendment to be considered forthwith.—[Dr. Addison.]
  Lords Amendment considered accordingly.

  TERMINATION OF THE PRESENT WAR (DEFINITION) BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Power to Determine Date of Termination of the Present War.)
    (1) His Majesty in Council may declare what date is to be treated as the date of the termination of the present War, and the present War shall be treated as having continued to, and as having ended on that date for the purposes of any provision in any Act of Parliament, Order in Council, or Proclamation, and, except where the context otherwise requires, of any provision in any contract, deed, or other instrument referring, expressely or impliedly, and in whatever form of words, to the present War or the present hostilities:
    Provided that in the case of any such Act, conferring powers on any Government Department, or any officer of any Government Department, exercisable during the continuance of the present War, if it appears to His Majesty that it is expedient that the powers shall cease before the date so fixed as aforesaid, His Majesty in Council may fix some earlier date for the termination of those powers.
    (2) 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:
    Provided that, notwithstanding anything in this provision, the date declared as aforesaid shall be conclusive for all purposes of this Act.
    (3) His Majesty in Council may also similarly declare what date is to be treated as the date of the termination of war between His Majesty and any particular State.
    Lords Amendment:
    In Sub-section (2), leave out the words "fixed with regard to, and shall not be later than," and insert instead thereof the words "as nearly as may be."
    The MINISTER of RECONSTRUCTION (Dr. Addison): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    Mr. E. HARVEY: How is it that these Amendments are not available in the Vote Office? I would express the hope that the
    3474
    Government will explain what they are. This House has waited for the Lords Amendments, and I think we ought to have the opportunity of seeing them. Their consideration ought not to be made a mere empty form. We have had no opportunity of learning what they are.
    Dr. ADDISON: Yes, I will explain. The Amendment proposed in this Bill is to make it read better. At present it reads—
    "(2) The date so declared shall be fixed with regard to, and shall not be later than, the date of the exchange,"
    and so on, and it is proposed by the Lords to make it read,
    "The date so declared shall be as near as may be the date of the exchange or deposit of ratifications, etc."
    It means substantially the same thing.
    Mr. HARVEY: It does not seem to me to mean quite the same thing, because it enables the Proclamation of a fixed date later than the ratification. It gives additional power, therefore, to Government Departments to extend their activities over and above the time that was fixed by this House, and fixed by the Government in the draft of the Bill. It gives, further, wide powers which were not contemplated when the Bill was introduced into this House. We ought to have some explanation as to why it is necessary to take this further extension of power.
    Mr. KING: Is there not one of the Law Officers of the Crown here who can explain this? Surely, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds says, this is not a mere matter of form but a matter of vital substance! I do think we ought to have some legal advice in a matter of this importance.
    Dr. ADDISON: The statement I made is quite correct. The words of the Clause were very indefinite in their meaning, and therefore the words "as nearly as may be" were preferred in view of the geographical, telegraphic, and other difficulties that might be encountered. On the whole, I think the Amendment to omit the words proposed and to insert those I have mentioned is an improvement. Hon. Members may be assured that in accepting this Amendment we have no desire whatever to depart from the spirit and intention of the Bill itself.
    Mr. R. LAMBERT: What we want to know is why the words "not later than" should be left out? They seem to me to

    3475
    be the most important phrase of the whole question. It seems to me to be most desirable that we should fix a definite date beyond which these things should not run. I hope that at all events this House will not lightly give up the words "not later than," but will insist that these words are retained.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I think a distinct point of substance has been raised by my hon. Friend opposite. The words in the Clause are as they left this House. It is true that the earlier words were indefinite, but the later phrase "not later than" is perfectly clear and definite. I think, in all the circumstances, that it is not advisable that this House should leave it to a Government Department to continue the operation of this enactment a day longer than the recommendation of this House. If it is to be "as nearly as may be" I have some doubt as to how that can be interpreted. We have no legal assistance here to guide the House as to the exact meaning of these words. I think in all the circumstances as an alteration of this importance is being made that the House should receive some skilled legal opinion as to the exact change which the other House has imported into this Bill.
    Mr. WATT: This a matter of extreme importance, because the House of Commons was very clear in expressing its opinion that this measure should not be extended in point of time beyond the period originally set up, and they did not
    desire that that power should be handed over to the Ministry of Munitions. Although the powers of the Ministry of Munitions were being altered to enable them to turn from war work to a peace footing, yet there was to be no extension of time given to the Ministry of Munitions on this account. The alteration made by the other House gives an extension to which the House of Commons was very averse. Therefore, I think the House should not be overriden by the other House by giving this measure an extended time beyond the ratification of peace. The country desires that the powers of the Ministry should come to an end as soon as possible, and the commercial world and the mercantile world—
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY OF MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): I think my hon. Friend has got hold of the wrong Bill.
    Mr. WATT: My hon. Friend is mistaken, and I was only using that as an illustration. The point is the same, that the powers should not be extended by this Amendment beyond the ratification of peace. The Amendment of the House of Lords has the effect of extending the time by omitting the words "not later than," and the view of the House, which has already been accepted by hon. Members, should be put into the measure.
    Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The House divided: Ayes, 85; Noes, 9.

    Division No. 95.]

    AYES.

    [3.23 p.m.

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

    Fester, Philip Staveley

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Anderson, William C.

    Ganzoni, Francis J. C.

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Anstruther-Gray, Lt.-Col. Wm.

    Gibbs, Col. George Abraham

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Archer-Shee, Lt.-Col. Martin

    Gilbert, James Daniel

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. John

    Pryce-Jones, Col. Sir E.

    Barrie, C. C

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Rees, G. C. (Carnarvon, Arfon)

    Beach, William F. H.

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)

    Benn, Sir Arthur S. (Plymouth)

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence (Ashford)

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. Gee. H. (Norwich)

    Bigland, Alfred

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Durham)

    Samuels, Arthur W.

    Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

    Hibbert, Sir Henry

    Sanders, Col. Robert Arthur

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith-

    Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Boyton, Sir James

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Shortt, Edward

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, E.)

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

    Burn, Col. C. R. (Torquay)

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Turton, Edmund Russborough

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Wardle, George J.

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Coates, Major Sir Edward F.

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

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

    Coats, Sir Stuart (Wimbledon)

    Lindsay, William Arthur

    Whiteley, Sir H. J. (Droltwich)

    Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

    Lowe, Sir F. W.

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Cowan, Sir William Henry

    Macmaster, Donald

    Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)

    Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

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

    Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir Rhys (Banbury)

    Crooks, Rt. Hon. William

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James Ian

    Wills, Major Sir Gilbert

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Maden, Sir John Henry

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Davies, Timothy (Louth)

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Yate, Col. Charles Edward

    Denniss, Edmund R. Bartley

    Mason, Robert (Wansbeck)

    Yeo, Sir Alfred William

    Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.

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

    Edge, Capt. William

    Morison, Hector (Hackney, South)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Pratt.

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Merton, Sir Alpheus Cleophas

    Fleming, Sir John (Aberdeen, S.)

    NOES.

    Ainsworth, Sir John Stirling

    Lambert, Richard (Cricklade)

    Watt, Henry A.

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Cotton, H. E. A.

    Nuttall, Harry

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. E. Harvey and Mr. King.

    Lamb, Sir Ernest Henry

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Mr. SPEAKER: A Royal Commission has been ordered for 4 o'clock, and I propose therefore to leave the Chair until then.
    Sitting suspended at twenty-nine minutes before Four o'clock.
    Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair at Four o'clock.

  ROYAL ASSENT.
  Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.
  The House went, and having returned—
  Mr. SPEAKER (standing in the Clerk's place, at the Table): I have to inform the House that the House has been to the House of Peers, where a Commission under the Great Seal was read authorising the Royal Assent to:

  1. Appropriation Act, 1918.

  2. Isle of Man (Customs) Act, 1918.

  3. Loans (Incumbents of Benefices), Amendment Act, 1918.

  4. Midwives Act, 1918.

  5. Special Commission (Belfast Prison) Act, 1918.

  6. Burghs Gas Supply (Scotland) Amendment Act, 1918.

  7. Stockbrokers (Ireland) Act, 1918.

  8. Education (Scotland) Act, 1918.

  9. Parliament (Qualification of Women) Act, 1918.

  10. Petroleum (Production) Act, 1918.

  11. School Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1918.

  12. Police (Pension) Act, 1918.

  13. Representation of the People (Amendment) Act, 1918.

  14. Affiliation Orders (Increase of Maximum Payment) Act, 1918.

  15. Constabulary and Police (Ireland) Act, 1918.

  3478

  16. Tithe Act, 1918.

  17. Termination of Present War (Definition) Act, 1918.

  18. Defence of Realm (Employment Exchanges) Act, 1918.

  19. Wages (Temporary Regulation) Act, 1918.

  20. War Pensions (Administrative Provision) Act, 1918.

  21. Ministry of Munitions Act, 1918.

  22. Local Government Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Act, 1918.

  23. Local Government Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 3) Act, 1918.

  24. Local Government Board Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 7) Act, 1918.

  25. Local Government Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 8) Act, 1918.

  26. Clwyd Valley Electrical Power Order Confirmation Act, 1918.

  27. Cowdenbeath Water Order Confirmation Act, 1918.

  28. Dunfermline District Water Order Confirmation Act, 1918.

  29. Gas Orders Confirmation Act, 1918.

  30. Gas and Water Orders Confirmation Act, 1918.

  31. Portsea Gas Act, 1918.

  32. Gas Light and Coke Company's Act, 1918.

  33. South Metropolitan Gas Act, 1918.

  34. London United Tramways Act, 1918.

  35. Ipswich Dock Act, 1918.

  36. Londonderry and Loughswilly Railway Act, 1918.

  37. Commercial Gas Act, 1918.

  38. Lancaster Corporation Act.

  39. Sheffield Corporation (Consolidation) Act, 1918.

  40. South Suburban Gas Act, 1918.

  41. Smith Estate Act, 1918.

PROROGATION.

  HIS MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I have further to acquaint the House that the Lord High Chancellor, being one of the High Commissioners, delivered His Majesty's Most Gracious Speech to both Houses of Parliament in pursuance of His Majesty's Command, as followeth:
  My Lords and Gentlemen,
  The occasion on which I address you marks the close of a period which will be for ever memorable in the history of our country.
  The War, upon which all the energies of My Peoples throughout My Dominions have for more than four years been concentrated, has at length been brought to a triumphant issue. The conclusion of an Armistice with the last of the Powers that have been arrayed against us gives promise at no distant date of an honourable and enduring peace. I have already sought an opportunity of expressing publicly to My Peoples and to My Allies the sentiments of heartfelt admiration and gratitude with which I regard the supreme and self-sacrificing devotion that has led to this glorious result. Amidst our rejoicing let us not forget to render thanks to Almighty God for the success with which it has pleased Him to crown our arms.
  Gentlemen of the House of Commons,
  I thank you for the unfailing patriotism with which you have made provision for the requirements of the War.
  My Lords and Gentlemen,
  The exertions which have carried us to victory in the field must in no wise be
  3480
  abated or slackened until the ravages of war have been repaired and the fabric of our national prosperity has been restored. Through the extension of the suffrage, which this Parliament has carried into effect, all classes of My People will have an opportunity of inspiring and guiding this beneficent undertaking. I trust that the spirit of unity which has enabled us to surmount the perils of war will not be wanting in the no less arduous task of establishing on the sure foundation of ordered liberty the common welfare of My People. In bidding you farewell, I pray that the blessing of Almighty God may rest upon your labours.
  Then a Commission for Proroguing the Parliament was read in the House of Lords.
  After which the Lord Chancellor said:
  MY LORDS AND GENTLEMEN,—By virtue of His Majesty's Commission under the Great Seal to us and other Lords directed and now read we do in His Majesty's name and in obedience to his commands Prorogue this Parliament to Friday, the thirteenth day of December, one thousand nine hundred and eighteen, to be then here holden, and this Parliament is accordingly prorogued to Friday, the thirteenth day of December, one thousand nine hundred and eighteen.
  End of the Eighth Session (opened Tuesday, 12 th February, 1918) of the Thirtieth Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in the ninth year of the reign of His Majesty King George the Fifth.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  GOVERNMENT WRITERS (WAR BONUS).
  GOVERNMENT WRITERS (WAR BONUS).
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  POTATO FLOUR.
  POTATO FLOUR.
IRELAND.
  LAND PURCHASE.
  LAND PURCHASE.
  PRISONS SERVICE.
  PRISONS SERVICE.
  ROYAL NAVY (PRIZE MONEY).
  ROYAL NAVY (PRIZE MONEY).
  BOOM-DEFENCE SHIPS, PLYMOUTH.
  BOOM-DEFENCE SHIPS, PLYMOUTH.
  INDIAN PRISONERS OF WAR.
  INDIAN PRISONERS OF WAR.
  REGISTRATION OF BUSINESS NAMES ACT (BOWNESS).
  REGISTRATION OF BUSINESS NAMES ACT (BOWNESS).
  PRISON SERVICE (HOSPITAL OFFICERS).
  PRISON SERVICE (HOSPITAL OFFICERS).
  MERCANTILE MARINE (FOREIGNERS).
  MERCANTILE MARINE (FOREIGNERS).
GENERAL ELECTION.
  ELECTION COMMUNICATIONS (POSTAGE).
  ELECTION COMMUNICATIONS (POSTAGE).
  INSURANCE AGENTS.
  INSURANCE AGENTS.
DEMOBILISATION.
  MEN ABROAD (EMPLOYMENT).
  MEN ABROAD (EMPLOYMENT).
  PIVOTAL MEN.
  PIVOTAL MEN.
JUDICIAL BUSINESS.
Ordered, That this House do meet on Friday the 22nd day of this instant for the purpose of hearing and determining Appeals and matters connected therewith, pursuant to the provisions of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1876; and that during such meeting of the House leave be given to the Appeal Committee to meet and appoint their own Chairman.

MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA.
Report made from the Lord Chancellor that the right of Frederick Temple, Marquess of Dufferin and Ava, Viscount Clandeboye in the Peerage of the United Kingdom, and Baron Dufferin and Clandeboye in the Peerage of Ireland, to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland, has been established to the satisfaction of the Lord Chancellor; read, aond orderted to lie or the Table.
Ordered, That the Report of the Lord Chancellor of the United Kingdom, made to the House of Lords this day, that the right of Frederick Temple, Marquess of Dufferin and Ava, Viscount Clandeboye in the Peerage of the United Kingdom, and Baron Dufferin and Clandeboye in the Peerage of Ireland, to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland has been established to his satisfaction, be sent to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland, together with a certificate stating that such report has been made, and that the House has ordered it to be sent to the said Clerk of the Crown in Ireland.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that he had received messages of congratulation on the signing of the Armistice from the Senates of the following countries:—

Brazil.

Bolivia.

Cuba.

Uruguay.

Haiti.

The same were ordered to be entered in the Journals of the House.

BRENTFORD GAS BILL.
  SOUTH SHIELDS GAS BILL.
  Message from the Commons (received yesterday) that they concur in the Resolution of this House communicated to them on Monday last on the subject of the said Bills.
THE GOVERNMENT AND PRISONERS OF WAR.

  A PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, before public business commences I should like to ask your Lordships' permission to say a word upon a matter arising out of something that was said yesterday evening after I had left the House. A debate took place, one of the many we have listened to in this House, about prisoners of war, to which my noble friend Lord Newton replied. And since coming into the House five minutes ago my attention has been called to the fact that statements were made in the course of that debate by two noble Lords—Lord Devonport and Lord Beresford—which were so foreign from the facts, and passed an imputation upon His Majesty's Government so destitute of foundation, that I cannot allow these passages for one moment to remain upon the pages of your Lordships' record unchallenged or unanswered.
  Lord Devonport, in the course of his speech—I am sorry he is not here, and of course I have had no time to give him notice spoke as follows—
  "There is one outstanding feature of all these debates to which I think I am entitled to direct attention—namely, that on no single occasion has a Minister on that Bench—"
  By which, of course, he meant this Bench—
  "of Cabinet standing taken part in our discussions. We have always been left to the tender mercies, if I may say so—I do not say it offensively—of Lord Newton."
  And a little later in the same discussion Lord Beresford repeated the charge, and said—
  "I agree with Lord Devonport that not one word of sympathy or consideration has ever been uttered by a Cabinet Minister from the Front Bench opposite or from the Front Bench in the other House. That is what has irritated the people."
  Now, that is a monstrous charge, and it is a charge without a shadow of foundation.

  343
  It is a charge which no noble Lord has the right to get up and make in this House unless he has verified the facts.
  What are the facts? Under the Constitution under which we are at present existing there is, as we know, only a limited number of Ministers who, I suppose, are Cabinet Ministers in the strictest and most technical sense of the term. For the moment I am the only one in your Lordships' House, and at an earlier date there were only two—Lord Milner and myself. A number of other Ministers sit here who are Cabinet Ministers in the ordinary sense of the term, although they do not happen to be members of the War Cabinet. As regards ourselves, I very seldom remember—and I am sure nobody else remembers—the various speeches I have had to make, but I have distinctly in my recollection occasions—certainly one, and I think I may say two—on which I have taken part in these discussions with regard to prisoners of war, and expressed the sentiments which every member of the Government as well as of your Lordships' House feels. When these debates on prisoners of war occur, under the method on which we do our business here nobody knows in advance, when a Question is put upon the Paper, whether it will be merely a question put in five minutes and calling for a five-minutes reply, or whether it is going to develop into a debate which may last one hour or two hours. And on several occasions Questions have been put to my noble friend and, without the slightest knowledge on the part of Ministers or any intimation to us on the part of speakers, the Question has developed into a debate of first-class magnitude; and I, for instance, who have many Government pre-occupations elsewhere, may not have been present, having no idea of what was going to be said.
  Further, my Lords, we have trusted my noble friend Lord Newton, who, if I may say so in his presence, has been most unfairly attacked, and who, to my certain knowledge, has conducted the business of his Department with efficiency, and, with regard to the prisoners, subject to every consideration of humanity. When the question has been raised here we have with perfect confidence left my noble friend to reply. And if another Minister was to be called upon to answer, it was naturally the business of the Secretary of State for War. On more than one occasion
  344
  have I sat here while my noble friend Lord Derby—certainly not a man lacking in the slightest degree in sympathy—has spoken on this subject in the earlier days of the war. There was then a division of opinion, I think I may say a sharp division of opinion, between the War Office who regard the matter from the point of view of the military situation, and the point of view of the public, who look upon it more from the standpoint of sentiment and of humanity.
  So far from the War Cabinet having turned a deaf ear to the case of these unhappy prisoners, I have sat in that Cabinet and heard, eight, ten or twelve times, long discussions on this matter; I have listened to a careful judicial balancing of the various issues concerned; and your Lordships must believe that, whether we are treated as Ministers or whether we are regarded as men, there has not been any failure on any of these occasions in the Cabinet to give due consideration to those sentiments of humanity, good feeling, and sympathy which find so natural and frequent an expression in your Lordships' House. When the War Office case has had to be stated, it has been given here by the Secretary of State; it was not my business to do it. But I deprecate most emphatically the idea that there has been any lack of sympathy in the Cabinet, or any lack of the expression of it in this House, or elsewhere. I feel sure I have only to call the attention of my noble friends Lord Devonport and Lord Beresford to the sentences I have quoted, which no doubt they used inadvertently yesterday, to receive from them an expression of regret for the baselessness of the charge which they then made.
  THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I had not the advantage of hearing all the observations of the noble Earl who has just sat down, but I confess that on this side of the House a good many of us sympathise with the tone of indignation in which he spoke of certain observations that had been made, especially with regard to the action of my noble friend Lord Newton. It is only right, I think, to say—and I say it on behalf particularly of my noble friends behind me—that all those who have had occasion to have any dealings at the Foreign Office on this matter with the noble Lord have fully recognised the seriousness and the sympathy with which he has regarded all these questions of

  345
  prisoners of war. My noble friend Lord Newton, as we, when we used to sit on that side of the House, had frequent occasion to observe, is gifted with somewhat unusual powers of sarecasm; and dull people, who are perhaps in a majority, do not always appreciate the ironical tone in which my noble friend, as often as not, addresses the House. But I do desire to affirm, from my own knowledge and observation, what was said by a speaker in some former debate when I was not present, that after having myself assisted at a number of these debates, I regard it as altogether unfair to assert that Lord Newton has ever used any tone of irony or flippancy where the interests of the prisoners were concerned.
  NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
  THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: One has seen charges of that kind brought against the noble Lord in the Press, and I regard them as monstrously unfair. I have only desired to make these few observations with regard to the noble Lord, but I have no doubt whatever that what the noble Earl has just stated about the attitude of the War Cabinet in this matter is also entirely justified. There have been times when the problem of how best to serve the interests of our prisoners of war in the different theatres has been one of extreme complexity and difficulty; and certainly, speaking from this side of the House, I have no reason to suppose that the Cabinet has not on every occasion adopted the course which sensible and sympathetic men would desire to adopt.
  LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, as the Leader of the House is present, and was not present during the debate last evening, I desire to say that the point which some of us raised yesterday was to press the Government to institute some form of inquiry which would in our view clear Lord Newton of the charges which have been made against him outside, and which we think grossly unfair. We thought that a Parliamentary Inquiry, to include not only an investigation into what has taken place in this country, and by the Government, on behalf of the prisoners, but also into the treatment of prisoners by the Germans, and by the Turksespecially, was desirable, because the frightful death-rate which has occurred among the prisoners will be believed to be due to the inhuman
  346
  treatment to which they have been subjected. For those reasons we required all the facts to be ascertained and made public, so that the public should not be misinformed, as I think they have been very largely.
  VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, I have pressed this question several times, and therefore I would only ask, while sympathising deeply with the noble Earl's indignation that the Government should be accused in any way of want of sympathy with the prisoners, whether he will endeavour to use his great personal influence in order to ensure that those who have been guilty of these crimes against our prisoners shall be made personally responsible.
  EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, I am afraid that the whole of this discussion is a little irregular. It was opened by myself only with a personal explanation, but it shows some signs of developing into something a little larger and I must not encourage that symptom. But in reply to what my noble friend Lord Midleton has just said, I would state that the question of dealing with he Germans who have been responsible for these crimes and atrocities is engaging the close attention of His Majesty's Government, who are being advised by the Law Officers upon the matter, and I can assure my noble friend, though I cannot give him further information at the moment, that the Government have no intention of desisting from pursuit of the matter.

DUNFERMLINE DISTRICT WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons yesterday; read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) deemed to have been read 2a (The Lord Stanmore), and reported from the Committee.
Bill read 3a, and passed.

MINISTRY OF LABOUR (REQUISITIONING OF PREMISES) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee—(Viscount Sandhurst).
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, the noble Viscount in charge of this Bill was kind enough to say that I might refer again for a moment to a matter in regard to which I called his attention last night on the Second Reading of this Bill. The Bill has to do with the re-instatement of those who are serving in various employments in this country, and I suggested that the local tribunals which had had charge of the question of taking men out of their employments and bringing them into the Service would be of great value for the reverse process of bringing them back again. The noble Viscount was not able to tell me last night whether he thought there was anything in that suggestion, and he said that I might ask him again this morning. Perhaps he will be kind enough to say whether he thinks there is anything of value in the suggestion.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: My Lords, my noble friend has correctly stated the matter. I was not in a position, as he will understand, to give an undertaking offhand on behalf of the Department, but I am now able, I am glad to say, to assure him that the Department will be very pleased indeed to avail themselves of the help of the gentlemen and the bodies to whom he refers, who have gained very great experience in these matters. They have shown great public spirit, and there is no doubt that their experience will be of much assistance and value to the Department.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Power to take possession of premises for employment exchanges.
1. The power of making regulations under the Defence of the Realm (Consolidation) Act, 1914, as amended by any subsequent enactment, shall include power to make regulations authorising the Commissioners of Works, or, as respects Ireland, the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, to take possession of any land, including buildings thereon, which the Minister of Labour may certify to be required, in connection with any scheme of demobilisation, for the purposes of employment exchanges or the accommodation of the staff of any department of the Ministry constituted for reinstating in civil life persons who, during the present war, have been serving in His Majesty's forces or otherwise engaged in work of national importance.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved in Clause 1, after the word "make," to insert "with the consent of the Treasury." The noble Marquess said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Stuart of Wortley, who is unable to be present, I desire to move this Amendment. I do not think that your Lordships would wish me to repeat the arguments that were used in your Lordships' House yesterday, and which are very fresh in the memory of all noble Lords. We view with a certain amount of suspicion this very general power which is to be given to the First Commissioner of Works to take whatever premises he thinks fit all over the country, just as if the Defence of the Realm Act Regulations in all their vigour were to be continued in force in this respect. We suggested yesterday that there ought to be some check. Not that we suspect the right hon. gentleman of any sinister designs, but he evidently is of a very lavish disposition and anxious to do the thing in slap up style. My noble friend denies that?
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: Oh, no, it was the language.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I apologise to your Lordships. It was, perhaps, a little too colloquial for the audience which I am addressing. The words which are upon the Paper, and which I suggest that your Lordships should insert, are "with the consent of the Treasury"; that is to say, the Treasury should exercise a real control over the power which is given to the First Commissioner of Works. Formerly the Treasury control was what the taxpayer relied upon to protect him from extravagance in matters of this kind, and in the old days the Chancellors of the Exchequer whom I have had the great honour of knowing and serving under were accustomed to give an emphatic "No" at first to any proposal for increased expenditure. and one would hope that the present Government in that respect would follow in their footsteps. I confess that I have occasionally had my faith in the Treasury shaken of late; therefore what I require is not the insertion of particular words so much as the absolute assurance of the Government, which we should entirely accept, that the Treasury would exercise a real control over these proceedings. I do not know whether under the regulations as they stand the Treasury

349
is ever consulted. I do not know, for instance, that in the taking of any of these premises during the war the Treasury has ever been asked for their consent. I suspect not.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: Perfunctory.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My noble friend, who really understands this subject. having served on a Committee which investigated it, tells me that the consent of the Treasury has been of a perfunctory character. That may be right under the great pressure of war, but it ought to come to an end now and the full control of the Treasury be restored. I do not know whether the Government will accept these words, but, at any rate, I hope that I shall receive from the Government, in the presence of my noble friend the Leader of the House, who is responsible as a member of the War Cabinet, an assurance that Treasury control shall be a real thing if we grant these extensive powers to the first Commissioner of Works.
LORD SOUTHWARK: I entirely agree with all that has been said by the noble Marquess. I have an Amendment on the Paper which the Amendment moved by the noble Marquess would not cover. I agree that the Treasury ought to have control over this expenditure, and I have only risen now because I hope I shall not be told later that the point I wish to raise has already been dealt with by this Amendment, because the two matters are really different.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: I quite enter into the feelings of the noble Marquess who has moved this Amendment, but as for the enthusiasms of the First Commissioner of Works which he mentioned—or his intentions for efficiency at any rate—I should like to say that that gentleman is, I believe, the President of the War Cabinet Accommodation Committee, and in regard to these premises which have exercised various noble Lords at different times that Committee is doing its utmost in the direction that noble Lords opposite wish, towards emptying buildings of officials whose work may be done, so that they may be replaced by the officials of the Labour Department working in the labour exchanges. For instance, that has already been done at Tottenham and in one or two other places, and is being done also in premises occupied by the National Service Department. So that I
350
think the First Commissioner is fully alive to the requirements which have been mentioned. Really there cannot be any reasonable fear, or any fear at all, of taking premises of an imposing style such as we have heard of. For the most part the places required are halls or small buildings where counters can be set up on ground floors, so as to ensure that a number of people can be attended to at the same time.
In regard to the Amendment, the noble Marquess of course understands better than I do about an Order in Council made by His Majesty. When that is put in force the Department has to go to the Treasury for authorisation of the expenditure required. I trust that this will be a reply to the noble Marquess with regard to the necessary caution and care that he desires to see.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: We should like to have the words in the Bill. There have been too many cases in which the Treasury have been given the go-by, and have only been asked for a covering approval after the steed has been stolen.
THE EARL OF DESART: I do not think that what the noble Viscount (Lord Sandhurst) said quite covers the point. It is quite true that the Treasury would have to approve, in a sense, the passing of an Order in Council before it absolutely comes into operation, but if the Government, qua Government, have decided on a thing, the Treasury control really comes to nothing at all. What you want is that as a matter of course, before anything of this kind is done, the Treasury should be referred to. But this really emphasises the wakening of a sleeper who has slept during the war; and, taking the view of the noble Viscount himself, I do not see why he should object to the insertion of these words. I must say I think it is desirable at this particular stage, halfway between war and peace, that we should in some way record our view that the active and actual control of the Treasury should be revived.
LORD PHILLIMORE: I venture to suggest that the object aimed at by this Amendment will not be served if it is carried. This is a proposal to insert words after the word "make"—that is, to make the general regulation. What I imagine noble Lords want is the application to a particular case, and it seems to me

351
that the words "with the consent of the Treasury" ought to come after the word "Ireland" instead of after the word "make"; because, as it stands, it will only make it necessary for the Treasury once for all to consent to a general regulation or series of regulations, and will leave it then to the Commissionser of Works to act without the consent of the Treasury.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I need not say that I should always bow to the opinion of the noble and learned Lord on a matter of this kind; but it is not merely his authority—he has convinced my reason also—and I quite agree that the words ought to come at the lower point that he has indicated.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I will put the Amendment in the amended form which has been indicated.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 1, line 9, after ("Ireland"), insert ("with the consent of the Treasury").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I hope the noble Viscount will see his way to accept these words, if not in the precise form in which they are moved—although I confess they seem to me to be entirely adequate—at any rate in some operative form. The noble Viscount must know quite well that there is no little public uneasiness on this question of expenditure, and, so far as the purely technical point is concerned which was raised with regard to the operation of an Order in Council. I do not think that His Majesty's Government need greatly concern themselves. It is, of course, true that the general powers given under an Order in Council are not subject to subsequent review by anybody, but as a matter of practice there can be no slight to the Privy Council in saying that in each particular instance special reference should be made to His Majesty's Treasury in matters of expenditure.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: The noble Marquess moved the Amendment on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Stuart of Wortley, but what he was concerned with was not so much the actual terms of the Amendment as the principle that lay behind it, and I think I am correct in saying that he said he would be satisfied if a definite and binding assurance was given by the Government in this respect.
352
My noble friend Lord Sandhurst intended to give, and I think did give, that assurance; but if he was not sufficiently explicit in the matter I give it on his behalf and on behalf of the Government. I do not know that there will be any great objection to putting these words into the Bill except this—namely, that we are not anxious to give to another place to-day the opportunity of reconsidering this measure. Personally I am very anxious that it should, if your Lordships agree, pass this House without amendment. Your Lordships are well aware that if the Bill goes to another place opportunities of discussion and possibly of disagreement may arise, and on general grounds I should be anxious to avoid that. Therefore if the noble Marquess adheres to what he said in his opening remarks, and will be content with a definite engagement on my part, on behalf of the Government, that the Treasury shall be consulted in every case, I am willing to give it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think that, as the noble Viscount says there is no great objection to the words, they ought to be inserted. The noble Earl does not want the Bill to go back to another place. Is that really the way to do legislation when there is a provision which is clearly proper to put into a Bill, merely on the ground that there is a certain peril in its going along the corridor again, and therefore we should not do what is obviously indicated as our duty? After all, the House of Commons is not in the least likely to throw out this Bill because we put in an Amendment of this kind. They will, of course, applaud the Amendment; they desire that the Treasury should be consulted. There is no objection to it on that head; and I think, after what my noble friend has said, it would be better to put the words in.
LORD SOUTHWARK: I should like to say a word in support of the noble Marquess. If the policy advocated by the noble Earl is adopted in regard to the Amendment of the noble Marquess, it will, of course, be adopted with regard to the Amendment of the noble and learned lord on my right (Lord Phillimore), and also with regard to my Amendment. I would make this practical suggestion. When you look at this Bill, is there any real urgency for passing it at all in this Parliament? Could it not stand over until the meeting of the new Parliament? For my part I

353
think it would be much better to withdraw the Bill altogether if we are not allowed to amend it, and to give the new Parliament an opportunity of passing any Bill that will be found necessary when that Parliament is elected.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I have heard many hard things said of the present House of Commons, but I have never heard it suggested that they would be likely to object to an assertion of Treasury control, if necessary, for a particular object of this kind. I entirely agree with my noble friend behind me (Lord Salisbury) that an Amendment of this sort is likely to be applauded by the House of Commons, with an expression of satisfaction that your Lordships should take so strong a line on this particular subject. It is important to remember that in the other House there is no possibility of raising other disputed points on a matter of this sort. The Rules of Order there, unlike our own, as we know, would entirely prevent anything of the kind. The matter would simply be put in puris naturalibus to that House, and I am certain would be accepted by them with enthusiasm. I therefore hope that the noble Earl will agree.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I am never anxious to fight on a point of form, but I would observe that noble Lords opposite seem really to have shifted their ground a little. When Lord Salisbury spoke he asked for an assurance. I have given an assurance. I do not know whether the noble Marquess has such a profound distrust of Ministers in general, and of myself in particular, that he is not satisfied with that; but if that is the position, and if he wants the assurance—which he says the House of Commons will so eagerly accept—put into the Bill, I am not disposed to resist it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am very much obliged to the noble Earl.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD PHILLIMORE LORD PHILLIMORE moved, in Clause 1, after the word "take," to insert "during the war." The noble and learned Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to make it clear that what the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council said was the intention of the Bill shall be the real effect and purport of it. I have no doubt that the noble Viscount (Lord Sandhurst) has been
354
advised that these words are unnecessary, but I confess to having a doubt upon the subject. I think I can satisfy your Lord ships that the words are not unnecessary, and that they are required in order to carry out that limitation which the noble Earl said the Bill should have.
This is one of those pieces of legislation by reference which I, as an old Judge, detest, and which constantly leads to Parliament enacting that which Parliament has never thought of or known anything about. The way in which this scheme is drafted is that the power of making Regulations for one purpose is to be turned into a power of making Regulations for another purpose. Be it so. But the power of making Regulations for the defence of the Realm is for the war and during the war. The powers in this Bill are super-added powers not for the war and not necessarily during the war; and there is no reason why they should be held by any Judge who has to construe this Act as limited to the period of the war. I want to make it quite clear that they are limited to the period of the war—that is to say, not that the Commissioner of Works may not retain possession of that of which he has lawfully taken possession, but that he should not take possession of further buildings after the war has come to an end. I know that the noble Earl has said that this is the intention of His Majesty's Government, and that so far as this is concerned he has given a sort of undertaking to this House that so the Act shall be so construed.
But I have two observations to make upon that. The noble Earl, will, I trust, long remain in his present exalted position as one of the leading representatives of His Majesty's Government. Yet there may be a change of Government; and subsequent Ministers may not find themselves bound by the noble Earl's undertaking, if I may call it an undertaking. Further, the First Commissioner of Works will be doing these things without any reference to the noble Earl. The noble Earl will not hear of them, nobody will hear of them, until the deed is done and it is too late to prevent it. Then it would be idle to go to the Judges and say that Hansard shows that this was not the intention of the Bill. As your Lordships know, learned Judges never look at the speeches of your Lordships in this House, or at the speeches of Members in the other House;

355
they never look at discussions leading to the construction of an Act. They say that the words speak for themselves and that they must construe them as they stand.

Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 9, after ("take") insert ("during the war").—(Lord Phillimore.)
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: In reply to the noble and learned Lord, I am afraid I can only repeat what I said yesterday—which he has in some degree anticipated—that I am advised that it is clear that the power to take possession comes to an end with the end of the war, as do all the other Regulations of the Defence of the Realm Act. The reason that this Bill was brought in was, as I explained, that it was considered that while the Defence of the Realm Act had to do with matters for the prosecution of the war, this was a matter to deal with demobilisation, which concerns peace; but in regard to the termination of the powers under that Act it in no way differs, as I have stated two or three times, from the original Defence of the Realm Act. Therefore I cannot accept the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD SOUTHWARK LORD SOUTHWARK moved, in Clause 1, after "may," to insert "subject to appeal to the Treasury on the part of owners and occupiers of land or buildings." The noble Lord said: This Bill, and other Bills which have been passed, place too much power in the hands of individuals without appeal, and I will give one little illustration of the sort of thing that has been done. I have a case where a warehouse was commandeered, and stores were turned out, and the former occupants were compelled to find new premises, causing them great inconvenience and expense and detrimentally affecting their goods. All this was done
356
notwithstanding the fact that equally suitable premises in the neighbourhood could have been taken without causing any disturbance or inconvenience. There was, however, no appeal, and that sort of thing is going on all over the country. All I ask is that those whose land or buildings is being commandeered should have an appeal somewhere. I thought it was possible there was some Court of appeal, unknown to me, already in existence, but if it was so I am sure it was not known to those whose land or buildings had been commandeered. In my Amendment I am suggesting the Treasury as the Court of appeal, although, of course, I should prefer another body. I think the local authority, such as the town council or the urban or rural district council, would be preferable to the Treasury, because they would know the nature of the business being carried on and whether other suitable premises were available. But rather than that there should be no appeal I suggest that those whose property is commandeered should have this appeal to the Treasury. I do not wish to make a long speech, but I could bring any number of cases, illustrating the hardships that have been inflicted, unnecessarily, where with a little practical common sense they might have been avoided.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 1, line 11, after ("may") insert ("subject to appeal to the Treasury on the part of owners and occupiers of land or buildings").—(Lord Southwark.)
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: According to the Amendment on the Paper it appears to me that my noble friend is anxious to appeal to the Treasury on a matter which, by the action of your Lordships' House a few minutes ago, they will have already given a decision upon. It does not seem to me that this is a very practical or sensible solution; but were that not so, I should feel obliged to ask your Lordships to reject the Amendment for this reason—that the Treasury can know nothing about the local needs either of the exchange or of the local people, and it would necessitate a great deal of inquiry, correspondence, and expense, and therefore delay; whereas speed, as I have endeavoured to show on more than one occasion, is almost the essence of the matter in regard to these labour exchange buildings, with crowds of people not only in the near future but on Monday waiting for relief. I venture to

357
suggest to my noble friend that owners are sufficiently protected by the right of appeal to the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission to which I referred yesterday.
LORD SOUTHWARK: I should like to say this in answer to the noble Viscount. The Amendment of the noble Marquess which has been accepted is placing the Treasury in control of the purchasing or taking of premises, but that has nothing to do with dealing with persons whose property has been commandeered. As the noble Viscount said, we have an appeal to Lord Terrington, but that can all be avoided if there is an appeal before compensation has to be given. I hope that noble Lords will consider that owners should have some right of appeal before their property is taken. There are very many harsh cases, and I am speaking of what would be appreciated throughout the business world, with regard to premises taken in this autocratic way.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX. having been suspended) Amendment reported: Bill read 3a and passed, and returned to the Commons.

TERMINATION OF THE PRESENT WAR (DEFINITION) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read,.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Vicount Peel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Power to determine date of termination of the present war.
1.—(1) His Majesty in Council may declare what date is to be treated as the date of the termination of the present war, and the present war shall be treated as having continued to, and as having ended on that date for the purposes of any provision in any Act of Parliament, Order in Council, or Proclamation, and, except where the context otherwise requires, of any provision in any contract, deed, or other instrument referring, expressly or impliedly, and in whatever form
358
of words, to the present war or the present hostilities:
Provided that in the case of any such Act, conferring powers on any Government Department, or any officer of any Government Department, exerciseable during the continuance of the present war, if it appears to His Majesty that it is expedient that the powers shall cease before the date so fixed as aforesaid, His Majesty in Council may fix some earlier date for the termination of those powers.
(2) 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:
Provided that, notwithstanding anything in this provision, the date declared as aforesaid shall be conclusive for all purposes of this Act.
(3) His Majesty in Council may also similarly declare what date is to be treated as the date of the termination of war between His Majesty and any particular State.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved, at the end of subsection (2), to insert a new proviso. The noble Marquess said: Here, again, I shall not trouble your Lordships by repeating the observations which I ventured to make to the House yesterday. The point is that as subsection (2) of Clause 1 stands, the date is left in hopeless mystery. That is the first difficulty, because the words are—
"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."
What in the world does that mean? How can you fix a date with regard to a particular event. One does not attach any real meaning to it at all. What makes it additionally puzzling is that when the date is fixed they will not know if the ratifications are going to be exchanged; and therefore you are asked to fix a date with regard to an event which is in itself uncertain. That is a very confused piece of legislation. It does not greatly matter with regard to the great mass of legislation which will come to an end at the termination of the war, because the only desire of your Lordships' House and of the House of Commons and of the public generally is that this emergency legislation should all come to an end as soon as possible. They will not greatly care how the words "with regard to" are interpreted, but believe that the sooner the better.
But this is not the case with two particular Acts. There are two celebrated Acts—the Government of Ireland Act and the Welsh Church Act—which are in a very different category. As your Lordships will

359
remember, these passed into law just at the beginning of the war and their operation was at once suspended until the end of the war, by a special Act called the Suspensory Act of 1914. We always knew, those of us who took an interest in these questions, that before the end of the war some kind of definition would have to be made as to what was to be regarded as the end of the war for the purpose of these Acts. The time has arrived apparently, in the opinion of the Government, when that definition should be made. They have tabled and brought before your Lordships a Bill which does attempt to fix the end of the war. What are the considerations which must govern the technical end of the war so far as these two Acts are concerned? Clearly there must be little time. That argument applies to both Acts.
I am not going into controversial matters—I mean controversial in the strict sense of the word—but it is perfectly clear that the Government of Ireland Act cannot be brought into force as it stands. Everybody admits that. There is nobody who denies it in any part of the United Kingdom. That is true, equally true really in our judgment, of the Welsh Church Act. I do not say it cannot be brought into force, but I do not think it ought to be brought into force as it stands, and I gather that the Government do not think so either, judging from the recent communication made by the Prime Minister. In any case—and this is all that requires to be said for my argument—time must be given to the Church in Wales after the termination of the war before these drastic proposals become effective.
Therefore, some special arrangement must be made in respect of these two Acts, and I have put down an Amendment which gives specific power, or rather a specific direction, to the Government not to fix the termination of the war, so far as respects these two great Statutes, until January 1, 1920. That gives ample time. I do not want to prejudge anything; I only want to give Parliament time. I should have thought the Government would have welcomed such an Amendment, which would give a perfectly free hand to whatever Government is in power. At any rate, it does not prejudge anything at all. It merely prevents the end of the war coming suddenly upon us, when neither the necessary amendments of the Government of Ireland Act nor the necessary action
360
under the Welsh Church Act can have had time to be carried into effect.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 1, line 23, at end insert:
"Provided that for the purposes of the Suspensory Act, 1914, His Majesty may declare a special date to be treated as the termination of the war, which date shall not be earlier than the first day of January nineteen hundred and twenty."—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE NATIONAL SERVICE DEPARTMENT (VISCOUNT PEEL): The noble Marguess, as he has stated, wishes to introduce into this Bill, as regards the fixing of the termination of the war, a special exception or exemption as regards the Suspensory Act. His Amendment says there shall be "a special date to be treated as the termination of the war, which date shall not he earlier than the first day of January, 1920." Obviously it may be a great deal later, so that the effect of his Amendment would be indefinitely to postpone the date on which the Suspensory Act should take effect.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: No, no; not indefinitely; but to give power to the Government.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I agree, but that power is quite indefinite.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Quite so.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am going only by what the Amendment says. Presumably, the Government may not deal with the matter for four or five years after January 1, 1920, although the date must not he earlier than that. What, in effect, the noble Marquess is doing is this—not so much to amend this Terminatien of the Present War Bill, but to amend the Suspensory Act itself; and I put it to the noble Marquess, Does he think that on the last day of the session he should, as it were, fling this controversial matter on the floor of another place when he does not deal directly with this Bill, but deals with another Act altogether—namely, the Suspensory Act?
Let me say a word on the extent to which the Suspensory Act and the Welsh Church Act are affected by the particular Bill now before the House. I am dealing only with the Welsh Church Act and not

361
with the Irish question, which I do not think the noble Marquess rasied. The Suspensory Act carries on the suspension of the Welsh Church Act only until the end of the war. Now what is the end of the war? There may be of course, several interpretations. It may be the Armistice—
A NOBLE LORD: No, no.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Especially when the Armistice is declared to be almost a capitulation. My noble friend says "No," but anyhow it may be the signing of peace by the plenipotentiaries. I think the noble and leaned Lord will agree that is possible. That is the earlier date, but the Bill takes as the end of the war the last possible date that can be taken—that is to say, the exchange of ratifications.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It only says "with regard to."
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am coming to the exact interpretation in a moment. At any rate, it does take the last possible date—that is to say, the exchange of ratifications. It makes it, therefore, from the point of view of the Welsh Church, the most favourable date that can be taken, but it is quite obvious that these matters will have to be dealt with in the next. Parliament. I ask the noble Marquess not to insert into this particular Bill an Amendment which entirely alters the effect of the Suspensory Act.
The noble Marquess says that the date is to some extent uncertain, because the words are "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." I think that was the point he raised. I should like to remind the House that the noble Marquess, although he had the opportunity, has put down no Amendment to alter that. His present Amendment is a stage later than that particular date. I can only repeat if there is any doubt about it—I cannot do more than I said yesterday—that there was this difficulty, that there might be several days for the exchange of ratifications between the different Powers, and therefore it was necessary, in order to avoid ambiguity, that the Order in Council should define which date was the actual date of peace. Of course, there is a limitation, which I told you about yesterday;
362
that the Order in Council cannot say that any day, tomorrow or a month hence, shall be the date of the peace; it must be fixed in regard to the date of the exchange of the ratifications. But there must be power left to the Government in order that the date may not be ambiguous, because the noble Marquess knows what enormous considerations depend upon the fixing of the date.
With regard to the Amendment which he moves, I have shown that it really would not be possible, on this last day of the session, to introduce so important, a change into the Suspensory Act when, by the actual terms of this Bill, the most favourable interpretation possible is given to the terms of that particular Act. I am afraid, therefore, I have to decline the Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My noble friend has used the phrase in his observations that I have not availed myself of the opportunity to attempt to amend the words as they stand in the second subsection.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I do not complain; I only mentioned it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is not a matter of complaint. The noble Viscount has been extremely courteous and civil in helping as much as he can. I do not know whether the noble Viscount, for the Government, would accept some better word, than "with regard to." so as to prevent the ambiguity. Would they accept "the date declared shall be as near as may be." or some such words? I would rather that the Government framed them themselves. I think the words "with regard to" are impossible. They would leave it so vague that neither those interested in the Irish question nor those interested in the Welsh Church question would know when the end of the war is likely to be. It is true that we have passed the point now, but there will be a Report stage directly.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: There is only one argument I can add. I cannot imagine anything which the Goverment would less desire than to revive these two first-class controversies at the moment of signing of the Treaty of Peace. It might be one of the most inconvenient things that could ever happen.
VISCOUNT CAVE: I think it is quite clear that we could not accept the Amendment as moved. But if the noble Marquess thought fit, he could, on the Third Reading, move an Amendment such as he has indicated.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed, to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
Bill reported without Amendment.
Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) it was moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Upon this stage I think I can, with the leave of the House, move an Amendment to leave out from subsection (2) of Clause 1 the words "with regard to," and substitute "as near as may be."
VISCOUNT CAVE: Leave out also the word "fixed" and the words "not be later than" and insert, after "shall be," the words "as nearly as may be the date of the exchange…" That will be controlled by the later words.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am very much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount. I move the Amendment in that form.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

WAGES (TEMPORARY REGULATION) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bill read 3a, and passed.

MINISTRY OF MUNITIONS 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 Elphinstone.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Extension of purposes of Ministry.
1. The purposes of the Ministry of Munitions shall include the supervision and regulation of the diversion to the production of articles required in times of peace, of industries established or utilised during the present war for the purpose of the production of war material, and all powers may be exercised by the Minister of Munitions with a view to facilitating the supply of war material or otherwise for promoting the prosecution of the present war may be exercised by him with a view to securing that such diversion as aforesaid shall be carried into effect in such a manner as may be most conducive to the national interests, and all orders, requirements, directions, regulations, rules, and notices made or given by the Minister and in force at the passing of this Act shall, until they expire or are altered or revoked, continue in force as if this Act had been in force at the time when they were made or given.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON VISCOUNT MIDLETON moved, at the beginning of Clause 1, after the words "The purposes of the Ministry of Munitions shall." to insert "for a period of six months after the passing of this Act." The noble Viscount said: I indicated last night the nature of the Amendment that I should ask you to consider. I have communicated privately with the Government, and find they are not disposed to make any amendment in the Bill. But I desire to advance only one argument in favour of the course I suggest, and to ask for a pledge or an explanation as to be actual position. With regard to the argument, I do not think anybody who looks at the condition of affairs in the industrial world will doubt that the Government are wise in bringing in some measure of this kind, which deals with the question of time and scope. With regard to scope, if the question had been simply one of read-justment of industries for a short period and then the control of raw materials I do not think exception would have been taken from any quarter. But this measure goes infinitely beyond that, and proposes not merely to enable the Government to control war material, but to direct an immense number of controlled firms, and to tell them how to manage their business, as I contend for the whole of another year: That is putting under Government control what should be left to individual energy as much as possible.
Several manufacturers have communicated with me as to their difficulties. It was necessary for the Government during

365
the war to take the plant of one manufacturer and say "Your plant must remain idle, or your product, in a half-finished state, must be sent to be finished by another plant on the other side of England. You must stand out either of the user of your own plant or of the profits which you might have made." The powers of the Minister of Munitions go even beyond that. He will be in a position to say, "I must turn a certain number of persons who understand making motor cars into makers of steel," or "You have made steel, and you will have this year to adapt your machinery to this new process." I am quite certain that when the Government have gone a little further into it, they will find that they have taken action which is resented by the whole of the manufacturers of the country, who have willingly accepted control for the period of the war.
On this, there arises a question as to which I should be very glad to have an authoritative assurance from the noble Lord in charge of the Bill. As I read the Bill, and as one or two legal friends whom I have consulted read it, this measure gives the Minister of Munitions, up to the period of twelve months after the conclusion of the present war or any earlier date which may be fixed by His Majesty in Council—and that is not likely to be done—the full control of everything within the scope of this Bill. It has been stated, on the other hand, that all these provisions are subject to the Defence of the Realm Act, and that the Orders made under them will expire with the Defence of the Realm Act. That is a very different thing, and if that be so I shall not address your Lordships further, though I think that the date of six months ought to be inserted in the Bill. I will, for the sake of form, move that "for a period of six months after the passing of this Act" be inserted. I am convinced that unless we have an assurance that these Orders will expire with the Defence of the Realm Act, very great industrial disturbance will be caused.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 1, line 5, after ("shall") insert ("for a period of six months after the passing of this Act").—(Viscount Midleton.)
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, I do not know whether I may add a word in support of the contention of the noble Viscount. Having been brought in contact with a great number of transactions
366
in connection with the trade of the country during the war, I can emphasise the point of the noble Viscount that the control which manufacturers have been quite prepared to assent to during the war has hampered and disorganised trade enormously, and, if they are to be left permanently in the hands of a Government Department, it will interfere very largely with the full employment of many individuals in this country in the future who would naturally be brought into employment by the development of trade under unrestricted methods. I do not desire to attack the Munitions Department. I recognise the great work that it has done, and I do not want to undervalue what has been done, but it was a Department created for the purpose of purchasing and providing munitions for our three great Services during the war; and if some Amendment of this kind is not accepted, it seems to me that Parliament is going to give its sanction to the permanent continuation of a Department which was only created for the purpose of the war, and is going at the end of a moribund Parliament to enable it to diverge from the work for which it was originally created and to take up other work which may be prolonged for years. I think that this matter ought to be reviewed within six months rather than that we should permanently sanction a course of this kind. The nearer that you can bring the user of any article to the purchaser, the more likely you will be to secure the economic purchase of an article, and the more likely you are to bring about satisfaction all round. I am not averse to some expert controlling the different Departments which purchase things that have hitherto been purchased by the Munitions Department, but I strongly urge that Parliament should not sanction permanently a system which ought to be reviewed by the incoming Parliament.
LORD ELPHINSTONE: My Lords, perhaps I may deal first with the remarks of my noble friend Lord Gainford, who talked about the dangers and drawbacks of placing the trade of this country permanently under the control of the Ministry of Munitions, and who used the word "permanently" several times. I would point out, first of all, that that is an impossibility, for this reason. By the Act which instituted the Ministry of Munitions, that Department is bound to come to an end at the latest twelve months after the

367
termination of the war. Therefore the permanency in this case could not be longer than twelve months.
I would ask your Lordships to consider the effect of the Amendment of my noble friend Viscount Midleton, if adopted. It would mean that for six months the Ministry of Munitions should continue doing what we all, I think, admit must be done as expeditiously and as effectively as possible, and that is to divert to peaceful industry the huge war machine which the Ministry of Munitions has built up and administered during the past three years, but at the end of those six months, no matter how urgent the need might be to continue this work, the whole of it would automatically have to cease and the Ministry of Munitions would then have no functions left except war functions. These would then obviously no longer be required. In addition to this, various industries in this country, which are dependent for certain essential commodities, might be put in such a position that they would be absolutely unable to obtain them, and so permanently would be held up.
If we consider the matter for a moment, I think that we shall see that it is really a very small difference that separates the views of the Government from those of my noble friend Lord Midleton. It is a small difference, I venture to say, considering what the noble Viscount has in view, but a very important one considering the interests of the country as a whole and the interests of peace industry in the country. Lord Midleton wants to see all control removed after a period of six months. I am asking that the Ministry of Munitions should be enabled to continue, if necessary, certain essential forms of control for peace purposes as long as the Act, or the Regulations authorising these Orders, may be in force, whatever the life may be of those Orders or Regulations.
As I have already pointed out, the Ministry of Munitions cannot. possibly last for more than twelve months after the termination of the war, and it may be for less if Parliament so desires at any time before the expiry of these twelve months. As a matter of fact, the vast majority of these Orders and Regulations objected to are dependent on the existence of the Defence of the Realm Regulations which authorise them. Though we hope so, peace may not come as soon as we anticipate, and there are certain powers which
368
it may be really essential to continue as long as the Acts or the Regulations authorising them continue in force—for instance, the power of controlling prices and controlling the direction of supply. This will be very essential so long as the demand exceeds the supply of certain very essential articles. There is no desire on the part of the Government to continue any control of any sort a single day longer than is necessary. But I pointed out yesterday that, in the absence of all control, it will be impossible successfully to reconstruct our peace industries, as they might easily find themselves at the mercy of those who hold the all-too-limited supplies of certain essential articles.
This proposal of the noble Viscount's to limit the Bill to six months was brought forward in the House of Commons, on Monday I think, and was very fully discussed, both on Second Reading and in Committee, and the proposal was ultimately negatived without a Division. The case of building bricks was instanced, and it is a very good case. There is, and there will be for some considerable time, a very grave shortage of building bricks, which are now controlled. The demand, I believe, is more than twice as great as the supply. One of the most urgent things, I imagine, after the conclusion of the war will be the provision of cottages for the labouring classes in this country. Does the noble Viscount really think that all control of should cease necessarily after six months, and that the building programme should be liable to be held up for want of bricks, because the limited supply of bricks, instead of being controlled and used for the most urgent purposes, was being bought and used for unnecessary purposes by those who were able to pay the biggest price—which is really what it would come to in the absence of control?
The House of Commons recognises that a certain amount of control may be necessary, possibly for the whole of the twelve months during which the Ministry of Munitions may exist. The point, I think, is that if after six months it should be found that the noble Viscount, Lord Midleton, is correct in his contention, and that no further control is then necessary, not only may the Defence of the Realm Regulations authorising these Orders be then already dead and therefore the Orders null and void, but it will be possible for Parliament then to intervene at any time and to bring the existence of the

369
Ministry of Munitions and all its functions to a close before the expiry of the twelve months.
To sum up, all the powers, or practically all the powers, possessed by the Ministry are under the Defence of the Realm Regulations, and they must, of course, cease altogether when those Regulations expire, and they form by far the greatest part of the powers of the Ministry of Munitions to-day. I venture to say that, if the war machine is to be successfully demobilised and diverted to peace purposes, this limited control may be necessary for more than the six months advocated by the noble Viscount, provided, of course, that the Defence of the Realm Regulations are then in force and that the Ministry of Munitions is still in existence. Also, as I have already pointed out, Parliament can always, if necessary, intervene and terminate the existence of the Ministry of Munitions sooner. I very much hope that the noble Viscount will not press his Amendment, as I am afraid I cannot accept it, and I trust that the reply I have given has to a certain extent relieved his fears.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I am afraid, after the explanation of the noble Lord, I am wholly unable to understand what the position will be if this Bill is passed as it stands. It seems to me, as far as my humble intelligence goes, to give an unlimited charter to the Ministry of Munitions for an unlimited time. There is no limitation of time in this Bill. The noble Viscount, Lord Midleton, points out to me that it is limited by the Act appointing the Ministry of Munitions, but I do not understand what is done by this Bill. There is a clause which contains fifteen lines and 180 words, without a single breach of continuity. How anybody is to interpret that I do not know. It is a marvellously skilful piece of drafting for making it absolutely unintelligible to the ordinary man. There is not a single word in it which tells us really what the clause does. It says "The purposes of the Ministry of Munitions shall include the supervision"—and so on; and all the things are to go on until they expire or are altered or revoked, "as if this Act had been in force at the time when they were made or given." I am afraid I am wholly unable to understand what is the enacting power in this Bill. I sincerely hope that the noble Viscount will press the Amendment.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: In face of the evident determination of the Government I will not trouble your Lordships with further argument. The noble Lord has given a very reasonable account of the Bill, but, as my noble friend has just said, it is one of the most far-reaching measures, and it is for a period of six months, or probably eighteen months, for which time the whole trade of this country, so far as it is affected by the Ministry of Munitions, will be in trammels. The noble Lord in his elaborate argument gave us far more reason for fear, because he pointed out that, as another programme of the Government—the building programme—has to be considered, that might influence to a large extent what the Minister of Munitions is going to do with regard to the controlled firms. That is really a very important addition to out anxiety. I can only say that if, as I believe, the feeling in the country will not sustain the Government in continuing this control for a long period, we must endeavour, with such success as we may, in the new Parliament to put a stop to it.
LORD ELPHINSTONE: The limitations to the powers of the Ministry of Munitions really are the limitations to the existence of the Defense of the Realm Regulations. The whole thing rests on that. And, as regards what Lord Balfour of Burleigh said. I am afraid he was not present at the time the Bill was read a second time, for I endeavoured then to make it clear that the object of the Bill is to enable the Ministry of Munitions to use the powers they now have for war purposes for the reverse process of demobilising the war machine and using it for peace purposes. At present they have only power to use this machine for the production of war material. What is now required is that, war material being no longer required, we should take that machine to pieces and reconstruct it on a peace basis.
LORD GAINFORD: I, perhaps, ought to have said that the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, asked me to intimate to the House that he thought this Amendment a reasonable one, on the ground that it would not prejudice the work which we all wish to see satisfactorily carried out during the next few months. Of course, it would really only entail the revision of the situation at the end of six months; and he thought that was a reasonable proposal, and for

371
that reason he was prepared to support this Amendment if he had been present.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
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.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

MINISTRY OF LABOUR (REQUISITIONING OF PREMISES) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendment agreed to.

TERMINATION OF THE PRESENT WAR (DEFINITION) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendment agreed to.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION.
The following forty-one Bills received the Royal Assent—

Consolidated Fund (Appropriation).

Isle of Man (Customs).

Loans (Incumbents of Benefices) Amendment.

Midwives.

Special Commission (Belfast Prison).

Burghs Gas Supply (Scotland) Amendment.

Licensed Stockbrokers (Ireland).

Education (Scotland).

Parliament (Qualification of Women).

Petroleum (Production).

School Teachers (Superannuation).

Police (Pensions).

Representation of the People (Amendment).

Bastardy Laws Amendment Act, 1872, Amendment.

Constabulary and Police (Ireland) (No. 2).

Tithe.

372

Naval and Military War Pensions.

Ministry of Labour (Requisitioning of Premises).

Termination of the Present War (Definition).

Wages (Temporary Regulation).

Ministry of Munitions.

Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2).

Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 3).

Local Government Provisional Order (No. 7).

Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 8).

Clyde Valley Electrical Power Order Confirmation.

Cowdenbeath Water Order Confirmation.

Dunfermline District Water Order Confirmation.

Gas Provisional Orders.

Gas and Water Provisional Orders.

Portsea Island Gas.

Gas Light and Coke Company.

South Metropolitan Gas.

London United Tramways.

Ipswich Dock.

Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway.

Lancaster Corporation.

Commercial Gas.

Sheffield Corporation (Consolidation).

South Suburban Gas.

Smith Estate.

HIS MAJESTY'S SPEECH.
And afterwards His Majesty's most gracious speech was delivered to both Houses of Parliament by the Lord Chancellor (in pursuance of His Majesty's Command) as followeth—
"My Lords, and Gentlemen,
"The occasion on which I address you marks the close of a period which will be for ever memorable in the history of our country.
"The War, upon which all the energies of My Peoples throughout My Dominions have for more than four years been concentrated, has at length been brought to a triumphant issue. The conclusion of an Armistice with the last of the Powers that have been ranged against us gives promise at no distant date of an honourable and enduring Peace. I have already sought an opportunity of expressing publicly to My Peoples and to My Allies the sentiments of heartfelt

373
admiration and gratitude With which I regard the supreme and self-sacrificing devotion that has led to this glorious result. Amidst our rejoicing let us not forget to render humble thanks to Almighty God for the success with which it has pleased Him to crown our arms.
"Gentlemen of the House of Commons,
"I thank you for the unfailing patriotism with which you have made provision for the requirements of the War.
"My Lords, and Gentlemen,
"The exertions which have carried us to victory in the field must in no wise be abated or slackened until the ravages of war have been repaired, and the fabric of our national prosperity has been restored. Through the extension of the suffrage which this Parliament has carried into effect, all classes of My People will have an opportunity of inspiring and guiding this beneficent Undertaking. I trust that the spirit of unity which has enabled us to surmount the perils of war will not be wanting in the no less arduous task of establishing
374
on the sure foundation of ordered liberty the common welfare of My People.
"In bidding you farewell, I pray that the blessing of Almighty God may rest upon your labours."
Then a Commission for proroguing the Parliament was read.
After which the LORD CHANCELLOR said:
MY LORDS, AND GENTLEMEN,—By virtue of His Majesty's Commission, under the Great Seal, to us and other Lords directed, and now read, we do, in His Majesty's Name and in obedience to His Commands, prorogue this Parliament to Friday, the thirteenth day of December next, to be then here holden; and this Parliament is accordingly prorogued to Friday, the thirteenth day of December.
End of the Eighth Session of the Thirtieth Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in the ninth year of the Reign of His Majesty King George V.